LAFCO

Claremont, La Verne, San Dimas MSR

Local Agency Formation Commissions · los-angeles-msr-2026-claremont-la-verne-san-dimas-msr · Msr · 2026-06-10 · Claremont, La Verne, San Dimas

Read the report at Claremont, La Verne, San Dimas ↗

Local Agency Formation Commission for the County of Los Angeles 80 S Lake Ave #870 Pasadena, CA 91101 ` Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update Cities of Claremont, La Verne, & San Dimas Adopted June 10, 2026 LAFCO Resolution No. 2026-17RMD TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED ......................................................................................... 9 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ....................................................................................................... 12 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 13 Summary of Determinations............................................................................................................ 14 Service Provision Determinations ............................................................................................ 15 Sphere of Influence Determinations ........................................................................................ 18 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................... 21 Legal Requirements and Purpose .................................................................................................. 21 LAFCO Responsibilities .................................................................................................................. 21 Sphere of Influence ......................................................................................................................... 21 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities ......................................................................... 22 Sphere of Influence Updates and LAFCO Policy .................................................................... 23 Municipal Service Review (MSR) Requirements ............................................................................ 24 Purpose of this MSR and Scope of Work ....................................................................................... 25 Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 25 SERVICE REVIEW – CITY OF CLAREMONT ...................................................................... 28 Jurisdictional Boundary & Sphere of Influence ............................................................................... 29 Island Annexation Proceedings ............................................................................................... 31 Islands in Claremont ................................................................................................................ 31 City-Owned Parcels ................................................................................................................. 33 Extraterritorial Services ............................................................................................................ 35 Proposed Sphere Of Influence ................................................................................................ 35 Demographics ................................................................................................................................. 38 Population & Housing .............................................................................................................. 38 Age Distribution & Income ....................................................................................................... 40 Governance and Staffing ................................................................................................................ 44 General Plan ............................................................................................................................ 44 Municipal Services Provided ........................................................................................................... 45 Animal Control .......................................................................................................................... 46 Cemetery .................................................................................................................................. 48 Community Development......................................................................................................... 50 1 Communications ...................................................................................................................... 50 Electricity .................................................................................................................................. 51 Emergency Medical Services And Fire Protection .................................................................. 51 Law Enforcement ..................................................................................................................... 58 Mosquito and Vector Control ................................................................................................... 63 Natural Gas .............................................................................................................................. 63 Parks and Recreation .............................................................................................................. 64 Solid Waste .............................................................................................................................. 67 Stormwater Drainage ............................................................................................................... 68 Street/Roads Maintenance ...................................................................................................... 69 Utilities ...................................................................................................................................... 71 Wastewater .............................................................................................................................. 71 Potable Water .......................................................................................................................... 76 Fiscal Health .................................................................................................................................... 81 Annual Audit Findings .............................................................................................................. 81 Government-Wide General Revenues .................................................................................... 82 General Fund Operating Revenues ......................................................................................... 85 General Fund Operating Expenditures .................................................................................... 88 Net Income ............................................................................................................................... 91 Reserve Fund Balance ............................................................................................................ 92 Assets, Liabilities, & Net Position ............................................................................................ 93 Pension Obligations ........................................................................................................................ 96 Enrollees & Funding Formulas ................................................................................................ 96 Annual Contributions ................................................................................................................ 97 Funding Status ......................................................................................................................... 98 Other Post-Employment Benefits.................................................................................................... 99 SOI DETERMINATIONS .................................................................................................... 101 MSR DETERMINATIONS .................................................................................................. 103 SERVICE REVIEW – CITY OF LA VERNE ......................................................................... 107 Jurisdictional Boundary & Sphere of Influence ............................................................................. 109 Extraterritorial Services .......................................................................................................... 111 Pending Applications ............................................................................................................. 112 Proposed Sphere of Influence ............................................................................................... 112 Demographics ............................................................................................................................... 116 2 Population & Housing ............................................................................................................ 116 Age Distribution & Income ..................................................................................................... 118 Governance and Staffing .............................................................................................................. 119 General Plan .......................................................................................................................... 120 Municipal Services Provided ......................................................................................................... 121 Animal Control ........................................................................................................................ 122 Community Development....................................................................................................... 124 Communications .................................................................................................................... 125 Electricity ................................................................................................................................ 125 Emergency Medical Services And Fire Protection ................................................................ 126 Law Enforcement ................................................................................................................... 131 Mosquito and Vector Control ................................................................................................. 136 Natural Gas ............................................................................................................................ 137 Parks and Recreation ............................................................................................................ 137 Solid Waste (Refuse) Collection ............................................................................................ 140 Potable Water ........................................................................................................................ 140 Stormwater Drainage ............................................................................................................. 147 Street/Roads Maintenance .................................................................................................... 148 Wastewater ............................................................................................................................ 149 Utilities .................................................................................................................................... 156 Fiscal Health .................................................................................................................................. 156 Annual Audit Findings ............................................................................................................ 156 Government-Wide General Revenues .................................................................................. 157 General Fund Operating Revenues ....................................................................................... 160 General Fund Operating Expenditures .................................................................................. 164 Net Income ............................................................................................................................. 167 Reserve Fund Balance .......................................................................................................... 168 Assets, Liabilities, & Net Position .......................................................................................... 169 Pension Obligations ...................................................................................................................... 172 Enrollees & Funding Formulas .............................................................................................. 173 Annual Contributions .............................................................................................................. 174 Funding Status ....................................................................................................................... 174 Other Post-Employment Benefits.................................................................................................. 176 SOI DETERMINATIONS .................................................................................................... 179 3 MSR DETERMINATIONS .................................................................................................. 181 SERVICE REVIEW – CITY OF SAN DIMAS ....................................................................... 185 Jurisdictional Boundary & Sphere of Influence ............................................................................. 187 Island Annexation Proceedings ............................................................................................. 189 Islands in San Dimas ............................................................................................................. 189 Extraterritorial Services .......................................................................................................... 190 Proposed Sphere of Influence ............................................................................................... 191 Demographics ............................................................................................................................... 194 Population & Housing ............................................................................................................ 194 Age Distribution & Income ..................................................................................................... 196 Governance and Staffing .............................................................................................................. 200 General Plan .......................................................................................................................... 200 Municipal Services Provided ......................................................................................................... 201 Animal Control ........................................................................................................................ 202 Community Development....................................................................................................... 204 Communications .................................................................................................................... 205 Electricity / Natural Gas ......................................................................................................... 205 Emergency Medical Services And Fire Protection ................................................................ 206 Law Enforcement ................................................................................................................... 211 Mosquito and Vector Control ................................................................................................. 215 Natural Gas ............................................................................................................................ 215 Wastewater ............................................................................................................................ 216 Potable Water ........................................................................................................................ 218 Roads and Street Maintenance ............................................................................................. 223 Parks and Recreation ............................................................................................................ 226 Solid Waste (Refuse) Collection ............................................................................................ 229 Stormwater Drainage ............................................................................................................. 229 Fiscal Health .................................................................................................................................. 230 Annual Audit Findings ............................................................................................................ 230 Government-Wide General Revenues .................................................................................. 231 General Fund Operating Revenues ....................................................................................... 233 General Fund Operating Expenditures .................................................................................. 235 Net Income ............................................................................................................................. 238 Reserve Fund Balance .......................................................................................................... 239 Assets, Liabilities, & Net Position .......................................................................................... 239 4 Pension Obligations ...................................................................................................................... 242 Enrollees & Funding Formulas .............................................................................................. 243 Annual Contributions .............................................................................................................. 244 Funding Status ....................................................................................................................... 244 Other Post-Employment Benefits.................................................................................................. 245 SOI DETERMINATIONS .................................................................................................... 248 MSR DETERMINATIONS .................................................................................................. 251 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................... 256 Appendix A – La Verne Out-of-Agency Water Services Map ....................................................... 257 Appendix B – La Verne & Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County Automatic Aid Service Areas .......................................................................................................................... 258 5 TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1: Regional Map ............................................................................................................................ 14 Figure 2: City of Claremont’s Jurisdictional Boundary and Sphere of Influence ..................................... 30 Figure 3: City of Claremont City-Owned Parcels ..................................................................................... 34 Figure 4: City of Claremont Proposed Sphere of Influence ..................................................................... 37 Figure 5: City of Claremont Resident Population ..................................................................................... 39 Figure 6: City of Claremont Housing Characteristics ............................................................................... 40 Figure 7: City of Claremont’s Age Distribution ......................................................................................... 40 Figure 8: City of Claremont’s Income Characteristics .............................................................................. 41 Figure 9: City of Claremont Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities ............................................. 43 Figure 10: City of Claremont Historical Staffing Levels............................................................................ 44 Figure 11: Claremont Service Provider Matrix ......................................................................................... 46 Figure 12: Animal Control Demands (FY 2020-21 to FY 2024-25) ......................................................... 48 Figure 13: City of Claremont Fire Protection and EMS Historical Demands ........................................... 55 Figure 14: City of Claremont Fire Protection and EMS Average Response Times................................. 57 Figure 15: City of Claremont Historical Law Enforcement Staffing .......................................................... 59 Figure 16: City of Claremont Historical Law Enforcement Demands ..................................................... 61 Figure 17: City of Claremont Police Department Response Times between 2021 and 2024 ................. 62 Figure 18: City of Claremont Parks Inventory .......................................................................................... 65 Figure 19: City of Claremont Wastewater Infrastructure .......................................................................... 72 Figure 20: City of Claremont Water Infrastructure .................................................................................. 78 Figure 21: Claremont Potable Water Usage ............................................................................................ 80 Figure 22: City of Claremont – Government-Wide General Revenues (FY 2020-21 - FY 2024-25) ...... 85 Figure 23: City of Claremont General Fund Operating Revenue History ................................................ 88 Figure 24: Claremont General Fund Operating Expenditures ................................................................. 91 Figure 25: City of Claremont Audited Net Income ................................................................................... 92 Figure 26: City of Claremont’s Audited Assets......................................................................................... 94 Figure 27: City of Claremont’s Total Liabilities ......................................................................................... 95 Figure 28: City of Claremont’s Net Position ............................................................................................. 96 Figure 29: City of Claremont’s Enrollee Information ................................................................................ 97 Figure 30: City of Claremont’s Annual Contributions ............................................................................... 98 Figure 31: City of Claremont’s Funded Status ......................................................................................... 98 Figure 32: City of Claremont OPEB Liabilities (FY 2020-21 to FY 2024-25)........................................... 99 6 Figure 33: City of Claremont OPEB Funding Gap (FY 2020-21 to FY 2024-25) .................................. 100 Figure 34: City of La Verne’s Jurisdictional Boundary and Sphere of Influence ................................... 110 Figure 35: City of La Verne Proposed Sphere of Influence ................................................................... 115 Figure 36: City of La Verne Resident Population ................................................................................... 117 Figure 37: City of La Verne Housing Characteristics ............................................................................. 118 Figure 38: City of La Verne’s Age Distribution ....................................................................................... 118 Figure 39: City of La Verne’s Income Characteristics ............................................................................ 119 Figure 40: City of La Verne Staffing ....................................................................................................... 120 Figure 41: La Verne Service Provider Matrix ......................................................................................... 122 Figure 42: City of La Verne Fire Department Historical Staffing ............................................................ 127 Figure 43: City of La Verne Fire Department Demands between 2021 and 2024 ................................ 128 Figure 44: City of La Verne Fire Department’s Average Response Times ........................................... 131 Figure 45: City of La Verne Police Department Historical Staffing ........................................................ 132 Figure 46: City of La Verne Police Department Demands between 2021 and 2024 ............................ 134 Figure 47: City of La Verne Police Department Response Times between 2021 and 2024 ................. 135 Figure 48: City of La Verne Park Inventory ............................................................................................ 138 Figure 49: La Verne Potable Water Usage ............................................................................................ 144 Figure 50: City of La Verne Water Capital Improvement Projects ......................................................... 146 Figure 51: City of La Verne Wastewater Infrastructure .......................................................................... 150 Figure 52: City of La Verne Wastewater CIPs ....................................................................................... 155 Figure 53: City of La Verne – Government-Wide General Revenues (FY 2020-21 - FY 2024-25) ...... 160 Figure 54: City of La Verne General Fund Operating Revenue History ............................................... 164 Figure 55: La Verne General Fund Operating Expenditures ................................................................. 167 Figure 56: City of La Verne Audited Net Income.................................................................................... 168 Figure 57: City of La Verne’s Audited Assets ......................................................................................... 170 Figure 58: City of La Verne’s Total Liabilities ......................................................................................... 171 Figure 59: City of La Verne’s Net Position ............................................................................................. 172 Figure 60: City of La Verne’s Enrollee Information ................................................................................ 174 Figure 61: City of La Verne’s Annual Contributions ............................................................................... 174 Figure 62: City of La Verne’s Funded Status ......................................................................................... 176 Figure 63: City of La Verne OPEB Liabilities (FY 2020-21 to FY 2024-25)........................................... 177 Figure 64: City of La Verne OPEB Funding (FY 2020-21 to FY 2024-25) ............................................ 177 Figure 65: City of San Dimas’ Jurisdictional Boundary and Sphere of Influence .................................. 188 Figure 66: City of San Dimas Proposed Sphere of Influence ................................................................ 193 7 Figure 67: City of San Dimas Resident Population ................................................................................ 195 Figure 68: City of San Dimas Housing Characteristics .......................................................................... 196 Figure 69: City of San Dimas’ Age Distribution ...................................................................................... 196 Figure 70: City of San Dimas’ Income Characteristics........................................................................... 197 Figure 71: City of San Dimas Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities ........................................ 199 Figure 72: City of San Dimas Staffing .................................................................................................... 200 Figure 73: San Dimas Service Provider Matrix ..................................................................................... 202 Figure 74: City of San Dimas Animal Control Demands (2021 to 2025) ............................................... 204 Figure 75: CFPD Demands in San Dimas between 2021 and 2024 ..................................................... 209 Figure 76: CFPD’s Average Response Times in San Dimas ................................................................ 210 Figure 77: LA County Sheriff’s Department Demands in San Dimas between 2021 and 2024............ 212 Figure 78: San Dimas Station Demands between 2021 and 2024........................................................ 213 Figure 79: San Dimas Station Response Times between 2021 and 2024 ............................................ 214 Figure 80: City of San Dimas’ Wastewater Infrastructure ...................................................................... 217 Figure 81: City of San Dimas Water Infrastructure ................................................................................ 219 Figure 82: San Dimas Potable Water Usage ......................................................................................... 221 Figure 83: City of San Dimas Park Inventory ......................................................................................... 227 Figure 84: City of San Dimas – Government-wide General Revenues (FY 2020-21 - FY 2024-25) .... 233 Figure 85: City of San Dimas’ Audited Revenues .................................................................................. 235 Figure 86: City of San Dimas’ Audited Expenditures ............................................................................. 238 Figure 87: City of San Dimas Audited Net Income ................................................................................ 238 Figure 88: City of San Dimas’ Audited Assets ....................................................................................... 240 Figure 89: City of San Dimas’ Total Liabilities ........................................................................................ 241 Figure 90: City of San Dimas’ Net Position ............................................................................................ 242 Figure 91: City of San Dimas’ Enrollee Information ............................................................................... 244 Figure 92: City of San Dimas’ Annual Contributions .............................................................................. 244 Figure 93: City of San Dimas’ Funded Status ........................................................................................ 245 Figure 94: City of San Dimas’ OPEB Liabilities (FY 2020-21 to FY 2024-25) ....................................... 246 Figure 95: City of San Dimas OPEB Funding (FY 2020-21 to FY 2024-25) ......................................... 247 8 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED ACFR Annual Comprehensive Financial Report ACS American Community Survey ALS Advanced Life Support ARC Animal Resource Center of the Inland Empire ARPA American Rescue Plan Act AT Ambulance Transport AVL Automatic Vehicle Location CA California CAD Computer-Aided Dispatch CalPERS California Public Employees’ Retirement System CCF Hundred Cubic Feet CCTV Closed-Circuit Television CDBG Community Development Block Grant CFPD Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County CHWP Claremont Hills Wilderness Park CIP Capital Improvement Program CKH Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act CPI Consumer Price Index CPUC California Public Utilities Commission CSA County Service Area DDW Division of Drinking Water DOF Department of Finance DUC Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community EMS Emergency Medical Services FSET Foothill Special Enforcement Team FTE Full-Time Equivalent FY Fiscal Year GAAP Generally Accepted Accounting Principles GIS Geographic Information System GRC General Rate Case GSWC Golden State Water Company HCD California Department of Housing and Community Development HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning ISO Insurance Services Office IVHS Inland Valley Humane Society and SPCA JPA Joint Powers Authority LACSD Los Angeles County Sanitation District 9 LACSMD Los Angeles County Sewer Maintenance District LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission LHMP Local Hazard Mitigation Plan LMHIF Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Fund MAIT Multidisciplinary Accident Investigation Team MOU Memorandum of Understanding MSR Municipal Service Review MVLF Motor Vehicle License Fee MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRPA National Recreation and Park Association OASA Out of Agency Service Agreement OPEB Other Post-Employment Benefits OSY One-Year Supply PCI Pavement Condition Index PEPRA Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act PERS Public Employees’ Retirement System PMP Pavement Management Program PMS Pavement Management System POST Peace Officer Standards and Training PS Public Safety PVC Polyvinyl Chloride RFP Request for Proposals RMS Records Management System RPTTF Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund RSG RSG, Inc. RV Recreational Vehicle SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SOI Sphere of Influence SPCA Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals SSMP Sewer System Management Plan SWAT Special Weapons and Tactics TOT Transient Occupancy Tax TRA Tax Rate Area TRAP Traffic Reduction and Air Quality Program TVMWD Three Valleys Municipal Water District UWMP Urban Water Management Plan VCP Vitrified Clay Pipe WEASA West End Animal Services Authority 10 WMP Water Master Plan WWMP Wastewater Master Plan 11 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS RSG and the Los Angeles County Local Agency Formation Commission (“LAFCO”) gratefully acknowledge the time and effort of officials and staff of the cities of Claremont, La Verne, and San Dimas in assisting in preparing this report. This includes – but is not limited to – the following individuals: Adam Pirrie, City of Claremont, City Manager Jeremy Starkey, City of Claremont, Finance Director Ken Domer, City of La Verne, City Manager Brad McKinney, City of San Dimas, City Manager Shari Garwick, City of San Dimas, Public Works Director Hildegard Sebadja, City of San Dimas, Management Analyst 12 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Los Angeles Local Agency Formation Commission (“LAFCO” or “Commission”) retained RSG, Inc. (“RSG”) to prepare this Municipal Service Review (“MSR”) and Sphere of Influence (“SOI”) update for the cities of Claremont, La Verne, and San Dimas in Los Angeles County. The scope of this MSR is established by statute and Commission policy and covers a five- year period between 2025-2030. Specifically, this MSR evaluates the current and future relationship between availability, demand, and adequacy of municipal services within each agencies’ service area and SOI, while making certain determinations for each agency and their corresponding SOI. To the extent feasible, LAFCO will revisit the MSR and key findings on a regular five-year basis consistent with the timetable set by the Legislature and further memorialized under adopted LAFCO policy. Figure 1 provides a regional map of the three cities reviewed in this MSR. 13 Figure 1: Regional Map SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS LAFCO’s pertinent determinations, as required by Government Code Section 56425 and 56430, for each City can be found at the end of each agency profile. A summary of key determinations follows: 14 SERVICE PROVISION DETERMINATIONS 1. Growth and Population Projections The Southern California Association of Governments (“SCAG”) projects modest population trends across the cities of Claremont, San Dimas, and La Verne through 2035. Claremont and San Dimas are each expected to experience slight population increases, with average annual growth rates of approximately 0.32%, while La Verne is projected to experience a slight population decline of approximately 0.09% annually over the same period. Overall, these trends suggest lower population growth relative to Los Angeles County, which is expected to grow at an annual rate of 0.58% through 2035. These population projections are generally consistent with planned development activity identified in all three cities, with Claremont anticipated to accommodate a few small- to moderate-scale residential and commercial development in the near term, while San Dimas and La Verne are expected to experience more limited growth. 2. Location and Characteristics of Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities within or Contiguous to SOI LAFCO identifies three Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (“DUCs”) located contiguous to the cities of Claremont and San Dimas. This includes one DUC located near the southwestern boundary of San Dimas within the City’s existing Sphere of Influence (“SOI”), one DUC within the City of Covina’s SOI that is contiguous to San Dimas, and one DUC within the City of Pomona’s SOI that is contiguous to Claremont. Neither Claremont nor San Dimas currently provides municipal services to these DUCs. Accordingly, RSG recommends that LAFCO conduct a detailed review of municipal services provided to these areas as part of the next Municipal Service Reviews and Sphere of Influence updates for the cities of Pomona and Covina. Additionally, in regard to the DUC located within the City of San Dimas’ proposed sphere of influence, RSG recommends the City engage in discussions with LAFCO and the County 15 to formally evaluate the feasibility of annexing the DUC, along with the residential neighborhood located directly north of the DUC, to promote orderly and logical boundaries. 3. Present and Planned Capacity of Facilities, Adequacy of Public Services, and Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies in any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities within or Contiguous to SOI The cities of Claremont, La Verne, and San Dimas generally demonstrate adequate capacity to provide public facilities and services to meet current and anticipated demand within their service areas. However, there were several service and infrastructure considerations that were identified as part of this MSR. All three cities have experienced increases in public safety response times, and two of the three cities have identified the need for upgrades and/or replacement of existing public safety facilities. In addition, all three cities face ongoing capital improvement needs to maintain and improve roadway conditions. The City of La Verne has also identified capital improvements necessary to maintain and enhance its water and sewer system infrastructure, consistent with its role as a full-service City. No deficiencies were identified specific to Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (“DUCs”) located contiguous to the cities’ SOIs as part of this MSR. 4. Financial Ability to Provide Services All three cities have the financial ability to provide services to its existing and future residents, with the caveat of a few key details noted below: • The City of La Verne’s General Fund experienced a net spending deficit in all five years of financial data reviewed. Despite this, in FY 2024-25, the City’s General Fund balance grew, primarily as a result of large transfers in from other City funds. The City of La Verne continues to face structural cost pressures, particularly related to pensions, retiree medical benefits, and inflationary operating costs. 16 • Both Claremont’s and La Verne’s General Fund expenditures are increasing at rates faster than General Fund revenues, ranging from 5.5 to 7.4 percentage points, respectively. • All three cities reviewed experienced declines in their funded pension liabilities ratios from 2021 to 2023, ranging from 12.4% to 16.5%. • All three cities reviewed face necessary maintenance and capital improvement costs to sustain municipal services, with La Verne facing higher costs due to the large volume of City-provided services, including law enforcement, fire protection and emergency medical services, potable water, and sewer maintenance services. 5. Opportunities for Shared Facilities There were a few existing and potential opportunities for shared facilities identified as part of this MSR, including the following: • The City of Claremont currently contracts with the Inland Valley Humane Society and SPCA for animal control services; however, the City identified a potential opportunity for animal control services through the West-End Animal Services Agency, which is a Joint Powers Agreement established in 2024 between the cities of Chino, Montclair, Ontario, and unincorporated areas of San Bernardino, to provide full-service animal control and sheltering services. • All three cities are members of the East San Gabriel Valley Watershed Management Group, along with the city of Pomona, which establishes best management practices, conducts public outreach, and applies for funding for various stormwater treatment projects. • Through a Memorandum of Understanding with the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County (CFPD), the City of La Verne provides first alarm fire protection and second due paramedic aid to areas within the eastern portion of San Dimas and northern portion of Pomona. 17 • The cities of La Verne and San Dimas are members of the San Dimas La Verne Recreational Facilities Authority, a Joint Powers Agreement formed between the cities of La Verne and San Dimas, which serves as the governing body for the San Dimas Canyon Golf Course. 6. Accountability for Community Service Needs, including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies All three cities reviewed in this MSR demonstrate established administrative and financial management practices, including the preparation of annual budgets, independent financial audits, and long-term planning documents. Overall, all three cities appear to have the institutional structures, transparency practices, and management systems in place to remain accountable and responsive to community service needs. 7. Any Other Matter Related to Effective or Efficient Service Delivery as Required by Commission Policy Other matters related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by LAFCO policy, were not identified. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS Per Government Code Section 56425(e), LAFCOs shall consider and prepare a written statement of determinations in determining the sphere of influence of each local agency. Therefore, the determinations provided below pertain to both the existing and proposed spheres of influence discussed further in the Agency Profile sections of this report: 1. Present and Planned Land Uses All three cities primarily consist of residential, vacant, commercial, and public land uses. Agriculture, industrial, open space, and other land uses each make up less than 1.0% of land uses across all three cities. No major planned developments were identified as part 18 of this MSR. The proposed spheres of influence for each City support the present and planned land uses reviewed in this MSR. 2. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services All three cities provide a wide range of municipal services, with Claremont and San Dimas relying more heavily on outside service providers, such as contracted service providers or special districts, to provide services to residents within City limits. The City of La Verne provides a full range of municipal services, including but not limited to law enforcement, fire protection and emergency medical services, sewer maintenance services, and a portion of its potable water supplies. The proposed SOI designations are intended to align with each City’s existing and probable future service areas. 3. Present Capacity and Adequacy of Public Facilities All three cities reviewed in this MSR have the sufficient capacity and adequate infrastructure and related facilities to continue to provide municipal services to their residents now and in the future. However, their ability to maintain adequate service levels over time will depend on the timely implementation of capital improvement projects and continued investment in several service areas. Overall, infrastructure capacity is sufficient to support all three cities’ existing and future probable service areas, including the cities’ proposed SOIs. The comprehensive review of the cities’ capacity and demands in this report supports these claims. 4. Presence of Social or Economic Communities of Interest There were no social or economic communities of interest identified as part of this MSR. 5. Present and Probable Need for Services of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (“DUCs”) LAFCO identifies three Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (“DUCs”) located contiguous to the cities of Claremont and San Dimas. This includes one DUC located near 19 the southwestern boundary of San Dimas within the City’s existing Sphere of Influence (“SOI”), one DUC within the City of Covina’s SOI that is contiguous to San Dimas, and one DUC within the City of Pomona’s SOI that is contiguous to Claremont. Neither Claremont nor San Dimas currently provides municipal services to these DUCs. Accordingly, RSG recommends that LAFCO conduct a detailed review of municipal services provided to these areas as part of the next Municipal Service Reviews and Sphere of Influence updates for the cities of Pomona and Covina. 20 BACKGROUND LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND PURPOSE The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, Government Code Section 56430 et. seq., (“CKH” or “Act”) requires LAFCOs to prepare periodic reviews of services provided by most local agencies and provides discretion on the manner in which a commission undertake these reviews. The reviews are instrumental in making determinations on jurisdictional and SOI boundaries, informing commissions, affected agencies, and the general public of opportunities for improving service delivery. LAFCO RESPONSIBILITIES CKH directs LAFCOs in California to discourage urban sprawl, encourage the orderly formation and development of cities and special districts, and to preserve agricultural land. LAFCOs act as the county-wide oversight agency that is responsible for coordinating logical and timely changes in local governmental boundaries, including annexations and detachments of territory, incorporations of cities, formations of special districts, and consolidations, mergers, and dissolutions of districts. In this manner, LAFCOs play an important role in assuring the thoughtful, appropriate, and efficient reorganization, simplification, and streamlining of quality local governmental services. As part of these objectives, LAFCOs establish and periodically review spheres of influence for local agencies through a process known as a MSR and SOI update. These processes are described below. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE In 1971, LAFCOs throughout California were tasked with determining and overseeing the sphere of influence for local government agencies. A sphere of influence is a planning boundary that may be outside of an agency’s jurisdictional boundary (such as a special district service area or city 21 limits) that designates the agency’s probable future boundary and service area. Factors considered in a sphere of influence include current and future land use, capacity needs, and any relevant areas of interest such as geographical terrain, location, and any other aspects that would influence the level of service. Per Government Code Section 56425, a sphere of influence shall consider and prepare a written statement of its determinations on the following factors: 1. Present and planned land use in the area, including agricultural and open space lands; 2. Present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area; 3. Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide; 4. Existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area; and 5. Present and need for those public facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within the existing sphere of influence. The purpose of a sphere of influence is to ensure the efficient services while discouraging urban sprawl and the premature conversion of agricultural and open space lands by preventing overlapping jurisdictions and duplication of services. On a regional level, LAFCOs coordinate the orderly development of a community by reconciling differences between different agency plans. This is intended to ensure the most efficient urban service arrangements are created for the benefit of area residents and property owners. DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES As part of the MSR, RSG considered the impact of the SOI related to Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities. A Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community (“DUC”) is defined by Government Code Section 56033.5 as an area of inhabited territory located within an unincorporated area of a county within a “disadvantaged community.” A disadvantaged community 22 is defined in Water Code Section 79505.5(a) as a community with annual median household income is less than 80 percent of the statewide median household income. Government Code Section 56046 considers an area with 12 or more registered voters to be an inhabited area. LAFCO designated the DUCs in the County of Los Angeles using 2016-2020 American Community Survey (ACS) Census data, meaning any unincorporated area wherein the median household. income is less than $62,939. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATES AND LAFCO POLICY From time-to-time, a sphere of influence may be modified as determined by LAFCO; the procedures for making sphere amendments are outlined in CKH, and in some cases, further refined by a commission’s own guidelines. Pursuant to Government Code Section 56430, a Commission must conduct a municipal services review prior to or in conjunction with a sphere of influence update or amendment. LAFCO adopted a “Sphere of Influence Policy” on November 13, 2019, which provides a framework for SOI updates considered after an MSR is completed. The policy defines three types of SOIs for cities and special districts: • Coterminous Sphere of Influence: A SOI for a city or special district that includes the same physical territory as the jurisdictional boundaries of that city or special district. LAFCO adopts a Coterminous SOI if there is no anticipated need for services outside the jurisdictional boundaries of a city or special district, or if there is insufficient information to support the inclusion of additional territory within the sphere. • Larger than Sphere of Influence: A SOI for a city or special district which includes territory that is larger than the jurisdictional boundary of the subject city or special district. LAFCO adopts a larger than SOI if there is an expectation of future growth of the agency’s physical boundaries and associated service area. • Zero Sphere of Influence: A SOI for a city or special district that includes no territory. LAFCO adopts a zero SOI if the functions, services assets, and liabilities of that city or special district should ultimately be re-assigned to another public agency or service provider. 23 RSG analyzes the spheres in the “SOI Determinations” section of this MSR after each agency profile. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW (MSR) REQUIREMENTS Section 56425(g) of the Government Code requires that LAFCOs review and update each sphere of influence every five years, or as necessary; and the vehicle for doing this is known as a Municipal Service Review. Pursuant to Government Code Section 56430, Municipal Service Reviews are to make determinations considering the seven required topics based on the Cortese- Knox-Hertzberg Local Reorganization Act (“CKH or “Act”). These seven areas include the following: 1. Growth and population projections for the affected area; 2. Location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence(s); 3. Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services, adequacy of public services, infrastructure needs, or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, and structural fire protection in any disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence; 4. Financial ability of agencies to provide services; 5. Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities; 6. Accountability for community service needs, including government structure and operational efficiencies; and 7. Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by LAFCO Policy. 24 The focus of an MSR is to ensure that public services are being carried out efficiently and the residents of any given area or community are receiving the highest level of service possible, while also discouraging urban sprawl and the premature conversion of agricultural lands. If an MSR determines that certain services are not being carried out to an adequate standard, LAFCO can recommend changes be made through making sphere changes and dissolution or consolidation of service providers to provide the best service possible to the population. PURPOSE OF THIS MSR AND SCOPE OF WORK Municipal Service Reviews (“MSRs”) are prepared to assist in the SOI review process by providing information regarding the ability of agencies to provide public services. This MSR will review the services provided by the City of Claremont, the City of La Verne, and the City of San Dimas. This MSR will also review, to a lesser extent, services provided within these cities by other agencies. METHODOLOGY RSG worked in coordination with LAFCO staff throughout this MSR. Key tasks and activities in completing this MSR include data collection, interviews with City staff, City profile development, determination analysis, public review of MSR, and the adoption of the final MSR. Data Collection To fully understand key factors and current issues involving the City, RSG conducted an initial working session with LAFCO staff to determine the project scope and formalize overall MSR objectives, schedules, policy and fiscal criteria, service standards, and roles and responsibilities. The MSR began with a complete and thorough review of available data and documents including adopted budgets, comprehensive financial reports, capital improvement plans, strategic plans, and City General Plans. These documents were assessed to develop a comprehensive overview of each City. In addition, various reports and documents were utilized from the Southern California Association of Governments (“SCAG”), the California Department of Finance, the California 25 Department of Tax and Fee Administration, the United States Census Bureau, CoStar (a commercial real estate database), and ESRI Business Analyst. Interviews In coordination with LAFCO, during the months of November 2025 through January 2026, RSG met remotely with the executive leadership of each city reviewed in this MSR. These interviews allowed RSG to gain insight on the current operations and any unique challenges of each city. The content of these interviews included the following topics: • Financing constraints and opportunities; • Growth and population projections; • Infrastructure needs or deficiencies; • Cost avoidance opportunities; • Opportunities for rate restructuring regarding services provided; • Opportunities for shared facilities with other cities or agencies; • Government structure options, including advantages or disadvantages of consolidation or reorganization of service providers; • Evaluation of management efficiencies; and • Local accountability and governance, specifically the structures in place to support public engagement and participation. Agency Profiles Following data collection and interviews, RSG developed a City profile based on the criteria noted previously and required for the completion of the MSR per CKH. The profile includes key characteristics such as services offered, staffing levels, population and growth, service providers, 26 infrastructure, financial condition, and boundary areas and maps. Department profiles can be found in the following sections. Annual Financial Data RSG utilized the City’s annual audited financial statements for FY 2020-21 through 2024-25 to analyze historical operating revenues and expenditures for each city. RSG analyzed the data to make determinations regarding the City’s fiscal health, including tax revenue and expenditure trends. The data provides current expenditures by department (general government, public safety, community development, transportation, etc.), and operating expenditures (salaries and wages, retirement benefits, materials and supplies, contract services, debt service, and capital outlay). The data also includes reports on general revenues, tax revenues, fees for services, special benefit assessments, and intergovernmental revenues. 27 SERVICE REVIEW – CITY OF CLAREMONT The City of Claremont (“Claremont” or “City”) is a general law city incorporated on October 3, 1907. Located at the eastern edge of Los Angeles County, approximately 30 miles east of downtown Los Angeles, Claremont is situated along the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains in the Pomona Valley. The City is bordered by the City of Upland (San Bernardino County) to the east, the City of La Verne to the west, the City of Pomona to the south, and the Angeles National Forest to the north. The City has a land area of approximately 13.3 square miles with a population of approximately 37,299 as of 2025. Prior to European settlement, Claremont was originally inhabited by the Tongva-Gabrielino people1. This group were the traditional land caretakers of Tonvaangar, an area that includes the Los Angeles Basin, South Channel Islands, San Gabriel and Pomona Valleys, and portions of Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. Claremont developed in the late nineteenth century as part of the region’s citrus belt. The City was shaped by the establishment of Pomona College in 1888, and the arrival of the Santa Fe Railway, which supported the growth of citrus production and distribution. Prior to the collapse of the anticipated real estate boom, Claremont secured its position when the local land company transferred the Hotel Claremont and 260 vacant lots to Pomona College in 1988, thereby giving the new school a permanent home and establishing the foundation of the community moving forward. The City of Claremont operates under a council-manager form of government. The City Council consists of five members elected at-large to staggered four-year terms. Each year, the Council selects a Mayor and Mayor pro Tem from among its members to serve one-year terms. The Council appoints a City Manager to oversee day-to-day operations. The current City Manager is Adam Pirrie, appointed in February 2021. Claremont is a full-service municipality, providing police protection, community development, public works, and parks and recreation directly. However, municipal services such as fire 1 Source: City of Claremont, “History,” City of Claremont Official Website 28 protection are provided by the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County (“CFPD”), and water service is provided by the Golden State Water Company. In terms of finances, Claremont’s total operating expenses at the end of FY 2024-25 totaled $30.2 million with an overall net position of $103.7 million. JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARY & SPHERE OF INFLUENCE The City of Claremont’s (“Claremont” or “City”) current jurisdictional boundary spans approximately 13.5 square miles within the eastern portion of Los Angeles County. The City’s sphere of influence (“SOI”) was originally adopted on November 28, 1973 as a larger than sphere of influence. Claremont’s SOI includes two County islands, in addition to unincorporated territory located north, northwest, and west of City limits between Claremont and La Verne. The City’s SOI was reconfirmed on July 13, 2005 and again on November 14, 2012, with no subsequent changes to the City’s SOI boundary. The total assessed value (including secured, unsecured, and public utility assessments) within Claremont is approximately $7.5 billion, a per capita value of approximately $200,807 based on the current resident population of 37,299. The vast majority of land use in the City is designated as residential (90.0%), while the remainder of land uses consist of commercial (4.1%), vacant (3.3%), and public uses (1.8%). Industrial, open space, and other land uses each make up less than 1% of land uses.2 Residential development primarily consists of single-family homes (76.2%), followed by multi- family units (23.6%), and mobile home units (0.2%). Commercial development is largely industrial in nature (48.7%), followed by retail (24.4%), office (24.6%), and other commercial uses (3.1%). Figure 2 shows the City’s existing jurisdictional boundary and sphere of influence. 2 Source: Los Angeles County Assessor, FY 2025-26 Assessment Roll. 29 Figure 2: City of Claremont’s Jurisdictional Boundary and Sphere of Influence 30 ISLAND ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS Islands are defined under the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (“CKH” or “Act”) as unincorporated areas that are substantially surrounded by a city, county, or the Pacific Ocean. CKH establishes specific policy direction for these areas, emphasizing that islands represent an inefficient pattern of service delivery and governance. LAFCOs are required to give priority consideration to proposals that would eliminate or reduce islands through annexation or reorganization, where feasible. The intent is to promote orderly growth, improve service efficiency, and reduce the potential for service gaps, duplication, and governance confusion associated with fragmented boundaries. Additionally, CKH also authorizes LAFCOs to use a streamlined annexation process for qualifying islands to facilitate their elimination. Pursuant to Government Code 56375.3, for an island considered inhabited3, and that contains 150 acres or less, CKH allows LAFCO to waive certain procedural requirements, including the need for a protest hearing and an election, provided specified findings are made regarding service capability, consistency with local policies, and orderly growth. This special annexation authority is intended to reduce barriers to annexation and encourage logical incorporation of isolated unincorporated areas into surrounding cities where municipal services can be provided more efficiently. CKH also establishes limitations on when island annexation proceedings may be used. Pursuant to Government Code Section 56375.4, an area is not eligible for island annexation proceedings if it became surrounded or substantially surrounded by the city to which annexation is proposed on or after January 1, 2014. An exception applies to areas that were created after January 1, 2014, because of a boundary adjustment between two counties. ISLANDS IN CLAREMONT RSG’s review of the City of Claremont’s jurisdictional boundary identified two unincorporated islands located within the City’s SOI, as shown on Figure 2. The first island (Area 1) located off of Mount Baldy Road on Via Padova, encompasses 47.4 acres across 70 parcels. Area 1 consists 3 CKH defines a territory as “inhabited” wherein it contains 12 or more residents. 31 of a mix of residential (63 parcels) and vacant land uses (7 parcels). The second island (Area 2) located off of West Baseline Road, spans 146.56 acres across 176 parcels. Island 2 consists of primarily residential land uses (147 parcels), followed by public (15 parcels), and vacant uses (14 parcels). Based on RSG’s preliminary review of these areas, residents receive municipal services such as water, fire, wastewater, from local providers such as the Golden State Water Company, the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County, and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, respectively. According to the City, the City does not provide any municipal services to these areas. According to the City, there has not been substantial interest from residents residing within Area 1 to annex into City limits. On the other hand, residents within Area 2 previously expressed interest in annexation into City limits; however, this interest subsidized in recent years due to anticipated costs associated with the City establishing wastewater connections in the area. Since both areas are under 150 acres, the areas are likely eligible for streamlined annexation proceedings pursuant to Government Code 56375.3, which would waive protest proceedings for the annexations. RSG’s analysis is limited to identifying these areas and describing existing service conditions; the determination of whether either area qualifies for island annexation proceedings under the CKH is solely within the authority and discretion of LAFCO. Although the City has not expressed interest in annexation at this time, RSG recommends the City engage in discussions with LAFCO and the County to formally evaluate the feasibility of annexing these islands to promote orderly and logical boundaries. Lastly, there is an additional unincorporated island, consisting of approximately 13.9 acres, located contiguous to the City of Claremont’s southwestern boundary within the City of Pomona’s sphere of influence (Area 3). According to the City, the City is not currently providing any services to this island. It is recommended that LAFCO conduct a review of municipal services provided to this island as part of the next Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update for the 32 City of Pomona to determine the most appropriate future service provider to this area. Additionally, there is another unincorporated county island, approximately 19.0 acres in size, located contiguous to the City of Claremont’s southwestern boundary and within the City of Pomona’s sphere of influence (Area 4). This area also qualifies as a DUC and is discussed in further detail on page 43. CITY-OWNED PARCELS There are a number of City-owned parcels located outside of the City of Claremont’s jurisdictional boundary that were identified as part of this MSR. This includes approximately 17 parcels located to the north of the City’s jurisdictional boundary, in which 10 are located within the City’s existing sphere of influence and 7 are located outside of the City’s existing sphere of influence. The City has previously inquired about submitting an annexation application for these parcels on at least three separate occasions, with the most recent inquiry occurring around 2020-2021. However, the City decided not to submit an annexation application.4 Based on RSG’s analysis, all 17 parcels are currently vacant and range in size from 0.08 to 116.79 acres. The City acquired the majority of these parcels when the City and Pomona College negotiated the purchase of 1,220 acres of hillside land in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s for the Claremont Hills Wilderness Park (“CHWP”).5 According to the City’s most recent CHWP Master Plan, the expectation is that the CHWP will grow to include additional open space in the Claremont hillsides and will connect with open spaces in neighboring communities to create a regional wilderness corridor for environmental preservation and passive recreation. Given the City’s prior interest in annexing these parcels, in addition to the goals established by the CHWP Master Plan, RSG encourages the City of Claremont to re-initiate discussions with LAFCO and the County to consider the feasibility of annexing these parcels. Figure 3 shows the location of these parcels with respect to the City limits and the City’s existing SOI. 4 Note: The City did not provide a reason upon request by RSG. 5 Source: Interview with City staff, Claremont Hills Wilderness Park Master Plan (May 2016) 33 Figure 3: City of Claremont City-Owned Parcels 34 EXTRATERRITORIAL SERVICES The City exclusively serves properties located within the City limits and does not provide services outside of the city limits. Any future extraterritorial service extensions where the City seeks to provide services outside of its boundary would require LAFCO approval in accordance with its adopted Out-of-Agency Service Agreement (OASA) Policy, ensuring consistency with regional growth and service planning objectives. PROPOSED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE RSG recommends LAFCO amend Claremont’s sphere of influence to reflect a larger than sphere of influence, with both reductions and expansions to the City’s existing SOI. This includes an expansion to the northern portion of the City’s SOI to include the seven City-owned parcels located north of the City’s existing SOI, as shown as Area 8 in Figure 3. As mentioned previously, the City previously inquired about filing an annexation application for these parcels on at least three separate occasions; however, the City ultimately decided not to submit an annexation application. The parcels were acquired by the City as part of the establishment of the Claremont Hills Wilderness Park (“CHWP”) and the City expects the CHWP will grow to include additional open space in the Claremont hillsides. Given the City’s prior interest in annexing these parcels, in addition to its strategic planning goals, RSG recommends LAFCO expand the City’s SOI to include these parcels to reflect logical future planning boundaries. RSG also recommends LAFCO subsequently reduce Claremont’s SOI in several areas. This includes the area located northwest of City limits that surrounds Cobal Canyon Motorway and Miller Lateral to align with City limits (Area 6). According to the City, this area is largely mountainous in nature, and the City does not anticipate providing municipal services to this area or pursuing annexation of these parcels in the future. As a result, it recommended LAFCO reduce Claremont’s SOI in this area to accurately reflect the City’s anticipated future service area. Additionally, RSG recommends Claremont’s SOI is reduced in the area located west of City limits in between Claremont and La Verne (Area 5). La Verne provides potable water services to approximately 23 parcels located within Claremont’s SOI in this area, while Claremont does not 35 provide any services to these parcels. Based on RSG’s analysis, La Verne’s water system has adequate capacity to continue serving these parcels in the future, as described on Page 139. Therefore, it is recommended LAFCO reduce Claremont’s SOI in this area, with concurrent expansions to La Verne’s sphere of influence, as described in greater detail on Page 112. However, it should be noted that there are approximately 29 parcels located along Liveoak Drive near the southwest portion of Claremont’s city limits that do not receive water services from La Verne. These parcels are also only directly accessible through the City of Claremont and have Claremont addresses. While the City did not indicate any interest from residents in this area to annex into City limits, RSG recommends Claremont’s SOI continue to include these parcels. Figure 4 presents the City’s existing jurisdictional boundary and proposed sphere of influence. 36 Figure 4: City of Claremont Proposed Sphere of Influence 37 DEMOGRAPHICS POPULATION & HOUSING The City of Claremont’s (“Claremont” or “City”) total current resident population within its jurisdictional boundary is estimated at 37,299 as of January 1, 2025. This amount represents 0.4% of the countywide population total. The estimated resident population in Claremont has risen overall by 6.8% - or approximately 2,373 residents - since 2010, demonstrating an upward trend.6 The current resident population produces a population density of 4.33 residents per acre and underlies the overall suburban characteristic of the City’s jurisdictional boundary. Claremont’s population is expected to increase by approximately 0.32% annually over the next ten years, reaching 38,500 residents by 2035, reflecting an overall increase of 1,201 residents.7 This rate is slightly slower than the anticipated annual population increase countywide, which is expected to be 0.58%, reaching 10,449,000 residents by 2035.8 Between 2010 and 2025, Claremont experienced a population increase of approximately 0.45% annually.9 Approximately 15 percent of Claremont’s population is below the age of 18, while 21 percent of its population is above the age of 65. Based on the SCAG’s 2019-2050 Growth Forecast, the population is expected to experience an annual increase of 0.11% through 2050.10 As part of this MSR, the City identified a Residence Inn by Marriott that will replace the City’s former Knights Inn Motel located at 721 S. Indian Hill Boulevard in Claremont, CA. The hotel will consist of 120 hotel rooms and is expected to be complete by early 2026. The City also has an affordable housing development, located at 1364 N. Towne Ave., that is currently in the planning phase. The proposed three-story development would consist of 74 units. Lastly, there are two mixed-use structures, consisting of approximately five (5) residential units and two (2) offices, that are currently under construction at 330 Harrison Ave. in Claremont, CA.11 6 Source: CA Department of Finance 7 Source: CA Department of Finance 8 Source: SCAG 2024 RTP/SCS ("Connect SoCal 2024") Growth Projections 9 Source: Esri Business Analyst 10 Source: SCAG 2024 RTP/SCS ("Connect SoCal 2024") Growth Projections 11 Source: CoStar 38 Additionally, the City of Claremont contains the seven Claremont Colleges (“Colleges”), encompassing five undergraduate and two graduate campuses, located within City limits across approximately 69 acres. The Colleges have approximately 8,300 students and 3,750 faculty members across all seven colleges.12 The Colleges represent a significant institutional presence that contributes to the City’s overall community character. Figure 5 summarizes Claremont’s and the County’s past, present, and future population growth. Figure 5: City of Claremont Resident Population An estimated 12,893 housing units are within Claremont’s boundary as of January 1, 2025. This amount accounts for an overall increase of 737 units – or 6.1% - since 2010 the annual change of housing units was 53. This creates a ratio of 0.31 housing units for every new resident. Of the total number of current housing units in Claremont, approximately 63.4% are owner- occupied. The remainder of housing units are divided between 36.6% being renter-occupied and 5.5% being vacant. Further, the average household size in Claremont for 2025 is 2.50. This amount reflects a decrease of 2.3% since 2010, when the average household size was 2.56. Figure 6 includes additional details regarding the City’s housing characteristics. 12 Source: Claremont McKenna College website 39 Figure 6: City of Claremont Housing Characteristics AGE DISTRIBUTION & INCOME The City of Claremont’s service area has a median age of 38.9, an increase of 2.4% from 38.0 in 2010. This is slightly higher than the county median age of 38.4, indicating a similar age profile. Similarly, 95.4% of residents within the prime working age group (between the ages of 25-64) are employed while the remaining 4.6% are unemployed, reflecting a stable workforce within the City’s jurisdictional boundary.13 Additional details regarding the City’s age distribution and employment rates are provided in Figure 7. Figure 7: City of Claremont’s Age Distribution 13 The prime working age group does not include individuals between the ages of 16-25 nor 65 and above given residents within these age groups are typically in school or nearing/in retirement. 40 The median household income of Claremont is $169,506, which is approximately 46.1% higher than the County’s median household income of $91,431. This amount confirms households in the City are receiving more pay over the reporting period compared to the county as a whole. Furthermore, the City of Claremont has a poverty rate of 7.3%, which is 89.0% lower than the County’s poverty rate of 13.8% suggesting residents within Claremont may have a higher standard of living and greater access to resources.14 Figure 8 provides an overview of income characteristics in Claremont and the County. Figure 8: City of Claremont’s Income Characteristics Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities LAFCO identifies one Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community (“DUC”) located contiguous to the City’s southwestern boundary within the City of Pomona’s Sphere of Influence, as shown in Figure 9. A DUC is defined as an inhabited unincorporated area where the annual median household income is 80% or less than the statewide median. Based on the American Community Survey Census 2016-2020 data set, the statewide median household income is $62,939.15 According to the City of Claremont, the City is currently not providing any services to this DUC. It is recommended that LAFCO conduct a review of municipal services provided to this DUC as 14 Federal poverty levels are determined annually by the U.S. Census Bureau which uses a set of income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. 15 Source: Government Code Section 56033.5 and 56046, Water Code Section 79505.5(a), American Community Survey Census 2016-2020 data 41 part of the next Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update for the City of Pomona. 42 Figure 9: City of Claremont Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities 43 GOVERNANCE AND STAFFING The City of Claremont (“Claremont” or “City”) is a General Law Municipality incorporated in 1907, operating under a Council-Manager form of government. The City is authorized to provide a full range of municipal services - including but not limited to - local government administration, public works (roads, parks, sewer, and code enforcement), building, planning, and engineering, finance and utility billing, fire and police protections. These services are funded through a combination of utility rates, property taxes, grants, and general fund revenues with additional details provided in the sections that follow. The City Council appoints a City Manager to oversee the day-to-day operations of the City. The current City Manager – Adam Pirrie – was appointed in February 2021 and oversees a budgeted staff of 160 full-time and 39.3 part time staff as of FY 2024-25. The City maintains an active website wherein Council meeting agendas and minutes are available online as well as other files pertinent to City operations such as financial audits and budgets. The City maintains a presence on social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, X, Nextdoor, and YouTube, to communicate information and updates to City residents. City budgeted staffing levels have remained relatively consistent between FY 2020-21 and FY 2024-25 as detailed in Figure 10. Figure 10: City of Claremont Historical Staffing Levels GENERAL PLAN The City of Claremont’s (“Claremont” or “City”) General Plan was last comprehensively updated in 2005 and covers the City’s long-term planning for the next 20 to 50 years.16 Pursuant to 16 Specific elements of the General Plan, such as the Housing Element, have been updated periodically since 2005. 44 Government Code 65300, cities in California are required to prepare a general plan to inform decision-making regarding their long-term physical development. General Plans are considered living documents in that they represent the outcomes desired by residents and are based on local conditions and goals. As part of Claremont General Plan, the City intends to guide decision-making about development, resource management, public safety, community services and programs, as well as the general quality of life in the City. It promotes the balance of land uses with housing and economic goals and ensures that design and heritage preservation considerations remain strong influences in the City’s development review processes. The Plan establishes the policy foundation for continuing the land use planning and decision-making processes to maintain the City’s distinct neighborhoods, business districts, and institutions. The Housing Element is one of the seven (7) mandated elements when composing the General Plan as identified under Government Code Section 65302(c). The City’s adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element for 2021-2029 was reviewed by the Department of Housing and Community Development on September 10th, 2024, and it is currently in compliance. MUNICIPAL SERVICES PROVIDED The City of Claremont’s (“Claremont” or “City”) provides a full range of municipal services within its jurisdictional boundary with some reliance on outside agencies, such as the County of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County Sanitation District No. 21, to provide contracted or direct service delivery. This section of the municipal service review focuses on Claremont’s specific service functions, including municipal services provided directly by the City, services provided via contract or franchise agreement, as well as services provided directly by special districts. Figure 11 provides a summary of municipal services and associated service providers within Claremont. A detailed analysis of Claremont’s municipal services with respect to resources, capacities, demands, and performance measurements follows. 45 Figure 11: Claremont Service Provider Matrix ANIMAL CONTROL The City of Claremont contracts with the Inland Valley Humane Society & SPCA (“IVHS”) for animal control services. The current agreement became effective July 1, 2021, and includes repeating two-year terms with Consumer Price Index increases applied one year and pooled rate increases applied the alternate year. The agreement establishes an annual flat-rate cost to the 46 City; for FY 2025-26, the contract amount is $429,913.74. As detailed in the existing contract, IVHS – on behalf of the City – has the authority to provide the following services: - Field response and enforcement - 24-hour field coverage - Shelter operations and adoption services - Rabies testing coordination - Owned-animal services (euthanasia, owner-relinquished animals, etc.) - Animal adoption microchips - Disaster response for displaced animals - Education related to responsible pet ownership and wildlife As detailed in the existing contract, IVHS maintains office hours from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, and from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday. The nearest animal shelter serving the City is located at 500 Humane Way in Pomona, California. Shelter hours are 10:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, and 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday. IVHS is closed on Sundays and most major holidays. Existing Demands and Capacity While the City provided total annual service call volumes, a detailed breakdown by call category was not available for all years. Based on data provided by the City, animal control service calls within the City of Claremont have averaged approximately 1,090 calls per year from 2021 to 2024. During the same time period, the City has experienced an overall increase of 1,082 calls or 116.1%. 47 Figure 12: Animal Control Demands (FY 2020-21 to FY 2024-25) According to the City, IVHS recently reduced its number of contract cities and staff reported that service delivery within the City of Claremont has improved as a result. While staff noted that contract costs for animal control services have increased over the past five years, no issues or concerns were raised regarding the City’s current contractual relationship for animal control services. However, the City identified an opportunity for an alternative service model with the West-End Animal Services Agency (“WEASA”). The WEASA is a Joint Powers Agreement (“JPA”) established in 2024 between the cities of Chino, Montclair, Ontario, and unincorporated areas of San Bernardino, to provide full-service animal control and sheltering services through the Animal Resource Center of the Inland Empire (“ARC”).17 The City noted that cost savings would be the ultimate driving factor for exploring alternative service models to its current contractual agreement with IVHS. RSG recommends the City continue evaluating participation in the WEASA to determine whether this service model would provide a more efficient and cost-effective approach to delivering animal control and sheltering services within City limits. CEMETERY The City of Claremont owns and operates the Oak Park Cemetery, a City-managed facility, located at 410 Sycamore Avenue in Claremont, CA 91711, that provides burial and interment services to residents within the Claremont community. The cemetery encompasses approximately 17 Source: City of Ontario website 48 11.4 acres and is administered through the City’s Community Services Department. The City assumed ownership of the cemetery in 1978 and has since retained full responsibility for its operation and long-term maintenance.18 In FY 2024-25, the City budgeted approximately $2.7 million for cemetery operations. Core operations include the sale of burial plots, interment services, landscape maintenance, and the administration of burial records. Cemetery operations are funded through a dedicated Cemetery Fund, which functions similarly to an enterprise fund and relies on user fees and burial-related revenues to support ongoing costs. In addition, the City maintains a Perpetual Care Reserve, otherwise known as an Endowment Fund, to support future maintenance of the cemetery in accordance with Health and Safety Code 9065(b). Endowment funds are generally charged as a fee at the time of interment or plot sale and are held in perpetuity, with only the interest or investment earnings used to fund long-term maintenance and upkeep of the cemetery. The City continues to invest in maintaining long-term service capacity through capital improvements, including the Oak Park Cemetery Expansion Project (Phase 3), with an estimated cost of approximately $1.65 million to add approximately 900 new burial spaces and supporting infrastructure.19 The expansion is necessary to maintain an adequate inventory of burial plots and sustain ongoing revenue streams that fund operations, including staffing and maintenance. However, the City has identified the potential need for temporary General Fund loans with debt service payments factored into the cemetery’s operating budget, suggesting that available Cemetery Fund resources may be insufficient to fully cover large, upfront capital costs associated with cemetery services. Overall, while the cemetery appears to be adequately operated, long- term financial sustainability will depend on balancing operating revenues with rising maintenance costs, managing capital investment needs, and adapting to evolving burial trends. 18 Source: Claremont Annual Comprehensive Financial Report 2025 19 Source: Claremont 2024-2026 Operating and Capital Improvement Program Budget 49 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The City’s Community Development Department oversees the physical development within Claremont and includes the Building, Community Improvement, Engineering, and Planning Divisions. The Department ensures that development complements existing neighborhoods, maintains public infrastructure, and promotes orderly city growth. The Building Division issues building permits, performs site inspections, conducts plan checks, and enforces other applicable laws and ordinances for buildings within the City. The Community Improvement Division responds to property maintenance complaints and conducts proactive code enforcement, abatement, and community improvement strategies. This includes responding to code violations, public nuisance complaints, and conducting foreclosure inspections. The Engineering Division is responsible for projects that improve roads, sidewalks, sewers, storm drains, street lighting and traffic signals of the City. The division also monitors the condition and quality of these systems. The Planning Division administers the City of Claremont’s General Plan to guide future development of the City and the Zoning Code to implement the General Plan. This includes providing guidance for the orderly development of the City and to ensure that new development is attractive and compatible with its surroundings. COMMUNICATIONS Under franchise agreements with the City, Frontier Communications and Spectrum provide telecommunications services within the city limits. Frontier also provides fiber-based internet service in portions of the community. In addition to wired services, wireless telecommunications providers such as T-Mobile and AT&T operate within the City through equipment located on leased space on City-owned facilities. The City owns and maintains four telecommunications towers, some of which are leased to private wireless providers for service delivery, although the specific details of these agreements could not be located in the City’s most recent financial documents. 50 City staff indicated that while telecommunications services are generally available throughout the community, some connectivity dead spots exist in northern portions of the City. At least two providers previously proposed installing additional towers to address these service gaps; however, community concerns regarding new tower installations resulted in one proposal being withdrawn and another denied by the City Council. At this time, the City is not actively planning broadband or telecommunications infrastructure upgrades within the next five to ten years. RSG recommends the City continue to monitor potential service gaps in the northern portions and consider alternative solutions, such as low-profile facility designs, to enhance telecommunications services in these areas. ELECTRICITY Electricity service within the City of Claremont is provided by Southern California Edison (“SCE”), an investor-owned utility regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission.20 SCE is responsible for the operation, maintenance, and improvement of electrical infrastructure serving the city, while the City’s role is limited to coordination related to permitting and right-of-way access. No major service deficiencies were identified based on available information. Publicly available information did not reveal any documented, widespread complaints or formal evaluations regarding customer satisfaction with electric service provision. EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AND FIRE PROTECTION The City of Claremont is located within Division II of the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County (“CFPD” or “District”) and receives comprehensive fire protection services from CFPD including air and wildland fire support, emergency medical services, and fire prevention services. CFPD is a dependent special district that is governed by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. The CFPD provides fire protection service to all unincorporated 20 Source: City of Claremont Website “Utilities” 51 areas in County of Los Angeles, 59 cities in Los Angeles County, in addition to the City of La Habra in Orange County. The City of Claremont is considered a pre-Proposition 13 member of the CFPD, which means that emergency medical and fire protection services are funded through a share of the one percent property tax levy generated within City limits to support fire protection and emergency medical services. The City also receives ambulance transport services from a private ambulance transport provider, Falck Ambulance, which provides contracted services through an agreement administered by the Los Angeles County Emergency Medical Services Agency. Staffing The current Fire Chief – Anthony C. Marrone – was selected to serve as Fire Chief in April 2023. CFPD Division II is overseen by Assistant Fire Chief Steven P. Cabrera, which includes the City of Claremont. As of 2025, the CFPD assigns a total of 11 personnel per shift to the two fire stations serving the City. This includes one assessment engine (three personnel), two engine companies (three personnel each), and one squad unit (two personnel). Station 62 operates an Assessment Engine staffed by three personnel, consisting of one Captain, one Firefighter Specialist Paramedic, and one Firefighter. In addition to the staffed engine company, the station houses a Type VI patrol engine that is maintained as an unstaffed apparatus. Station 101 includes both an engine company and an Advanced Life Support (ALS) paramedic squad. The engine company is staffed with three personnel: one Captain, one Firefighter 52 Specialist, and one Firefighter. The ALS paramedic squad is staffed by two Firefighter Paramedics, providing specialized emergency medical response capability. Station 102 operates an engine company staffed by three personnel, consisting of one Captain, one Firefighter Specialist, and one Firefighter. Similar to Station 62, the station also houses a Type VI patrol engine that is maintained as an unstaffed apparatus. Facilities Fire protection and emergency medical services within the City of Claremont are provided by the County through three fire stations located within the city limits. • Station No. 62 is located at 3701 North Mills Avenue in Claremont, CA in the northern portion of City limits. The station is staffed with one Type I Engine (2006), which includes one captain, one firefighter specialist paramedic, and one firefighter. The station also has a Type VI patrol engine (2011) that is currently maintained as an unstaffed apparatus. According to the CFPD, the fire station is structurally safe and sound; however, the station will require roof and HVAC system replacements in the future. According to CFPD staff, the CFPD will also continue to provide proactive maintenance to the structure such as, but not limited to, flooring, interior and exterior painting, and appliance replacement as needed. 53 • Station No. 101 is located at 606 Bonita Avenue in Claremont, CA in the southern portion of City limits. The station is staffed with one engine company (three personnel) and one squad unit (two personnel). This includes a Type I Engine (2006) and an ALS paramedic squad unit (2023), supporting fire and emergency medical response within the City. According to the CFPD, the fire station is structurally safe and sound; however, the station will require roof and HVAC system replacements in the future. According to CFPD staff, the CFPD will also continue to provide proactive maintenance to the structure such as, but not limited to, flooring, interior and exterior painting, and appliance replacement as needed. • Station No. 102 is located at 2040 Sumner Avenue in Claremont, CA in the western portion of City limits. The station is staffed with one engine company (three personnel). This includes a Type I Engine (2006) used for fire suppression and emergency response. The station also maintains a Type VI patrol engine (2018) that is currently maintained as an unstaffed apparatus. According to the CFPD, the fire station is structurally safe and sound; however, the station will require roof and HVAC system replacements in the future. According to CFPD staff, the CFPD will also continue to provide proactive maintenance to the structure such as, but not limited to, flooring, interior and exterior painting, and appliance replacement as needed. Existing Demands and Capacity Overall service demands for fire protection and emergency medical services within the City of Claremont during the 2021 to 2024 period averaged approximately 4,454 dispatched incidents annually, or approximately 12.2 calls per day. The Department experienced the highest call volume in 2024, which reflected approximately 4,883 dispatched incidents or 13.4 calls per day. Ambulance transport calls represent a significant portion of total service demand. During the review period, ambulance transports averaged approximately 3,368 incidents annually, representing roughly 75.6 percent of total dispatched incidents on average. Overall, total dispatched incidents increased between 2021 and 2024 from 3,971 to 4,883 calls, representing an overall 23.0 percent increase in service demand during the review period. While mutual or 54 automatic aid responses decreased during the period, cancelled calls increased, which may reflect changes in dispatch protocols or response coordination. Figure 13 summarizes the Department’s service demands for the City between 2021 and 2024. Figure 13: City of Claremont Fire Protection and EMS Historical Demands Government Code Section 51178 requires that the State Fire Marshal identify areas in the state as moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones based on fire history, existing and potential fuel (natural vegetation), predicted flame length, blowing embers, terrain, and typical fire weather for the area. In the City of Claremont, fire hazard severity zones are primarily concentrated along the northern foothill areas, where large portions of the City are designated as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, with additional areas classified as High and Moderate. These designations reflect the City’s location at the wildland-urban interface and indicate elevated exposure to wildfire hazards. Elevated wildfire risk places additional demand on fire protection services, including the need for enhanced emergency response capacity, fuel management programs, and public education efforts. The City may also face increased capital and operational costs associated with infrastructure hardening and emergency preparedness. Additionally, properties located within higher hazard zones may experience constraints related to insurance availability and affordability, which can influence development patterns, property values, and overall community resilience. Each year, the City is required to maintain its properties in the urban wildfire interface zone to CFPD standards, including brush clearance and tree inspections. The City also has a contractor that performs annual brush clearance in the Claremont Hills Wilderness Park. Additionally, CFPD inspects and requires brush clearance of private properties in the severe fire zone each year in spring. If hazardous fire conditions exist on a property at the time of inspection, the property 55 owner is issued an Official Inspection Report that will indicate existing violations and provide specific clearing instructions and a compliance deadline. In 2024, the fee charged to property owners fee for these annual inspections was $151, which was billed on the 2025 property tax bill. In March 2022, the City of Claremont adopted a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (“LHMP”), which enables public safety officials, City staff, elected officials, and community members to better understand the risks posed by natural and human-caused hazards within the community. The LHMP also identifies strategies to proactively reduce these risks prior to the occurrence of disasters. With respect to fire protection, the LHMP highlights several recent accomplishments and potential actions for future implementation. Accomplishments include ongoing public outreach regarding fire mitigation efforts through the City’s website, social media platforms, weekly updates, and quarterly newsletters; provision of fire extinguisher training to City personnel; and notification of brush clearance requirements to private property owners. Recommended actions include installing water infrastructure improvements to support fire flow in the Claraboya area, removing eucalyptus trees in Sycamore Canyon to reduce fire risk, and allocating funding for brush clearance on City-owned properties. Service Adequacy and Performance In terms of the Fire Department’s service performance, RSG considers the Insurance Services Office (“ISO”) rating as a key performance metric in our assessment of the Department’s service reliability, operational readiness, and alignment with nationally recognized fire protection standards. The ISO score is a measure of the capability of the fire department to protect the community and is rated on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the highest rating. ISO evaluates the fire department for apparatus and equipment, weight of response (number of firefighters arriving on scene), training, water supply and distribution, emergency communications systems, and fire prevention/community risk reduction efforts. The Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County’s most recent evaluation of structural fire protection capabilities from the Insurance Services Office (“ISO”) was completed in 2018 and resulted in a Class 3 rating. The ISO survey update is generally driven by the ISO and generally occur every 5-6 years. Since the CFPD has not updated its ISO rating since 2018, the CFPD could contact the ISO to inquire about 56 an updated ISO survey/timeline to ensure the evaluation remains current and reflects existing service capabilities. According to the Golden State Water, the City’s water system includes approximately 1,407 fire hydrants throughout City limits and maintains a minimum system pressure of 25 pounds per square inch (“psi”). Fire flow capacity requirements vary by pressure zone; however, Golden State Water confirmed that it meets the required fire flow capacities per zone. It should be noted, however, that it is the responsibility of the City to ensure adequate fire flow and system pressure are available to support fire protection service delivery. In addition to considering the ISO rating, RSG also relies on the District’s response times. Response times are a critical indicator of service performance as they directly measure how quickly fire personnel and equipment can arrive on scene to mitigate emergencies. Shorter response times improve the likelihood of containing fires before they spread, reducing property loss, and increasing survival rates for medical incidents. Conversely, extended response times may indicate staffing, resource, or geographic constraints that may limit a District’s ability to delivery effective services. Figure 14 provides an overview of the CFPD’s response times in Claremont, which reflect the time from call receipt to arrival on-scene. Figure 14: City of Claremont Fire Protection and EMS Average Response Times Based on data provided by the CFPD, the Department’s average response time for fire-related service calls was 4 minutes and 57 seconds. Emergency medical service calls averaged 4 minutes and 54 seconds, while other calls for service averaged 5 minutes and 15 seconds. Response times across all categories increased slightly between 2021 and 2024, with fire response times increasing from 4 minutes and 42 seconds in 2021 to 5 minutes and 18 seconds 57 in 2024. EMS response times increased from 4 minutes and 43 seconds to 5 minutes and 5 seconds, and other incident response times increased from 5 minutes and 5 seconds to 5 minutes and 34 seconds during the review period. The modest increase in response times during the review period may be partially attributable to increasing service demands given total dispatched incidents have risen over time, which have presumably placed greater operational demands on available fire and emergency medical resources. With respect to the CFPD’s capacity to meet existing and future service demands, the resources assigned to stations serving the City of Claremont appear generally sufficient to accommodate current needs within the City’s jurisdictional boundaries. While service demand has increased during the review period, the CFPD’s regional deployment model allows resources to be allocated across a broader service area, helping to maintain adequate response capacity as demand evolves. LAW ENFORCEMENT The City of Claremont provides in-house law enforcement services through the City’s Police Department. In addition to standard law enforcement services, the Department provides a number of specialized units and functions, including a dedicated K9 Unit, mental health dog, participation in a regional SWAT team homeless outreach team, proactive community policing initiatives, and public safety dispatching services. As of 2025, the Department has a total staff of 65 full-time employees, including 38 sworn officers and 27 full-time civilian personnel. In FY 2024-25, the Police Department’s expenditures amounted to $15.8 million. Staffing & Facilities The current Police Chief – Mike Ciszek – was selected to serve as Police Chief in March 2025. As of 2025, the Department operates with a total of 68 employees, including 38 full-time sworn officers, 3 part-time officers, and 27 civilian personnel. The Department also has 20 civilian part- time volunteers that assist with Department operations. Fully sworn officers work 12-hour shifts at the Department. All sworn officers are trained in standard certifications, including Peace Officer 58 Standards and Training (“POST”). Figure 15 details the City’s staffing as it pertains to law enforcement. Figure 15: City of Claremont Historical Law Enforcement Staffing As mentioned previously, the City has a total of 38 sworn officers as of 2025 or 1.02 officers per 1,000 residents. This reflects a downward trend of 5.0% through the reporting period of 2021- 2025. Full-time civilian personnel declined from 30 in 2021 to 27 in 2025, representing a 10.0% decrease, while part-time/volunteer civilian personnel increased from 15 in 2021 to 20 in 2025, representing a 33.3% increase. Reserve/part-time officers have remained stable over the last five years. The City reported that current sworn and civilian staffing levels are generally adequate to maintain service levels from a budgeted standpoint, although the Department continues to experience recruitment and retention challenges consistent with regional trends. In recent budget cycles, the City has added sworn positions to support service demands. While officers are occasionally unavailable due to injuries or special assignments, the Department indicated that core service delivery has not been significantly impacted. Figure 16 summarizes calls for service between 2021 to 2025. The Department operates from the City of Claremont’s police station located within the southern portion of City limits at 570 W. Bonita Avenue, in Claremont, CA in the southern portion of City limits. The station houses the City’s Police Department, in addition to the City jail. According to the City, the City is currently working on identifying funding for upgrades to the existing facility, 59 including the addition of a women’s locker room, in addition to necessary seismic and safety improvements. The City previously pursued two funding measures to support construction of a new police facility. In 2015, the City proposed Measure PS, which would have imposed an annual parcel tax of $286 per parcel within City limits for 40 years. The measure required two-thirds voter approval but did not pass with 24.92% voter support. In 2018, the City proposed Measure SC to authorize the issuance of up to $24 million in bonds for construction of a new police facility. This measure also required two-thirds voter approval and did not pass with 57.69% voter support. RSG recommends the City continue evaluating alternative funding strategies for upgrades and/or replacement to the City’s existing police facility. While the existing facility appears adequate to meet the existing needs of the community, long-term planning for modernization of the facility can help ensure the Department continues to support service demands into the foreseeable future. Existing Demands and Capacity To evaluate existing service demands, RSG analyzed the Department’s historical and current call volume. For the purposes of analysis, the Department’s call volume was categorized into three response types: emergency, priority, and routine. Emergency responses involve life‑threatening incidents or situations requiring immediate police action. Priority responses encompass urgent incidents that are not immediately life‑threatening but require timely attention. Routine responses consist of non‑urgent calls for service or scheduled Department responses. 60 Figure 16: City of Claremont Historical Law Enforcement Demands Overall calls declined by approximately 15.0% between 2021 and 2024, with total calls decreasing from 15,834 in 2021 to 13,457 in 2024. This downward trend is primarily driven by reductions in priority and routine responses, which declined by 13.7% and 23.2%, respectively. Emergency responses increased by approximately 21.4% over the same period, indicating a shift toward higher-acuity incidents despite an overall reduction in call volume. Calls per fully sworn officer also declined from 395.9 in 2021 to 328.2 in 2024, reflecting reduced workload per officer on average and aligning with the overall decrease in service demand. Although total calls decreased, the proportional increase in emergency responses suggests growing complexity in service needs, which may place greater operational demands on sworn personnel. These trends indicate a shift toward fewer but potentially more resource-intensive calls, underscoring the importance of maintaining adequate staffing levels and response capacity to meet higher-severity incidents. Service Adequacy and Performance With respect to the City of Claremont Police Department’s service performance, RSG relies on the Department’s response times as a measure of operational capacity. Response times are a critical indicator of service performance as they directly measure how quickly personnel can arrive on scene to mitigate emergencies. Figure 17 provides an overview of the Police Department’s response times. 61 Figure 17: City of Claremont Police Department Response Times between 2021 and 2024 From 2021 to 2024, response times in the priority response category experienced the greatest increase (57.1%), while emergency and routine responses both experienced reduced response times at 12.7% and 27.2%, respectively. These trends suggest potentially shifting operational demands within the Police Department, given that emergency response demands have increased while priority responses have increased since 2021. While improvements in emergency and routine response times may reflect effective resource allocation, increases to priority response times warrant continuous monitoring to ensure timely response and to maintain overall service reliability. RSG also analyzes the Department’s response times against its established response time standards to determine operational sufficiency. However, it is unclear whether the Department has formally adopted response time standards, since there were none posted on the City’s website. RSG recommends the City adopt response time standards, or post its existing standards if already adopted, for law enforcement responses within Claremont to keep residents informed of service expectations. With respect to the Police Department’s capacity to meet existing and future service demands, the City of Claremont appears able to accommodate current and anticipated needs within its jurisdictional boundary. However, as noted previously, increasing response times may indicate growing operational pressures on the Department. Future service provision will require ongoing monitoring of staffing trends, incident complexity, and resource allocation to ensure the Department can effectively respond to both routine and high-priority calls. 62 MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL Mosquito and vector control services within the City of Claremont are provided by the San Gabriel Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District, an independent special district serving communities throughout the San Gabriel Valley. 21 The District conducts ongoing vector surveillance, prevention, and control activities, including monitoring and treatment for mosquitoes and other vectors of public health concern. Routine services include inspection and treatment of potential breeding sources, public education, and proactive vector management. The District also responds to service requests related to mosquito activity, neglected pools, and other vector- related issues. Vector control services are funded through property tax revenues and benefit assessments levied on parcels within the District’s service area. The City does not directly fund or operate mosquito and vector control services. No major service deficiencies were identified based on available information. Publicly available information did not reveal any documented, widespread complaints or formal evaluations regarding customer satisfaction with electric service provision. NATURAL GAS Natural gas service within the City of Claremont is provided by Southern California Gas Company, an investor-owned utility regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission. SoCalGas delivers natural gas to residential, commercial, and institutional customers throughout the region as part of its broader Southern California service territory.22 SoCalGas is responsible for the operation, maintenance, and capital improvement of the natural gas transmission and distribution infrastructure serving the city. The City does not own or operate natural gas utility infrastructure and is generally limited to coordination related to permitting, right- of-way access, and local planning efforts. 21 Source: San Gabriel Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District Website “About Us” 22 Source: SoCalGas Website “List of Cities Served” 63 No major service deficiencies were identified based on available information. Publicly available information did not reveal any documented, widespread complaints or formal evaluations regarding customer satisfaction with natural gas service in the City. PARKS AND RECREATION The City of Claremont’s Community Services Department is primarily responsible for providing maintenance to City-owned parks. The Community Services Department currently maintains and operates 19 developed parks in the city, amounting to 2,125 acres of parkland in the City or 57.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 population, inclusive of the City’s sizeable Claremont Hills Wilderness Park. The City’s park system includes mini/pocket parks, neighborhood parks, community parks, and sports parks, and offers a range of amenities such as playgrounds, sports fields and courts, picnic areas, restrooms, pedestrian pathways, and parking facilities. Figure 18 presents a list of City-owned parks and associated amenities. 64 Figure 18: City of Claremont Parks Inventory In April 2024, the City Council approved the development of a Park Facilities Improvement Plan to assess park conditions, prioritize capital improvements, identify funding sources, and outline a public engagement framework. The Plan, prepared by the Community Services Department in coordination with the Recreation and Human Services Department, evaluated long-term amenities including playground equipment, restroom buildings, safety and security lighting, pedestrian pathways and parking lots, sports courts, and sports field lighting. Based on this assessment, the City identified approximately $9.1 million in park facility improvement needs over the next ten years, with the largest cost categories including playground replacements, lighting upgrades, and pedestrian pathway and parking lot repairs.23 23 Source: City of Claremont Park Facilities Improvement Plan (March 2025) 65 Park improvements are funded through a combination of Park Dedication Funds, Los Angeles County Measure A funds, the General Fund, grants, and donations. The City projects approximately $8.2 million in available funding over the next ten years, resulting in a funding gap of roughly $900,000, which the City intends to address through continued pursuit of grants and partnerships. The Park Improvement Plan also establishes a community engagement process for future park projects and commits to inclusive playground design and sustainable facility upgrades. To evaluate the adequacy of existing parkland within City limits, RSG refers to parkland standards established by professional organizations, in addition to regional planning studies. The National Recreation and Parks Association (“NRPA”), a non-profit organization dedicated to building strong communities through parks and recreation, identified a nationwide average of 10.2 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents in its 2025 Agency Performance Review. However, the NRPA does not provide a set of standards that every individual park and recreation agency should measure itself against due to the unique needs, desires, and challenges of different agencies. By comparison, the 2016 Los Angeles County Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment identified an average of 3.3 acres of local and regional recreation park space for every 1,000 persons in the County, indicating that parkland in Los Angeles is significantly less than the nationwide average identified by the NRPA. The City of Claremont establishes parkland dedication requirements as set forth in the Claremont Municipal Code (§17.159.000), which provides that the public interest, convenience, health, welfare, and safety require that 4 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents be devoted to park and recreational purposes. To implement this standard, the City requires the dedication of parkland or payment of in-lieu fees to serve new development. These locally adopted standards provide the City’s primary framework for ensuring that park and recreational facilities expand in proportion to population growth. The City currently provides approximately 57.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, which is well above the City’s standard of 4 acres per 1,000 residents. This is largely through the City’s Claremont Hills Wilderness Park (“CHWP”), which encompasses approximately 2,000 acres. 66 According to the City’s CHWP Master Plan completed in 2016, CHWP receives half a million visits annually from across the region, serving as a significant regional recreational amenity that substantially contributes to the City’s overall parkland inventory. As noted previously, the expectation is that the CHWP will grow to include additional open space in the Claremont hillsides, further increasing the City’s parkland supply and reinforcing itself as a regional destination for dedicated open space. SOLID WASTE Solid waste collection services in the City of Claremont are provided by the City through its Community Services Department (Sanitation Division), which delivers trash, recycling, and organics collection services to residential and commercial customers. Collected materials are processed through a network of contracted facilities and service providers, including landfill disposal, recycling processing, and organic waste composting services.24 The City’s Municipal Code Section 8.08 authorizes the City to control and regulate solid waste collection within its jurisdiction, including requiring participation in City-provided services or authorized contractors. Claremont operates a municipally managed collection system rather than relying solely on a private franchise hauler, with City-provided containers and service levels tailored to residential and commercial needs. Current services comply with State-mandated solid waste diversion requirements, including recycling and organics collection programs implemented pursuant to Senate Bill 1383.25 The City provides curbside collection of organic waste and requires residents and businesses to participate in organics recycling programs, consistent with statewide regulations aimed at reducing landfill disposal and greenhouse gas emissions. 24 Source: City of Claremont Website “Community Services” 25 Source: City of Claremont Website “Mandatory Organic Recycling Program” 67 STORMWATER DRAINAGE Stormwater drainage services in the City of Claremont are managed by the City’s Public Works Department, which is responsible for the operation, maintenance, and improvement of the City’s storm drain infrastructure, including catch basins, pipelines, and related facilities. The City utilizes contract engineering support to assist with engineering and capital improvement activities.26 The storm drain system is designed to convey runoff and prevent flooding. Unlike the sanitary sewer system, stormwater is not treated and flows directly to local waterways, making pollution prevention a key responsibility for the City. The City participates in the State’s stormwater regulatory framework as part of the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (“MS4”) program, which is implemented pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permits.27 Claremont is subject to the Los Angeles County MS4 Permit (Order No. R4-2021-0105), administered by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. As part of this program, the City conducts inspections of applicable industrial and commercial businesses to ensure compliance with stormwater quality requirements. The City states that these inspections are conducted every two years in accordance with permit requirements. In 2015, the cities of Claremont, La Verne, Pomona, and San Dimas formed the East San Gabriel Valley Watershed Management Group (“Group”) and developed a Watershed Management Program (“WMP”) to fulfill the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit No. R4-2012-0175. The Group establishes best management practices, conducts public outreach, and also applies for funding for various stormwater treatment projects. To-date, the Group has received funding from the Safe Clean Water Program for stormwater capture projects at the Pedley Spreading Grounds for design and construction, as well as at Fairplex, Lone Hill Park, Pelota Park, and Marchant Park for design only. The City also receives a portion of parcel taxes collected from Measure W which funds stormwater initiatives at the regional and local level to fund multi-benefit stormwater 26 Source: City of Claremont Website “Sewer and Stormwater Services” 27 Source: City of Claremont Website “Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)” 68 capture, water quality, and watershed improvement projects. In FY 2024-25, the City received approximately $631,086 in the City’s Measure W Special Revenue Fund. STREET/ROADS MAINTENANCE The City of Claremont is responsible for providing roadway and street maintenance services within its jurisdictional boundaries. This includes the maintenance of streets, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, traffic signs, and signals. Street maintenance functions are carried out by a combination of operations, engineering, and management staff. The City has approximately 2.79 full-time equivalent (“FTE”) staff dedicated to these functions. Infrastructure, Equipment & Facilities The City of Claremont has various equipment to perform its road maintenance duties. This includes one dump truck, three utility trucks, and two trailer vehicles. The City’s road maintenance equipment and vehicles are stored at the City’s corporation yard located at 1616 Monte Vista Avenue in Claremont, CA 91711. The City did not note any additional equipment or facility needs at this time. Existing Demands and Capacity Pavement conditions within the City are evaluated using the Pavement Condition Index (“PCI”), a standardized rating system that scores roadway surfaces on a scale from 0 to 100, with higher values indicating better pavement condition. The City maintains a total of 125.68 center miles and 251.39 lane miles. The City recently updated its Pavement Management System (“PMS”) to reflect the current condition of residential streets. The PMS is a database utilized by the City to track existing road conditions within City limits based on PCI levels. According to the 2024 Network Summary Statistics28 provided by City Staff, the PCI for the City of Claremont’s arterial network is 56, which falls within the “Poor” range (41-59). The collector network has a PCI of 61, which falls within the 28 Network Summary Statistics were provided utilizing MTC StreetSaver 69 “Fair” range (60-74). The residential/local network has a PCI of 70, which is at the upper end of the “Fair” range (60-74). Approximately 16.8% of the City’s pavement sections were identified at a condition level of “Poor”, suggesting that a proactive rehabilitation program needs to be implemented to improve road conditions within City limits. However, the City’s 2024-2026 Operating and Capital Improvement Program Budget indicates that roadway maintenance has been deferred in recent years due to funding constraints, resulting in a growing backlog of needed repairs. The City’s Capital Improvement Program (“CIP”) includes several ongoing and planned roadway- related projects focused on pavement resurfacing, repair, and preservation. The CIP programs amount to approximately $1.5 million annually for Citywide Street Resurfacing activities, from FY 2025-26 to FY 2028-29, funded through State gas tax revenues. These activities include the preparation of plans, specifications, and construction for the rehabilitation of arterial, collector, and residential streets based on the City’s Pavement Management System (PMS). In addition to resurfacing, the CIP includes related roadway improvements such as street striping, damaged pavement repair and preservation, sidewalk mitigation, signalized intersection upgrades, and traffic calming improvements. These projects are funded through a combination of local measures and State gas tax revenues. The City of Claremont also receives approximately $814,000 annually through Senate Bill 1 (Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017) to support roadway maintenance and rehabilitation activities; however, this funding level has been insufficient to fully address systemwide needs given the City’s deferred maintenance practices. Mentioned previously, roadway maintenance has been deferred in recent years due to funding constraints. As a result, an increasing number of roadway segments now require more intensive and costly rehabilitation treatments rather than lower-cost preventative maintenance. While the CIP reflects a consistent annual investment in roadway infrastructure, current funding levels may be insufficient to fully address systemwide needs and reduce the existing backlog of deferred 70 maintenance. As a result, pavement conditions, particularly for higher-volume arterial roadways, may continue to decline, resulting in higher long-term repair costs and reduced service levels. UTILITIES Utilities are provided by third parties under franchise agreements with the City. This includes Southern California Edison (electricity) and Southern California Gas Company (natural gas), both of which supply utilities to much of the rest of the County. WASTEWATER The City of Claremont owns and maintains its wastewater collection system, which is managed by the Community Services Department. The City conducts routine maintenance and system monitoring through in-house staff and contracts with a third-party firm to assess overall system condition and identify failure risks. The City does not provide wastewater treatment services; instead, Claremont is within the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (“LACSD”), and is served by County Sanitation District No. 21, which is responsible for regional wastewater treatment. Wastewater is treated at Pomona Water Reclamation Plant, located at 295 Humane Way, Pomona, CA 91766. Infrastructure, Equipment, & Facilities The local sanitary sewer collection system consists of approximately 120 miles of gravity sewer pipelines, associated private laterals, and related sewer manholes and cleanouts. The system primarily includes 8-, 10-, 12-, and 15-inch collector pipes, forming two major collection systems located north and south of Foothill Boulevard. Wastewater collected within the City’s system is conveyed to trunk lines located along Towne Avenue, Garey Avenue, and Mountain Avenue, which are owned and operated by the County Sanitation District No. 21 of Los Angeles County.29 The wastewater collection system consists of approximately 120 miles of sewer pipelines ranging from 5-inch diameter to 16-inch in diameter. The City also owns and maintains one lift station and 29 Source: City of Claremont Sanitary Sewer Management Plan (2020) 71 approximately 2,661 manholes that grant access to Claremont’s wastewater system. Figure 19 below details Claremont’s wastewater collection infrastructure. Figure 19: City of Claremont Wastewater Infrastructure The City of Claremont maintains its wastewater collection system through preventative maintenance and inspection activities. According to the City’s Sewer System Management Plan, the City utilizes an outside contractor when a rotating camera is needed for closed circuit television (“CCTV”) inspections and performs maintenance activities including sewer line cleaning, root removal, and inspection of sewer facilities. The report also discusses snaking lines when jetting is not effective and slip-lining and repairing mainlines.30 The City’s sanitary sewer system had an average age of approximately 50 years based on a comprehensive CCTV condition assessment completed in 2018 and was considered to be in generally good condition relative to its age.31 Rates The City of Claremont’s wastewater service rates are established by the City Council through adoption of the City’s sewer and sanitation fee ordinances and corresponding user fee schedule. In June 2021, the City Council adopted ordinances establishing a five-year rate adjustment framework that allows for annual inflationary adjustments based on the Consumer Price Index 30 Source: City of Claremont Sanitary Sewer Management Plan (2020) 31 Source: Community Services Department Memorandum “Sewer Condition Assessment Project Results” March 19, 2018 72 (“CPI”), capped at 3% per year, to ensure the City can maintain adequate funding for sewer system operations, maintenance, and capital improvements. On May 13, 2025, the City Council received an informational report regarding the 3% adjustment to all sewer, sanitation, and street sweeping rates. The new rates became effective July 1, 2025. The City currently charges an annual sewer service fee of approximately $79.58 per dwelling unit for single-family residential properties, with additional rate structures applied to institutional uses, schools, commercial establishments, and other non-residential customers based on population or water usage.32 Based on information provided from the City, the current rates remain in effect as adopted, and no subsequent rate study has been completed to date. RSG further confirms the existing rates are sufficient in terms of aligning with associated costs for wastewater service delivery. 32 Source: City of Claremont Sewer & Sanitation Rates 73 Existing Demands and Capacity Wastewater demand within the City of Claremont is generated by residential, commercial, and institutional land uses and is conveyed through the City’s local collection system to regional facilities operated by the County Sanitation District No. 21 of Los Angeles County. The City does not operate or maintain wastewater treatment facilities and, therefore, does not oversee treatment capacity. Based on available information, the City’s wastewater collection system appears adequate to accommodate existing service demands. The system is supported by ongoing maintenance and inspection activities, including cleaning, CCTV inspections, and rehabilitation. In addition, the City maintains and periodically updates a Sewer System Management Plan (“SSMP”) in accordance with State requirements, which is intended to manage system performance and reduce the risk of sanitary sewer overflows. In support of ongoing system maintenance and asset management efforts, the City conducted a comprehensive wastewater collection system condition assessment in 2018 through TunnelWorks Services, Inc., utilizing CCTV. The assessment identified approximately 154 defect areas throughout the system, including fractured and broken pipes, root intrusion, and localized structural deterioration. Of these, approximately 21% were classified as Grade 5 defects requiring near-term attention, and 47% were classified as Grade 4 defects, indicating a risk of failure within 5 to 10 years. The total estimated cost to address these defects is approximately $1.13 million, which the City has indicated can be addressed over a five-year period through its Sewer Fund. While the system is generally considered to be in good condition relative to its age, these findings indicate the need for continued investment in rehabilitation and maintenance to ensure long-term system performance. These practices support the continued functionality of the system and help ensure reliable conveyance of wastewater flows. While the system is generally in good condition, localized deficiencies have been identified through condition assessments and are being addressed through ongoing maintenance and capital improvement efforts. 74 Future Demands and Capacity Future wastewater demand within the City of Claremont will be influenced by anticipated population growth, land use changes, and development patterns as identified in the City’s General Plan. As development occurs, wastewater flows generated within the City will continue to be conveyed through the City’s local collection system to regional treatment facilities operated by the Los Angeles County Sanitation District No. 21, which is responsible for wastewater treatment and disposal. RSG was unable to obtain sufficient documentation, including a recent wastewater master plan to evaluate projected wastewater flows under future buildout conditions. As such, RSG could not independently assess the capacity of the City’s wastewater collection system to accommodate future increases in demand or identify specific system constraints under projected conditions. However, based on available information, the City has conducted prior condition assessments of its wastewater collection system and identified localized deficiencies requiring rehabilitation. The City has established a capital improvement approach to address these deficiencies, including repair and replacement of deteriorated sewer mains and associated infrastructure. In order to maintain an adequate wastewater system, the City’s 2024–2026 budget allocates approximately $1.2 million annually for wastewater-related improvements in FY 2024–25 and FY 2025–26. These expenditures are primarily associated with the repair of deteriorated manholes and sewer main segments identified in the City’s 2018 sewer condition assessment. According to City staff, near-term improvements are expected to be limited to routine sewer lining and potential manhole replacements. No major capacity expansion projects were identified during the preparation of this report. While the City has indicated that existing sewer rates are sufficient to fund ongoing maintenance and capital improvements through the Sewer Fund, the absence of updated capacity analyses limits the ability to fully evaluate long-term system performance under future growth conditions. Given these limitations, continued monitoring of system performance, implementation of identified rehabilitation projects, and coordination with regional wastewater service providers will be 75 important to ensure that the City’s wastewater system can accommodate future demand and maintain adequate levels of service over time. POTABLE WATER Potable water service within the City of Claremont is provided by the Golden State Water Company (“GSWC”), which operates as the retail purveyor of treated water throughout the Claremont Customer Service Area (“CSA”), which includes Claremont and portions of Montclair, Pomona and Upland. The City of Claremont does not own, operate, or maintain any water infrastructure and does not hold independent water rights or entitlements. All retail and distribution system functions, including billing, maintenance, and capital improvements, are managed by GSWC.33 The existing system serves approximately 11,491 total connections and includes water supply, storage, and distribution infrastructure. As a regulated private utility, GSWC funds its operations, maintenance, and capital improvements primarily through customer water service charges and connection fees rather than municipal taxes or General Fund revenues. Customers are billed directly by GSWC based on California Public Utilities Commission-approved water rate schedules, which typically include fixed service charges and volumetric charges based on water consumption. Infrastructure, Equipment & Facilities Local water supplies serving portions of the Claremont community originate from two primary sources. Approximately 60% of the supply is derived from local groundwater production, which is operated and maintained by Golden State Water Company (“GSWC”). The remaining supply consists of imported water purchased from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (“MWD”) and delivered to the region through the Three Valleys Municipal Water District (“TVMWD”). GSWC operates and maintains the local water infrastructure serving the community, 33 Source: Golden State Water Company: Claremont Website 76 including groundwater wells, treatment equipment, storage reservoirs, pump stations, and distribution pipelines. Imported water supplies originate from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which imports water through the State Water Project and Colorado River Aqueduct systems. Imported water purchased by the Three Valleys Municipal Water District (“TVMWD”) is conveyed to the District’s Miramar Water Treatment Plant for treatment and distribution.34 The Miramar Water Treatment Plant, located near the intersection of Miramar Avenue and Padua Avenue in the City of Claremont, treats imported State Water Project supplies prior to distribution through the regional TVMWD system. The Miramar facility therefore functions as a key regional treatment facility supplying treated imported water to retail water agencies throughout the Pomona Valley service area. The Golden State Water Company distribution system serving the Claremont service area includes approximately 157 miles of transmission and distribution mains, nine storage tanks, and supporting infrastructure required for water conveyance and system pressure management. The system is organized into 16 pressure zones. Distribution pipelines consist primarily of 8-inch diameter mains (47.4%) and 6-inch mains (25.1%), with smaller proportions of larger transmission lines including 10-inch, 12-inch, 14-inch, and 16-inch pipes. With respect to pipe materials, the system is composed largely of asbestos cement pipelines (46.1%), followed by ductile iron (20.3%), PVC (13.9%), cast iron (12.7%), and steel (7.0%). Golden State Water Company is responsible for operating and maintaining this infrastructure, including pipeline maintenance and repair, storage facility operation, pressure management, and compliance with state and federal drinking water regulations. Figure 20 provides an overview of the Golden State Water Company’s infrastructure within the Claremont Customer Service Area. 34 Source: Three Valleys Municipal Water District, Water Resources Management Plan 77 Figure 20: City of Claremont Water Infrastructure Rates As a regulated private utility company, water system operations, maintenance, and capital improvements are funded primarily through customer water service charges rather than municipal taxes or City enterprise funds. Customers are billed directly by GSWC under California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”)-approved rate schedules, which generally include fixed service charges based on meter size and volumetric charges based on metered water consumption. 78 These rate structures are designed to recover operating costs, infrastructure investments, regulatory compliance costs, and wholesale water purchases. Water rates for customers served by GSWC are established through the CPUC General Rate Case (“GRC”) process, during which the utility must justify its projected operating costs, capital improvement needs, and anticipated service demands. In January 2025, the CPUC approved new water rates for GSWC covering the 2025–2027 period, with the updated rates becoming effective February 1, 2025.35 The approved rate structure includes annual escalation adjustments in 2026 and 2027 to account for inflationary cost pressures and changes in operating expenses. Customer bills consist of a fixed service charge based on meter size and volumetric consumption charges based on metered water use, typically measured in hundred cubic feet (“CCF”), where one CCF equals approximately 748 gallons of water.36 Revenue generated through these rates supports system operations, regulatory compliance, imported water purchases, and capital infrastructure improvements, including the replacement and rehabilitation of aging pipelines, storage facilities, and groundwater production infrastructure. As part of GSWC’s most recent capital planning cycle approved through the California Public Utilities Commission General Rate Case process, the provider identified approximately $23.5 million in infrastructure investments for the Claremont Customer Service Area between 2025 and 2027, including water main replacements, groundwater well development, treatment facility upgrades, and other improvements intended to maintain system reliability and water quality.37 Existing Demands and Capacity Annual water production varies based on hydrologic conditions and conservation measures. From 2021 to 2024, the City experienced a 14.6% decrease in total annual water demands. According to publicly available information from the Golden State Water Company, reduced water demand during this period appears to have been influenced in part by drought-related conservation 35 Source: California Public Utilities Commission, Decision Approving Golden State Water Company General Rate Case for 2025–2027, January 2025. 36 Source: Golden State Water Company, Understanding Your Water Bill, 37 Source: Golden State Water Company. Claremont Customer Service Area Infrastructure Improvements Fact Sheet (2025–2027) 79 measures and reduced customer usage. In 2022, GSWC implemented Stage 2 Mandatory Water Conservation in the Claremont Customer Service Area at the request of Three Valleys Municipal Water District, requiring customers to reduce usage by 20% and limiting outdoor irrigation to one day per week.38 Although Golden State Water later modified outdoor watering restrictions in May 2023 following improved statewide hydrologic conditions, ongoing conservation practices and prior drought-response measures likely contributed to lower overall demand levels during the 2021 to 2024 period. Figure 21: Claremont Potable Water Usage In addition to conservation measures, the water system serving the Claremont service area appears to maintain sufficient supply diversity and operational capacity to meet existing demands. The system relies on a combination of local groundwater production and imported water supplies delivered through Three Valleys Municipal Water District, which provides additional supply reliability during periods when groundwater production may be constrained. The presence of multiple groundwater wells, storage facilities, and connections to the regional imported water system provides operational flexibility and redundancy, allowing the system operator to adjust supply sources in response to changes in hydrologic conditions, demand levels, or maintenance needs. Based on the available information reviewed for this report, the existing water supply and distribution infrastructure appear adequate to accommodate current service demands within the Claremont Customer Service Area. Future Demands and Capacity Future potable water demand within the Claremont Customer Service Area is expected to be driven primarily by incremental population growth, infill development, and redevelopment, as the 38 Source: Golden State Water Company. Advice Letter 1880-W - Activation of Stage 2 Mandatory Water Conservation and Rationing for the Claremont Customer Service Area. 80 City is largely built out with limited opportunities for large-scale expansion. Increases in demand associated with new development are expected to be partially offset by continued implementation of water conservation measures, including State efficiency standards, drought response requirements, and long-term reductions in per capita water use. As a result, overall demand growth is anticipated to remain relatively stable over time. Golden State Water Company’s capital planning efforts, as reflected in its California Public Utilities Commission-approved General Rate Case, suggest ongoing investments in water system infrastructure to maintain reliability and accommodate future demand. These improvements, combined with the system’s reliance on both local groundwater and imported water supplies conveyed through Three Valleys Municipal Water District, provide operational flexibility and supply diversity. However, future capacity may be influenced by external factors such as regulatory requirements, including groundwater sustainability mandates, and variability in imported water availability due to changing hydrologic conditions. Based on the available information reviewed in this report, the system appears adequate to accommodate future demand within the Claremont Customer Service Area, provided that planned infrastructure investments and regional supply conditions remain consistent. FISCAL HEALTH The sections that follow evaluate the City of Claremont’s (“Claremont” or “City”) fiscal health, inclusive of revenue sources and major expenditure categories from FY 2020-21 through FY 2024-25. ANNUAL AUDIT FINDINGS The City of Claremont (“Claremont” or “City”) previously contracted with an outside accounting firm – Rogers, Anderson, Malody & Scott, LLP - to prepare an annual report to review and assess the City’s financial statements in accordance with established governmental accounting 81 standards. This includes auditing the City’s statements with respect to verifying the overall assets, liabilities, and net position. The most recent annual financial audit for FY 2024-25 did not identify any areas of concerns regarding the City’s financial reporting and further attested the City’s reporting methods accurately capture the City’s net position and are done so in accordance with U.S Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”). GOVERNMENT-WIDE GENERAL REVENUES Government-wide general revenues refer to revenues collected to fund costs associated with the City’s governmental activities, such as property taxes, sales and use taxes, franchise fees, property tax in-lieu of motor vehicle license fees, and interest earnings. These revenues do not include program-specific revenues such as charges for services, operating grants and contributions, and capital grants and contributions. These revenues provide a basis for evaluating historical revenue trends, in addition to projecting the City’s fiscal capacity to sustain governmental services into the foreseeable future. Between FY 2020-21 and FY 2024-25, the City of Claremont’s general revenues averaged approximately $33.0 million, reflecting a 44.0% overall increase from FY 2020-21. This suggests that the City’s general revenue base has grown steadily, supporting the City’s ongoing ability to fund essential government services. The following sections describe the major revenue categories that make up the City’s government-wide general revenues. Property Taxes Claremont receives 11.42% of the annual 1.0% of property taxes collected within City limits, resulting in $13.8 million in property taxes in FY 2024-25. Since FY 2020-21, the City’s property tax revenues have risen by approximately 26.6% from $10.9 million. On a per capita basis, the City’s property tax revenues equate to roughly $371 in assessed value per resident based on a resident population of 37,299 in 2025, reflecting the City’s relatively small population and concentrated property tax base. 82 Transient Occupancy Taxes The City collects a transient occupancy tax (“TOT”) from operators of hotels and motels located within City limits. The City’s current TOT rate is 10.0%, which generated $1.8 million as of FY 2024-25. The City collected approximately $1.1 million in TOT revenue in FY 2020-21, with revenues increasing by 67.4% between FY 2020-21 and FY 2024-25. Over the past five fiscal years, TOT revenues have averaged approximately $1.5 million annually. Sales Tax In addition to property tax, the City of Claremont generates revenues from sales tax. Sales tax revenues are collected from all taxable retail sales occurring within the City limits. The City’s current sales tax rate is 9.75%, which generated $10.3 million in FY 2024-25.39 Sales tax revenues have increased by approximately 49.5% over the last five years, rising from $6.9 million in FY 2020-21. In FY 2019-20, the City proposed Measure CR, which would have increased the total sales tax rate in the City from 9.50% to 10.25% to fund general City services. However, the measure did not pass with 50.89% of voters opposed. According to City staff, the City is not currently exploring any additional revenue measures. Franchise Fees The City also collects a portion of general tax revenues from franchise fees, which refer to taxes paid by electric and gas public utility companies, as well as private cable television providers for the use of public right-of-way and for wear and tear to the City’s streets. In FY 2024-25, franchise fee revenues totaled $772,481, reflecting a 9.6% increase since FY 2020-21. Over the past five fiscal years, franchise fee revenues have averaged approximately $781,834 per year, indicating relatively stable revenue performance. 39 Sources: California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, City of Claremont Audited Financial Statement FY 2024-25 83 Business License Taxes Business license fees are collected businesses for conducting business within City limits. The business license tax rates are adjusted every April by a cost-of-living factor in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code Section, Title 5 (Business Licenses and Regulations). Over the past five fiscal years, business license tax revenues have demonstrated steady growth. The City collected $922,098 in FY 2020-21 and $1.2 million in FY 2024-25, representing an overall increase of approximately 33.4%. Business license tax revenues have averaged approximately $1.1 million annually over the last five years. Utility User Tax (Measure P) Claremont levies a Utility Users Tax on utility services to support General Fund operations. The tax is applied to services such as electricity, natural gas, telecommunications, and cable at a rate of 5.5%. Utility users tax revenues have remained relatively stable over the last five fiscal years, increasing from approximately $4.4 million in FY 2020-21 to $6.0 million in FY 2024-25, representing growth of about 38.0% over the last five years of data reviewed. Other General Revenues The City also collects a portion of government-wide general revenues from the use of money and property, in addition to the gain on sale of capital assets. The use of money and property revenue category includes revenues from interest on investments, in addition to income generated from the use or leasing of City-owned assets. In FY 2024-25, the City collected $3.6 million from the use of money and property which represented 9.3% of all government-wide general revenues. Revenues collected from the use of money and property have increased 469.3% since FY 2020- 21, indicating significant growth in the City’s interest income and investment earnings. However, as noted in the City’s FY 2024-25 audited financial statements, the City does not maintain a formal investment policy limiting maturities to mitigate interest rate risk; therefore, fluctuations in interest rates may impact the fair value of investments and could affect future revenue performance. 84 The City also collected $43,500 from the gain on sale of capital assets in FY 2024-25. In FY 2022-23, this revenue category included approximately $3.0 million from the sale of a City-owned property located at 451 W. Arrow Highway in Claremont; however, this amount reflects a non- recurring increase in this revenue category. Figure 22 presents an overview of government-wide general revenues collected from FY 2020- 21 to FY 2024-25. Figure 22: City of Claremont – Government-Wide General Revenues (FY 2020-21 - FY 2024-25) GENERAL FUND OPERATING REVENUES General Fund operating revenues consist of revenues deposited in the City’s General Fund that are used to support essential city services and day-to-day operations. Unlike government-wide general revenues, General Fund operating revenues include both general purpose revenues and program-specific revenues, such as charges for services, licenses and permits, and fines that are deposited in the General Fund. In FY 2024-25, General Fund revenues amounted to $41.9 million, representing an increase of 36.1% since FY 2020-21. The following sections describe the major revenue categories that make up the City’s General Fund operating revenues, with the exception of taxes and the use of money and property, which are described in greater detail on Page 84.40 40 For additional information regarding taxes and the use of money and property are collected by the City of Claremont, please reference the information provided in the Governmental-Wide General Revenues subsection. 85 Licenses & Permits License and permit fees are collected on public works, grading, and building permits within City limits.41 In FY 2024-25, the City collected $1.9 million in license and permit fees, representing a 0.2% increase since FY 2020-21. Over the last five years of data reviewed, these revenues have averaged approximately 4.9% of General Fund revenues. The City experienced an increase in license and permit fee revenues beginning in FY 2023-24 due to growth in residential and Claremont college development, in addition to building and grading permit fee increases that went into effect during FY 2023-24.42 Intergovernmental Revenues Intergovernmental revenues include revenues from federal, state, and other local governments. Grants, shared revenues, and other types of intergovernmental payments are also included in this revenue category. This revenue category can fluctuate from year-to-year depending on grant cycles and funding availability. In FY 2024-25, the City collected $748,135 in intergovernmental revenues, representing a 9.9% decrease since FY 2020-21. Intergovernmental revenues represented a relatively small portion of the City’s overall General Fund revenues at 1.9% on average based on the last five years of data reviewed. Charges for Services Charges for services are fees charged for specific services rendered by the City, including development review fees, police impound lot fees, and recreation fees. These revenues do not include revenues collected by the City’s enterprise and business-type activities, which include revenues collected for the City’s Dial-a-Ride service, sewer connection and service fees, sanitation charges, and revenues collected by the City’s Oak Park Cemetery. In FY 2024-25, the City collected $1.8 million charges for services, representing a 49.9% increase since FY 2020-21. The increase was primarily driven by fee adjustments, with the most significant 41 Source: City of Claremont Operating and Capital Improvement Program Budget 2024-26 42 Source: City of Claremont Operating and Capital Improvement Program Budget 2024-26 86 growth occurring in recreation contract class revenues. Charges in this category were reduced during the COVID-19 years due to program cancellations and lower participation levels but have since rebounded as recreation programming resumed and participation returned closer to pre- pandemic levels. The City’s user fee schedule includes a wide range of cost-recovery charges across planning, engineering, building, police, recreation, sanitation, sewer, and cemetery services, with many development-related applications assessed on a deposit or actual-cost basis to reflect staff time and overhead43. Fines and Forfeitures The City also collects revenues from fines and forfeitures, which include penalties charged for violation of California law and City ordinances such as court and Department of Motor Vehicle fines, false alarm penalties, in addition to traffic, parking, and code enforcement citations. In FY 2024-25, the City collected $847,348 in fines and forfeitures, representing a 41.3% increase since FY 2020-21. Despite the recent increase, fines and forfeitures remain a relatively modest revenue source compared to taxes and service charges, and are generally influenced by enforcement practices, court processing trends, and overall compliance levels within the community. Other General Fund Operating Revenues Other General Fund operating revenues include contributions from other agencies, private grants or donations, reimbursements, and miscellaneous revenues such as interest earnings, facility use reimbursements, and one-time receipts. These revenues are typically more variable and less predictable than major tax sources, as they may depend on grant availability, intergovernmental agreements, or unique transactions occurring within a given fiscal year. Figure 23 illustrates the City’s historical General Fund revenue sources. 43 Claremont Interview Meeting Notes 87 Figure 23: City of Claremont General Fund Operating Revenue History GENERAL FUND OPERATING EXPENDITURES General Fund operating expenditures consist of expenses paid from the City’s General Fund to support the delivery of essential city services and day-to-day operations. General Fund operating expenditures include expenditures such as public safety, planning, community improvement, youth and senior program administration, street repair, and building maintenance. In FY 2024-25, General Fund expenditures amounted to $30.2 million, representing an increase of 41.6% since FY 2020-21. The following sections describe the major expenditure categories that make up the City’s General Fund operating expenditures. General Government General government expenditures include administrative and support services such as finance, human resources, administration, City Council, and information systems. In FY 2024-25, General Fund expenditures amounted to $10.2 million, representing a significant increase of 87.2% since FY 2020-21. On average, costs associated with this expenditure category make up approximately 28.4% of all general fund expenditures. According to the City’s FY 2024-25 ACFR, information systems costs continue to be a significant driver within this category, reflecting the growing reliance on technology, software subscriptions, cybersecurity, and network infrastructure across all City functions. 88 Police Police expenditures include law enforcement services such as patrol operations, investigations, traffic enforcement, dispatch support, and public safety administration. In FY 2024-25, police expenditures totaled $15.8 million, representing an increase of 18.8% since FY 2020–21. On average, this category accounts for approximately 47.6% of total General Fund expenditures, making it the City’s highest operating cost. Consistent with the City’s budget priorities and audit disclosures, recent expenditures reflect continued investment in technology, equipment, and facility improvements. Specifically, in FY 2024-25, American Rescue Plan Act funds were approved for upgrades to the Police CAD/RMS system, replacement of dispatch and patrol radios, women’s locker room improvements, and other facility and network infrastructure upgrades. Community Development Community Development expenditures support planning, building, engineering, and code enforcement services. In FY 2024-25, expenditures totaled approximately $3.7 million, reflecting a 28.5% increase since FY 2020-21. On average, this category represents about 11.5% of General Fund expenditures. Variations over time are generally tied to development activity levels, staffing needs, and professional services required for plan review, permitting, and compliance functions. Human Services Human Services expenditures include recreation programs, senior services, youth programs, and community-based services. In FY 2024-25, expenditures reached $2.9 million, representing a 44.0% increase since FY 2020-21. On average, this category comprises approximately 7.8% of General Fund expenditures. The increase reflects the restoration and expansion of recreation programming following COVID-19 disruptions, as well as rising program delivery and staffing costs. 89 Community Services Community Services expenditures include public works support functions and other community maintenance-related services funded through the General Fund. In FY 2024-25, expenditures totaled approximately $2.8 million, an increase of 77.3% since FY 2020-21. On average, this category accounts for about 7.4% of total General Fund expenditures. The growth over the period may reflect expanded service levels, cost inflation for materials and contracts, and/or operational adjustments following pandemic-related service reductions. However, the specific reason for the increase could not be located in the City’s most recently completed Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports (“ACFRs”) or Operating and Capital Improvement Budgets. Capital Outlay Capital Outlay expenditures reflect one-time investments in equipment, vehicles, infrastructure improvements, and facility upgrades. In FY 2024-25, Capital Outlay totaled approximately $418,929, representing a 330.5% increase since FY 2020-21. According to the City, the increase is primarily due to deferred capital outlay from FY 2020-21 to FY 2021-22, suggesting the increase is the result of timing delays rather than a consistent upward trend in capital spending. On average, this category accounts for less than 1% of General Fund expenditures. Fluctuations are expected in this category, as capital purchases vary year to year depending on replacement schedules and project timing. Principal Retirement Principal Retirement expenditures represent payments toward long-term debt obligations. In FY 2024-25, principal payments totaled approximately $26,498. Because this category was not consistently reported in FY 2020-21, a trend comparison is limited. On average, principal retirement accounts for a very small portion of General Fund expenditures. Annual amounts may vary depending on debt service schedules and refinancing activities. 90 Interest and Fiscal Charges Interest and Fiscal Charges include interest payments associated with debt obligations and related fiscal service costs. In FY 2024-25, expenditures totaled approximately $241. Similar to principal retirement, this category represents a minimal share of total General Fund expenditures and may fluctuate based on outstanding debt balances and financing terms. Figure 24 breaks down the City’s departmental operating expenditures by function between FYs 2020-21 and 2024-25. Figure 24: Claremont General Fund Operating Expenditures NET INCOME Between FY 2020-21 and FY 2024-25, the City of Claremont’s average net income totaled approximately $5.9 million, reflecting a consistent annual surplus throughout the review period. Net income levels were strongest in FY 2023-24 at $7.2 million, before stabilizing between $3.6 million and $4.5 million in subsequent years. By FY 2024-25, the City reported a surplus of $6.2 million, which was above the five-year average, demonstrating Claremont’s ability to maintain revenues in excess of expenditures. Additional details regarding the District’s net income are provided in Figure 25 below. 91 Figure 25: City of Claremont Audited Net Income Based on the above analysis, RSG finds that the City of Claremont demonstrates overall strong fiscal health and sufficient financial capacity to support municipal services. The City has maintained consistent annual operating surpluses, averaging approximately $5.9 million annually from FY 2020-21 through FY 2024-25. Core operating revenues, including propety tax and charges for services have remained stable, supporting ongoing operations. While net income has fluctuated year to year, Claremont has consistently maintained positive operating performance, resulting in a surplus of approximately $6.2 million in FY 2024-25. These trends indicate that the City is not experiencing structural challenges related to financial viability, and is well-positioned to maintain service levels in the near term. While future major capital improvements may continue to require external funding sources, Claremont’s consistent operating surpluses demonstrate sound financial management and long-term fiscal stability. Maintaining reserves and ongoing financial monitoring will further support the City’s ability to meet both operational and capital needs moving forward. RESERVE FUND BALANCE The City maintains several reserve accounts to support fiscal stability and address unanticipated and/or unforeseen expenditures. The City’s Operating and Environmental Emergency Reserve is designated for emergency situations and was established in accordance with a City Council– adopted Reserve Policy, which sets a target of maintaining reserves equal to 25 percent of General Fund operating expenditures. As of FY 2024-25, the balance of the City’s Operating and Environmental Emergency Reserve was $11,113,060. This represents approximately 31.1% of the City’s General Fund Operating expenditures in the same fiscal year ($35,770,617), suggesting the City is in compliance with its reserve policy. 92 In addition, the City maintains a Maintenance of Operations Reserve to fund City Council–directed initiatives, capital improvements, uninsured liability costs, unexpected increases in CalPERS or other benefit obligations, economic downturns, and temporary operating cost pressures, as well as other municipal purposes as determined by the City Council. As of FY 2024-25, the City did not have any funds set aside in this Reserve fund. The City also maintains an Equipment and Facility Revolving Reserve, which is used to finance the renovation of City facilities, replacement and refurbishment of furniture and equipment, and the acquisition of safety, emergency response, and recreation-related equipment. As of FY 2024- 25, the City did not have any funds set aside in this Reserve fund. ASSETS, LIABILITIES, & NET POSITION The City of Claremont’s total assets increased steadily between FY 2020-21 and FY 2024-25, rising from $136.3 million to $178.6 million, an overall gain of approximately $25.6 million – or 31.1%. As of FY 2024-25, current assets totaled $84.5 million, representing 47.3% of Claremont’s total assets. These resources, which are largely cash, investments, and receivables, indicate a moderate level of liquidity available to meet near-term obligations. By contrast, non-current assets accounted for $94.1 million, or 52.7% of the City’s total, reflecting Claremont’s substantial holdings in long-term capital investments, including infrastructure, buildings, equipment, and other durable assets that support ongoing municipal service delivery. Over the review period, Claremont’s total assets increased by approximately $42.5 million, or 31.1 percent. This growth was driven primarily by steady increases in capital assets, which make up the majority of the City’s non-current assets, along with moderate growth in cash and investments. Capital assets include land, construction in progress, infrastructure, structures and improvements, machinery and equipment, vehicles, furniture and fixtures, land improvements, and right-to-use leased and subscription assets. Growth during the year was largely attributable to additions in land, infrastructure, and ongoing capital projects, partially offset by depreciation 93 and asset disposals44. These trends reflect continued investment in long-term infrastructure and the maintenance of healthy liquidity levels, contributing to a gradual strengthening of the City’s overall financial position. Figure 26 illustrates the City’s total assets between FY 2020-21 and FY 2024-25. Figure 26: City of Claremont’s Audited Assets The City’s total liabilities at the conclusion of FY 2024-25 were $89.4 million, representing an increase of 10.5% compared to the FY 2020-21 balance of $80.9 million. While aggregate liabilities remained relatively stable over the five-year period, the composition of these obligations shifted notably. Current liabilities increased from $6.7 million in FY 2020-21 to $14.0 million in FY 2024 - reflecting an 108.2% rise - primarily attributable to growth in unearned revenue. Unearned revenue typically represents funds received in advance - such as grants or program revenues - before qualifying expenditures are incurred or eligibility requirements are met. As these funds are recognized as revenue in future periods, the associated liability is expected to decline accordingly45. Noncurrent liabilities increased by 1.7% during the same period, increasing from $74.1 million in FY 2020-21 to $75.3 million in FY 2024-25, largely due to reductions in outstanding loan obligations. 44 City of Claremont FY25-26 ACFR Report 45 City of Claremont FY25-26 ACFR Report 94 Overall, this shift in the City’s liability structure suggests gradual progress in reducing long-term debt burdens, while the rise in current liabilities highlights the need for careful liquidity management and ongoing fiscal planning. Maintaining adequate reserves and closely monitoring short-term obligations will be important to ensure the City can meet its near-term commitments while sustaining long-term financial stability. Figure 27: City of Claremont’s Total Liabilities Net Position The City’s net position at the end of FY 2024-25 totaled $103.7 million and represents the difference between the City’s total assets and total liabilities. The FY 2024-25 amount is 64.1% higher than the FY 2020-21 figure of $63.2 million and reflects a strong upward trajectory. Over the five-year period (FY 2020-21 to FY 2024-25), the City’s overall net position grew by $40.5 million - or 64.1% - highlighting steady gains in financial stability. The largest portion of the City’s net position is tied to net investment in capital assets, which increased from $77.8 million in FY 2020-21 to $82.0 million in FY 2024-25, a 5.4% increase. This growth indicates investment in long-term infrastructure and facilities. The restricted portion increased from $25.1 million in FY 2020-21 to $28.5 million in FY 2024-25, showing a 13.5% increase. The unrestricted portion showed the most significant improvement over the period, with the deficit shrinking from approximately ($39.6) million in FY 2020-21 to ($6.7) million in FY 2024- 25, an 83% reduction in the negative balance. Although this category remains in a deficit position, the steady narrowing of the shortfall indicates strengthening financial flexibility. Unrestricted net position reflects resources that may be used at the discretion of the City’s governing body and is 95 an important indicator of the City’s capacity to fund operations, maintain reserves, and respond to local priorities without external restrictions. Overall, Claremont’s audited net position demonstrates solid financial growth over the past five years, primarily driven by continued investment in capital assets and steady increases in restricted resources, alongside a substantial reduction in the unrestricted deficit. The strengthening trend in total net position indicates improved long-term financial stability and gradually expanding fiscal flexibility to support operations, infrastructure needs, and community priorities. Figure 28 illustrates the City’s Net Position from FY 2020-21 through FY 2024-25. Figure 28: City of Claremont’s Net Position PENSION OBLIGATIONS The City of Claremont (“Claremont” or “City”) provides a defined pension benefit to its employees through investment risk-pool contracts with the California Public Employee Retirement System (“CalPERS”). These contracts offer Claremont employees specified retirement benefits based on the date of hire and placement into two categories: classic and non-classic. This section of the report provides details regarding Claremont’s pension based on actuarial valuations for the City issued by CalPERS annual reporting process and covers information regarding City enrollees, formulas, contributions, and funded status.46 ENROLLEES & FUNDING FORMULAS The CalPERS actuarial valuation report for FY 2022-23 identifies a total of 1,064 participants enrolled in the City of Claremont’s pension program. This amount has increased since FY 2020- 21 – from 829 participants – and is divided between classic and non-classic employee categories. The total participants are divided between enrollee type and produce a positive active-to-retiree 46 CalPERS Actuarial Reports for FY 2020-21 through FY 2022-23. 96 ratio of 0.5 to 1. With regard to active participants, this includes 740 miscellaneous members, 120 safety members (classic), 162 safety police members, 10 safety second tier members, and 32 safety police members (PEPRA). Additional details regarding benefit formulas can be found below. • Employees hired prior to January 1, 2013 are classified as “Classic” members and participate in defined benefit formulas established prior to the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act (“PEPRA”). Classic miscellaneous employees receive a pension benefit based on approximately 2.0% or 2.5% of final compensation for each year of service beginning at age 55, while Safety and Safety Second Tier Plans employees receive benefits based on approximately 3.0% percent at age 55. • Employees hired on or after January 1, 2013 are classified as PEPRA members and generally receive a defined benefit based on 2.0% at age 62 formula. Additional details regarding enrollee information follow in Figure 29. Figure 29: City of Claremont’s Enrollee Information ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS Claremont’s total annual pension contribution covering both its classic and non-classic plans at the end of FY 2022-23 amounts to $2.8 million. This contribution covers both pension categories and equals 15.5% of the covered payroll total for the corresponding fiscal year. The most recent contribution amount also reflects an overall increase in payments made by the City to CalPERS 97 since FY 2020-21, in which information on CalPERS is readily available. Additional details pertaining to Claremont’s contributions are provided in Figure 30 below. Figure 30: City of Claremont’s Annual Contributions FUNDING STATUS Claremont’s total and composite unfunded liability as of FY 2022-23 equated to $96.8 million. This amount covers both the classic and non-classic categories and reflects the accrued monies owed to all employees enrolled in the program and not covered by the market value of existing assets. This amount translates to a composite funded ratio of 68.4%, which refers to the percentage of market assets compared to the projected liabilities. Overall, Claremont has maintained relatively stable funded ratios over the review period, ranging from 68.4% at the lowest, to 78.1% at the highest. Although the ratio decreased by 12.4% between FY 2020-21 and FY 2022-23, the City’s pension plans remain in a comparatively solid position. The monetary impact of the funded ratio decline between FY 2020-21 and FY 2022-23 equates to approximately $53.8 million in additional unfunded liability. Please see Figure 31 below for additional details. Figure 31: City of Claremont’s Funded Status It should be noted that the funded ratio provides a point-in-time measure of the plan’s financial position but does not fully capture the trajectory of the City’s pension obligations. CalPERS sets 98 employer contribution rates using amortization schedules that front-load payments on recent unfunded liability gains. As a result, required contributions may increase in future years even if the funded ratio remains stable or improves. OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS Claremont offers other post-employment benefits (“OPEB”) to eligible employees, which refer to retiree health benefits provided to eligible employees following retirement, such as medical, dental, and vision coverage. Under GASB Statement No. 75, the City’s OPEB obligation reflects both direct contributions and any implicit subsidies that reduce retiree healthcare premiums. The City funds its OPEB obligations on a pay-as-you-go basis and has not established a trust for pre-funding retiree health benefits. California law does not require pre-funding of OPEB obligations. However, a pay-as-you-go approach means the City bears the full annual cost of retiree benefits from current General Fund operating revenue without the benefit of investment returns to offset rising healthcare costs over time. As of FY 2024-25, the City’s total OPEB liability amounted to $2.1 million, which represents the present-day value of retiree health benefits that have been earned by current and former employees for work performed to date. Figure 32 provides an overview of the City’s OPEB liabilities from FY 2020-21 to FY 2024-25. Figure 32: City of Claremont OPEB Liabilities (FY 2020-21 to FY 2024-25) As of FY 2024-25, the City had approximately 149 active employees and 5 inactive employees receiving OPEB. The City pays $32.20 per month on behalf of each retiree who retired prior to August 1, 2011. In FY 2024-25, total OPEB benefit payments amounted to approximately $70,559. This amount represents the estimated value of retiree healthcare benefits provided during the year, including 99 the City’s direct premium contributions and the implicit subsidy associated with blended premium rates. Under a blended rate structure, retirees and active employees are charged the same insurance premium, even though retirees typically have higher healthcare costs. Of the total OPEB benefit amount, the City’s actual cash contribution was $767, which was paid from the City’s General Fund. Compared to the annual actuarial cost of $202,355 (service cost and interest), the City funded only a portion of its OPEB obligation, resulting in a funding gap of approximately $131,976 in FY 2024-25. This gap has increased by approximately 137.6% since FY 2020-21 and reflects the City’s pay-as-you-go approach, in which only current retiree costs are funded while the remaining obligation is deferred and contributes to the long-term liability of the City’s OPEB obligations. Figure 33 provides a comparison of the City’s annual OPEB actuarial cost and actual benefit payments over time. Figure 33: City of Claremont OPEB Funding Gap (FY 2020-21 to FY 2024-25) As noted above, the City’s OPEB liability reflects the estimated long-term cost of providing retiree health benefits over time; however, under a pay-as-you-go approach, the City funds only current benefit costs as they arise. Because Claremont provides only a minimal retiree health benefit to a small number of participants, its current annual payments remain small despite the reported long-term liability. Given assumed growth in retiree healthcare costs, the City could evaluate the feasibility of establishing an irrevocable trust (such as a CalPERS CERBT or PARS trust) to pre- fund its OPEB obligations. Pre-funding would allow the City to earn investment returns that offset a portion of future costs, use a higher discount rate, reduce the reported liability, and smooth annual costs over time. 100 SOI DETERMINATIONS RSG’s determinations related to the City of Claremont’s Sphere of Influence (“SOI”) are presented below in accordance with Government Code Section 56425. 1. Present and Planned Land Uses The City of Claremont consists of predominantly residential land uses (90.0%), followed by commercial (4.1%), vacant (3.3%), and public uses (1.8%). Industrial, open space, and other land uses each make up less than 1% of existing land uses with City limits. There were several small-to-moderate scale residential and commercial developments in the pipeline identified as part of this MSR, including a 120-unit Residence Inn by Marriott, a 74-unit affordable housing development, and two mixed-use structures consisting of 5 residential units and 2 offices. The proposed larger than sphere of influence supports the present and planned land uses of the City. 2. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services The City of Claremont anticipates ongoing needs related to infrastructure maintenance and capital improvements, including upgrades to the City’s police station, street rehabilitation projects, park facility improvements, and expansions to the City’s Oak Park Cemetery. While no capacity constraints have been identified, these planned improvements will be necessary to ensure continued service adequacy and accommodate future community needs. The proposed larger than sphere of influence aligns with the City’s current and probable future service area. LAFCO also identifies two unincorporated County islands that are completely surrounded by City limits. While the City does not currently provide services to these areas, RSG recommends the City coordinate with LAFCO and the County to formally evaluate the feasibility of annexing these islands to promote orderly and logical boundaries. 101 3. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Services The City of Claremont has sufficient capacity and adequate infrastructure and related facilities to continue to provide municipal services to its residents now and in the future. However, the City’s ability to sustain existing service levels will depend on its ability to fund ongoing infrastructure maintenance and capital improvement projects, specifically street rehabilitation projects in which roadway maintenance has been deferred in recent years due to funding constraints. The City has identified funding to address deferred roadway maintenance through the 2028-29 Fiscal Year including, by not limited to, State gas tax funding, as well as funding from Measure M, Measure R, and Proposition C. The City has also identified funds for park facility improvements over the next ten years; however, an estimated $900,000 funding gap exists, which the City intends to address through continued pursuit of grants and partnerships. 4. Social or Economic Communities of Interest The City of Claremont contains the seven Claremont Colleges, encompassing five undergraduate and two graduate campuses, located within City limits across approximately 69 acres. The Colleges have approximately 8,300 students and 3,750 faculty members across all seven colleges. The Colleges represent a significant institutional presence that contributes to the City’s overall community character. 5. Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community Present and Planned Need for Facilities and Services LAFCO identifies one Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community (“DUC”) located contiguous to the City’s southwestern boundary within the City of Pomona’s sphere of influence. According to the City, the City is not currently providing any services to this DUC. It is recommended that LAFCO conduct a review of municipal services provided to this DUC as part of the next Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update for the City of Pomona to determine the present and planned need for public facilities and services. 102 MSR DETERMINATIONS Pursuant to Government Code Section 56430, the required CKH determinations for this MSR for Claremont are presented below: 1. Population Projections and Growth The City of Claremont has a resident population of 37,299 as of January 1, 2025. The City has experienced modest population growth since 2010, and regional projections indicate that population growth is expected to increase gradually over the next three decades. Specifically, the Southern California Association of Governments projects that the City’s population will reach 38,300 residents by 2050, suggesting a slight increase to the City’s current population. Based on these projections, population growth within the City is expected to remain moderate and consistent with the City’s current planning assumptions and service capacity. 2. Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities in or Contiguous to SOI LAFCO identifies one Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community (“DUC”) located contiguous to the City’s southwestern boundary within the City of Pomona’s sphere of influence. According to the City, the City is not providing any services to this DUC. It is recommended that LAFCO conduct a review of municipal services provided to this DUC as part of the next Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update for the City of Pomona to determine the present and planned need for public facilities and services. 3. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities The present and planned capacity of public facilities appear adequate to meet existing and future service demands. However, the City has experienced increased in response times for various fire protection, emergency medical, and law enforcement service calls. The City also identified necessary upgrades to its police station including the addition of a women’s locker room, in addition to seismic and safety improvements. Lastly, the City 103 identified capital improvements needed for roadway repairs, the addition of burial plots at its Oak Park Cemetery, and park facility replacements over the next ten years. The comprehensive review of Claremont’s municipal services supports these claims. 4. Financial Ability to Provide Services The City of Claremont has the financial ability to provide services to its existing and future ratepayers and did not demonstrate any notable fiscal stress during the last five years of financial data reviewed. Additional details regarding the City’s financial ability to provide services are provided below. • Claremont’s net position increased by 64.1% over the four-year reporting period, from $63.2 million to $103.7 million. • Claremont's total expenses rose by 41.6% since FY 2020-21, primarily due to higher public safety costs, particularly in police services, along with increases in general government, community services, and human services expenditures. This increase is greater than the corresponding 36.1% growth in total revenues since FY 2020-21. • Claremont’s total revenues have illustrated steady upward growth. This growth has been driven primarily by strong gains in tax revenues and charges for services, along with notable increases in the use of money and property. At the same time, expenditures have also risen, particularly in public safety and general government, as well as periodic increases in capital outlay. While capital spending has fluctuated from year to year, the City has generally maintained operating balance and positive net results, indicating an ability to support service levels and manage periodic capital investments without placing undue strain on its overall fiscal position. • The City has maintained consistent annual operating surpluses, averaging approximately $5.9 million annually from FY 2020-21 through FY 2024-25. 104 Claremont’s surpluses suggest that the City maintains sufficient financial capacity to sustain service levels, as well as respond to service needs when they arise. • Claremont’s combined funded ratio for pension obligations with CALPERS in FY 2024-25 was 68.4% and is considered moderate. However, this ratio also decreased by 12.4% since FY 2020-21, suggesting that pension liabilities are growing at a faster rate than assets. • The City funds its OPEB obligations on a pay-as-you-go basis and has not established a trust for pre-funding retiree health benefits. As of FY 2024-25, the City’s total OPEB liability amounted to $2.1 million. 5. Opportunities for Shared Facilities City staff identified a potential opportunity for animal control services through the West- End Animal Services Agency, which is a Joint Powers Agreement established in 2024 between the cities of Chino, Montclair, Ontario, and unincorporated areas of San Bernardino, to provide full-service animal control and sheltering services. The City is also a member of the East San Gabriel Valley Watershed Management Group, along with the cities of La Verne, Pomona, and San Dimas, which establishes best management practices, conducts public outreach, and applies for funding for various stormwater treatment projects. There were no other opportunities for shared facilities identified as part of this MSR. 6. Accountability for Community Service Needs The Claremont City Council is elected on an at-large basis and serves as the legislative and policy-making body for the City. The City maintains a comprehensive website that provides access to City Council agendas, meeting minutes, staff reports, budget documents, and other public information. City Council meetings are publicly noticed and accessible, and the City utilizes digital platforms and communication tools to keep residents informed about municipal programs, services, and community events. 105 Claremont demonstrates established administrative and financial management practices, including the preparation of annual budgets, independent financial audits, and long-term planning documents. Overall, the City appears to have the institutional structures, transparency practices, and management systems in place to remain accountable and responsive to community service needs. 7. Any Other Matter Related to Effective or Efficient Service Delivery as Required by Commission Policy There were no other matters related to effective or efficient service delivery identified as part of this MSR. 106 SERVICE REVIEW – CITY OF LA VERNE The City of La Verne (“La Verne” or “the City”) is a general law city incorporated on August 20, 1906. Located in the Pomona Valley at the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains, La Verne lies approximately 35 miles east of downtown Los Angeles. The City is bordered by San Dimas to the west, Claremont to the east, Pomona to the south, and the Angeles National Forest to the north. La Verne encompasses approximately 8.4 square miles and has an estimated population of roughly 32,000 residents as of January 1, 2025. For centuries, La Verne was home to Indigenous peoples and numerous Native American artifacts have been discovered locally by archaeologists.47 The modern township was founded in 1887 by Los Angeles businessman Isaac Wilson Lord, who persuaded the Santa Fe Railway to extend its line through the area and laid out a new town called Lordsburg. During the real estate boom the late 1880s, Lordsburg was one of many speculative towns developed along the railway after the boom collapsed. However, the town’s fortunes declined until 1891, when Lordsburg College (now the University of La Verne) was founded, providing the community with an educational and civic anchor. Following the death of Lord in 1917, residents voted to rename the town to La Verne. Today, La Verne is a close-knit community known for its small-town character, strong schools, and the long-standing presence of the University of La Verne. The City of La Verne operates under a council-manager form of government. The City Council consists of five members elected at-large to staggered four-year terms. Each year, the Council selects a Mayor and Mayor pro Tem from among its members to serve one-year terms. The most recent City Council election was held in March 2024, and the next municipal election is in November 2026. The Council also appoints a City Manager to oversee day-to-day operations. The current City Manager is Ken Domer who was appointed in December 2022. La Verne is a full-service municipality, providing police, fire and emergency medical response, community development, public works, and parks and recreation directly. The City’s Water and 47 Source: City of La Verne, “History,” City of La Verne Official Website 107 Sewer Division operates and maintains its own water production, distribution, and wastewater systems. In terms of finances, La Verne’s total operating expenses at the end of FY 2024-25 totaled $48.6 million with an overall net position of $128.1 million. 108 JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARY & SPHERE OF INFLUENCE The City of La Verne’s (“La Verne” or “City”) current jurisdictional boundary spans approximately 8.5 square miles. The City’s jurisdictional boundary lies in the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains within the Pomona Valley region. La Verne is bordered by the City of Claremont to the north, the City of Pomona to the south and east, and the City of San Dimas to the west. The community is bisected by Interstate 210 (Foothill Freeway) and is also accessible via Historic Route 66 (Foothill Boulevard). The City’s sphere of influence (“SOI”) was originally adopted in 1973 and reconfirmed on July 13, 2005 and November 14, 2021. No changes have been made to the SOI since its establishment. The total assessed value (secured and unsecured) within La Verne is approximately $6.6 billion, a per capita value of approximately $203,259 based on the current resident population of 32,300. The vast majority of land use in the City is designated as residential (87.6%), while the remainder of land uses consist of vacant (5.8%), commercial (3.9%), and public uses (1.9%). Industrial, open space, and other uses each consist of less than 1% of total land uses each.48 Residential development primarily consists of single-family homes (62.2%), followed by multi- family units (32.4%), and mobile home units (5.4%)49 Commercial development is largely industrial in nature (48.7%), followed by retail (24.4%), office (23.7%), and other commercial uses (3.1%). Figure 34 shows the City’s existing jurisdictional boundary and sphere of influence. 48 Source: Los Angeles County Assessor, FY 2025-26 Assessment Roll. 49 Source: California Department of Finance 109 Figure 34: City of La Verne’s Jurisdictional Boundary and Sphere of Influence 110 EXTRATERRITORIAL SERVICES The City’s exclusively serves properties within the City limits, with some exceptions, as detailed below. • Wastewater Collection Services: The City of La Verne provides wastewater collection services to several parcels in neighboring cities, including the cities of Pomona, San Dimas, and the County of Los Angeles.50 These wastewater flows are collected by La Verne’s wastewater collection system and ultimately discharged into the County Sanitation Districts Nos. 21 and 22’s sewer lines for wastewater treatment. A detailed description of these areas can be found in the Wastewater Services section beginning on Page 150. • Potable Water: The City provides potable water services to approximately 368 parcels located outside of City limits, as shown in Appendix A.51 This includes approximately 305 water connections with parcels located within the City’s existing sphere of influence. The City also has approximately 22 water connections with parcels located outside of its sphere of influence that are within Claremont’s SOI, 1 water connection with a parcel located within Claremont city limits, and 1 water connection with a parcel located within San Dimas’ SOI. Of the 368 parcels served by the City, 352 received water service prior to January 1, 2001. In 2016, LAFCO determined these connections were exempt from California Government Code Section 56133, which requires LAFCO approval for the extension of services outside an agency’s jurisdiction when initiated on or after January 1, 2001. The remaining 16 parcels were subsequently authorized through out-of-agency service agreements approved by LAFCO via Resolution No. 2020-04. A detailed description of these areas can be found in the Water Services section beginning on Page 139. • Fire Protection & Emergency Medical Services: The City of La Verne Fire Department maintains a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU”) with the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County to provide automatic aid on first alarm fire assignments and respond as a second due paramedic unit to areas within the eastern portion of San Dimas 50 Source: City of La Verne Wastewater Master Plan 2022 51 Source: LAFCO letter to City of La Verne dated March 15, 2016 111 city limits and northern portion of Pomona city limits. The City also responds to the entire unincorporated area between La Verne and Claremont, including the areas located within Claremont’s sphere of influence. Detailed maps of these response areas can be found in Appendix B. As described later in this MSR, any future extraterritorial service extensions require LAFCO approval in accordance with its adopted Outside Service Agreement Policy, ensuring consistency with regional growth and service planning objectives. PENDING APPLICATIONS LAFCO has one pending annexation application to the City of La Verne, referred to as, Reorganization No. 2024-03 to the City of La Verne (21-774), which includes one residential parcel located at 406 Baseline Road. The parcel is located adjacent to the City’s southeastern boundary within La Verne’s existing SOI. The reorganization is scheduled to be considered at LAFCO’s June 10, 2026, Commission meeting. At this time, it is unknown whether the City of La Verne provides municipal services to this parcel. However, the parcel is located within the proposed sphere of influence for La Verne as part of this MSR and SOI update, as detailed below. As such, the application is consistent with the City’s existing and proposed SOI boundaries, which are intended to represent logical growth areas and promote the orderly extension of municipal services. PROPOSED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE RSG recommends LAFCO amend La Verne’s sphere of influence to reflect a larger than sphere of influence, with both reductions and expansions to the City’s existing SOI, in order to reflect the City’s existing service area. The City of La Verne currently provides potable water services to several parcels within the City’s existing SOI in Area 9 and 10-1, as shown in Appendix A and Figure 34. The City also provides potable water services to several parcels located within the City of Claremont’s SOI to the east 112 of La Verne city limits, as shown in Appendix A. This includes one parcel located off of East Stephens Ranch Road (Area 6), two parcels off of Brassie Lane (Area 5), eight parcels off of Live Oak Canyon Road (Area 5), ten parcels off of Summit Road (Area 5), one parcel along Webb Canyon Road (Area 5), one parcel along the Briney Point Road (Area 5), and one parcel along West Base Line Road within Claremont city limits. It is recommended LAFCO expand La Verne’s SOI in these areas, with the exception of the parcel located within Claremont city limits, to reflect the City’s existing water service area, as shown as Area 10-2 in Figure 35. It should be noted that there are approximately 29 parcels located off of Liveoak Drive in Claremont’s SOI that do not receive water services from La Verne (Area 5). These parcels have Claremont addresses and are also only accessible through the City of Claremont. As a result, it is recommended that this area stay within Claremont’s proposed SOI. The City also provides potable water services to 226 parcels located west of City limits off of Ramona Avenue (Area 11), as shown in Appendix A, within a County unincorporated island between La Verne and San Dimas. The island consists of approximately 115.5 acres and is split between the City of La Verne’s and San Dimas’ SOI; however, the City of San Dimas does not provide any services to this area. Additionally, the entirety of the island has a La Verne address, with the exception of eleven (11) parcels located along North San Dimas Canyon Road, which are only accessible from the City of San Dimas and have San Dimas addresses. To reflect logical service boundaries, it is recommended that La Verne’s SOI be expanded to include this island, with the exception of the eleven (11) parcels located along North San Dimas Canyon Road, which are only accessible from the City of San Dimas and have San Dimas addresses. RSG also recommends LAFCO subsequently reduce La Verne’s SOI in several areas. This includes the area located northwest of City limits that surrounds San Dimas Canyon Road (Area 12), in addition to the area located northeast of City limits north of Stephens Ranch Road (Area 9), to align with City limits. According to the City, these areas are largely mountainous in nature and the City does not anticipate providing municipal services to these areas or pursuing annexation of these parcels in the future. As a result, it recommended LAFCO reduce La Verne’s 113 SOI in this area to accurately reflect the City’s anticipated future service area. Figure 35 presents the City’s existing jurisdictional boundary and proposed sphere of influence. 114 Figure 35: City of La Verne Proposed Sphere of Influence 115 DEMOGRAPHICS POPULATION & HOUSING The City of La Verne’s (“La Verne” or “City”) total current resident population within its jurisdictional boundary is estimated to be 32,300 as of January 1, 2025. This amount represents 0.3% of the countywide population total. The estimated resident population in La Verne has risen overall by 4.0% - or approximately 1,237 residents - since 2010, demonstrating an upward trend.52 However, more recently, La Verne has decreased by approximately 26 residents annually over the last five years, from 32,430 in 2020 to 32,300 in 2025. The current resident population produces a population density of 5.92 residents per acre and underlies the overall suburban characteristic of the City’s jurisdictional boundary. La Verne’s population is expected to decrease by approximately 0.09% annually over the next ten years, reaching 32,000 residents by 2035, reflecting an overall decrease of 300 residents.53 This rate of decline is slightly slower than the anticipated annual population decline countywide, which is expected to be 0.58%, reaching 10,449,000 residents by 2035.54 According to SCAG’s growth projections, the City of La Verne’s population is expected to decrease by approximately 0.01% per year through 2050.55 As part of this MSR, there were no planned residential developments identified within City limits. In June 2024, the City approved a 367-unit residential project at 1941 White Avenue; however, the developer determined the project was no longer financially feasible, and no other developers have expressed interest in high-density residential development in the City’s Mixed-Use 1 district.56 52 Source: ESRI Business Analyst 53 Source: CA Department of Finance 54 Source: SCAG 2024 RTP/SCS ("Connect SoCal 2024") Growth Projections 55 Source: SCAG 2024 RTP/SCS ("Connect SoCal 2024") Growth Projections 56 Source: City of La Verne Planning Commission Agenda Report dated December 10, 2025 116 Additionally, the City of La Verne contains the University of La Verne, which serves approximately 6,000 students and has 1,895 employees.57 ,58 The University of La Verne represents an institutional presence that contributes to the City’s local economic activity, daytime population, and overall community character. Figure 36 summarizes La Verne’s and the County’s past, present, and future population growth. Figure 36: City of La Verne Resident Population An estimated 12,431 housing units are within La Verne’s boundary as of January 1, 2025. This amount accounts for an overall increase of 745 units – or 6.4% - since 2010 for an annual change of 53 housing units. This creates a ratio of 0.6 housing units for every new resident. Of the total number of current housing units in La Verne, approximately 71.8% are owner- occupied. The remainder of housing units are divided between 28.2% being renter-occupied and 2.9% being vacant. The average household size in La Verne for 2025 is 2.53. This amount reflects a decrease of 5.9% since 2010, when the average household size was 2.69. Figure 37 includes additional details regarding the City’s housing characteristics. 57 Source: University of La Verne website 58 Source: La Verne Audited Financial Statements FY 2024-25 117 Figure 37: City of La Verne Housing Characteristics AGE DISTRIBUTION & INCOME The City of La Verne’s service area has a median age of 46, increased from 42.6 in 2010, an increase of 8 percent. This is higher than the county median age of 38.4, indicating an older population profile. Similarly, 94.3% of residents within the prime working age group (between the ages of 25-64) are employed while the remaining 5.6% are unemployed, reflecting a stable workforce within the City’s jurisdictional boundary.59 Additional details regarding the City’s age distribution and employment rates are provided in Figure 38. Figure 38: City of La Verne’s Age Distribution 59 The prime working age group does not include individuals between the ages of 16-25 nor 65 and above given residents within these age groups are typically in school or nearing/in retirement. 118 The median household income of La Verne is $113,360, which is approximately 19.3% higher than the County’s median household income of $91,431. This amount confirms households in the City are receiving more pay over the reporting period compared to the county as a whole. Furthermore, the City of La Verne has a poverty rate of 8.4%, which is 64.3% lower than the County’s poverty rate of 13.8% suggesting residents within La Verne may have higher standard of living and greater access to resources.60 LAFCO does not identify any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (“DUCs”) located in or contiguous to the City. A DUC is defined as any unincorporated area wherein the median household income is less than $62,939. 61 Figure 39 provides an overview of income characteristics in La Verne and County. Figure 39: City of La Verne’s Income Characteristics GOVERNANCE AND STAFFING The City of La Verne (“La Verne” or “City”) is a General Law Municipality incorporated in 1906, operating under a Council-Manager form of government. The City is authorized to provide a full range of municipal services - including but not limited to - local government administration, public works (roads, parks, sewer, and code enforcement), building, planning, and engineering, finance 60 Federal poverty levels are determined annually by the U.S. Census Bureau which uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. 61 Source: Government Code Section 56033.5 and 56046, Water Code Section 79505.5(a), American Community Survey Census 2016-2020 data 119 and utility billing, and fire and police protections. These services are funded through a combination of utility rates, property taxes, grants, and general fund revenues with additional details provided in the sections that follow. The City Council appoints a City Manager to oversee the day-to-day operations of the City which includes adopting ordinances and resolutions to guide City operations. The current City Manager – Ken Domer – was appointed in December 2022 and oversees a budgeted staff of 207 as of 2025. The City maintains an active website wherein Council meeting agendas and minutes are available online as well as other files pertinent to City operations such as financial audits and budgets. The City also maintains a presence on social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, X, LinkedIn, and YouTube, to communicate information and updates to City residents. City staffing levels have steadily grown from 192 staff members in 2021 to 207 in 2025 – as detailed in Figure 40 below. Figure 40: City of La Verne Staffing GENERAL PLAN The City of La Verne’s (“La Verne” or “City”) General Plan was last updated in January 2025 and covers the City’s long-term planning through the year 2045. Pursuant to Government Code 65300, cities in California are required to prepare a general plan to inform decision-making regarding their long-term physical development. General Plans are considered living documents in that they represent the outcomes desired by residents and are based on local conditions and goals. The City’s General Plan is comprehensive policy document that shapes the long-term physical development of the City’s Planning Area, which includes the areas within City limits, in addition to the City’s existing sphere of influence. The Plan intends to identify land use patterns, growth, 120 transportation, environmental, economic, and community goals and policies as they relate to land use, conservation, development, and provision of community services and facilities. The Plan also articulates a vision and strategy for future development and enables the City Council and Planning Commission to establish long-range land use, transportation, services, conservation, and growth goals and policies of La Verne and its residents. It also provides a basis for judging whether specific private development proposals and public projects are in harmony with these goals and policies. Specifically, the Plan states that desirable new growth is directed along the City’s key corridors (Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Highway) and around its major activity and business centers (Old Town La Verne, the Metro A Line Station, La Verne Business Park, and Brackett Field). The Plan also aims to prioritize the preservation and maintenance of its existing residential neighborhoods which continue to serve as a defining feature of the special community. With respect to the City’s existing SOI, the Plan strives to encourage development in the City’s existing SOI to be compatible with adjacent development and consistent with the City’s design and service expectations. The Housing Element is one of the seven (7) mandated elements when composing the General Plan as identified under Government Code Section 65302(c). The City’s adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element for 2021-2029 was reviewed by the Department of Housing and Community Development on December 21st 2022, and is currently in compliance. MUNICIPAL SERVICES PROVIDED The City of La Verne’s (“La Verne” or “City”) provides a full range of municipal services within its jurisdictional boundary with some reliance on outside agencies, such as the County of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County Sanitation District No. 21, to provide contracted or direct service delivery. This section of the municipal service review focuses on La Verne’s specific service functions, including municipal services provided directly by the City, services provided via contract or franchise agreement, as well as services provided directly by special districts. 121 Figure 41 provides a summary of municipal services and associated service providers within La Verne. A detailed analysis of La Verne’s municipal services with respect to resources, capacities, demands, and performance measurements follows. Figure 41: La Verne Service Provider Matrix ANIMAL CONTROL The City of La Verne contracts with the Inland Valley Humane Society and SPCA (“IVHS”) for animal control services. The current agreement was entered into on July 1, 2021 and remains in effect through automatic two-year renewals. The current agreement established an annual not- 122 to-exceed contract amount of $260,000 from July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022. Effective July 1, 2022, the contract amount has increased based on the annual percentage increase to the CPI, not to exceed four percent annually. The contract is administered by the City of La Verne. As detailed in the existing contract, IVHS – on behalf of the City – has the authority to provide the following services: - Field response and enforcement - 24-hour field coverage - Shelter operations and adoption services - Rabies testing coordination - Owned-animal services (euthanasia, owner-relinquished animals, etc.) - Animal adoption microchips - Disaster response for displaced animals - Education related to responsible pet ownership and wildlife As detailed in the existing contract, Animal Control Officers are available 7:30am to 9:00pm Monday through Sunday and major holidays. In the event of an emergency, Animal Control Officers are available 24/7. The nearest animal shelter to the City is located at 500 Humane Way in Pomona, CA. Existing Demands and Capacity Based on data provided by the City, animal control service calls within the City of La Verne have averaged approximately 413 calls a year from 2021 to 2024. During the same time period, the City has experienced an overall increase of 151 calls or 38.3%. Both impound and roadkill pickup calls made up a considerable portion of the total number of service calls received from 2021 to 2024 and represented an average of 42.5% and 36.1% of all service calls, respectively. As of 123 November 2025, there were 419 calls for service received, which means that service demands have remained consistent. Figure 10: City of La Verne Animal Control Demands (FY 2020-21 to FY 2023-24) RSG received confirmation during the interview with City staff of their satisfaction with the current contractual relationship with IVHS for animal control services. There were no cited issues or concerns were brought to our attention. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The City’s Community Development Department oversees the physical development within La Verne and includes the Planning, Building and Safety, Housing, and Engineering Divisions. The Department is responsible for orderly development within the City through the efforts of its four divisions. The Department is staffed by a total of six (6) full time equivalent (FTE) and supplements its Building and Safety and Engineering Divisions through a contract with RKA Consulting Group (“RKA”). The Planning Division performs essential planning functions, including the ongoing review and processing of development plans, as well as advance planning for future development needs. In support of these functions, the City has a five-member Planning Commission, established pursuant to Government Code Section 65100, which serves in a decision-making capacity to oversee development within the community, carry out goals, policies, and objectives as set forth by the City Council, and to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. 124 The Building and Safety Division – through its contract with RKA Consulting Group – checks building plans, issues permits for construction work, and inspects structures to ensure code compliance. RKA Consulting Group has provided all City building and safety services since prior to 1990. According to City staff, the City intends to issue a Request for Proposals (“RFP”) for these services in the near future to achieve potential cost savings given the duration of the existing contract. COMMUNICATIONS Under franchise agreements with the City, Charter and Spectrum provide communications services within city limits. According to the City, the City leases antenna space at two City-owned parks, as well as hillside space. This includes a 15-year lease with NCWPCS MPL 27 – Year Sites Tower Holdings LLC for a ground lease at Pelota Park which commenced in May 1997. Monthly payments are subject to annual increases using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the Los Angeles-Long Beach Metropolitan Area with a maximum CPI increase of 5%.62 The City also participates in a Joint Use Agreement with the Bonita Unified School District for antenna space located at the La Verne Sports Park. The City noted reliability issues for cellular connectivity in the northern portion of City limits due to a lack of telecommunication facilities in the area; however, the City is exploring a potential agreement with various communications infrastructure providers, to enhance system reliability and coverage. ELECTRICITY Electricity service within the City of La Verne is provided by Southern California Edison (“SCE”), an investor-owned utility regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission.63 SCE is responsible for the operation, maintenance, and improvement of electrical transmission and distribution infrastructure serving the city. The City does not own or operate electric utility 62 Source: La Verne FY 2024-25 Audited Financial Statements 63 Source: Southern California Edison Website “Service Area” 125 infrastructure and is generally limited to coordination related to permitting and right-of-way access. However, the City owns the majority of the streetlights located within City limits and services them through a third party contractor. No major service deficiencies were identified based on available information. Publicly available information did not reveal any documented, widespread complaints or formal evaluations regarding customer satisfaction with electric service in the City. EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AND FIRE PROTECTION The City of La Verne’s Fire Department (“Department”) was originally formed as a volunteer-only department in 1911.64 The Department provides fire suppression, emergency medical services, ambulance transport, fire prevention, and community risk reduction services within City limits. The City also provides hazardous materials and technical rescue services, which are supplemented by the City’s mutual aid agreement with the Los Angeles County Consolidated Fire Protection District. As of 2025, the Department has a total of 53 full-time employees, including 38 sworn firefighters, 12 non-sworn emergency medical technicians, and 3 administrative positions. Staffing The current Fire Chief – Brandon Coatney – was selected to serve as Fire Chief in January 2026. As of 2025, the Department has a total of 53 full-time employees, including 38 sworn firefighters, 12 non-sworn emergency medical technicians, and 3 administrative positions. Fire and emergency medical technician personnel follow a 48/96 schedule in which staff work for 48 consecutive hours followed by 96 hours off before the next duty period begins. The Department’s Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chief, Fire Marshal, Community Risk Reduction Specialist, and Senior 64 City of La Verne website 126 Management Analyst work a conventional workweek. Figure 42 provides an overview of the Department’s staffing levels from 2021 to 2025. Figure 42: City of La Verne Fire Department Historical Staffing Facilities The Department operates from three fire stations located within City limits, including Station No. 1, Station No. 2, and Station No. 3. The City’s fire station details follow: • Station No. 1 is located at 2061 Third Street in La Verne, CA in the southern portion of City limits. The station is shared with the City of La Verne’s Police Department. In regard to Fire Department personnel, the station has a total of twelve daily staff, including fire and emergency medical personnel, administrative staff, in addition to the Department’s Community Risk Reduction position. The station is staffed on a 4-0 basis, in which four personnel are assigned to one engine company. The City indicated that the station is in need of upgraded gender capabilities at the station, in addition to improvements to the station’s air conditioning, fire sprinkler system, and fire defensibility space. • Station No. 2 is located at 4785 Wheeler Avenue in La Verne, CA in the central portion of City limits. The station has a total of six daily staff, which consists of entirely fire and emergency medical personnel. The station is staffed on a 4-0 basis, in which four personnel are assigned to one Truck/Quint. The City did not identify any deficiencies associated with Station No. 2. • Station No. 3 is located at 5100 Esperanza Drive in La Verne, CA in the northeast portion of City limits. The station has a total of three daily staff, which consists of entirely fire and emergency medical personnel. The station is staffed on a 3-0 basis, in which three 127 personnel are assigned to one engine company. The City did not identify any deficiencies associated with Station No. 3. In addition to the Department’s fire stations, the Department also staffs two ambulances on a 24- hour basis to provide ambulance transport services to residents within City limits. The Department also supplements these services with a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) with Falck Ambulance, which provides additional coverage during periods of increased demand. Existing Demands and Capacity Overall service demands for the La Verne Fire Department during 2021 to 2024 have averaged 4,046 dispatched calls annually or 11.1 calls daily. The Department experienced the highest call volume in 2024 which reflected a daily onsite response of 13.2 calls for service. Ambulance transport calls made up approximately 41.7% of all calls for service on average. Overall, the District’s total onsite responses increased between 2021 and 2024 from 954 to 2,137 reflecting an overall increase of 38.1%. Figure 43 below summarizes the Department’s service demands during 2021 – 2024. Figure 43: City of La Verne Fire Department Demands between 2021 and 2024 The City of La Verne maintains a reciprocal automatic agreement with the Los Angeles County Consolidated Fire Protection District (“CFPD”), in addition to all surrounding cities which are serviced by CFPD. However, according to the City, CFPD fire apparatus are not equipped with automatic vehicle location (“AVL”) systems, which may present challenges for coordination and the ability to implement a closest-unit response model on a regional level. A closest-unit response system dispatches fire and EMS units based on their ability to reach an incident location in the shortest time, regardless of jurisdictional boundaries. This approach typically relies on real-time 128 unit location information to support effective coordination and minimize response times. The City also maintains a mutual aid agreement with the United States Forest Service for fire responses in the mutual threat zone of the Angeles National Forest. Each year, the City is also required to maintain its properties in the urban wildfire interface zone to CFPD standards, including brush clearance and tree inspections.65 The City also has a contractor that performs annual brush clearance in the La Verne Hills Wilderness Park. Additionally, CFPD inspects and requires brush clearance of private properties in the severe fire zone each year in the spring. If hazardous fire conditions exist on a property at the time of inspection, the property owner is issued an Official Inspection Report that will indicate existing violations and provide specific clearing instructions and a compliance deadline. In 2024, the fee charged to property owners fee for these annual inspections was $151, which was billed on the 2025 property tax bill. The City does not have a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (“LHMP”), but is currently in the process of preparing a LHMP, which will identify hazards, assess associated risks, and establish strategies to reduce or eliminate future risk. The City received Federal Emergency Management Agency grant funding in order to prepare the LHMP. The City’s draft LHMP outlines several opportunities to mitigate wildfire risk within the community. These include increasing awareness of home hardening practices; monitoring and implementing Zone 0 regulations, which would require homeowners in high and very high fire hazard severity zones to clear all combustible materials within five feet of their homes; and conducting ongoing maintenance activities, such as managing fuel breaks and roadways in the northern portion of the City. Additional efforts include maintaining the City’s 22 fuel modification areas, implementing Fire Department capabilities such as urban search and rescue and swift water rescue teams, and updating the City’s Community Wildfire Preparedness Plan. 65 Source: City of La Verne website 129 Service Adequacy and Performance In terms of the La Verne Fire Department’s service performance, RSG considers the Insurance Services Office (“ISO”) rating as a key performance metric in our assessment of the Department’s service reliability, operational readiness, and alignment with nationally recognized fire protection standards. The ISO score is a measure of the capability of the fire department to protect the community and is rated on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the highest rating. ISO evaluates the fire department for apparatus and equipment, weight of response (number of firefighters arriving on scene), training, water supply and distribution, emergency communications systems, and fire prevention/community risk reduction efforts. The La Verne Fire Department’s most recent evaluation of structural fire protection capabilities from the Insurance Services Office (“ISO”) was completed in 2024 and resulted in a Class 3 rating. According to the City of La Verne, the City’s water system is capable of supporting extended fire suppression operations, with the ability to sustain fire flows for approximately 56 hours. The City’s system includes approximately 1,397 fire hydrants throughout City limits and maintains a minimum system pressure of 20 pounds per square inch (“psi”). Typical fire flow capacity is approximately 5,051 gallons per minute (“gpm”). According to the City’s 2020 Water Master Plan, there are a total of 10 fire hydrants within the City that require pipeline improvements in order to achieve minimum fire flow requirements in incidents where two or three adjacent hydrants are flowing simultaneously. In addition to considering the ISO rating, RSG also relies on the Department’s response times. Response times are a critical indicator of service performance as they directly measure how quickly fire personnel and equipment can arrive on scene to mitigate emergencies. Shorter response times improve the likelihood of containing fires before they spread, reducing property loss, and increasing survival rates for medical incidents. Conversely, extended response times may indicate staffing, resource, or geographic constraints that may limit a District’s ability to delivery effective services. Figure 44 provides an overview of the Fire Department’s response times, which reflect the time from call receipt to arrival on-scene. 130 Figure 44: City of La Verne Fire Department’s Average Response Times Based on data provided by the City of La Verne, the Department’s average response time for fire- related service calls was 6 minutes and 44 seconds. Emergency medical service calls averaged 5 minutes exactly, while other calls for service averaged 5 minutes and 46 seconds. Responses times across all categories decreased from 2021 to 2024, suggesting that the La Verne Fire Department has made measurable progress towards ensuring efficient service delivery for residents located within City limits. With respect to the Fire Department’s capacity to meet existing and future demands, the City appears sufficiently sized to readily accommodate the existing demands within the City of La Verne’s jurisdictional boundary through the timeframe of this report. While the Department has seen a gradual increase in service demands, the Department has successfully increased full-time staffing and lowered Department response times. LAW ENFORCEMENT The City of La Verne provides in-house law enforcement services through the City’s Police Department. In addition to standard law enforcement services, the Department provides a number of specialized units and functions, including a dedicated K9 Unit, drone program, homeless outreach team, proactive community policing initiatives, and public safety dispatching services. As of 2025, the Department has a total staff of 59 full-time employees, including 39 sworn officers and 20 full-time civilian personnel. In FY 2024-25, the Police Department’s expenditures amounted to $14.1 million. 131 Staffing & Facilities The current Police Chief – Samuel Gonzalez – was selected to serve as Police Chief in March 2024. As of 2025, the Department operates with a total of 69 employees, including 39 full-time sworn officers, 2 part-time officers, 20 full-time civilian personnel, and 8 part-time civilian personnel. Fully sworn officers work 12-hour shifts, while full-time civilian personnel work 10-hour shifts. All sworn officers are trained in standard Peace Officer Standards and Training (“POST”) and required to fulfill 24 hours of continuing education. The City’s Police Department is organized into several specialized divisions and bureaus, including the Patrol Division, Detectives Bureau, Traffic Division, Reserve Forces Bureau, Records Division, and Communications Division. The Patrol Division is the largest unit within the Department, comprising of the Department’s sworn officers who respond to a variety of incidents, such as traffic collisions, disturbances, domestic violence incidents, crime reports, and suspicious persons and vehicles. The Department’s Detectives Bureau investigate and solve a wide range of serious crimes, while the Department’s Traffic Division focuses on enforcing traffic laws, responding to incidents, and managing traffic-related events. Lastly, the Department’s Reserve Forces Bureau offers dedicated individuals the opportunity to serve as volunteer part-time police officers. Figure 45 provides an overview of the Department’s staffing levels from 2021 to 2025. Figure 45: City of La Verne Police Department Historical Staffing The City’s current staffing levels for fully sworn officers equates to approximately 1.21 officers per 1,000 residents. This reflects a downward trend of 3.0% since 2021, consistent with regional law enforcement trends, where local agencies have faced ongoing recruitment challenges. Reserve/part-time officers also decreased from 5 to 2 personnel, representing a 60.0% decrease. 132 Civilian personnel have steadily increased since FY 2020-21 for both full-time and part-time personnel, representing approximately a 11.1% and 300.0% increase, respectively. It should also be noted that the Department currently has several vacant positions that are expected to be filled in the near future, including 3 full-time sworn officers, 1 full-time Community Engagement Officer, 1 full-time Communications Officer, 1 part-time Communications Officer, and 1 part-time cadet. The Department operates from the City of La Verne’s police station located within the southern portion of City limits at 2061 3rd Street, La Verne, CA. The station is shared with the City of La Verne’s Fire Department, in addition to the Police Department’s dispatch operations. According to the City, the current station was built in the 1980’s and is undersized for the Department’s current staffing and equipment configuration. While the station is currently undergoing renovations for the Fire Department, the City noted an interest in exploring the replacement of this station due to the age and size of the existing facility. City staff indicated that the City is currently exploring a Joint Powers Agreement model for regional dispatch services with the cities of Covina, Azusa, and Irwindale. As of the date of this report, the status of the potential JPA remains unclear, particularly with respect to implementation timeline, governance structure, and agency responsibilities. RSG recommends the City continue to evaluate regional coordination opportunities for dispatch services and provide periodic public updates regarding the status of the potential JPA as additional information becomes available. Existing Demands and Capacity To evaluate existing service demands, RSG analyzed the Department’s historical and current call volume. For the purposes of analysis, the Department’s call volume was categorized into three response types: emergency, priority, and routine. Emergency responses involve life‑threatening incidents or situations requiring immediate police action. Priority responses encompass urgent incidents that are not immediately life‑threatening but require timely attention. Routine responses consist of non‑urgent calls for service or scheduled Department responses. Overall service demands for the La Verne Police Department during 2021 to 2024 have averaged 17,548 dispatched calls annually or 48.1 calls daily. The Department experienced the highest call 133 volume in 2024 which reflected a daily onsite response of 51.4 calls for service. Routine responses make up the vast majority (71.5%) of calls for service on average. Overall, the Department’s total onsite responses increased from 15,972 in 2021 to 18,769 in 2024, reflecting an overall increase of 17.5%. This represents approximately 481.3 onsite responses per fully- sworn officer on an annual basis. Figure 46 below summarizes the Department’s service demands during 2021 – 2024. Figure 46: City of La Verne Police Department Demands between 2021 and 2024 The Department actively participates in several regional enforcement and investigative teams, including the Foothill Special Enforcement Team (“FSET”), Los Angeles Interagency Metropolitan Police Apprehension Crime Task Force (“LA IMPACT”), Task Force for Regional Auto Theft (“TRAP”), and the Multidisciplinary Accident Investigation Team (“MAIT”). Through this participation, the Department significantly expands its operational capabilities beyond its core staffing levels. These partnerships provide access to specialized resources, advanced training, and collaborative expertise, effectively serving as a force multiplier during both planned events and critical incidents. This regional integration enhances the Department’s ability to respond to complex or large-scale situations while maintaining service levels within the City, consistent with findings that such participation does not create staffing constraints and supports ongoing personnel development. In addition to the Department’s existing call volume, the Department anticipates establishing a Homeless Outreach and Problem-Oriented Policing Team by reassigning three existing officers to provide seven-day coverage within City limits. The City has already strengthened staffing levels with the addition of a full-time Detective Lieutenant and three sworn officers. Moving forward, the City anticipates further staffing enhancements, including one full-time Administrative Sergeant, 134 one full-time Detective, one additional Sworn Officer, one Communications Supervisor, one Communications Officer, and one full-time Records Clerk. Service Adequacy and Performance With respect to the City of La Verne Police Department’s service performance, RSG relies on the Department’s response times as a measure of operational capacity. Response times are a critical indicator of service performance as they directly measure how quickly personnel can arrive on scene to mitigate emergencies. Figure 47 provides an overview of the Police Department’s response times. Figure 47: City of La Verne Police Department Response Times between 2021 and 2024 Response times across all call categories have increased from 2021 to 2024. Routine responses experienced the greatest increase (29.5%), followed by emergency responses (12.8%), and priority responses (8.4%). These trends suggest potentially growing operational pressures on the Police Department, specifically in responding to routine calls for service. This suggests that staffing levels and available patrol units may be increasingly strained by existing call volume and non‑emergency service demands. While emergency and priority response times have increased to a lesser extent, continued upward trends may affect public safety outcomes. However, as noted previously, the Department anticipates increasing law enforcement staffing in the near future, which should improve response times and alleviate current operational pressures. RSG also analyzes the Department’s response times against its established response time standards to determine operational sufficiency. However, the Department has not formally adopted response time standards. RSG recommends the City adopt response time standards and 135 make them publicly available for law enforcement responses within La Verne to keep residents informed of service expectations. With respect to the Police Department’s capacity to meet existing and future service demands, the City of La Verne appears able to accommodate current and anticipated needs within its jurisdictional boundary, given the Department’s planned staffing increases. However, as noted previously, increasing response times indicate growing operational pressures on the Department. The City of La Verne should continue to monitor response time trends, staffing levels, and call volumes to ensure that public safety services remain adequate to community needs over time. MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL Mosquito and vector control services within the City of La Verne are provided by the San Gabriel Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District, an independent special district serving communities throughout the San Gabriel Valley. 66 The District conducts ongoing vector surveillance, prevention, and control activities, including monitoring and treatment for mosquitoes and other vectors of public health concern. Routine services include inspection and treatment of potential breeding sources, public education, and proactive vector management. The District also responds to service requests related to mosquito activity, neglected pools, and other vector- related issues. Vector control services are funded through property tax revenues and benefit assessments levied on parcels within the District’s service area. The City does not directly fund or operate mosquito and vector control services. No major service deficiencies were identified based on available information. Publicly available information did not reveal any documented, widespread complaints or formal evaluations regarding customer satisfaction with electric service provision. 66 Source: San Gabriel Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District Website “About Us” 136 NATURAL GAS Natural gas service within the City of La Verne is provided by Southern California Gas Company, an investor-owned utility regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission. 67 SoCal Gas delivers natural gas service throughout Southern California, serving millions of customers across the region. Local utility listings for the City confirm that Southern California Gas Company provides natural gas service to the La Verne area. SoCal Gas is responsible for the operation, maintenance, and improvement of the natural gas transmission and distribution infrastructure serving the city. The City does not own or operate natural gas utility infrastructure and is generally limited to coordination related to permitting and right-of-way access. No major service deficiencies were identified based on available information. Publicly available information did not reveal any documented, widespread complaints or formal evaluations regarding customer satisfaction with natural gas service in the City. PARKS AND RECREATION The City of La Verne’s Park and Recreation Department provides oversight to a wide range of recreational programs for children, senior citizens and adults within the La Verne community. The Department manages the La Verne Community Center and other recreation facilities, in which a wide selection of special events, rentals, and programs are conducted. The Parks and Recreation Director also oversees several social services programs, including initiatives that assist unhoused populations and those in need of mental health assistance. Additionally, the City of La Verne’s Parks and Recreation Department is responsible for providing maintenance to City-owned landscape areas, including parks, street medians, and City-owned building sites. In FY 2024-25, the Park Maintenance Division operated with a budget of $1.8 million. 67 Source: SoCalGas Website “List of Cities Served” 137 The Division currently maintains 21 developed parks in the City, amounting to 126.5 acres of parkland in the City or 3.9 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The City recently updated its Parks and Recreation Master Plan, which includes an inventory of all City-owned parks, a financial strategy plan for necessary improvements, prioritization of proposed recommendations, and extensive community and stakeholder engagement.68 Figure 48 presents a list of City-owned parks and associated amenities. Figure 48: City of La Verne Park Inventory 68 Source: City of La Verne Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update website 138 The City recently completed improvements to the Oak Mesa Park, which included the replacement of the park’s playground equipment. According to the City, additional park infrastructure upgrades will be identified in the City’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan update. To evaluate the adequacy of existing parkland within City limits, RSG refers to parkland standards established by professional organizations, in addition to regional planning studies. The National Recreation and Parks Association (“NRPA”), a non-profit organization dedicated to building strong communities through parks and recreation, identified a nationwide average of 10.2 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents in its 2025 Agency Performance Review. However, the NRPA does not provide a set of standards that every individual park and recreation agency should measure itself against due to the unique needs, desires, and challenges of different agencies. By comparison, the 2016 Los Angeles County Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment identified an average of 3.3 acres of local and regional recreation park space for every 1,000 persons in the County, indicating that parkland in Los Angeles is significantly less than the nationwide average identified by the NRPA. The City of La Verne’s Resource Management Element, adopted in 1989, identified a 4.0-acre per 1,000 persons minimum standard, which the City has nearly met. In addition to the parks maintained and operated by the City of La Verne, the City also operates and maintains the La Verne Aquatic Center, La Verne Community Center, Veterans Hall, and the Oak Mesa Recreation Facility. The City has a joint-use agreement with the Bonita Unified School District for use of the La Verne Aquatic Center. The City is also a member of the San Dimas La Verne Recreational Facilities Authority, which is a Joint Powers Agreement formed between the cities of La Verne and San Dimas and serves as the governing body for the San Dimas Canyon Golf Course (“Golf Course”). The entirety of the Golf Course is owned by the City of San Dimas and leased to a private operator (American Golf). The vast majority of the Golf Course lies within the City of San Dimas’ city limits, while a small portion lies within La Verne’s city limits. 139 While the City does not currently maintain any recreational trails, the City identified opportunities to collaborate with the cities of Claremont and San Dimas, as well as Los Angeles County, on nearby trail enhancements. The City has noted that differing property ownership north of City limits has contributed to inconsistencies in recreational trail maintenance, which could be addressed through coordinated regional efforts. SOLID WASTE (REFUSE) COLLECTION Solid waste collection and disposal services within the City of La Verne are provided through a franchise agreement with Waste Management, Inc., which serves as the City’s contracted service provider for residential, commercial, and industrial customers. Under this arrangement, Waste Management is responsible for refuse pick-up, green waste collection, recycling, and organics. The current solid waste system provides citywide service and has not identified any significant service gaps or capacity constraints. The franchise model allows the City to rely on the operational capacity of a private provider, which can adjust staffing, equipment, and service levels in response to changing demand. Future service needs are expected to remain relatively stable, with incremental increases associated with population growth and redevelopment, as well as evolving regulatory requirements such as State-mandated organics diversion. Based on the available information reviewed, the City’s solid waste system appears adequate to meet current and future service demands. POTABLE WATER The City of La Verne provides potable water service through its Public Works Department, which operates and maintains the City’s municipal water system. The City supplements its local groundwater well supply with imported water from the Three Valleys Municipal Water District (“TVMWD”), which is a member agency of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, a regional wholesale water provider. The existing system serves approximately 8,615 total connections and includes water supply, treatment, storage, and distribution infrastructure. The water utility operates as an enterprise fund 140 and is supported by user fees designed to fund operations, maintenance, and capital improvements. The City complies with the water quality guidelines established by the State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water (“DDW”). Infrastructure, Equipment & Facilities The City maintains approximately 157 miles of active water pipelines, along with storage tanks, pump stations, and associated facilities necessary to deliver potable water throughout the service area. The City’s water supply is derived from a combination of water stored in local groundwater basins and treated water purchased from the TVMWD, which is delivered to the City through interties with the Miramar Water and Hydroelectric Facility. 69 The Miramar Water and Hydroelectric Facility is located at the intersection of Miramar Avenue and Padua Avenue in Claremont, CA and is a jointly owned facility by the City of La Verne, the Three Valleys Municipal Water District, and the Golden State Water Company.70 According to the City’s 2020 Water Master Plan, approximately 77% of all potable water used by City is imported water, while the remaining 23% is produced from local groundwater basins. The distribution system includes 132 miles of transmission and distribution mains, 11 water reservoirs, and associated system infrastructure. Public Works staff are responsible for operating and maintaining the system, including performing routine maintenance, repairing leaks, maintaining fire hydrants, and ensuring compliance with drinking water regulations. The system also has two emergency interconnections with the Pomona-Walnut-Rowland Joint Facility, in addition to the Golden State Water Company, for emergency water supply incidents. The City’s three local basins include the Live Oak Basin, Pomona Basin and Ganesha Basin. The Live Oak and Ganesha Basins are for the sole benefit of the City and do not have an established operating safe yield (“OSY”), which refers to the amount of groundwater that can be extracted from a groundwater basin on an annual basis without causing adverse impacts to a neighboring basin or producer. On the other hand, the City has the rights to 7.601% of the OSY to the Pomona 69 Source: City of La Verne 2020 Water Master Plan 70 Source: Three Valley Municipal Water District website 141 Basin.71 The City did not identify any current capacity limitations with its existing local groundwater basins. Groundwater is pumped from the City’s three local groundwater basins via eight groundwater wells. On February 5, 2018, the City entered into an agreement with Puente Basin Water Agency to lease the physical asset of one of the City’s wells that was de-commissioned in the 1990s, referred to as the Old Baldy Well, located at the corner of Fifth and C Street in the City of La Verne. Bi-annual payments commenced in July 2018 in the amount of $50,000 which are subject to annual increases using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the Los Angeles-Long Beach Metropolitan Area provided that the minimum adjustment shall not be less than 3% the maximum not more than 6%. Rates Water operations are funded through user service charges consisting of fixed base fees and volumetric consumption charges based on metered water use. The base fee varies by meter size, while consumption charges are structured using a tiered rate system designed to promote water conservation and reflect the higher cost of supplying water at higher usage levels. The City formed the Ad Hoc Water and Sewer Study Committee in September 2024. The Committee worked with staff and a rate consultant to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of cash flow, operating performance, capital infrastructure requirements, and long-term financial sustainability, which informed a Proposition 218 rate process to evaluate appropriate utility rate adjustments.72 La Verne’s water rates were recently adopted by the Council on November 3, 2025, following completion of the City’s 2025 Water and Sewer Rate Study. The study was intended to address inflationary pressures, increased wholesale water costs, aging infrastructure, and new 71 Source: City of La Verne 2020 Water Master Plan 72 Source: City of La Verne Adopted Budget FY 2025-26 142 regulatory requirements that had exceeded previous rate revenues.73 The resolution established a five-year rate schedule beginning January 1, 2026 through July 1, 2029. Despite these rate adjustments, the City’s FY 2025-26 Adopted Budget indicates that the City’s Water Fund is currently experiencing a structural imbalance, as operating expenditures are exceeding revenues generated through user fees. To further address this structural imbalance, the City established an interdepartmental loan from the City’s Sewer Fund amounting to $4.0 million beginning in FY 2026-27, noting that it is necessary to maintain effective water operations.74 The loan will ensure that ongoing expenditures within the fund can be sustained until the anticipated rate-generated revenues come into effect. The City’s adopted rate plan represents a proactive effort to improve the financial condition of the water enterprise fund and ensure sufficient revenue to support ongoing operations, debt obligations, and capital maintenance. However, long-term financial sustainability will depend on the City’s ability to continue implementing capital and financial planning strategies. Based on available information, the City has taken appropriate steps to address its water system financial needs, although funding constraints remain and will require ongoing management. Existing Demands and Capacity Annual water production varies based on hydrologic conditions and conservation measures. From 2021 to 2024, the City experienced a 26.0% decrease in total annual water demands. According to the City, this decrease is primarily attributable to above-average rainfall beginning in 2023, which reduced outdoor irrigation needs. The City’s existing water system provides services to both customers within City limits, in addition to surrounding unincorporated areas located both within and outside of the City’s existing sphere of influence. The City serves approximately 368 parcels located outside of City limits, in which 305 water connections are within the City’s existing sphere of influence. The City also has approximately 22 water connections with parcels located outside of its sphere of influence that 73 Source: La Verne City Council Agenda Report dated November 3, 2025 74 Source: La Verne City Council Agenda Report dated November 3, 2025 143 are within Claremont’s SOI, 1 water connection with a parcel located within Claremont city limits, and 1 water connection with a parcel located within San Dimas’ SOI. A map of these parcels can be found in Appendix A. Of the 368 parcels served by the City, 352 received water service prior to January 1, 2001. In 2016, LAFCO determined these connections to be exempt from California Government Code Section 56133, which requires LAFCO approval for the extension of services outside an agency’s jurisdiction when initiated on or after January 1, 2001. The remaining 16 parcels were subsequently authorized through out-of-agency service agreements approved by LAFCO via Resolution No. 2020-04. Figure 49 provides an overview of historical water usage within the La Verne’s service area. Figure 49: La Verne Potable Water Usage Based on RSG’s analysis, the water system currently provides adequate capacity to serve existing customers. The City maintains a diversified water supply portfolio consisting of both local groundwater and imported supplies, which supports its ability to meet existing demands under normal operating conditions. In regard to the capacity of the City’s existing water storage, the 2020 Water Master Plan indicated that the existing water system maintains a system-wide surplus under existing conditions, which includes operational storage, fire flow storage and emergency storage. The principal functions of water storage include stabilizing extreme water demand fluctuations, provide adequate water for firefighting, and being able to meet water demands during an emergency incident. However, as noted in the fire and emergency medical protections services service section, there are a total of 10 fire hydrants within the City that require pipeline improvements in order to achieve minimum fire flow requirements in incidents where two or three adjacent hydrants are flowing simultaneously. 144 Future Demands and Capacity In 2020, the City prepared an Urban Water Master Plan (“UWMP”) in accordance with Water Code Section 10610 et. seq., which requires that water suppliers providing water to 3,000 or more customers or more than 3,000 acre-feet of water per year update and adopt an Urban Water Management Plan every five years. These plans assist water suppliers in assessing long-term water supply reliability and planning for future water demands under various geologic conditions. The City’s 2020 UWMP projects that the annual projected water demands for the City’s water service area will reach 7,485 acre-feet by the year 2040, representing an 83.4% increase from the City’s reported 2024 water demand of 4,082 acre-feet. In order to prepare for future build out conditions, the City’s Water Master Plan also identifies a 5-year and 10-year proposed capital improvement plan in order to maintain the existing water system. In regard to recommended 5- year capital improvements, the WMP identified several projects totaling $12.3 million in 2025 dollars, as shown in Figure 50 below. These improvements include transmission and distribution pipeline upgrades to improve fire flow and system capacity, installation of pressure-reducing valves, pump station capacity improvements, construction of a chlorine trim station to address water quality, and backup power infrastructure to maintain operations during emergency incidents. 145 Figure 50: City of La Verne Water Capital Improvement Projects 146 According to the City’s FY 2025-26 Operating Budget, the City’s current capital improvements include installing the recommended pressure reducing valve along Ramona Ave, in addition to general water system rehabilitation. However, at this time, it is unclear whether the City has taken steps to address other high priority capital improvement projects identified in the 2020 WMP. The City anticipates that the City’s recent water rate updates are expected to be sufficient to fund future capital improvements out of the City’s enterprise Water Fund; however, it is recommended the City identify a timeline for the high priority improvements identified in the 2020 WMP to ensure adequate service levels are maintained and future growth can be accommodated. STORMWATER DRAINAGE The City’s Public Works Department provides stormwater drainage services within City limits. The City’s drainage system is designed to prevent flooding by transporting excess rainwater from City streets into various water bodies. The City also works in partnership the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, which operates and maintains regional flood control facilities throughout Los Angeles County. The City administers stormwater pollution prevention and regulatory compliance programs to prevent stormwater pollution from occurring. The City tracks the implementation of stormwater compliance through an annual reporting process, which is collected throughout the year and reported to the Los Angeles Regional Quality Control Board each December. The City also receives a portion of parcel taxes collected from Measure W, also known as the Safe Clean Water Program, which funds stormwater initiatives at the regional and local level to fund multi-benefit stormwater capture, water quality, and watershed improvement projects. In FY 2024-25, the City received approximately $761,417 in the City’s Measure W Special Revenue Fund. In FY 2023-24, the City received notice of an award allocation from the Safe Clean Water Program to capture stormwater runoff and provide treatment and groundwater recharge at Pelota Park located at 1505 Holly Oak Street in La Verne, CA. The project will capture nearby stormwater 147 runoff from a nearby drainage area, along dry weather flows from the Marshall Canyon Channel, and is expected to be complete by mid-2027. STREET/ROADS MAINTENANCE The City of La Verne is responsible for providing roadway and street maintenance services within its jurisdictional boundary. This includes general maintenance of La Verne’s streets, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, traffic signs, and signals. There are 6.5 full-time equivalent employees that are responsible for street maintenance, including operations, engineering, and management. This count has remained relatively consistent since 2021. Infrastructure, Equipment & Facilities The City of La Verne has various equipment to perform its road maintenance duties. This includes three dump trucks, three loader vehicles, six utility trucks, and ten trailer vehicles. The City’s road maintenance equipment and vehicles are stored at the City’s corporation yard located at 2620 1st Street in La Verne, CA. The City indicated a need for an emulsion sprayer to support its road maintenance activities. This equipment would allow the City to perform preventative pavement treatments, which would reduce the need to rely solely on reactive pothole repairs. Existing Demands and Capacity Pavement conditions within the City are evaluated using the Pavement Condition Index (“PCI”), a standardized rating system that scores roadway surfaces on a scale from 0 to 100, with higher values indicating better pavement condition. According to the 2023-2028 City’s Pavement Management Plan (“PMP”), the weighted average PCI for the City of La Verne’s arterial and local network is 80.6, which falls within the “Good” range. The City of La Verne’s arterial/collector network had a weighted average PCI of 76.4, while the City’s local network had a weighted average PCI of 83.3, both of which fall within the “Good” range. 148 Approximately 30%, or 23.3 section miles, of the City’s pavement sections were identified at a condition level of “Fair to Poor”, indicating that a proactive rehabilitation program needs to be implemented. Additionally, the PMP identified $16.6 million in deferred maintenance costs, which refers to pavement maintenance that is needed across the entire network, but cannot be performed due to the lack of available funding. Overall, these values indicate that the City’s roadway network is experiencing moderate pavement deterioration and that a portion of the system requires increased maintenance or rehabilitation to prevent further decline. WASTEWATER The City of La Verne is authorized to provide wastewater collection services within its jurisdictional boundary. The City owns and maintains its wastewater collection system, which is managed by the City’s Public Works Department. The City does not provide wastewater treatment services; instead, La Verne is a member of the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (“LACSD”), No. 21 and No. 22, which are responsible for regional wastewater conveyance and treatment. Wastewater collected within City limits is treated at the Pomona Water Reclamation Plant, located at 295 Humane Way, Pomona, CA 91766. Infrastructure, Equipment, & Facilities The City’s original sewer system was constructed in 1924 and is generally still in operation today in the area bounded by Wheeler Avenue and I Street, and Seventh Street and Walnut Avenue. However, a wide variety of improvements have been made since the initial system construction as development progressed away from the City center into the foothills and southern portion of the La Verne community.75 The wastewater collection system consists of approximately 100 miles of sewer pipelines ranging from 5-inch diameter to 16-inch in diameter. The majority of the City’s gravity wastewater system consists of vitrified clay pipe (VCP) material, with nearly 83.4% of the wastewater system being 75 Source: City of La Verne Wastewater Master Plan 2022 149 comprised of 8-inch VCP and 10 and 12-inch VCP pipe accounting for an additional 8.5% of the piping network. 76 The City also owns and maintains two lift stations, in addition approximately 2,129 manholes that grant access to La Verne’s wastewater system. Figure 51 below details La Verne’s wastewater collection infrastructure. Figure 51: City of La Verne Wastewater Infrastructure The City of La Verne currently maintains its wastewater system through a number of preventative maintenance measures, including the removal of debris and other such materials from the wastewater collection system, hydro-jetting wastewater mains, removing roots within the mains, performing video inspections, and other preventative maintenance measures. The City attempts to conduct such maintenance on each pipe segment at least once every two years; however, identified areas that are subject to high amounts, of fats, oil, and grease receive maintenance on an as-needed basis, usually every three to six months.77 Rates La Verne’s wastewater rates were last adopted by the Council on November 3, 2025, following completion of the City’s 2025 Water and Sewer Rate Study. The resolution established a five- year rate schedule beginning January 1, 2026 through July 1, 2029. As of January 1, 2026, the 76 Source: City of La Verne Wastewater Master Plan 2022 77 Source: City of La Verne Wastewater Master Plan 2022 150 City charges a fixed bi-monthly rate of $23.43 for all customers and a volumetric rate for non- residential customers at $0.20 per kilogallon (“kgal”) based on water meter connection readings. By July 1, 2029, the fixed bi-monthly rate will increase gradually to $46.58, while the volumetric rate will increase to $0.53. Based on information provided from the City, the current rates remain in effect as adopted, and no subsequent rate study has been completed to date. However, the City Council directed staff to begin a new rate study in late 2026 or early 2027.78 RSG further confirms the existing rates are sufficient in terms of aligning with associated costs for wastewater service delivery. Existing Demands and Capacity The City completed a Wastewater Master Plan (“WWMP”) in 2022, which identifies the City’s wastewater infrastructure, discusses operational system issues, and recommends improvements to provide adequate hydraulic capacity and improve collection system reliability. The WWMP also contains an estimate of dry weather wastewater system loads for each of the City’s five separate drainage basins, which cover roughly 88% of the City’s total square mileage. Under dry weather conditions, it is estimated that the City’s five drainage areas generate approximately 2,535 gallons per minute (“gpm”) or 3.65 million gallons per day (“mgd”). The City also maintains several agreements with neighboring cities and the County of Los Angeles to convey wastewater, which is ultimately discharged into the County Sanitation Districts Nos. 21 and 22’s sewer lines for wastewater treatment. Wastewater flows from areas outside the City of La Verne include approximately 451 residential parcels that discharge into the La Verne wastewater system. These include the following agreements: • City of Pomona: In 1957, Resolution No. 57-16 was adopted by the La Verne City Council, which authorized an agreement between the cities of La Verne, Pomona, and Claremont regarding the joint use of certain wastewater lines owned by each agency. For La Verne, these shared wastewater lines are located along the City’s southern boundary near Arrow 78 Source: City of La Verne website 151 Highway, generally between White Avenue and Fulton Road. The agreement allows the City of Pomona to connect to La Verne’s system near 1510 White Avenue and discharge wastewater from 47 single-family residences and a recreational vehicle park, known as the Fairplex RV Park, located south of Arrow Highway and west of Fair Road into La Verne manhole No. R-18102. • City of San Dimas: In September 2025, LAFCO approved an out-of-agency agreement, via Resolution 2025-05, between the cities of Claremont and San Dimas to collect wastewater from a public restroom facility at the San Dimas Canyon Golf Course. The out-of-agency agreement approved construction of a 4” sewer lateral from the existing restroom and connection to an existing 8” sewer mainline owned by the City of La Verne in San Dimas Canyon Road that is approximately 75 feet away from the restroom facility. • County of Los Angeles: The County of Los Angeles also maintains several agreements with the City of La Verne for wastewater services. This includes an agreement established in February 1986 for an area referred to as the Summit Road Zone, which includes the area bounded by Summit Road on the north, Williams Avenue on the east, Baseline Road on the south, and the extension of Dawn Avenue on the west. This area consists of approximately 77 acres and includes approximately 58 developed and undeveloped residential properties, in addition to the Haynes Family of Programs school site, formerly the Leroys Boys Home. The County’s lines discharge into the La Verne system in Baseline Road at La Verne manholes R-26104 and Q-26106. The County pays the City an annual fee of $15.26 per connected unit. The City and County also have an agreement dated April 1989 for an area referred to as the Brassie Lane Zone, which includes approximately 42.7 acres consisting of 20 large residential properties along Brassie Lane and Clayton Court. The County pays the City an annual fee of $15.26 per connected unit. In 2012, a new wastewater line, referred to as the Marshall Canyon extension, was extended along Stephens Ranch Road from Vista del Sol to Camps Afflerbaugh and Paige 152 by the Los Angeles County Parks and Probation departments. The wastewater line also provides service to a Los Angeles County fire camp, recreation staging area, and portions of the Marshall Canyon Golf Course, all of which are located within unincorporated county area. The service area consists of approximately 80 acres. According to the City’s WWMP, the City’s pipelines have the sufficient capacity to accommodate the City’s existing dry weather wastewater flows, with the exception of the City’s Drainage Area 1, which exhibit flow depths greater than 50% under a steady state simulation model. Drainage Area 1 consists of approximately 2.84 square miles and includes nearly the entire western third of City limits. Since historical data was not available beyond what is reported in the WWMP, RSG cannot conclusively determine whether the City is currently operating within its maximum design capacity. Additional operational data would be needed to confirm long-term wastewater capacity. Future Demands and Capacity In addition to current wastewater system loads, the WWMP also projects wastewater system loads under ultimate population and housing estimates as identified by the City’s 2040 General Plan. The 2040 General Plan anticipates a population of approximately 37,430 and a total of 13,062 dwelling units by 2040. Based on these figures, it is estimated that the City’s five drainage areas will generate approximately 3,078 gallons per minute (“gpm”) or 4.43 million gallons per day (“mgd”), representing an increase of approximately 21.4% compared to existing conditions. According to the WWMP, the City’s pipelines have the sufficient capacity to accommodate these projected dry weather wastewater flows, with the exception of the City’s Drainage Area 1 and 4, which exhibit flow depths greater than 50% under a steady state simulation model. Mentioned previously, Drainage Area 1 consists of approximately 2.84 square miles and includes nearly the entire western third of City limits. Drainage Area 4 consists of approximately 3.01 square miles and includes a large portion of the central La Verne community. In order to maintain an adequate wastewater system through the year 2040, the 2022 WWMP identifies a list of capital improvement projects for the City’s wastewater system and assigns 153 priority levels for each, as detailed in Figure 52 below. This includes several pipelines where flow depth capacity under dry weather conditions is above the allowable design criteria requirement for 8-inch pipelines, suggesting that improvements are necessary in order to accommodate future population growth through the year 2040. The segments located along Wheeler Avenue and Golden Hills Road are particularly critical as they carry wastewater flow from the City’s most northern portions to the Los Angeles County Sanitation District pipelines located on Baseline Road. The WWMP also identifies a number of manholes and wastewater mains that are approaching their life expectancy and recommends a routine inspection schedule be established to evaluate and identify priority manholes and wastewater mains for rehabilitation or replacement. 154 Figure 52: City of La Verne Wastewater CIPs According to City staff, the City’s near-term improvements are limited to routine sewer lining and potential manhole replacements, with no additional capacity-related projects currently planned to address the flow depth capacity issues raised in the City’s Wastewater Master Plan 2022. However, City staff confirmed that the City’s recent sewer rate updates are expected to be sufficient to fund future capital improvements out of the City’s enterprise Sewer Fund. Given the identified capacity deficiencies identified in the 2022 WWMP, it is recommended the City identify a timeline for capacity-related improvements to ensure adequate service levels are maintained and future growth can be accommodated. 155 UTILITIES Utilities are provided by third parties under franchise agreements with the City. This includes Southern California Edison (electricity) and Southern California Gas Company (natural gas), both of which supply utilities to a large portion of Los Angeles County. Publicly available information did not reveal any documented, widespread complaints or formal evaluations regarding customer satisfaction with Southern California Edison and Southern California Gas Company in La Verne. RSG had limited access to community satisfaction data, and the degree to which residents are satisfied with or concerned about the existing franchise agreements remains uncertain. FISCAL HEALTH The sections that follow evaluate the City of La Verne (“La Verne” or “City”) fiscal health, inclusive of revenue sources and major expenditure categories during the from FY 2020-21 through FY 2024-25. ANNUAL AUDIT FINDINGS The City of La Verne (“La Verne” or “City”) previously contracted with an outside accounting firm –Badawi & Associates- to prepare an annual report to review and assess the City’s financial statements in accordance with established governmental accounting standards. This includes auditing the City’s statements with respect to verifying the overall assets, liabilities, and net position. The most recent annual financial audit for FY 2024-25 did not identify any areas of concerns regarding the City’s financial reporting and further attested the City’s reporting methods accurately capture the City’s net position and are done so in accordance with U.S Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”). 156 GOVERNMENT-WIDE GENERAL REVENUES Government-wide general revenues refer to revenues collected to fund costs associated with the City’s governmental activities, such as property taxes, sales and use taxes, franchise fees, property tax in-lieu of motor vehicle license fees, and interest earnings. These revenues do not include program-specific revenues such as charges for services, operating grants and contributions, and capital grants and contributions. These revenues provide a basis for evaluating historical revenue trends, in addition to projecting the City’s fiscal capacity to sustain governmental services into the foreseeable future. Between FY 2020-21 and FY 2024-25, the City of La Verne’s government-wide general revenues averaged approximately $40.9 million annually. Over this period, total revenues increased from $33.1 million in FY 2020-21 to $45.2 million in FY 2024-25, representing an overall 36.5% increase. This upward trend indicates that the City’s general revenue base has expanded over the review period, supporting the City’s continued ability to fund essential governmental services. The following sections describe the major revenue categories that comprise La Verne’s government-wide general revenues. Property Taxes La Verne receives 18.3% of the annual 1.0% of property taxes collected within City limits, resulting in $11.6 million in property taxes in FY 2024-25.79 Since FY 2020-21, the City’s property tax revenues have risen by approximately 17.9% from $9.9 million. On a per capita basis, the City’s property tax revenues equate to roughly $360 in assessed value per resident based on a resident population of 32,300 in 2025, reflecting the City’s relatively small population and concentrated property tax base. Motor Vehicle in Lieu In FY 2024-25, the City of La Verne received approximately $4.7 million in Motor Vehicle In-Lieu revenues. Since FY 2020-21, these revenues have increased from $3.9 million to $4.7 million, 79 Source: City of La Verne, City of La Verne Audited Financial Statements FY 2024-25 157 representing a 20.7% increase over the review period. On average, the City received approximately $4.4 million annually in Motor Vehicle In-Lieu revenues between FY 2020-21 and FY 2024-25, making it one of the City’s larger general tax revenue sources. Sales Tax In addition to property tax, the City of La Verne generates revenues from local sales and use taxes collected on taxable retail transactions occurring within City limits. The City’s current sales tax rate is 10.5%.80 In FY 2024-25, the City received approximately $5.7 million in sales tax revenues. Since FY 2020-21, sales tax revenues have increased from $4.8 million to $5.7 million, representing an 18.1% increase over the review period. On average, the City collected approximately $5.6 million annually in sales tax revenues between FY 2020-21 and FY 2024-25. The City also receives revenues from Measure LV, a sales tax measure approved by the voters in March 2020, which authorizes a $0.75 cent transactions tax with legally restricted spending guidelines adopted by the City Council. Eligible uses including supporting public safety, infrastructure, and employee compensation and benefit costs. In FY 2024-25, the City generated $5,510,081 in Measure LV revenues; however, Measure LV funds are recorded separately from the General Fund. Instead, these revenues are recorded in the City’s Measure LV special revenue fund. Utility and Other Taxes Utility and other taxes represent the largest source of general tax revenue for the City of La Verne. In FY 2024-25, the City generated approximately $13.3 million in utility and other tax revenues. Since FY 2020-21, these revenues have increased from $11.2 million to $13.3 million, representing a 19.1% increase over the review period. On average, the City collected approximately $13.0 million annually in utility and other taxes between FY 2020-21 and FY 2024- 25. 80 Source: City of La Verne 158 According to the City’s FY 2024-25 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, recent utility rate studies for the Water and Sewer Funds determined that rate adjustments are necessary to ensure long-term financial sustainability and to support planned capital improvements. As a result, approved rate increases are scheduled to take effect beginning in calendar year 2026. These adjustments are intended to help maintain adequate funding for infrastructure maintenance and future system investments while supporting the continued financial stability of the City’s utility operations. Special Assessments Special assessments represent revenues collected from property owners for specific public improvements or services that benefit designated areas within the City, such as landscaping, lighting, and maintenance districts. In FY 2024-25, the City of La Verne generated approximately $2.3 million in special assessment revenues. Since FY 2020-21, revenues from special assessments have increased from $2.0 million to $2.3 million, representing a 16.1% increase over the review period. On average, the City collected approximately $2.1 million annually in special assessment revenues between FY 2020-21 and FY 2024-25. Although smaller than the City’s primary tax sources, special assessments provide a stable revenue stream to support localized services and infrastructure maintenance. Other General Revenues In addition to general tax revenues, the City receives other general revenues from sources such as investment income, miscellaneous revenues, and occasional proceeds from the sale of City property or capital assets. Between FY 2020-21 and FY 2024-25, these revenues fluctuated due to changes in investment performance and one-time transactions. Investment income increased from approximately $1.0 million in FY 2020-21 to $4.0 million in FY 2024-25, reflecting improved returns on the City’s investment portfolio. The City also recorded $1.5 million in other miscellaneous revenues in FY 2024-25, while proceeds from the sale of property and losses on capital asset sales occurred intermittently during the review period. Overall, these revenue sources are generally more variable than the City’s primary tax revenues 159 but can provide supplemental funding that supports governmental operations and financial flexibility. Figure 53: City of La Verne – Government-Wide General Revenues (FY 2020-21 - FY 2024-25) GENERAL FUND OPERATING REVENUES General Fund operating revenues consist of revenues deposited in the City’s General Fund that are used to support essential city services and day-to-day operations. Unlike government-wide general revenues, General Fund operating revenues include both general purpose revenues and program-specific revenues, such as charges for services, licenses and permits, and fines that are deposited in the General Fund. In FY 2024-25, the City of La Verne’s General Fund revenues totaled approximately $40.0 million, representing an increase of 24.1% from $32.3 million in FY 2020-21. Over the five-year review period, General Fund revenues increased steadily, reflecting growth in several key revenue sources including property taxes, charges for services, and other local taxes. On average, the City generated approximately $36.9 million annually in General Fund revenues between FY 2020- 21 and FY 2024-25. 160 The following sections describe the major revenue categories that make up the City’s General Fund operating revenues. Major tax revenues and investment income are discussed in greater detail in the preceding section on government-wide general revenues. Licenses & Permits Licenses and permit revenues are generated from development-related activities within the City, including building permits, planning approvals, and other regulatory permits. In FY 2024-25, the City of La Verne collected approximately $1.6 million in license and permit revenues. Over the review period, these revenues fluctuated but remained relatively stable, decreasing slightly from $1.6 million in FY 2020-21 to $1.6 million in FY 2024-25, representing a 0.6% decrease. On average, the City collected approximately $2.0 million annually in license and permit revenues between FY 2020-21 and FY 2024-25. Intergovernmental Revenues Intergovernmental revenues consist of funds received from federal, state, and regional agencies to support specific programs or reimburse eligible City expenditures. In FY 2024-25, the City received $572,339 in intergovernmental revenues. Over the review period, these revenues declined from $682,728 in FY 2020-21, representing a 16.2% decrease. On average, the City received approximately $567,714 annually in intergovernmental revenues between FY 2020-21 and FY 2024-25. These revenues can fluctuate depending on the availability of grant funding and program participation. Charges for Services Charges for services represent fees collected for specific City services provided to residents, businesses, or other agencies, such as recreation programs, planning services, and facility use. In FY 2024-25, the City of La Verne generated approximately $9.0 million in charges for services. Since FY 2020-21, these revenues increased from $6.8 million, representing a 32.9% increase over the review period. On average, the City collected approximately $7.8 million annually in charges for services between FY 2020-21 and FY 2024-25. According to the City’s FY 161 2024-25 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, reduced building permit activity contributed to a $500,000 decline in charges for services compared to the prior year, reflecting fluctuations in development activity that influence this revenue source. Fines and Forfeitures Fines and forfeitures include revenues collected from penalties for violations of City ordinances, parking citations, and other regulatory enforcement activities. In FY 2024-25, the City collected $29,034 in fines and forfeitures. Although relatively small compared to other revenue sources, these revenues increased from $15,728 in FY 2020-21, representing an 84.6% increase over the review period. On average, the City collected approximately $18,231 annually in fines and forfeitures between FY 2020-21 and FY 2024-25. Investment Income Investment income represents interest earnings generated from the City’s cash and investment portfolio. In FY 2024-25, the City earned $463,268 in investment income. Since FY 2020-21, investment income increased from $247,895, representing an 86.9% increase over the review period. On average, the City generated approximately $293,484 annually in investment income between FY 2020-21 and FY 2024-25. Investment income levels may fluctuate depending on market interest rates and the City’s investment balances. According to the City’s FY 2025-26 Budget, the Finance Department manages the City’s investment portfolio in accordance with state law and local policy, emphasizing capital preservation, liquidity, and prudent returns. Rents Rental revenues are generated from City-owned properties, facilities, or land that are leased to private entities or community organizations. In FY 2024-25, the City received $317,874 in rental revenues. Since FY 2020-21, rental revenues increased from $173,059, representing an 83.7% increase over the review period. On average, the City collected approximately $251,151 annually in rental revenues between FY 2020-21 and FY 2024-25. 162 Donations and Contributions Donations and contributions represent voluntary financial support received from individuals, organizations, or grant programs to support City initiatives and community programs. In FY 2024- 25, the City of La Verne received $52,026 in donations and contributions, an increase from $28,485 in FY 2020-21, representing an 82.6% increase over the review period. According to the City’s FY 2025-26 Budget, Fund 297: Community Action was established to allow the City to directly receive donations and grant funds and track related program activities, including the City’s lunch program and other future community programs as needs arise. Figure 54 illustrates the City’s historical General Fund revenue sources. 163 Figure 54: City of La Verne General Fund Operating Revenue History GENERAL FUND OPERATING EXPENDITURES General Fund operating expenditures consist of expenses paid from the City’s General Fund to support the delivery of essential City services and day-to-day operations. These expenditures include costs associated with public safety, planning and community development, community services programs, street maintenance, and general government administration. In FY 2024-25, the City of La Verne’s General Fund expenditures totaled approximately $48.6 million, representing an increase of 31.6% from $36.9 million in FY 2020-21. Over the review period, expenditures increased across several major service categories as the City continued to support core municipal services. The following sections describe the major expenditure categories that comprise the City’s General Fund operating expenditures. General Government General government expenditures include administrative functions necessary to support overall City operations, such as finance, human resources, and general administrative services. In FY 2024-25, the City of La Verne spent approximately $4.1 million on general government activities. Since FY 2020-21, expenditures increased from $2.8 million, representing a 44.5% increase over the review period. On average, the City spent approximately $3.7 million annually on general government services between FY 2020-21 and FY 2024-25. In FY 2024-25, general government expenditures accounted for approximately 8.5% of total City expenditures. 164 Public Safety Public safety expenditures represent the City’s largest operating cost and include police services, emergency response, and related public safety activities. In FY 2024-25, the City spent approximately $27.5 million on public safety services. Since FY 2020-21, expenditures increased from $21.7 million, representing a 26.6% increase over the review period. On average, the City spent approximately $25.3 million annually on public safety services between FY 2020-21 and FY 2024-25. In FY 2024-25, public safety expenditures represented approximately 56.6% of total City expenditures, making it the City’s largest expenditure category. Community Development Community development expenditures support planning, building, code enforcement, and other development-related services. In FY 2024-25, the City spent approximately $2.6 million on community development activities. Since FY 2020-21, expenditures increased from $1.8 million, representing a 43.0% increase over the review period. On average, the City spent approximately $2.0 million annually on community development services between FY 2020-21 and FY 2024-25. In FY 2024-25, community development expenditures accounted for approximately 5.4% of total City expenditures. Public Works Public works expenditures include costs associated with maintaining and improving City infrastructure such as streets, sidewalks, drainage systems, and public facilities. In FY 2024-25, the City spent approximately $8.9 million on public works activities. Since FY 2020-21, expenditures increased from $6.2 million, representing a 42.2% increase over the review period. On average, the City spent approximately $7.4 million annually on public works services between FY 2020-21 and FY 2024-25. In FY 2024-25, public works expenditures represented about 18.2% of total City expenditures. 165 Community Services Community services expenditures support programs and services for residents, including recreation programs, senior services, and community activities, which generally fall under the City’s Parks and Recreation Department. In FY 2024-25, the City spent approximately $2.0 million on community services. Since FY 2020-21, expenditures increased from $1.2 million, representing a 74.0% increase over the review period. On average, the City spent approximately $1.7 million annually on community services between FY 2020-21 and FY 2024- 25. In FY 2024-25, community services expenditures accounted for approximately 4.2% of total City expenditures. Capital Projects Capital project expenditures represent investments in long-term infrastructure and facility improvements. In FY 2024-25, the City spent $125,791 on capital projects. Since FY 2020-21, expenditures increased from $51,134, representing a 146.0% increase over the review period. On average, the City spent approximately $115,426 annually on capital project activities between FY 2020-21 and FY 2024-25. In FY 2024-25, capital project expenditures accounted for approximately 0.3% of total City expenditures. Principal Retirement Principal retirement expenditures represent payments made toward the principal balance of the City’s outstanding debt obligations. In FY 2024-25, the City paid approximately $1.6 million in principal retirement costs. Since FY 2020-21, these expenditures increased from $1.2 million, representing a 34.1% increase over the review period. On average, the City spent approximately $1.4 million annually on principal retirement between FY 2020-21 and FY 2024- 25. In FY 2024-25, principal retirement expenditures represented approximately 3.3% of total City expenditures. 166 Interest Interest expenditures represent the cost of servicing the City’s outstanding debt obligations. In FY 2024-25, the City paid approximately $1.7 million in interest costs. Since FY 2020-21, interest expenditures declined slightly from $1.9 million, representing an 8.2% decrease over the review period. On average, the City paid approximately $1.8 million annually in interest expenses between FY 2020-21 and FY 2024-25. In FY 2024-25, interest expenditures accounted for approximately 3.6% of total City expenditures. Figure 55 breaks down the City’s departmental operating expenditures by function between FYs 2020-21 and 2024-25. Figure 55: La Verne General Fund Operating Expenditures NET INCOME Between FY 2020-21 and FY 2024-25, the City of La Verne’s average net income reflected a recurring annual deficit, averaging approximately $6.7 million over the review period. Net income deficits were largest in FY 2024-25 at approximately $8.6 million, with deficits generally increasing over time. These trends indicate that, while revenues have grown, expenditures have increased at a faster rate, resulting in persistent operating shortfalls. Additional details regarding the District’s net income are provided in Figure 56 below. 167 Figure 56: City of La Verne Audited Net Income The City of La Verne’s General Fund experienced a net spending deficit in all five years of financial data reviewed. Despite this, in FY 2024-25, the City’s General Fund balance grew, primarily as a result of large transfers in from other City funds. The City of La Verne continues to face structural cost pressures, particularly related to pensions, retiree medical benefits, and inflationary operating costs.81 Based on the above analysis, RSG finds that the City of La Verne is experiencing ongoing structural fiscal pressures, as suggested by consistent annual operating deficits from FY 2020-21 through FY 2024-25. While core operating revenues have generally increased, they have not kept pace with rising expenditures. To maintain service levels, the City has relied on interfund transfers from a combination of sources, including restricted special revenue funds (e.g., Measure LV and assessment districts), utilitiy funds (such as water and sewer), and one-time funding sources (e.g., American Rescue Plan Act funds). These transfers support general government operations, infrastructure, and pension-related costs. These trends indicate that the City may face challenges related to long-term financial sustainability. While the City has continued to maintain service levels in the near term, ongoing reliance on interfund transfers and persistent operating deficits highlight the importance of continued financial monitoring and potential adjustments to better align revenues and expenditures. Maintaining reserves and identifying strategies to address structural imbalances will be critical to supporting both operational and capital needs moving forward. RESERVE FUND BALANCE The City sets aside a designated reserve amount to maintain fiscal stability and provide protection against economic uncertainty. The designated amount is established in accordance with a City 81 Source: City of La Verne Audited Financial Statements FY 2024-25 168 Council-adopted Reserve Policy, which sets a target of maintaining reserves equal to 20 percent of General Fund operating expenditures. As of FY 2024-25, the balance of the City’s dedicated reserve funds was $9,767,385. This represents approximately 20.1% of the City’s General Fund Operating expenditures in the same fiscal year ($48,597,353), suggesting the City is in compliance with its reserve policy. ASSETS, LIABILITIES, & NET POSITION The City of La Verne’s total assets increased steadily between FY 2020-21 and FY 2024-25, rising from $156.4 million to $208.4 million, an overall increase of approximately $52.1 million, or 33.3%. As of FY 2024-25, current assets totaled $117.9 million, representing approximately 56.5% of the City’s total assets. These assets consist primarily of cash and investments, receivables, and other short-term resources, indicating a strong level of liquidity available to meet near-term obligations. By contrast, non-current assets totaled $90.6 million, accounting for approximately 43.5% of the City’s total assets, and primarily consist of long-term investments such as capital assets, water rights, and other long-lived infrastructure that support ongoing municipal operations. Over the review period, the City’s growth in total assets was driven largely by increases in cash and investments and other current asset balances, while capital assets and other long-term holdings remained relatively stable. These trends reflect continued strengthening of the City’s liquidity position while maintaining significant long-term infrastructure assets, contributing to the City’s overall financial stability. Figure 57 illustrates the City’s total assets between FY 2020-21 and FY 2024-25. 169 Figure 57: City of La Verne’s Audited Assets The City of La Verne’s total liabilities totaled approximately $88.4 million at the conclusion of FY 2024-25, representing an increase of 19.2% compared to the FY 2020-21 balance of $74.1 million. While overall liabilities fluctuated during the review period, the City’s liability structure reflects a combination of short-term obligations and long-term financial commitments associated with debt, pensions, and employee benefits. Current liabilities increased from approximately $7.5 million in FY 2020-21 to $12.8 million in FY 2024-25, representing a 71.2% increase over the review period. This growth was driven primarily by increases in accounts payable, accrued expenses, compensated absences due within one year, and bonds due within one year, reflecting higher short-term obligations associated with ongoing operations and debt service. Non-current liabilities totaled approximately $75.6 million in FY 2024-25, representing a 13.4% increase from $66.7 million in FY 2020-21. These long-term obligations consist primarily of long- term debt, net pension liabilities, compensated absences beyond one year, and other post- 170 employment benefit (OPEB) liabilities. Changes in these categories during the review period reflect adjustments in pension obligations and long-term debt balances. Overall, the City’s liability structure indicates a continued reliance on long-term obligations associated with employee benefits and infrastructure financing, while the increase in current liabilities highlights the importance of maintaining sufficient liquidity to meet near-term obligations. Figure 58 illustrates the City’s liabilities between FY 2020-21 and FY 2024-25. Figure 58: City of La Verne’s Total Liabilities Net Position (Figure 57) The City of La Verne’s net position totaled approximately $128.1 million at the end of FY 2024- 25, representing the difference between the City’s total assets and total liabilities. This amount reflects a 54.3% increase from the FY 2020-21 balance of $83.0 million, representing an overall increase of approximately $45.1 million over the five-year review period. This growth indicates a strengthening overall financial position for the City. The largest component of the City’s net position is net investment in capital assets, which totaled approximately $87.4 million in FY 2024-25, compared to $78.8 million in FY 2020-21, representing a 10.9% increase. This category reflects the City’s long-term investments in infrastructure, facilities, and other capital assets that support municipal service delivery. 171 The restricted portion of net position experienced the most significant growth during the review period, increasing from approximately $33.8 million in FY 2020-21 to $70.9 million in FY 2024- 25, representing a 110.1% increase. Restricted net position includes resources that must be used for specific purposes as required by external regulations, grant requirements, or legal restrictions. By contrast, the unrestricted net position remained in a deficit position throughout the review period, totaling approximately ($30.2 million) in FY 2024-25. Unrestricted net position reflects resources available for general governmental operations at the discretion of the City’s governing body. While this category fluctuated during the review period, the deficit largely reflects long-term obligations such as pension liabilities and other commitments not directly tied to capital assets. Overall, the City’s audited net position demonstrates substantial growth over the past five years, driven primarily by increases in restricted resources and moderate growth in capital asset investments. These trends indicate improving long-term financial stability while maintaining significant investments in infrastructure and other long-term assets. Figure 59 illustrates the City’s net position between FY 2020-21 and FY 2024-25. Figure 59: City of La Verne’s Net Position PENSION OBLIGATIONS The City of La Verne (“La Verne” or “City”) provides a defined pension benefit to its employees through investment risk-pool contracts with the California Public Employee Retirement System (“CalPERS”). These contracts offer La Verne employees specified retirement benefits based on the date of hire and placement into two categories: classic and non-classic, with the former including a second-tier category. This section of the report provides details regarding La Verne’s 172 pension based on actuarial valuations for the City issued by CalPERS annual reporting process and covers information regarding City enrollees, formulas, contributions, and funded status.82 ENROLLEES & FUNDING FORMULAS The CalPERS actuarial valuation report for FY 2022-23 identifies 896 participants enrolled in the City of La Verne’s pension program. This amount has increased since FY 2020-21 – from 580 participants – and is divided between classic and non-classic (PEPRA) employee categories. The total participants are divided between enrollee type and produce a positive active-to-retiree ratio of 0.64 to 1. With regard to active participants, this includes 40 safety police members (classic), 20 safety police members (PEPRA), 32 miscellaneous members (classic), 67 miscellaneous members (PEPRA), 75 safety fire members (classic), and 15 safety fire members (PEPRA). Additional details regarding benefit formulas can be found below. • Employees hired prior to January 1, 2013 are classified as “Classic” members and participate in defined benefit formulas established prior to the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act (“PEPRA”). Classic miscellaneous employees receive a pension benefit based on approximately 2.5% of final compensation for each year of service beginning at age 55, while Safety Classic Plan employees receive benefits based on approximately 3.0% percent at age 50. • Employees hired on or after January 1, 2013 are classified as PEPRA members and generally receive a defined benefit based on 2.0% at age 62 formula. Safety PEPRA members receive benefits based on approximately 2.7% percent at age 57. Additional details regarding enrollee information follow in Figure 60: 82 CalPERS Actuarial Reports for FY 2020-21 through FY 2022-23. 173 Figure 60: City of La Verne’s Enrollee Information ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS La Verne’s total annual pension contributions to CalPERS covering both classic and non-classic plans totaled approximately $3.4 million in FY 2022-23. This contribution equals approximately 13.1% of the City’s covered payroll for the fiscal year. Between FY 2020-21 and FY 2022-23, the City’s pension contributions increased from $2.7 million to $3.4 million, representing a 29.4% increase. During the same period, covered payroll increased from $21.6 million to $26.3 million, reflecting a 21.7% increase. As a result, pension contributions as a share of payroll increased modestly from 12.3% in FY 2020-21 to 13.1% in FY 2022-23. Additional details pertaining to La Verne’s contributions are provided in Figure 61 below. Figure 61: City of La Verne’s Annual Contributions FUNDING STATUS La Verne’s total unfunded pension liability totaled approximately $51.8 million as of FY 2022-23. This amount reflects the difference between the market value of plan assets and the actuarial accrued liability for the City’s CalPERS pension plans, covering both classic and non-classic employees. 174 In FY 2022-23, the City reported approximately $347.7 million in pension assets compared to $399.5 million in accrued liabilities, resulting in a funded ratio of 87.0%. The funded ratio represents the percentage of pension obligations covered by available plan assets. Over the review period, La Verne’s funded ratio fluctuated but remained relatively strong, declining from 104.2% in FY 2020-21 to 87.0% in FY 2022-23, representing a 16.4% decrease. During the same period, the City’s unfunded liability increased from approximately positive $15.0 million to negative $51.8 million, reflecting significant growth in pension obligations relative to asset performance. According to the City’s FY 2024-25 ACFR, strong returns in fiscal year 2020- 21 significantly reduced required contributions in subsequent years, while investment losses in fiscal year 2021-22 resulted in a sharp increase in unfunded actuarial liability payments. The City has taken proactive steps to manage pension-related risks and costs. These actions include adopting the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act in 2013 for new employees, issuing a Pension Obligation Bond in 2018 to address a portion of the unfunded liability at a fixed interest rate, and establishing a Pension Stabilization Fund to help mitigate contribution volatility. These measures have improved predictability and provided short-term relief; however, they have not eliminated the underlying exposure to market-driven fluctuations.83 Overall, while the City’s pension plans remain substantially funded, the increase in unfunded liabilities over the review period indicates continued long-term pension obligations that will require ongoing contributions and fiscal management. Figure 62 provides additional details regarding La Verne’s pension funding status. 83 Source: City of La Verne FY 2024-25 ACFR 175 Figure 62: City of La Verne’s Funded Status It should be noted that the funded ratio provides a point-in-time measure of the plan’s financial position but does not fully capture the trajectory of the City’s pension obligations. CalPERS sets employer contribution rates using amortization schedules that front-load payments on recent unfunded liability gains. As a result, required contributions may increase in future years even if the funded ratio remains stable or improves. OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS La Verne offers other post-employment benefits (“OPEB”) to eligible employees, which refer to retiree health benefits provided to eligible employees following retirement, such as medical, dental, and vision coverage. Under GASB Statement No. 75, the City’s OPEB obligation reflects both direct contributions and any implicit subsidies that reduce retiree healthcare premiums. The City funds its OPEB obligations through an investment trust in which the City invests funds on an annual basis to pay for future retiree health benefits. While California law does not require pre-funding of OPEB obligations, this approach allows the City to reduce its long-term liability by earning investment returns and spreading costs over time, rather than relying solely on current operating revenues. As of FY 2024-25, the City’s total OPEB liability amounted to $11.5 million, which represents the present-day value of retiree health benefits that have been earned by current and former employees for work performed to date. Figure 63 provides an overview of the City’s OPEB liabilities from FY 2020-21 to FY 2024-25. 176 Figure 63: City of La Verne OPEB Liabilities (FY 2020-21 to FY 2024-25) As of FY 2024-25, the City had approximately 52 active employees, 4 inactive employees currently receiving benefits, and 86 inactive employees entitled to, but not yet receiving benefits. The current monthly amount paid by the City ranges from $12.80 to $1,807.75, depending on the retiree’s bargaining unit at retirement. In FY 2024-25, the City contributed $929,045 to fund its OPEB plan. This amount represents the actuarial value of retiree healthcare benefits provided during the year, including the City’s direct premium contributions. Of this amount, the City contributed $568,911 to the plan in the form of current premiums, which were made from the City’s General Fund. Compared to the actuarially determined contribution of $762,026, the City funded the entirety of its portion of its OPEB obligation for the fiscal year, resulting in a funding excess of approximately $167,019 in FY 2024-25. This excess has increased by approximately 13.2% since FY 2020–21 and reflects the City’s proactive approach to pre-funding its OPEB obligations and reducing its long-term liability. Figure 64 provides a comparison of the City’s annual OPEB actuarial cost and actual benefit payments over time. Figure 64: City of La Verne OPEB Funding (FY 2020-21 to FY 2024-25) As noted above, the City’s OPEB liability reflects the long-term cost of providing retiree health benefits over time; however, unlike a pay-as-you-go approach, the City has established an trust to pre-fund these obligations. Through this structure, the City contributes amounts sufficient to 177 cover both the annual cost of benefits as they are earned and a portion of the existing unfunded liability. As a result, the City is able to leverage investment earnings to offset future costs, reduce its reported liability, and smooth annual expenditures over time. 178 SOI DETERMINATIONS RSG’s determinations related to the City of La Verne’s Sphere of Influence (“SOI”) are presented below in accordance with Government Code Section 56425. 1. Present and Planned Land Uses The City of La Verne consists of predominantly residential land uses (87.6%), followed by vacant (5.8%), commercial (3.9%), and public uses (1.9%). Industrial, open space, and other land uses each make up less than 1% of existing land uses with City limits. As part of this MSR, there were no planned developments identified within City limits. The City’s General Plan strives to encourage development in the City’s existing SOI to be compatible with adjacent development and consistent with the City’s design and service expectations. The proposed larger SOI reflects the City’s existing service area, which extends beyond current boundaries, and supports logical service boundaries by aligning the SOI with areas currently served by the City. 2. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services The City of La Verne will continue to experience ongoing needs related to infrastructure maintenance and capital improvements necessary to sustain service levels and address aging facilities and infrastructure. This includes replacement of the City’s public safety building, continued street rehabilitation, and ongoing maintenance of the City’s sewer and water systems. With respect to wastewater infrastructure, modeling of the City’s Drainage Area 1 indicates flow depths exceeding 50% under steady-state conditions, in which capacity improvements are necessary to maintain system performance. Additionally, the City’s 2020 Water Plan identified several high-priority capital improvement projects and it is unclear whether the City has taken steps to address and/or identify funding for these capital improvements. 179 Overall, planned improvements will be necessary to maintain service adequacy and support the City’s existing service area. The proposed SOI reflects the City’s current and probable future service responsibilities. 3. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Services The City of La Verne currently maintains adequate public facilities and infrastructure to provide municipal services within its jurisdiction. With the exception of localized wastewater system constraints in Drainage Area 1, existing facilities have sufficient capacity to meet current service demands. The City’s ability to maintain adequate service levels over time will depend on the timely implementation of capital improvement projects and continued investment in infrastructure maintenance, including streets, water, and wastewater systems. Overall, infrastructure capacity is sufficient to support the City’s existing service area, including the City’s proposed SOI. The proposed SOI is consistent with the City’s existing and future service area. 4. Social or Economic Communities of Interest The City contains the University of La Verne, which serves approximately 6,000 students and employs approximately 1,895 individuals. The University of La Verne represents an institutional presence that contributes to the City’s local economic activity, daytime population, and overall community character. 5. Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community Present and Planned Need for Facilities and Services LAFCO does not identify any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (“DUCs”) located contiguous to the City’s within or contiguous to the City of La Verne’s sphere of influence. 180 MSR DETERMINATIONS Pursuant to Government Code Section 56430, the required CKH determinations for this MSR for La Verne are presented below: 1. Population Projections and Growth The City of La Verne has a resident population of 32,300 as of January 1, 2025. The City has experienced modest population growth since 2010, and regional projections indicate that population growth is expected to decrease slightly over the next three decades. Specifically, the Southern California Association of Governments projects that the City’s population will reach 32,200 residents by 2050, suggesting a slight decrease to the City’s current population. Based on these projections, population growth within the City is expected to be limited and consistent with the City’s current planning assumptions and service capacity. 2. Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities in or Contiguous to SOI LAFCO does not identify any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (“DUCs”) located contiguous to the City’s within or contiguous to the City of La Verne. 3. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities The present and planned capacity of public facilities appear adequate to meet existing and future service demands. However, the City has experienced increased in response times for law enforcement service calls. The City also identified necessary upgrades to its public safety building including upgraded gender facilities, in addition to improvements to the station’s air conditioning, fire sprinkler system, and fire defensibility space. Lastly, the City’s planning documents identify capital improvements needed for roadway repairs, in addition to improvements to the City’s water and sewer system. The comprehensive review of La Verne’s municipal services supports these claims. 181 4. Financial Ability to Provide Services The City of La Verne has the financial ability to provide services to its existing and future residents. Additional details regarding the City’s financial ability to provide services are provided below. • La Verne’s net position increased by 54.3% since FY 2020-21, from $83.0 million to $103.7 million. • La Verne's General Fund expenditures rose by 31.6% since FY 2020-21, primarily due to higher public safety costs, along with increases in general government, community development, and community services expenditures. This increase is greater than the corresponding 24.1% growth in General Fund revenues since FY 2020-21. • La Verne has been able to offset the City’s General Fund’s net spending deficit through transfers in from other funds, including transfers from the City’s Measure LV Fund, American Rescue Plan Fund, Water Fund, Sewer Fund, in addition to other Non-Major Funds. However, ongoing reliance on interfund transfers and persistent operating deficits suggest the City may face challenges related to long- term financial sustainability. • La Verne’s combined funded ratio for pension obligations with CALPERS in FY 2024-25 finished at 87.0% and is considered moderate. However, this ratio also decreased by 6.6% since FY 2020-21, suggesting that pension liabilities are growing at a faster rate than assets. • The City funds its OPEB obligations through an investment trust in which the City invests funds on an annual basis to pay for future retiree health benefits. As of FY 2024-25, the City’s net unfunded OPEB liability was $4.4 million. 182 5. Opportunities for Shared Facilities There were several instances of shared facilities and services identified as part of this MSR: • The City is a member of the East San Gabriel Valley Watershed Management Group, along with the cities of Claremont, Pomona, and San Dimas, which establishes best management practices, conducts public outreach, and applies for funding for various stormwater treatment projects. • Through a Memorandum of Understanding with the Los Angeles County Consolidated Fire Protection District, the City of La Verne provides primary response to first-alarm fire incidents, including deployment of a paramedic engine when available, and provides a secondary paramedic unit for emergency medical calls in the eastern portion of San Dimas and northern portion of Pomona. • City staff indicated that the City is currently exploring a Joint Powers Agreement model for regional dispatch services with the cities of Covina, Azusa, and Irwindale. • While the City does not currently maintain any recreational trails, the City identified an opportunity to collaborate with the cities of Claremont and San Dimas, as well as Los Angeles County, on nearby trail enhancements. • The City is a member of the San Dimas La Verne Recreational Facilities Authority, a Joint Powers Agreement formed between the cities of La Verne and San Dimas, which serves as the governing body for the San Dimas Canyon Golf Course. 6. Accountability for Community Service Needs The La Verne City Council is elected on an at-large basis and serves as the legislative and policy-making body for the City. The City maintains a comprehensive website that provides access to City Council agendas, meeting minutes, staff reports, budget documents, and other public information. City Council meetings are publicly noticed and 183 accessible, and the City utilizes digital platforms and communication tools to keep residents informed about municipal programs, services, and community events. La Verne demonstrates established administrative and financial management practices, including the preparation of annual budgets, independent financial audits, and long-term planning documents. Overall, the City appears to have the institutional structures, transparency practices, and management systems in place to remain accountable and responsive to community service needs. 7. Any Other Matter Related to Effective or Efficient Service Delivery as Required by Commission Policy There were no other matters related to effective or efficient service delivery identified as part of this MSR. 184 SERVICE REVIEW – CITY OF SAN DIMAS The City of San Dimas (“San Dimas” or “City”) is a general law city incorporated on August 4, 1960. Located in the San Gabriel Valley of Los Angeles County, the City lies approximately 28 miles east of downtown Los Angeles. The City is bordered by Glendora and Covina to the west, La Verne to the east, Walnut and Pomona to the south, and the Angeles National Forest to the northeast. San Dimas encompasses approximately 15.4 square miles and has an estimated population of about 34,400 residents as of January 1, 2025. The area now known as San Dimas was originally inhabited by the Tongva-Gabrielino people, who occupied the San Gabriel Valley and surrounding foothills for centuries prior to European settlement. In 1837, the Mexican government granted Rancho San José, which included present- day San Dimas, to Ignacio Palomares and Ricardo Veja. In 1887, the Santa Fe railway extended its line through the region, prompting the formation of the San Jose Ranch Company, which subdivided land for town lots and agriculture. San Dimas quickly became known for its extensive citrus orchard and packinghouses. Following the decline of the citrus industry after World War II, San Dimas transitioned into a suburban residential community. The City formally incorporated in 1960 to establish local control over development growth and maintain its small-town atmosphere while accommodating regional development. Today, San Dimas features a balanced mix of residential, commercial, and industrial uses while preserving open space and foothill character. San Dimas operates under a council-manager form of government. The City Council consists of four district representatives and one at-large Mayor, elected at-large to staggered four-year terms. The Council appoints a City Manager to administer day-to-day operations and implement Council policy. The current City Manager is Brad McKinney, appointed in October 2024. San Dimas is a full-service municipality, providing community development, public works, and parks and recreation directly. Law enforcement is provided under contract by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (San Dimas Station), fire and emergency medical services are provided by the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County, and potable water is provided by the Golden State Water Company. 185 In terms of finances, San Dimas’ total General Fund operating expenses at the end of FY 2024- 25 totaled $29,832,449, with an overall net position of $134,610,271. 186 JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARY & SPHERE OF INFLUENCE The City of San Dimas (“San Dimas” or “City”) current jurisdictional boundary spans approximately 15.4 square miles. The City of San Dimas lies in the eastern part of the San Gabriel Valley and is bordered by Glendora and Covina to the west, La Verne to the east, Walnut and Pomona to the south, and the Angeles National Forest to the northeast. The City is positioned between the Los Angeles Basin, the San Gabriel foothills, and the Pomona Valley, and includes portions of historic U.S. Route 66, in addition to the 210 and California State Route 57. The City’s sphere of influence (“SOI”) was originally adopted by LAFCO in 1984 and reconfirmed on July 13, 2005 and November 14, 2012. Since its establishment, no changes have been made to the City’s SOI. The total assessed value (secured and unsecured) within San Dimas is approximately $7.5 billion, a per capita value of approximately $217,949 based on the current resident population of 34,209. The vast majority of land use in the City is designated as residential (85.5%), while the remainder of land uses consist of vacant (7.4%), commercial (5.2%), and public uses (1.4%). Industrial, open space, and other land uses each make up less than 1% of land uses84. Residential development primarily consists of single-family homes (72.9%), followed by multi- family units (18.3%), and mobile home units (10.9%). Commercial development is largely industrial in nature (31.2%), followed by retail (30.3%), office (27.1%), and other commercial uses (11.3%). Figure 65 presents the City’s jurisdictional boundary and sphere of influence. 84 Source: Los Angeles County Assessor, FY 2025-26 Assessment Roll. 187 Figure 65: City of San Dimas’ Jurisdictional Boundary and Sphere of Influence 188 ISLAND ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS Islands are defined under the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (“CKH” or “Act”) as unincorporated areas that are substantially surrounded by a city, county, or the Pacific Ocean. CKH establishes specific policy direction for these areas, emphasizing that islands represent an inefficient pattern of service delivery and governance. LAFCOs are required to give priority consideration to proposals that would eliminate or reduce islands through annexation or reorganization, where feasible. The intent is to promote orderly growth, improve service efficiency, and reduce the potential for service gaps, duplication, and governance confusion associated with fragmented boundaries. Additionally, CKH also authorizes LAFCOs to use a streamlined annexation process for qualifying islands to facilitate their elimination. Pursuant to Government Code 56375.3, for an island considered inhabited85, and that contains 150 acres or less, CKH allows LAFCO to waive certain procedural requirements, including the need for a protest hearing and an election, provided specified findings are made regarding service capability, consistency with local policies, and orderly growth. This special annexation authority is intended to reduce barriers to annexation and encourage logical incorporation of isolated unincorporated areas into surrounding cities where municipal services can be provided more efficiently. CKH also establishes limitations on when island annexation proceedings may be used. Pursuant to Government Code Section 56375.4, an area is not eligible for island annexation proceedings if it became surrounded or substantially surrounded by the city to which annexation is proposed on or after January 1, 2014. An exception applies to areas that were created after January 1, 2014, because of a boundary adjustment between two counties. ISLANDS IN SAN DIMAS RSG’s review of the City of San Dimas’ jurisdictional boundary identified two unincorporated County islands within City limits. One island (Area 13), located along East Mesarica Road and Calle Bandera, encompasses 236.8 acres across 132 parcels. This island consists of a mix of 85 CKH defines a territory as “inhabited” wherein it contains 12 or more residents. 189 residential (63 parcels) and vacant land uses (7 parcels). The other island (Area 14) is located along East Renshaw Street and consists of one residential parcel that is approximately 1.01 acres in size. Based on RSG’s preliminary review of these areas, residents receive municipal services such as water, fire, and wastewater services, from local providers such as the Golden State Water Company, the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County, and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (“DPW”), respectively. According to the City, the City does not provide any municipal services to these areas. According to the City, there has not been substantial interest from residents residing within these islands to annex into City limits. However, Area 14 is under 150 acres, and the area is likely eligible for streamlined annexation proceedings pursuant to Government Code 56375.3, which would waive protest proceedings for the annexations. RSG’s analysis is limited to identifying these areas and describing existing service conditions. Although the City has not expressed interest in annexation at this time, RSG recommends the City engage in discussions with LAFCO and the County to formally evaluate the feasibility of annexing these islands to promote orderly and logical boundaries. EXTRATERRITORIAL SERVICES The City exclusively serves properties located within the City limits. Any future extraterritorial service extensions require LAFCO approval in accordance with its adopted Out-of-Agency Service Agreement (OASA) Policy, ensuring consistency with regional growth and service planning objectives. 190 PROPOSED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE RSG recommends LAFCO amend San Dimas’ Sphere of Influence to reflect a larger than sphere of influence, with reductions to the City’s existing SOI. This includes a reduction to the area located northeast of City limits (Area 15) that surrounds San Dimas Canyon Road to align with City limits. According to the City, this area is largely mountainous in nature and the City does not anticipate providing municipal services to this area or pursuing annexation of these parcels in the future. As a result, it recommended LAFCO reduce San Dimas’ SOI in this area to accurately reflect the City’s anticipated future service area. Additionally, RSG recommends San Dimas’ SOI is reduced in the area located east of City limits, in between San Dimas and La Verne, off of Ramona Avenue (Area 11). The City of La Verne provides potable water services to approximately 226 parcels located east of the San Dimas Wash within La Verne’s SOI. With the exception of one parcel, La Verne does not provide water services to parcels located west of the wash; however, nearly all of the parcels have La Verne addresses. This is with the exception of eleven (11) parcels located along North San Dimas Canyon Road, which are only accessible through San Dimas and have San Dimas addresses. To align community identity with future planning boundaries, it is recommended that San Dimas’ SOI be reduced to exclude this area, with the exception of the eleven (11) parcels located along North San Dimas Canyon Road, which are only accessible through San Dimas and have San Dimas addresses. It is recommended the eleven (11) parcels located along North San Dimas Canyon Road remain within the City of San Dimas’s SOI. In addition to Area 11, there is an additional unincorporated island, approximately 19.6 acres in size, located to the east of San Dimas’s city limits (Area 16) between San Dimas and La Verne. The area is located within the San Dimas’s existing SOI. According to San Dimas, the City does not provide any services to this area. Based on RSG’s review, the parcels within this area have San Dimas addresses and are only accessible through the City of San Dimas. As a result, RSG recommends this area remain within the City’s SOI. Lastly, there is an additional unincorporated area located contiguous to the southwestern boundary of City limits (Area 19), consisting of several residential parcels, an equestrian facility, 191 in addition to a park-and-ride lot. San Dimas does not provide services to these parcels and the parcels are accessible from both San Dimas and the unincorporated portion of Covina’s sphere of influence. While these parcels exhibit Covina addresses, it is unknown whether Covina provides services to these parcels. As such, LAFCO should consider reviewing whether Covina currently provides or intends to provide services to this area as part of the next Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update for the City of Covina. In the interim, it is recommended that Area 19 remain within San Dimas's SOI until Covina's service provision to the area can be formally reviewed through its next Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update. Figure 66 presents the City’s existing jurisdictional boundary and proposed sphere of influence. 192 Figure 66: City of San Dimas Proposed Sphere of Influence 193 DEMOGRAPHICS POPULATION & HOUSING The City of San Dimas’ (“San Dimas” or “City”) total current resident population within its jurisdictional boundary is estimated at 34,209 as of January 1, 2025. This amount represents 0.35% of the countywide population total. The estimated resident population in San Dimas has risen overall by 2.5% - or approximately 838 residents - since 2010, demonstrating an upward trend.86 More recently, San Dimas has decreased by approximately 119 residents annually over the last five years, from 34,802 in 2020 to 34,209 in 2025. The current resident population produces a population density of 3.47 residents per acre and underlies the overall low-density suburban characteristic of the City’s jurisdictional boundary. San Dimas primarily consists of residential uses. San Dimas’ population is expected to increase by approximately 0.32% annually over the next ten years, reaching 35,300 residents by 2035, reflecting an overall increase of 1,091 residents.87 This rate is slightly slower than the anticipated annual population increase countywide, which is expected to be 0.58%, reaching 10,449,000 residents by 2035.88 Between 2010 and 2025, San Dimas experienced a population increase of approximately 0.17% annually.89 According to Southern California Association of Government’s (“SCAG”) growth projections, the population is expected to increase by approximately 0.12% per year through 2050.90 As part of this MSR, there were no planned residential or commercial developments identified within City limits. However, the City recently adopted its first Downtown Specific Plan (“Plan”) in September 2024. The new Specific Plan establishes a planning and zoning framework for encouraging innovative, transit-oriented development in the City’s greater downtown area, consisting of approximately 202 acres, while preserving the character of the historic commercial 86 Source: ESRI Business Analyst 87 Source: CA Department of Finance 88 Source: SCAG 2024 RTP/SCS ("Connect SoCal 2024") Growth Projections 89 Source: Esri Business Analyst 90 Source: SCAG 2024 RTP/SCS ("Connect SoCal 2024") Growth Projections 194 district. According to City staff, the Plan calls for over 3,000 additional housing units over Plan’s 20-year planning horizon. However, the projected unit count reflects the Plan's full buildout rather than approved or pending projects. Figure 67 summarizes San Dimas’ and the County’s past, present, and future population growth. Figure 67: City of San Dimas Resident Population An estimated 13,151 housing units are within San Dimas’ boundary as of January 1, 2025. This amount accounts for an overall increase of 645 units – or 5.2% - since 2010 for an annual change of 46 housing units. This creates a ratio of 0.77 housing units for every new resident. Of the total number of current housing units in San Dimas, approximately 71.1% are owner- occupied. The remainder of housing units are divided between 28.9% being renter-occupied and 3.6% being vacant. Further, the average household size in San Dimas for 2025 is 2.66. This amount reflects a decrease of 2.6% since 2010, when the average household size was 2.73. Figure 68 includes additional details regarding the City’s housing characteristics. 195 Figure 68: City of San Dimas Housing Characteristics AGE DISTRIBUTION & INCOME The City of San Dimas’ service area has a median age of 43.8, increased from 42.3 in 2010, an increase of 3.5%. This is higher than the county median age of 38.4, indicating an older age profile. Similarly, 95.6% of residents within the prime working age group (between the ages of 25-64) are employed while the remaining 4.4% are unemployed, reflecting a stable workforce within the City’s jurisdictional boundary.91 Additional details regarding the City’s age distribution and employment rates are provided in Figure 69. Figure 69: City of San Dimas’ Age Distribution 91 The prime working age group does not include individuals between the ages of 16-25 nor 65 and above given residents within these age groups are typically in school or nearing/in retirement. 196 The median household income of San Dimas is $114,313, which is approximately 20% higher than the County’s median household income of $91,431. This amount confirms households in the City are receiving more pay over the reporting period compared to the county as whole. Furthermore, the City of San Dimas has a poverty rate of 7.8%, which is 76.9% lower than the County’s poverty rate of 13.8% suggesting residents within San Dimas may have higher standard of living and less access to resources.92 Figure 70 provides an overview of income characteristics in San Dimas and County. Figure 70: City of San Dimas’ Income Characteristics Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities LAFCO identifies two (2) Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (“DUCs”) are located in or contiguous to the City as shown in Figure 71. A DUC is defined as any unincorporated area wherein the median household income is less than $62,939.93 One DUC (Area 17) is located contiguous to the City’s southwestern boundary within the City’s SOI. According to the City, the City is not currently providing any services to this DUC. However, RSG recommends the City engage in discussions with LAFCO and the County to formally evaluate the feasibility of annexing 92 Federal poverty levels are determined annually by the U.S. Census Bureau which uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. 93 Source: Government Code Section 56033.5 and 56046, Water Code Section 79505.5(a), American Community Survey Census 2019-2023 data 197 this DUC, along with the residential neighborhood located directly north of the DUC, to promote orderly and logical boundaries. The second DUC (Area 18) is located contiguous to City limits near the City’s southwestern boundary within the City of Covina’s SOI. It is recommended that LAFCO conduct a review of municipal services provided to this DUC as part of the next Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update for the City of Covina. 198 Figure 71: City of San Dimas Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities 199 GOVERNANCE AND STAFFING The City of San Dimas (“San Dimas” or “City”) is a General Law Municipality incorporated in 1960, operating under a Council-Manager form of government. City is authorized to provide a full range of municipal services - including but not limited to - local government administration, public works (roads, parks, sewer, and code enforcement), building, planning, and engineering, finance and utility billing, fire and police protections. These services are funded through a combination of utility rates, property taxes, grants, and general fund revenues with additional details provided in the sections that follow. The City Council appoints a City Manager to oversee the day-to-day operations of the City which includes adopting ordinances and resolutions to guide City operations. The current City Manager, Brad McKinney, was appointed in October 2024 and oversees a budgeted staff of 180 as of 2025. The City maintains an active website wherein Council meeting agendas and minutes are available online as well as other files pertinent to City operations such as financial audits and budgets. The City also maintains a presence on social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, and X to communicate information and updates to City residents. City staffing levels for full-time positions have grown modestly between 2020 and 2025 at 3.9%, while part-time positions have experienced more of a drastic increase at 32.4%, detailed in Figure 72 below. Figure 72: City of San Dimas Staffing GENERAL PLAN The City of San Dimas (“San Dimas” or “City”) General Plan was last updated in 1991 and covers the City’s long-term planning through the year 2040. Pursuant to Government Code 65300, cities 200 in California are required to prepare a general plan to inform decision-making regarding their long-term physical development. General Plans are considered living documents in that they represent the outcomes desired by residents and are based on local conditions and goals. As part of San Dimas General Plan, the City envisions fostering orderly and coordinated growth supported by existing infrastructure and transportation networks. It promotes development in a controlled, character-preserving way by ensuring residential uses are predominantly low density and non-residential uses are predominantly low intensity. The Housing Element is one of the seven (7) mandated elements when composing the General Plan as identified under Government Code Section 65302(c). The City’s adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element for 2021-2029 was reviewed by the Department of Housing and Community Development on September 27, 2022, and is in compliance. MUNICIPAL SERVICES PROVIDED The City of San Dimas (“San Dimas” or “City”) provides a limited range of municipal services within its jurisdictional boundary with dependence on outside agencies for certain services such as the Golden State Water Company (“Golden State”). This section of the municipal service review focuses on the specific service functions for San Dimas which include parks and recreation, building and planning, and road maintenance, in addition to details on their contract for services for service such as animal control, law enforcement, and wastewater collection. Figure 73 provides a summary of municipal services and associated service providers within San Dimas. A detailed analysis of San Dimas’ municipal services with respect to resources, capacities, demands, and performance measurements follows. 201 Figure 73: San Dimas Service Provider Matrix ANIMAL CONTROL The City of San Dimas contracts with the Inland Valley Humane Society and SPCA (“IVHS”) for animal control services. The current agreement was entered into on July 1, 2021 and remains in effect through automatic two-year renewals. In accordance with the contract, the City pays IVHS an annual fee of $280,000 for FY 2020-21, with the annual fee automatically increasing each year beginning July 1, 2022 based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI), up to a maximum of four percent per year. As detailed in the existing contract, IVHS – on behalf of the City – has the authority to provide the following services: 202 - Field response and enforcement - 24-hour field coverage - Shelter operations and adoption services - Rabies testing coordination - Owned-animal services (euthanasia, owner-relinquished animals, etc.) - Animal adoption microchips - Disaster response for displaced animals - Education related to responsible pet ownership and wildlife As detailed in the existing contract, IVHS maintains office hours from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, and from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday. The nearest animal shelter serving the City is located at 500 Humane Way in Pomona, California. Shelter hours are 10:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, and 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday. IVHS is closed on Sundays and most major holidays. Existing Demands and Capacity While the City provided total annual service call volumes, a detailed breakdown by call category was not available for all years. Based on data provided by the City, animal control service calls within the City of San Dimas have averaged approximately 838 calls a year from 2021 to 2024.94 Service calls have remained relatively consistent across this same time period, with a decrease of approximately 7.6% since 2021. Figure 74 provides an overview of animal control service calls from 2021 to 2025. 94 Call data for the entire 2025 calendar year was unavailable at the time of this report. 203 Figure 74: City of San Dimas Animal Control Demands (2021 to 2025) RSG confirmed through discussions with City staff that the City is generally satisfied with its current contractual relationship with IVHS for animal control services. However, staff noted that contract costs have increased in recent years. While the City expressed interest in exploring alternative service arrangements, the limited availability of animal control service providers in the region has constrained its ability to do so. RSG recommends the City continue exploring alternative service providers, such as nearby cities or the West-End Animal Services Agency (“WEASA”), to identify potential opportunities for improved cost efficiency and service delivery. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The City’s Community Development Department oversees the physical development within San Dimas and includes the Planning, Building and Safety, Code Compliance, Parking Enforcement and Housing Divisions. The Department is staffed by a total of 18 full-time staff and 7 part-time staff members.95 In FY 2024-25, the Department had a total of $2.4 million in expenditures.96 The Planning Division is responsible for administering the City’s development process and developing planning strategies for the future of San Dimas, including long-term planning, development review, subdivision review, and environmental review. The Planning Division also acts as staff to the City’s Planning Commission. The City’s Planning Commission consists of five- members and was established pursuant to Government Code Section 65100 to serve in a 95 Source: San Dimas FY 2024-25 Adopted Operating Capital Improvement Program Budget 96 Source: San Dimas FY 2024-25 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report 204 decision-making capacity to oversee development within the community, carry out goals, policies, and objectives as set forth by the City Council. The Department’s Building and Safety Division is responsible for administering and enforcing the California Building Codes and the construction section of the San Dimas Municipal Code to ensure minimum standards to protect life and property. This includes performing plan checks, inspections, record maintenance and disaster preparedness. The City’s Code Compliance Division is responsible for enforcement of the City’s Municipal Code and other City regulations to ensure property maintenance and to promote a quality aesthetic appearance throughout the city. The City contracts with a legal firm to provide prosecution services related to code compliance violations. The City also has a dedicated parking enforcement division, which enforces the City’s Municipal Code and other City regulations with respect to vehicle parking. Lastly, the City’s Housing Division operates with the goal of addressing the needs of low and moderate-income residents, improving and expanding the City’s housing stock, and encouraging the physical and economic revitalization of the City’s neighborhoods. COMMUNICATIONS Under franchise agreements with the City, Frontier Communications and Spectrum provide communications services within city limits. RSG received confirmation during the interview with City staff of their satisfaction with the current franchise agreements for telecommunication services. There were no cited issues or concerns brought to RSG’s attention. ELECTRICITY / NATURAL GAS Electricity service within the City of San Dimas is provided by Southern California Edison (“SCE”), an investor-owned utility regulated by the California Public Utilities 205 Commission.97 SCE is responsible for the operation, maintenance, and improvement of electrical transmission and distribution infrastructure serving the city. The City does not own or operate electric utility infrastructure and is generally limited to coordination related to permitting and right- of-way access. No major service deficiencies were identified based on available information. Publicly available information did not reveal any documented, widespread complaints or formal evaluations regarding customer satisfaction with electric service in the City. EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AND FIRE PROTECTION The City of San Dimas is located within Division II of the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County (“CFPD” or “District”) and receives comprehensive fire protection services from CFPD including air and wildland fire support, emergency medical services, and fire prevention services. CFPD is a dependent special district that is governed by the Los Angeles County Board Supervisors. The CFPD provides fire protection service to all unincorporatedareas 97 Source: City of San Dimas Website “Utilities & Franchises" 206 in County of Los Angeles, 59 cities in Los Angeles County, in addition to the City of La Habra in Orange County. The City of San Dimas is considered a pre-Proposition 13 member of the CFPD, which means that emergency medical and fire protection services are funded through a share of the City’s property tax allocation. The City also receives ambulance transport services from a private ambulance transport provider, Falck Ambulance, which provides contracted services through an agreement administered by the Los Angeles County Emergency Medical Services Agency. Staffing The current Fire Chief – Anthony C. Marrone – was selected to serve as Fire Chief in April 2023. CFPD Division II is overseen by Assistant Fire Chief Steven P. Cabrera, which includes the City of San Dimas. As of 2025, the CFPD assigns a total of 13 personnel per shift to the two fire stations serving the City of San Dimas. This includes two engine companies (three personnel each), one quint company (four personnel), one squad unit staffed by two firefighter paramedics, and one Battalion Chief. Facilities The CFPD operates from the two fire stations located within City limits, including Station No. 64 and Station No. 141. The City’s fire station details follow: • Station No. 64 is located at 164 S. Walnut Avenue in San Dimas, CA in the central portion of City limits. The station is staffed with two engine companies, including one engine staffed with three personnel and one quint apparatus staffed with four personnel, as well as a squad unit staffed by two firefighter paramedics and a Battalion Chief. According to the CFPD, the fire station is structurally safe and sound; however, the station will require roof and HVAC system replacements in the future. According to CFPD staff, the CFPD will 207 also continue to provide proactive maintenance to the structure such as, but not limited to, flooring, interior and exterior painting, and appliance replacement as needed. • Station No. 141 is located at 1124 Puente Avenue in San Dimas, CA in the southern portion of City limits. The station is staffed with one engine company that is staffed with three personnel. According to the CFPD, the fire station is structurally safe and sound; however, the station will require roof and HVAC system replacements in the future. According to CFPD staff, the CFPD will also continue to provide proactive maintenance to the structure such as, but not limited to, flooring, interior and exterior painting, and appliance replacement as needed. Existing Demands and Capacity Overall service demands for the CFPD in San Dimas during 2021 to 2024 have averaged 4,374 dispatched calls annually or 12.0 calls daily. The Department experienced the highest call volume in 2024 which reflected a daily onsite response of 12.8 calls for service. Overall, the District’s total onsite responses increased between 2021 and 2024 from 4,009 to 2,137 reflecting an overall increase of 38.1%. Figure 75 below summarizes the Department’s service demands during 2021 – 2024. 208 Figure 75: CFPD Demands in San Dimas between 2021 and 2024 The CFPD participates in the statewide California Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid System. Through this system, the District coordinates mutual aid responses with neighboring municipal and regional fire agencies throughout Los Angeles County and surrounding counties. This includes an agreement with City of La Verne Fire Department, in which La Verne Fire Department responds into the eastern portion of San Dimas for first alarm fire assignments and second due paramedic unit on emergency medical responses. The City does not have a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (“LHMP”) and is currently in the process of preparing a LHMP and updating the City’s Safety Element. The City received Federal Emergency Management Agency grant funding in order to prepare a LHMP. On March 30, 2026, the City distributed a survey to City residents to better understand the community’s concerns about safety issues, hazards, and associated vulnerabilities, and to identify and update policies and projects that can help lessen the impact of future hazard events. Service Adequacy and Performance In terms of the CFPD’s service performance, RSG considers the Insurance Services Office (“ISO”) rating as a key performance metric in our assessment of the Department’s service reliability, operational readiness, and alignment with nationally recognized fire protection standards. The ISO score is a measure of the capability of the fire department to protect the community and is rated on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the highest rating. ISO evaluates the fire department for apparatus and equipment, weight of response (number of firefighters arriving on scene), training, water supply and distribution, emergency communications systems, and fire prevention/community risk reduction efforts. The CFPD’s most recent evaluation of structural fire 209 protection capabilities from the Insurance Services Office (ISO) was completed in 2018 and resulted in a Class 3 rating. The ISO survey update is generally driven by the ISO and generally occur every 5-6 years. Since the CFPD has not updated its ISO rating since 2018, the CFPD could contact the ISO to inquire about an updated ISO survey/timeline to ensure the evaluation remains current and reflects existing service capabilities. According to the Golden State Water, the City’s water system includes approximately 1,859 fire hydrants throughout City limits and maintains a minimum system pressure of 16 pounds per square inch (“psi”). Fire flow capacity requirements vary by pressure zone; however, Golden State Water confirmed that it meets the required fire flow capacities per zone. It should be noted, however, that it is the responsibility of the City to ensure adequate fire flow and system pressure are available to support fire protection service delivery. In addition to considering the ISO rating, RSG also relies on the CFPD’s response times. Response times are a critical indicator of service performance as they directly measure how quickly fire personnel and equipment can arrive on scene to mitigate emergencies. Shorter response times improve the likelihood of containing fires before they spread, reducing property loss, and increasing survival rates for medical incidents. Conversely, extended response times may indicate staffing, resource, or geographic constraints that may limit a District’s ability to delivery effective services. Figure 76 provides an overview of the CFPD’s response times, which reflect the time from call receipt to arrival on-scene. Figure 76: CFPD’s Average Response Times in San Dimas 210 Based on data provided by the CFPD, the District’s average response times for fire-related service calls was 5 minutes and 59 seconds. Emergency medical service calls averaged 5 minutes and 26 seconds, while other calls for service averaged 5 minutes and 43 seconds. Response times for fire protection increased by 8.1% since 2021, while emergency medical service and other call response times have remained relatively stable suggesting that the CFPD has generally maintained consistent emergency response performance despite fluctuations in fire-related response times. With respect to the CFPD’s capacity to meet existing and future demands, the District appears sufficiently sized to readily accommodate the existing demands within the City of San Dimas’ jurisdictional boundary through the timeframe of this report. While the District has seen a gradual increase in service demands, the District has been able to maintain its response times. LAW ENFORCEMENT The City of San Dimas receives contracted law enforcement services through the City’s longstanding contract with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (“Department”). The City has contracted with the Department for law enforcement services since its incorporation in 1960. The Department provides 24-hours, 365 days a year response to calls for service within San Dimas, including general law enforcement activities, such as emergencies, traffic collisions and enforcement, initial crime investigation, disaster response and assessment, and preventive patrol services. The City also oversees community outreach and crime prevention programs including Neighborhood Watch, National Night Out and the City’s Community Emergency Response Team program. Staffing & Facilities The current County Sheriff – Robert G. Luna – was selected to serve as County Sheriff in November 2022. The San Dimas Sheriff’s Station Captain – Michael Moen – was appointed in August 2025. 211 As of 2025, the Department operates with a dedicated number of staff for the San Dimas Sheriff’s station, which includes a total of 35 employees, including 24 full-time sworn officers, 9 part-time officers, 2 civilian personnel. Department staff work both 8-hour and 10-hour shifts. All sworn officers are trained in standard certifications, including Peace Officer Standards and Training (“POST”). Figure 77 provides an overview of the Department’s staffing levels for the San Dimas station from 2021 to 2025. Figure 77: LA County Sheriff’s Department Demands in San Dimas between 2021 and 2024 The Department’s current staffing levels for fully sworn officers for the San Dimas station equates to approximately 0.70 officers per 1,000 residents as of 2025. This reflects an upward trend of 1.3% since 2021. Reserve/part-time officers decreased from 10 to 9 personnel, representing a 10.0% decrease. Civilian personnel have remained steady since 2021 at two personnel. The Department operates from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s San Dimas station located within the central portion of City limits at 270 S Walnut Ave. in San Dimas, CA 91773. The station also houses dispatch operations for service calls within San Dimas. According to the City’s FY 2024- 25 ACFR, the station is owned by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department; however, City staff indicated that station maintenance costs are typically split between the Sheriff’s Department and the City. According to the Department, there are no improvements identified for the San Dimas station, but the Department continuously monitors and accesses the need and request for necessary improvements. Existing Demands and Capacity To evaluate existing service demands, RSG analyzed the District’s historical and current call volume. For the purposes of analysis, the Department’s call volume was categorized into three response types: emergency, priority, and routine. Emergency responses involve life‑threatening 212 incidents or situations requiring immediate police action. Priority responses encompass urgent incidents that are not immediately life‑threatening but require timely attention. Routine responses consist of non‑urgent calls for service or scheduled Department responses. Overall service demands for the San Dimas station during 2021 to 2024 averaged 12,433 dispatched calls annually or 34.1 calls daily. The Department experienced the highest call volume in 2022 which reflected a daily onsite response of 36.4 calls for service. Routine responses make up the vast majority (75.0%) of calls for service on average. Overall, the Department’s total onsite responses decreased from 11,964 in 2021 to 11,750 in 2024, reflecting an overall decrease of 1.8%. This represents approximately 518.0 onsite responses per fully-sworn officer on an annual basis. Figure 78 below summarizes the Department’s service demands during 2021 – 2024. Figure 78: San Dimas Station Demands between 2021 and 2024 Service Adequacy and Performance With respect to the Department’s service performance within San Dimas, RSG relies on the Department’s response times as a measure of operational capacity. Response times are a critical indicator of service performance as they directly measure how quickly personnel can arrive on scene to mitigate emergencies. Figure 79 provides an overview of the Department’s response times. 213 Figure 79: San Dimas Station Response Times between 2021 and 2024 Emergency response times decreased by 2.8% from 2021 to 2024. However, response times for priority and routine responses increased from 2021 to 2024. Routine experienced the largest increase at 26.2%, while routine responses increased by 12.9%. These trends suggest potentially growing operational pressures on the Department, specifically in responding to priority calls for service which require timely attention. This suggests that staffing levels and available patrol units may be increasingly strained by existing call volume. While emergency response times have improved, continued upward trends in priority responses may affect public safety outcomes. RSG also analyzes the Sheriff’s response times against the Department’s established response time standards to determine operational sufficiency. While the Sheriff’s Department does not maintain response time standards specific to responses within San Dimas, the Department maintains Department-wide response time standards that apply to all areas served by the Sheriff’s Department. This includes 10-minute responses for emergency responses, 20-minute responses for priority responses, and 60-minute responses for routine responses. Based on the response data above, the Department is in compliance with its established response time standards, suggesting the Department is upholding its service standards within the San Dimas community. With respect to Department’s capacity to meet existing and future service demands, the City of San Dimas, through its existing contract with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, appears able to accommodate current and anticipated needs within its jurisdictional boundary. However, as noted previously, increasing response times indicate growing operational pressures 214 on the Department. The City of San Dimas should continue to monitor response time trends, staffing levels, and call volumes to ensure that public safety services remain adequate to community needs over time. MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL Mosquito and vector control services within the City of San Dimas are provided by the San Gabriel Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District, an independent special district serving communities throughout the San Gabriel Valle. 98 The District conducts ongoing vector surveillance, prevention, and control activities, including monitoring and treatment for mosquitoes and other vectors of public health concern. Routine services include inspection and treatment of potential breeding sources, public education, and proactive vector management. The District also responds to service requests related to mosquito activity, neglected pools, and other vector- related issues. Vector control services are funded through property tax revenues and benefit assessments levied on parcels within the District’s service area. The City does not directly fund or operate mosquito and vector control services. No major service deficiencies were identified based on available information. Publicly available information did not reveal any documented, widespread complaints or formal evaluations regarding customer satisfaction with electric service provision. NATURAL GAS Natural gas service within the City of San Dimas is provided by the Southern California Gas Company (“SoCal Gas”), an investor-owned utility regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission. 99 SoCal Gas is responsible for the operation, maintenance, and improvement of the natural gas transmission and distribution infrastructure serving the city. The City does not own or operate natural gas utility infrastructure and is generally limited to coordination related to permitting and right-of-way access. 98 Source: San Gabriel Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District Website “About Us” 99 Source: City of San Dimas Website “Utilities & Franchsies” 215 No major service deficiencies were identified based on available information. Publicly available information did not reveal any documented, widespread complaints or formal evaluations regarding customer satisfaction with natural gas service in the City. WASTEWATER The City of San Dimas owns its wastewater collection system while the Los Angeles County Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District (“LACSMD”) is responsible for day-to-day operations and maintenance of the sewer system. The City also does not provide wastewater treatment services; instead, San Dimas is within the service area of the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (“LACSD”), specifically County Sanitation District No. 22, which is responsible for regional wastewater treatment. Wastewater is treated at the San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant located at 1965 Workman Mill Road in Whittier, CA 90601. Infrastructure, Equipment, & Facilities The local sanitary sewer collection system consists of approximately 102.8 miles of gravity sewer pipelines, associated private laterals, and related sewer manholes and cleanouts. The existing sewer pipes range from 8 to 12 inches in diameter and primarily consist of vitrified clay pipe material.100 The wastewater collection system also consists of approximately 9 lift stations and approximately 2,364 manholes and flushing branches. Figure 80 below details San Dimas’ wastewater collection infrastructure. 100 Source: City of San Dimas Sanitary Sewer Management Plan (2020) 216 Figure 80: City of San Dimas’ Wastewater Infrastructure The LACSMD maintains the wastewater collection system through preventative maintenance and inspection activities. According to the City’s Sewer System Management Plan, the LACSMD performs a number of maintenance activities including sewer line and manhole inspections, sewer line hydro jetting and rodding, and inspection of sewage pump facilities. Rates LACSMD’s wastewater rates were last adopted by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (“Board of Supervisors”) on July 24, 2025 which provided a rate of $49.50 per sewage unit.101 The Board of Supervisors also approved an increase to LACSMD’s annual sewage unit charge that funds sewer collection system rehabilitation and replacements at an additional rate of $15 per sewage unit. The Ordinance establishes wastewater rates for FYs 2025-26 through 2029-30, which go into effect on July 1st of each year. Annual sewer service charges, in addition to the capital improvement fee, are charged on property owners' annual property tax bill. Existing and Future Demands and Capacity The City’s most recent Sewer System Management Plan was completed in 2025 and identifies the City’s wastewater infrastructure, discusses existing system design, delineates the City’s and LACSMD’s role and responsibilities, and provides an overview of LACSMD’s maintenance 101 Note: Multiple residential, certain commercial, and industrial properties are assessed higher amounts based on their Assessor's Use Codes. 217 activities. According to the City’s WWMP, there are currently no known capacity related sanitary sewer overflows. Since historical data was not available beyond what is reported in the WWMP, RSG cannot conclusively determine whether the City is currently operating within its maximum design capacity. Additional operational data would be needed to confirm long-term wastewater capacity. POTABLE WATER Potable water service within San Dimas is provided by Golden State Water Company (“GSWC”), which operates as the retail purveyor of treated water throughout the San Dimas Customer Service Area (“CSA”), which includes the City of San Dimas, unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County, and portions of nearby jurisdictions.102 The City of San Dimas does not own, operate, or maintain water infrastructure and does not hold independent water rights or entitlements. All water supply, treatment, storage, and distribution system functions, including billing, maintenance, and capital improvements, are managed by GSWC. As a regulated private utility, GSWC funds its operations, maintenance, and capital improvements primarily through customer water service charges and connection fees rather than municipal taxes or General Fund revenues. Customers are billed directly by GSWC under rate schedules approved by the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”), which typically include fixed service charges and volumetric charges based on water consumption. Local water supplies serving the San Dimas service area are derived from a combination of groundwater production and imported water sources. Imported water is supplied through regional wholesale providers, including the Three Valleys Municipal Water District (“TVMWD”), which receives water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. The City does not have a direct role in these wholesale supply arrangements. 102 Source: City of San Dimas 218 Infrastructure, Equipment, and Facilities Local potable water service within the San Dimas service area is supported by a combination of groundwater production and imported water supplies. According to GSWC, approximately 195.9 miles of transmission and distribution mains serve the San Dimas Customer Service Area, supported by 12 storage tanks and a system organized into approximately 22 pressure zones. The system includes a range of pipeline sizes, with the majority consisting of 8-inch mains (38.6%) and 6-inch mains (23.4%), supplemented by larger transmission facilities including 10- inch, 12-inch, 14-inch, 16-inch, and 18-inch pipelines. With respect to pipe materials, the system is composed of a mix of asbestos cement, ductile iron, cast iron, PVC, and steel pipelines. Figure 81: City of San Dimas Water Infrastructure 219 GSWC is responsible for the operation and maintenance of all water infrastructure within the service area, including groundwater wells, treatment equipment, storage reservoirs, pump stations, and distribution pipelines. Rates Water system operations, maintenance, and capital improvements within the San Dimas service area are funded primarily through customer water service charges rather than municipal taxes or City enterprise funds. Customers are billed directly by Golden State Water Company (“GSWC”) under rate schedules approved by the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”), which generally include fixed service charges based on meter size and volumetric charges based on metered water consumption. Water rates are established through the CPUC General Rate Case (“GRC”) process, during which GSWC must justify projected operating costs, capital improvement needs, and anticipated service demands. In January 2025, the CPUC adopted a General Rate Case for GSWC covering the 2025–2027 period, with updated rates that became effective February 1, 2025. The approved rate structure includes annual adjustments in 2026 and 2027 to account for inflationary pressures and changes in operating costs. Under the adopted rate schedule, the average residential customer with a 5/8 x 3/4-inch meter using approximately 9,724 gallons (13 hundred cubic feet, or “CCF”) per month is expected to see a monthly bill increase from approximately $88.80 to $92.85 beginning February 2025, excluding applicable surcharges. The average commercial customer with a 2-inch meter using approximately 79,288 gallons (106 CCF) per month is expected to see a monthly bill increase from approximately $814.59 to $934.65 over the same period.103 Revenue generated through these rates supports system operations, regulatory compliance, imported water purchases, and capital infrastructure investments, including the replacement and rehabilitation of aging pipelines, storage facilities, and groundwater production infrastructure. 103 Source: Golden State Water “San Dimas Rates” 220 Existing Demands and Capacity Based on available data from Golden State Water Company, total annual water demand within the San Dimas service area declined between 2021 and 2023, followed by a modest increase in 2024. Annual production decreased from approximately 10,820 acre-feet in 2021 to 8,999 acre- feet in 2023, before increasing to approximately 9,553 acre-feet in 2024. Average daily demand followed a similar trend, declining from approximately 30 acre-feet per day in 2021 to 25 acre-feet per day in 2023, before increasing slightly to approximately 26 acre-feet per day in 2024. Peak day demand remained relatively stable over this period, with a peak day factor of approximately 1.5, indicating consistent system performance during high-demand periods. The San Dimas system serves approximately 16,363 total connections as of 2024, the majority of which are residential (approximately 15,120 connections), with smaller shares of commercial and other uses. All connections within the system are metered. Figure 82: San Dimas Potable Water Usage Declines in water demand during the 2021–2023 period appear to be influenced by drought- related conservation measures and reduced customer usage, consistent with statewide trends. Based on the available information reviewed for this report, the water system appears to maintain sufficient supply capacity and operational flexibility to meet existing service demands. GSWC indicated that water service within the San Dimas Customer Service Area has historically been subject to challenges associated with drought conditions and groundwater quality. Groundwater conditions in the service area reflect the characteristics of local groundwater sources, which are considered vulnerable to contamination from surrounding urban, industrial, 221 and agricultural land uses, and where certain constituents have been detected and are subject to ongoing monitoring and treatment.104 These challenges are being managed through a combination of conservation measures, ongoing system monitoring, and access to imported water supplies, which provide additional reliability during periods of constrained groundwater production. GSWC monitors all water supplies to ensure compliance with Division of Drinking Water standards and remains informed of potential future regulatory requirements established by the State. Future Demands and Capacity Increases in demand associated with new development are expected to be partially offset by continued implementation of water conservation measures, including State-mandated efficiency standards, drought response requirements, and long-term reductions in per capita water use. As a result, overall demand growth is anticipated to remain relatively stable over time. The system’s reliance on a combination of local groundwater production and imported water supplies provides supply diversity and operational flexibility, allowing GSWC to adjust water sources in response to hydrologic conditions, regulatory requirements, and demand fluctuations. However, future system capacity may be influenced by external factors, including groundwater sustainability requirements, evolving drinking water regulations, and variability in imported water availability due to changing hydrologic conditions. Historical challenges related to drought conditions and groundwater contamination may also affect long-term supply reliability, though these risks are mitigated through ongoing monitoring, regulatory compliance, and access to supplemental imported water supplies. Based on the available information reviewed for this report, the existing water supply and distribution infrastructure appear adequate to accommodate projected future demand within the 104 Source: Golden State Water Company, San Dimas Water System, Consumer Confidence Report on Water Quality, 2024 222 San Dimas Customer Service Area, provided that planned capital improvements and regional supply conditions remain consistent. ROADS AND STREET MAINTENANCE The City of San Dimas is responsible for providing roadway and street maintenance services within its jurisdictional boundaries. These services include the maintenance of streets, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, traffic signage, striping, and related public right-of-way infrastructure. Roadway maintenance functions are carried out by the City’s Public Works Department through a combination of in-house staff and contracted services for specialized maintenance activities and capital improvement projects. The City maintains approximately 17 full-time equivalent (“FTE”) staff dedicated to street maintenance and related public works functions, which support day-to-day operations, system monitoring, and capital planning activities. 223 Infrastructure, Equipment and Facilities The City maintains a fleet of vehicles and equipment to support roadway maintenance activities, including street sweepers, asphalt patching equipment, dump trucks, loaders, striping trucks, and utility vehicles. The majority of the fleet is reported to be in good to excellent condition and adequate to support current operational needs. Public Works operations are supported by City-owned facilities, including a corporation yard, maintenance and repair shop, and materials storage areas, which are used for equipment storage, staging, and maintenance activities. While existing facilities are adequate for current operations, the City has noted that future facility needs may arise as fleet operations evolve, particularly with the transition toward electric vehicles, which may require additional infrastructure such as charging stations and expanded storage capacity. Existing Demands and Capacity Pavement conditions within the City are evaluated using the Pavement Condition Index (“PCI”), a standardized rating system ranging from 0 to 100. The City maintains approximately 122.67 centerline miles of roadway, including 33.62 miles of arterial roads, 11.72 miles of collector roads, and 77.33 miles of local streets. The City’s roadway network has an average PCI of approximately 54, with arterial, collector, and local streets all falling within the “Poor” category (PCI 41–59). This indicates that a significant portion of the roadway network requires rehabilitation rather than preventative maintenance. From an asset management perspective, pavement systems in the “Poor” range typically require more intensive and costly treatments, such as overlays or reconstruction, rather than lower-cost preservation strategies such as slurry seal or crack sealing. As a result, maintaining or improving pavement conditions becomes significantly more expensive once roadways fall below the “Fair” threshold. 224 The City reports that its roadway network has an average age exceeding 40 years, which contributes to increased maintenance needs and accelerated deterioration. Routine maintenance activities are performed regularly, including bi-weekly street sweeping, pothole repair on an as- needed basis, and periodic resurfacing cycles. The City maintains an average response time of approximately two business days for citizen-reported maintenance issues, indicating a responsive service level for day-to-day operations. Despite adequate operational capacity, the City has identified several roadway rehabilitation and pavement preservation needs in its FY 2024-25 Capital Improvement Program, including improvements along Arrow Highway, Bonita Avenue, Badillo Street/Covina Hills Road, San Dimas Canyon Road, and Fifth Street, in addition to adjacent residential streets. These projects include pavement rehabilitation, striping, ADA curb ramp improvements, sidewalk and curb repairs, traffic signal improvements, and related safety enhancements. The City also continues to fund pavement preservation activities for select residential streets through its pavement management program. Future Demands and Capacity Future roadway maintenance needs within the City of San Dimas are expected to be driven by the continued aging of infrastructure, increasing construction and material costs, and the need to rehabilitate roadway segments currently in poor condition. The City utilizes a Pavement Management Program (“PMP”) to guide roadway maintenance and rehabilitation activities, including prioritization of projects based on pavement condition and system needs. Based on City estimates, approximately $25.9 million will be required over the next 10 years to maintain current pavement conditions. City staff note that the City is prioritizing improving many of the deteriorating roads at present, including Arrow Highway and Bonita Avenue in the next five years. These improvements will be funded through the Gas Tax as well as Prop A funds, a Los Angeles County local sales tax measure dedicated to transportation improvements. The City implements a programmatic approach to roadway improvements through ongoing maintenance and capital projects guided by its pavement management framework. Annual 225 roadway maintenance and rehabilitation expenditures have varied significantly, ranging from approximately $2.02 million in FY 2021 to $11.65 million in FY 2025, reflecting fluctuations in project timing, funding availability, and capital delivery. Despite these investments, the City has indicated that existing funding levels remain insufficient to fully address systemwide needs. The gap between available funding and identified capital needs is expected to result in continued deferred maintenance, particularly for higher-cost rehabilitation projects. As pavement conditions decline, roadway segments require more intensive and costly reconstruction, further compounding long-term fiscal challenges. Based on the available information reviewed, the City appears able to maintain routine roadway operations and implement targeted capital projects; however, long-term pavement conditions may continue to decline unless additional funding is secured to address the existing backlog of rehabilitation needs. This conclusion is consistent with the City’s identified capital needs, the condition of the roadway network, and the City’s stated concern that available revenues are insufficient to fully maintain system conditions over time. PARKS AND RECREATION The City of San Dimas provides parks and recreation services through its Parks and Recreation Department, including maintenance of City-owned parks, landscaped areas, and recreational facilities. The Department, through its Landscape Maintenance Division, is responsible for the upkeep of parkland, 747,000 square feet of street medians and parkways, 9,000 community trees, and maintenance of 20 public facilities. Overall, the City maintains 14 parks totaling approximately 177 acres of parkland, as well as 13 miles of public trails throughout the community.105,106 105 Source: City of San Dimas Website “Parks & Trails” 106 Note: The City’s website notes the City maintains 177 acres of parkland, while the City’s breakdown of acreage by park sums to 118.2 acres. RSG utilizes the figure referenced on the City’s website for consistency purposes. 226 Figure 83: City of San Dimas Park Inventory The City identified several needs in regard to improving existing recreational space within City limits. City staff noted the need to renovate the San Dimas Recreation Center located adjacent to San Dimas High School, including associated aquatic facilities. The pool is utilized for high school aquatic programs, and both the facility and pool require substantial upgrades to remain functional and meet current standards. The City is actively exploring funding opportunities to support these improvements, including pursuing grant funding and coordinating with State and federal representatives. However, the City noted that securing grant funding can be challenging due to its existing level of parkland and open space, which may limit competitiveness for certain funding programs. 227 The City is also coordinating with the Bonita Unified School District to identify potential partnership opportunities and shared funding and operating strategies for the rehabilitation and continued use of the City’s Recreation Center. In addition to facility reinvestment, the City continues to implement targeted improvements within its park system, including the recent renovation of a soccer field and walking track and lighting improvements at Horsethief Canyon Park. To evaluate the adequacy of existing parkland within City limits, RSG refers to parkland standards established by professional organizations, in addition to regional planning studies. The National Recreation and Parks Association (“NRPA”) identified a nationwide median of approximately 10.2 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents in its 2025 Agency Performance Review; however, NRPA does not prescribe a universal standard due to the unique needs, preferences, and constraints of individual communities. By comparison, the 2016 Los Angeles County Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment identified an average of approximately 3.3 acres of local and regional recreation park space per 1,000 residents Countywide, indicating that parkland provision in Los Angeles County is generally lower than the nationwide median identified by NRPA. According to the City of San Dimas, the City maintains approximately 177 acres of parkland across 14 parks. Based on an estimated population of approximately 33,000 residents, this equates to approximately 5.4 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, which exceeds the Countywide average identified in the Needs Assessment. The City’s planning documents further identify a benchmark of approximately 3 acres per 1,000 residents for neighborhood parks, indicating that the City’s existing parkland supply is generally consistent with, and in some cases exceeds, applicable local and regional benchmarks. In addition to City-owned and operated parks, the City is also a member of the San Dimas La Verne Recreational Facilities Authority, which is a Joint Powers Agreement formed between the cities of La Verne and San Dimas and serves as the governing body for the San Dimas Canyon Golf Course (“Golf Course”). The entirety of the Golf Course is owned by the City of San Dimas and leased to a private operator (American Golf). The vast majority of the Golf Course lies within the City of San Dimas’ city limits, while a small portion lies within La Verne’s city limits. 228 SOLID WASTE (REFUSE) COLLECTION Solid waste collection and disposal services within the City of San Dimas are provided through a franchise agreement with Waste Management, Inc., which serves as the City’s contracted service provider for residential, commercial, and industrial customers. Under this arrangement, Waste Management is responsible for the collection, transport, and disposal of solid waste, as well as the provision of recycling and organics services in compliance with State regulations. The City’s role is primarily administrative, including contract oversight and ensuring compliance with applicable service standards and regulatory requirements.107 The current solid waste system provides citywide service and has not identified any significant service gaps or capacity constraints. The franchise model allows the City to rely on the operational capacity of a private provider, which can adjust staffing, equipment, and service levels in response to changing demand. Future service needs are expected to remain relatively stable, with incremental increases associated with population growth and redevelopment, as well as evolving regulatory requirements such as State-mandated organics diversion. Based on the available information reviewed, the City’s solid waste system appears adequate to meet current and future service demands. STORMWATER DRAINAGE The City’s Public Works Department provides stormwater drainage services within City limits. The City’s drainage system is designed to prevent flooding by transporting excess rainwater from City streets into various water bodies. The City administers stormwater pollution prevention and regulatory compliance programs to prevent stormwater pollution from occurring. This includes the inspections of businesses every two years to comply with the Los Angeles Regional Municipal Stormwater Permit, Order No. R4- 2021-0105. These businesses include industrial and commercial facilities, such as restaurants, 107 Source: City of San Dimas Website “Solid Waste Services” 229 gas stations, automotive repair shops, etc. and businesses engaged in industrial activities. The City hires an outside consultant – Charles Abbott Associates Inc – to perform this work. The City also tracks the implementation of stormwater compliance through an annual reporting process, which is collected throughout the year and reported to the Los Angeles Regional Quality Control Board each December. In 2015, the cities of Claremont, La Verne, Pomona, and San Dimas formed the East San Gabriel Valley Watershed Management Group (“Group”) and developed a Watershed Management Program (“WMP”) to fulfill the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit No. R4-2012-0175. The Group establishes best management practices, conducts public outreach, and also applies for funding for various stormwater treatment projects. To-date, the Group has received funding from the Safe Clean Water Program for stormwater capture projects at the Pedley Spreading Grounds for design and construction, as well as at Fairplex, Lone Hill Park, Pelota Park, and Marchant Park for design only. The City also receives a portion of parcel taxes collected from Measure W which funds stormwater initiatives at the regional and local level to fund multi-benefit stormwater capture, water quality, and watershed improvement projects. In FY 2024-25, the City received approximately $1,159,554 in the City’s Measure W Special Revenue Fund. FISCAL HEALTH The sections that follow evaluate the City of San Dimas (“San Dimas” or “City”) fiscal health, inclusive of revenue sources and major expenditure categories from FY 2020-21 through FY 2024-25. ANNUAL AUDIT FINDINGS The City of San Dimas (“San Dimas” or “City”) previously contracted with an outside accounting firm -Rodgers, Anderson, Malody & Scott LLP- to prepare an annual report to review and assess the City’s financial statements in accordance with established governmental accounting 230 standards. This includes auditing the City’s statements with respect to verifying the overall assets, liabilities, and net position. The most recent annual financial audit for FY 2024-25 did not identify any areas of concerns regarding the City’s financial reporting and further attested the City’s reporting methods accurately capture the City’s net position and are done so in accordance with U.S Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”). GOVERNMENT-WIDE GENERAL REVENUES Government-wide general revenues refer to revenues collected to fund costs associated with the City’s governmental activities, such as property taxes, sales and use taxes, franchise fees, property tax in-lieu of motor vehicle license fees, and interest earnings. These revenues do not include program-specific revenues such as charges for services, operating grants and contributions, and capital grants and contributions. An analysis of these revenues can provide a useful basis for evaluating historical revenue trends, in addition to projecting the City’s fiscal capacity to sustain governmental services into the foreseeable future. Taxes San Dimas receives 6.6% of the annual 1.0% of property taxes collected within the jurisdictional boundary which resulted in San Dimas receiving $13.4 million in property taxes based on their audited annual financial report for FY 2024-25. On a per capita basis, this equates to roughly $390.8 in assessed value per resident based on a resident population of 34,209 in 2025, reflecting the City’s relatively small population and concentrated property tax base. In addition to property tax, the City of San Dimas generates revenues from sales tax. The City’s current sales tax rate is 9.75% which generated $11.5 million in FY 2024-25.108 In FY 2019-20, the City proposed Measure SD, which would have increased the total sales tax rate in the City from 9.75% to 10.25%, in order to fund general City services. However, the measure did not pass with 61.48% of voters opposed. The City is not currently exploring any additional revenue measures. 108 Sources: California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, City of San Dimas Audited Financial Statement FY 2024-25 231 The City also collected revenues from transient occupancy tax (“TOT”), currently at a rate of 12.0%, which generated $1.8 million as of FY 2024-25. The City also collects a portion of general tax revenues from franchise fees and business license taxes. Franchise fees refer to taxes levied on utility providers for use of public rights-of-way, while business license fees are collected from one-time and annual fees imposed on businesses operating within City limits. Other General Revenues The City also collects a portion of government-wide general revenues from the use of money and property, in addition to the gain on sale of capital assets. The use of money and property revenue category includes revenues from interest on investments, in addition to income generated from the use or leasing of City-owned assets. In FY 2024-25, the City collected $9.2 million from the use of money and property which represented 20.8% of all government-wide general revenues. Revenues collected from the use of money and property have increased 187.9% since FY 2020- 21, indicating significant growth in the City’s interest income and investment earnings. However, as noted in the City’s FY 2024-25 audited financial statements, interest rates are expected to decline in the near future, which may create downward pressure on General Fund revenues. Additionally, the City collected $3.7 million from the gain on sale of capital assets in FY 2022-23; however, this revenue source is not available on a recurring basis. Figure 84 presents an overview of government-wide general revenues collected from FY 2020-21 to FY 2024-25. Between FY 2020-21 and FY 2024-25, the City of San Dimas’ general revenues averaged approximately $37.3 million, reflecting a 36.5% overall increase. In FY 2024-25, the City collected $31.6 million in general tax revenues, in which property taxes and sales taxes. Fund revenues comes from use of money and property, totaling an average of $5.6 million annually and accounting for 15.1% of the City’s overall General Fund revenues. Additional operating revenues are derived from motor vehicle in lieu - unrestricted (averaging $53,926 annually) and other revenues, which demonstrated the sharpest growth, increasing by more than 14276.0% to a high of $3.4 million in FY 2024. 232 Figure 84: City of San Dimas – Government-wide General Revenues (FY 2020-21 - FY 2024-25) GENERAL FUND OPERATING REVENUES Between FY 2020-21 and FY 2024-25, the City of San Dimas’ total revenues averaged approximately $30.2 million, reflecting a 41.5% overall increase. The following sections describe the major revenue categories that make up the City’s General Fund operating revenues. Licenses & Permits License and permit fees are charged by the City to recover the costs of regulating various activities. These revenues include building permit fees required for most construction activities, as well as fees for inspection and street permits, annual and temporary parking permits, bingo permits, and stormwater inspection permits. In FY 2024-25, the City collected approximately $2.0 million in license and permit revenues. Over the five-year period reviewed, these revenues averaged approximately $1.6 million annually, representing about 4.9% of total General Fund revenues. As shown in Figure 85, license and permit revenues increased substantially during the period, rising from $1.1 million in FY 2020-21 to $2.0 million in FY 2024-25, reflecting an overall increase of approximately 79.7%. This growth likely reflects increased development and construction activity within the City. 233 Intergovernmental Revenues Intergovernmental revenues include revenues from federal, state, and other local governments. Grants, shared revenues, and other types of intergovernmental payments are also included in this revenue category. This revenue category can fluctuate from year-to-year depending on grant cycles and funding availability. In FY 2024–25, the City collected $269,208 in intergovernmental revenues, representing a 42.8% decrease since FY 2020–21. Intergovernmental revenues represented a relatively small portion of the City’s overall revenues, accounting for approximately 0.9% on average over the last five years of data reviewed. Charges for Services In FY 2024–25, the City collected $1.9 million in charges for services, representing a 122.1% increase since FY 2020–21. Over the five-year period reviewed, these revenues averaged approximately $1.37 million annually. The increase in charges for services is largely attributable to higher service activity levels and fee adjustments implemented in recent years. According to the City’s budget documents, recent fee increases were adopted to better align user fees with the cost of providing services. Charges for services include revenues generated from recreation programs and facility rentals, planning and building services, engineering and inspection services, and other cost-recovery fees assessed to individuals or businesses that directly benefit from City services. Fines and Forfeitures Fines and forfeitures are revenues derived from penalties charged for violations of California law and City ordinances. This category includes revenues from traffic and parking citations, parking bail, administrative citations, and other penalties associated with local ordinance enforcement. In FY 2024–25, the City collected approximately $527,286 in fines and forfeitures, representing a 49.2% increase since FY 2020–21. Despite this increase, fines and forfeitures remain a relatively modest revenue source compared to taxes and charges for services, and are generally influenced by enforcement practices, citation activity, and overall compliance levels within the community. 234 Other General Fund Operating Revenues Other General Fund operating revenues include contributions from other agencies, private grants or donations, reimbursements, and miscellaneous revenues such as interest earnings, facility use reimbursements, and one-time receipts. These revenues are typically more variable and less predictable than major tax sources, as they may depend on grant availability, intergovernmental agreements, or unique transactions occurring within a given fiscal year. Figure 85 below provides a detailed overview of the City’s revenues between FY 2020 and FY 2024. Figure 85: City of San Dimas’ Audited Revenues GENERAL FUND OPERATING EXPENDITURES General Fund operating expenditures consist of expenses paid from the City’s General Fund to support the delivery of essential city services and day-to-day operations. General Fund operating expenditures include daily operating expenditures such as public safety, planning, community improvement, youth and senior program administration, street repair, building maintenance. In FY 2024-25, General Fund expenditures amounted to $29.8 million, representing an increase of 36.7% since FY 2020-21. The following sections describe the major expenditure categories that make up the City’s General Fund operating expenditures. General Government General government expenditures include administrative and support functions such as the City Council, City Manager’s Office, finance, human resources, legal services, and information technology that support overall municipal operations. In FY 2024–25, the City spent 235 approximately $7.1 million on general government services, representing a 9.0% increase since FY 2020–21. Over the five-year period reviewed, expenditures in this category averaged approximately $6.5 million annually, accounting for about 26.6% of total governmental expenditures. Public Safety Police expenditures include law enforcement services such as patrol operations, investigations, traffic enforcement, dispatch support, and public safety administration. Law enforcement services in the City of San Dimas are provided through a contract with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, which operates one sheriff station serving the City. In FY 2024–25, public safety expenditures totaled approximately $9.2 million, representing a 19.4% increase since FY 2020– 21. Over the five-year period reviewed, expenditures in this category averaged approximately $7.8 million annually, accounting for about 32.0% of the City’s total governmental expenditures, making it the largest operating cost category. The increase in expenditures over the period likely reflects rising contract service costs, personnel expenses, and equipment needs associated with maintaining public safety services for the community. Community Development Community development expenditures support planning, building, housing, and code enforcement services within the City. These activities include development review, permit processing, building inspections, long-range planning, housing program administration, and municipal code updates. In FY 2024–25, community development expenditures totaled approximately $2.4 million, representing a 93.4% increase since FY 2020–21. Over the five-year period reviewed, expenditures in this category averaged approximately $1.9 million annually, accounting for about 7.9% of total governmental expenditures. Parks and Recreation Parks and recreation expenditures support recreational programming, senior services, youth programs, park maintenance, and community-based activities provided by the City. In FY 2024– 236 25, expenditures totaled approximately $6.0 million, representing a 68.0% increase since FY 2020–21. Over the five-year period reviewed, expenditures in this category averaged approximately $4.6 million annually, accounting for about 18.6% of total governmental expenditures. Public Works Public works expenditures support infrastructure maintenance and engineering services within the City, including streets, sidewalks, traffic signals, streetlights, storm drainage systems, and other facilities within the public right-of-way. In FY 2024–25, public works expenditures totaled approximately $4.0 million, representing a 53.7% increase since FY 2020–21. Over the five-year period reviewed, expenditures in this category averaged approximately $3.1 million annually, accounting for about 12.5% of total governmental expenditures. Capital Outlay Capital Outlay expenditures reflect one-time investments in City facilities, equipment purchases, and infrastructure improvements. In FY 2024–25, Capital Outlay totaled approximately $950,211, representing a 524.4% increase since FY 2020–21. Over the five-year period reviewed, expenditures in this category averaged approximately $494,855 annually, accounting for about 2.0% of total governmental expenditures. Fluctuations in this category are expected, as capital purchases and facility improvements vary from year to year depending on equipment replacement schedules, capital improvement priorities, and project timing. Debt Service Debt service expenditures represent payments for principal and interest associated with the City’s outstanding long-term obligations. In FY 2024–25, debt service expenditures totaled approximately $157,814, representing a 1,328.7% increase since FY 2020–21. Over the five-year period reviewed, debt service expenditures averaged approximately $104,588 annually, accounting for a relatively small share of total governmental expenditures. Fluctuations in this 237 category reflect scheduled principal and interest payments associated with the City’s outstanding debt obligations. According to the city’s FY 2025-26 Budget Report one of the City’s primary outstanding obligations is related to the 1998 Mobile Home Park Housing Revenue Bonds, which were issued by the City of San Dimas Housing Authority to finance the acquisition and capital improvements of Charter Oak Mobile Home Estates. In October 2020, the bonds were refinanced at an interest rate of 1.85%, with the maturity date shortened to FY 2025–26. As shown in the City’s debt schedule, the remaining balance entering FY 2025–26 was approximately $482,400, with $4,462 in interest due, and the obligation scheduled to be fully retired by the end of that fiscal year. Figure 86: City of San Dimas’ Audited Expenditures NET INCOME Between FY 2020-21 and FY 2024-25, the City of San Dimas’s average net income totaled approximately $5.9 million, reflecting consistent annual operating surpluses. Net income levels were strongest in FY 2023-24 at approximately $7.3 million, before reducing slightly to approximately $6.2 million in FY 2024-25. While net income has fluctuated year to year, the City has consistently maintained revenues that are in excess of expenditures. Additional details regarding the District’s net income are provided in Figure 87 below. Figure 87: City of San Dimas Audited Net Income 238 Based on the above analysis, RSG finds that the City of San Dimas demonstrates the financial capacity to support municipal services. The City has maintained consistent annual operating surpluses, averaging approximately $5.9 million over the review period from FY 2020-21 through FY 2024-25. Core operating revenues have remained relatively stable and have generally increased over time, supporting ongoing operations. However, it should be noted that the City’s FY 2024-25 Annual Operating Budget noted that the City cannot sustain what will be increasing deficits in the subsequent years, and without more meaningful cuts to ongoing expenses, or increases in revenue, service impacts will be inevitable. RESERVE FUND BALANCE The City of San Dimas utilizes its unassigned fund balances to support fiscal stability, address unforeseen expenditures, and fund long-term liabilities and capital needs. The City Council has established formal reserve policies, including an unassigned reserve target of 25 percent of General Fund operating expenditures. As of FY 2024-25, the balance of the City’s General Fund unassigned balance was $22,168,636. This represents approximately 74.3% of the City’s General Fund Operating expenditures in the same fiscal year ($29,832,449), suggesting the City is in compliance with its reserve policy. In addition to General Fund reserves, the City has established a Capital Assets Reserve, to fund infrastructure replacement and other long-term obligations. As of FY 2024-25, the City assigned a total of $8.5 million for future lifecycle replacements and capital maintenance of essential facilities and infrastructure. These reserves, along with ongoing financial planning efforts, demonstrate that the City is proactively managing its fund balances to support both current operations and future capital and liability needs while maintaining alignment with its reserve policy framework. ASSETS, LIABILITIES, & NET POSITION The City of San Dimas’ total assets increased steadily between FY 2020–21 and FY 2024–25, rising from $126.6 million to $160.0 million, an overall gain of approximately $33.4 million, or 239 26.3%. This amount also exceeds the five-year average of $146.5 million, indicating sustained growth in the City’s asset base over the review period. As of FY 2024–25, current assets totaled $88.8 million, representing approximately 55.5% of the City’s total assets. These assets consist primarily of cash and investments, receivables, and other short-term resources, reflecting a strong liquidity position available to meet near-term operational needs. By comparison, non-current assets totaled $71.2 million, or about 44.5% of total assets, and include long-term resources such as restricted cash, capital assets, and amounts due from other governmental entities. The growth in total assets over the review period was largely driven by increases in cash and investment balances and capital asset values, including non-depreciable infrastructure and other long-term assets. Overall, the upward trend in the City’s asset base suggests continued investment in infrastructure and the maintenance of strong financial reserves. Figure 88 illustrates the City’s total assets between FY 2020–21 and FY 2024–25. Figure 88: City of San Dimas’ Audited Assets The City of San Dimas’ total liabilities increased moderately between FY 2020–21 and FY 2024– 25, rising from $24.1 million to $26.7 million, an overall increase of approximately $2.6 million, or 240 10.8%. While total liabilities grew modestly during the review period, changes occurred in the composition of these obligations. Current liabilities increased from $3.0 million in FY 2020–21 to $6.1 million in FY 2024–25, representing a 101.4% increase. This growth was primarily driven by increases in accounts payable, accrued liabilities, deposits payable, and unearned revenues, reflecting higher short- term obligations associated with operational activities and program funding. By contrast, non-current liabilities declined slightly over the period, decreasing from $21.1 million in FY 2020–21 to $20.6 million in FY 2024–25, a 2.2% decrease. The decline was largely attributable to reductions in long-term debt obligations, although this was partially offset by increases in long-term liabilities related to net pension obligations and other post-employment benefit (OPEB) liabilities. Overall, the City’s liability profile reflects modest overall growth in obligations, with a shift toward higher short-term liabilities while long-term debt levels have gradually declined over the review period. Figure 89: City of San Dimas’ Total Liabilities The City of San Dimas’ total net position increased steadily between FY 2020–21 and FY 2024– 25, rising from $104.8 million to $134.6 million, an overall gain of approximately $29.8 million, or 241 28.4%. Net position represents the difference between the City’s total assets and total liabilities and serves as a key indicator of long-term financial health. The largest portion of the City’s net position is associated with net investment in capital assets, which increased from $51.5 million in FY 2020–21 to $59.2 million in FY 2024–25, a 14.9% increase. These assets include the City’s infrastructure, facilities, and other long-term capital investments that support municipal operations. The restricted portion of net position also grew during the review period, increasing from $24.1 million to $33.8 million, representing a 40.4% increase. These funds are legally constrained for specific purposes such as capital projects, grants, or other designated programs. The unrestricted net position, which represents resources available for general operations and policy priorities, increased from $29.2 million in FY 2020–21 to $41.6 million in FY 2024–25, a 42.4% increase. Growth in this category provides the City with additional financial flexibility to support operations, reserves, and future capital or service needs. Overall, San Dimas’ audited net position reflects consistent financial growth and strengthening fiscal capacity over the five-year period, supported by increases in both capital investment and unrestricted financial resources. Figure 90 illustrates the City’s Net Position between FY 2020 and FY 2024. Figure 90: City of San Dimas’ Net Position PENSION OBLIGATIONS The City of San Dimas (“San Dimas” or “City”) provides defined pension benefits to its employees through participation in the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (“CalPERS”). Through its CalPERS contracts, the City participates in pooled investment plans that provide 242 retirement benefits based on employee classification and hire date. Employees are generally categorized as either classic or non-classic (PEPRA) members. This section summarizes the City’s pension obligations based on actuarial valuations prepared annually by CalPERS. The analysis provides an overview of plan enrollment, benefit formulas, employer and employee contribution requirements, and the funded status of the City’s pension plans.109 ENROLLEES & FUNDING FORMULAS According to the CalPERS annual actuarial valuation reports, the City of San Dimas had 305 total participants enrolled in its pension program as of FY 2022-23. Participant data for FY 2020 was not available; therefore, trend analysis reflects changes from FY 2020-21 through FY 2022-23. Over this period, total enrollment increased from 288 participants in FY 2020-21 to 305 in FY 2022-23, representing a 5.9% increase. Overall, the City maintains an active-to-retiree ratio of approximately 0.7, indicating there are fewer active employees contributing to the system than retirees receiving benefits. With regard to active participants, this includes 41 miscellaneous members (classic) and 46 miscellaeneous members (PEPRA). Additional details regarding benefit formulas can be found below. • Employees hired prior to January 1, 2013 are classified as “Classic” members and participate in defined benefit formulas established prior to the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act (“PEPRA”). Classic miscellaneous employees receive a pension benefit based on approximately 2.0% or 2.5% of final compensation for each year of service beginning at age 55, while Safety and Safety Second Tier Plans employees receive benefits based on approximately 3.0% percent at age 55. • Employees hired on or after January 1, 2013 are classified as PEPRA members and generally receive a defined benefit based on 2.0% at age 62 formula. 109 CalPERS Actuarial Reports for FY 2020-21 through 2023. CalPERS does not have data for FY 2024 available. 243 Figure 91: City of San Dimas’ Enrollee Information ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS San Dimas’ total annual pension contributions to CalPERS for both its classic and non-classic plans totaled $1.8 million in FY 2022-23. This contribution represents 18.6% of the City’s covered payroll for the fiscal year. From FY 2020 to FY 2022-23, the City’s annual pension contributions increased from $1.4 million to $1.8 million, reflecting a 11.2% increase over the period. During the same timeframe, annual payroll increased from $8.2 million to $9.9 million, representing a 21.2% increase. As a result, pension contributions as a share of payroll declined slightly from 16.8% in FY 2020 to 18.6% in FY 2022-23. Additional details regarding San Dimas’ pension contributions are presented in Figure 92. Figure 92: City of San Dimas’ Annual Contributions FUNDING STATUS As of FY 2022-23, San Dimas reported a composite unfunded pension liability of approximately $18.6 million for its CalPERS pension plans, covering both classic and non-classic employee categories. Unfunded liability represents the difference between the market value of plan assets and the actuarial accrued liability for benefits earned by employees and retirees. In FY 2022-23, the City reported $47.6 million in pension assets compared to $66.2 million in accrued liabilities. These figures result in a funded ratio of 71.9%, which represents the proportion of 244 pension liabilities covered by plan assets. Over the review period, San Dimas’ funded ratio fluctuated but remained relatively stable, declining from 84.4% in FY 2020-21 to 71.9% in FY 2022-23, representing a 14.7% decrease. During the same period, the City’s unfunded liability increased from approximately $9.4 million to $18.6 million. Additional details regarding San Dimas’ pension funding status are presented in Figure 93. Figure 93: City of San Dimas’ Funded Status It should be noted that the funded ratio provides a point-in-time measure of the plan’s financial position but does not fully capture the trajectory of the City’s pension obligations. CalPERS sets employer contribution rates using amortization schedules that front-load payments on recent unfunded liability gains. As a result, required contributions may increase in future years even if the funded ratio remains stable or improves. OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS San Dimas offers other post-employment benefits (“OPEB”) to eligible employees, which refer to retiree health benefits provided to eligible employees following retirement, such as medical, dental, and vision coverage. Under GASB Statement No. 75, the City’s OPEB obligation reflects both direct contributions and any implicit subsidies that reduce retiree healthcare premiums. The City funds its OPEB obligations on a pay-as-you-go basis and has not established a trust for pre-funding retiree health benefits. California law does not require pre-funding of OPEB obligations. However, a pay-as-you-go approach means the City bears the full annual cost of retiree benefits from current General Fund operating revenue without the benefit of investment returns to offset rising healthcare costs over time. As of FY 2024-25, the City’s total OPEB liability 245 amounted to $2.3 million, which represents the present-day value of retiree health benefits that have been earned by current and former employees for work performed to date. Figure 94 provides an overview of the City’s OPEB liabilities from FY 2020-21 to FY 2024-25. Figure 94: City of San Dimas’ OPEB Liabilities (FY 2020-21 to FY 2024-25) As of FY 2022-23, the City had approximately 83 active employees and 25 inactive employees receiving benefits. The City utilizes the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act minimum contribution limits to contribute to retirees’ health care; although the City’s FY 2024-25 ACFR does not specify the dollar amount of contributions made on behalf of eligible retirees. In FY 2024-25, total OPEB benefit payments amounted to approximately $94,080. This amount represents the estimated value of retiree healthcare benefits provided during the year, including the City’s direct premium contributions and any implicit subsidy associated with premium rates provided. Of the total OPEB benefit amount, the City’s actual cash contribution was $46,200, which was paid from the City’s General Fund. Compared to the annual actuarial cost of $146,578 (service cost and interest), the City funded only a portion of its annual OPEB obligation, resulting in a funding gap of approximately $52,488 in FY 2024-25. This gap has decreased by approximately 54.4% since FY 2020-21. While the City’s FY 2024-25 ACFR indicates that annual contributions are based on the actuarially determined contribution, the ACFR does not disclose the amount of the actuarially determined contribution. Therefore, RSG is unable to evaluate the extent to which the City’s actual contributions align with its actuarially determined funding target. Figure 95 provides a comparison of the City’s annual OPEB actuarial cost and actual benefit payments over time. 246 Figure 95: City of San Dimas OPEB Funding (FY 2020-21 to FY 2024-25) As noted above, the City’s OPEB liability reflects the estimated long-term cost of providing retiree health benefits over time; however, under a pay-as-you-go approach, the City funds only current benefit costs as they arise. Because San Dimas provides only a minimal retiree health benefit to a small number of participants, its current annual payments remain small despite the reported long-term liability. Given assumed growth in retiree healthcare costs, the City could evaluate the feasibility of establishing an irrevocable trust (such as a CalPERS CERBT or PARS trust) to pre- fund its OPEB obligations. Pre-funding would allow the City to earn investment returns that offset a portion of future costs, use a higher discount rate, reduce the reported liability, and smooth annual costs over time. 247 SOI DETERMINATIONS RSG’s determinations related to the City of San Dimas’ Sphere of Influence (“SOI”) are presented below in accordance with Government Code Section 56425. 1. Present and Planned Land Uses The City of San Dimas is predominantly residential, with residential uses accounting for approximately 85.5% of total land use. The remaining land uses consist of vacant (7.4%), commercial (5.2%), and public uses (1.4%), with industrial, open space, and other uses each comprising less than 1% of the City’s land use composition. As part of this MSR, there were no planned developments identified within City limits. The City’s General Plan promotes development in a controlled, character-preserving way by ensuring residential uses are predominantly low density and non-residential uses are predominantly low intensity. The proposed larger than sphere of influence reflects existing development patterns by including small, unincorporated areas with land uses similar to the City to reflect logical planning boundaries. 2. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services The City’s existing service needs are limited to maintaining service levels within developed areas of the City. The City anticipates ongoing needs related to street rehabilitation projects, in which current funding levels have not been sufficient to fully address systemwide needs, resulting in deferred maintenance and a growing backlog of rehabilitation projects. The City is also exploring funding opportunities to fund improvements to the San Dimas Recreation Center. While no capacity constraints have been identified, these planned improvements will be necessary to ensure continued service adequacy and accommodate future community needs. The proposed larger than sphere of influence aligns with the City’s current and probable future service area. LAFCO also identifies two unincorporated islands that are completely surrounded by City limits. While the City does not currently provide services to these areas, RSG recommends 248 the City coordinate with LAFCO and the County to formally evaluate the feasibility of annexing these islands to promote orderly and logical boundaries. 3. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Services The City of San Dimas currently maintains adequate public facilities and infrastructure to provide municipal services within its jurisdictional boundary. The City’s ability to maintain adequate service levels over time will depend on the timely implementation of capital improvement projects and continued investment in infrastructure maintenance, including streets and recreational facilities. Overall, infrastructure capacity is sufficient to support the City’s existing service area, including the City’s proposed SOI. The proposed SOI is consistent with the City’s existing and future service area. 4. Social or Economic Communities of Interest There were no social or economic communities of interest identified as part of this MSR. 5. Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community Present and Planned Need for Facilities and Services LAFCO identifies two Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (“DUCs”) located contiguous to the City’s southwestern boundary, including one within the City’s Sphere of Influence and one within the City of Covina’s Sphere of Influence. According to the City, the City is not currently providing municipal services to either of these areas. In regard to the DUC located within the City’s proposed Sphere of Influence, RSG recommends the City engage in discussions with LAFCO and the County to formally evaluate the feasibility of annexing the DUC, along with the residential neighborhood located directly north of the DUC, to promote orderly and logical boundaries. Additionally, in regard to the second DUC located contiguous to City limits near the City’s southwestern boundary within the City of Covina’s SOI, it is recommended that LAFCO 249 conduct a review of municipal services provided to the second DUC as part of the next Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update for the City of Covina. 250 MSR DETERMINATIONS Pursuant to Government Code Section 56430, the required CKH determinations for this MSR for San Dimas are presented below: 1. Population Projections and Growth The City of San Dimas has experienced modest population growth since 2010; however, more recent data indicates a slight decline over the past five years. The City is largely built out and characterized by low-density residential development, which limits its capacity to accommodate substantial future growth. Population projections indicate that San Dimas will experience slow but positive growth through 2035 and 2050. While the City is expected to continue growing, its projected growth rate is lower than that of Los Angeles County, suggesting limited ability to capture regional population increases. No significant development projects were identified as part of this Municipal Service Review. 2. Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities in or Contiguous to SOI LAFCO identifies three Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (“DUCs”) located contiguous to the Cities of San Dimas and Claremont. This includes one DUC located near the southwestern boundary of San Dimas within the City’s existing Sphere of Influence (“SOI”), as well as one DUC within the City of Pomona’s SOI and one DUC within the City of Covina’s SOI. Neither San Dimas nor Claremont currently provides municipal services to these DUCs. Accordingly, RSG recommends that LAFCO conduct a detailed review of municipal services provided to these areas as part of the next Municipal Service Reviews and Sphere of Influence updates for the cities of Pomona and Covina. 251 3. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities The present and planned capacity of public facilities appear adequate to meet existing and future service demands; however, there were several operational and long-term capacity considerations identified as part of this MSR. This includes increasing response times for law enforcement services, provided through contract with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, which suggest emerging operational pressures. With respect to roadway infrastructure, the City is able to maintain routine roadway operations and implement targeted capital improvements. However, existing funding levels are insufficient to fully address systemwide rehabilitation needs, resulting in deferred maintenance. Without additional funding, roadway conditions may continue to decline over time, potentially increasing long-term costs and affecting service levels. 4. Financial Ability to Provide Services The City of San Dimas has the financial ability to provide services to its existing and future residents and did not demonstrate any significant fiscal stress during the last five years of fiscal data reviewed. Additional details regarding the City’s financial ability to provide services are provided below. • The City’s net position increased by 28.4% since FY 2020-21, rising from $104.8 million to $134.6 million, reflecting continued growth in financial resources and overall fiscal strength. • The City’s total revenues have demonstrated consistent growth, driven primarily by property tax, sales tax, and increased revenues from the use of money and property. However, a portion of this growth is attributable to elevated interest earnings and other non-recurring sources, which may not be sustained over the long term. • General Fund expenditures have increased across major service categories, including public safety, parks and recreation, and public works. These increases 252 appear proportionate to revenue growth, indicating the City has generally maintained fiscal balance while expanding service levels. • San Dimas’ General Fund expenses rose by 36.7% since FY 2020-21, primarily due to higher public safety costs, particularly in police services, along with increases in community development, public works, and capital expenditures. This increase is less than the corresponding 41.5% growth in total revenues since FY 2020-21. • Between FY 2020-21 and FY 2024-25, the City of San Dimas’s average net income totaled approximately $5.9 million, reflecting consistent annual operating surpluses. • The City maintains a diversified revenue base and adequate reserve levels, providing financial flexibility to support ongoing operations and respond to future service needs. • The City’s combined funded ratio for pension obligations with CalPERS in FY 2024- 25 finished at 71.9% and is considered moderate. However, this ratio also decreased by 14.7% since FY 2020-21, suggesting that pension liabilities are growing at a faster rate than assets. • The City funds its OPEB obligations on a pay-as-you-go basis and has not established a trust for pre-funding retiree health benefits. As of FY 2024-25, the City’s total OPEB liability amounted to $2.3 million. 5. Opportunities for Shared Facilities There were several instances of shared facilities and services identified as part of this MSR: • The City is a member of the East San Gabriel Valley Watershed Management Group, in collaboration with the cities of Claremont, La Verne, and Pomona. Through this partnership, the cities coordinate stormwater management activities, including the development of best management practices, public outreach, and the 253 pursuit of funding for regional stormwater capture and water quality improvement projects. • The City benefits from interagency service coordination through the Los Angeles County Consolidated Fire Protection District, which operates within a regional mutual aid framework. Through existing agreements, the City of La Verne provides first alarm fire response and secondary paramedic support to portions of San Dimas, demonstrating an integrated, cross-jurisdictional emergency response system. • The City is coordinating with the Bonita Unified School District to identify potential partnership opportunities and shared funding strategies for the rehabilitation of joint-use recreational facilities. • The City is a member of the San Dimas La Verne Recreational Facilities Authority, a Joint Powers Agreement formed between the cities of La Verne and San Dimas, which serves as the governing body for the San Dimas Canyon Golf Course. 6. Accountability for Community Service Needs The San Dimas City Council consists of four district representatives and one at-large Mayor who are elected and together serve as the legislative and policy-making body for the City. The City maintains a comprehensive website that provides access to City Council agendas, meeting minutes, staff reports, budget documents, and other public information. City Council meetings are publicly noticed and accessible, and the City utilizes digital platforms and communication tools to keep residents informed about municipal programs, services, and community events. San Dimas demonstrates established administrative and financial management practices, including the preparation of annual budgets, independent financial audits, and long-term planning documents. Overall, the City appears to have the institutional structures, 254 transparency practices, and management systems in place to remain accountable and responsive to community service needs. 7. Any Other Matter Related to Effective or Efficient Service Delivery as Required by Commission Policy The City did not identify any other matters related to effective or efficient service delivery as required by LAFCO Policy. 255 APPENDICES 256 APPENDIX A – LA VERNE OUT-OF-AGENCY WATER SERVICES MAP 257 APPENDIX B – LA VERNE & CONSOLIDATED FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AUTOMATIC AID SERVICE AREAS Source: Memorandum of Understanding for Exchange of Fire Protection Services Between the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles and the City of La Verne Department dated December 1, 2022 258 Source: Memorandum of Understanding for Exchange of Fire Protection Services Between the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles and the City of La Verne Department dated December 1, 2022 259 Source: Memorandum of Understanding for Exchange of Fire Protection Services Between the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles and the City of La Verne Department dated December 1, 2022 260 Source: Memorandum of Understanding for Exchange of Fire Protection Services Between the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles and the City of La Verne Department dated December 1, 2022 261 Source: Memorandum of Understanding for Exchange of Fire Protection Services Between the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles and the City of La Verne Department dated December 1, 2022 262 Source: Memorandum of Understanding for Exchange of Fire Protection Services Between the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles and the City of La Verne Department dated December 1, 2022 263