> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.raincrossgazette.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Ward 2 and 4 Candidates Weigh Utility Transfers, Fire Funding and Taxes - URL: https://www.raincrossgazette.com/ward-2-and-4-candidates-weigh-utility-transfers-fire-funding-and-taxes/ - Published: 2026-10-24T01:00:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-24T01:00:00.000Z - Description: Both responding candidates would scale back utility transfers but split on revenue, with Ayra backing a warehouse tax and Vandenberg a Measure Z extension at the current rate. Torres and Conder did not respond. - Author: Micaela Ricaforte - Tags: 2026 Election, Politics How should Riverside pay for the services residents depend on — and how much should come from their utility bills and taxes? For the third installment of its City Council election questionnaire series, the Gazette asked candidates in Wards 2 and 4 about the city’s water transfer litigation, its reliance on utility revenue, funding for fire protection and whether they would seek new revenue from voters. Ward 2 candidate Aram Ayra and Ward 4 candidate Rich Vandenberg responded. Ward 2 candidate Gracie Torres declined to respond, and Ward 4 Councilmember Chuck Conder did not respond by press deadline. Both responding candidates said they support gradually reducing Riverside’s reliance on utility transfers. However, they take different approaches to future revenue: Ayra proposes a warehouse tax, while Vandenberg opposes additional taxes over the next two years but supports extending Measure Z at its existing rate. The questions and candidates’ full responses appear below. Candidates were asked to keep each answer to 200 words or fewer. Answers are published verbatim, without edits to wording, spelling or capitalization. ### 1\. Water transfer litigation **A judge ordered Riverside to refund $40.8 million in water transfer revenue, and the city said it planned to appeal. Should the city continue the appeal?** **Aram Ayra, Ward 2:** "Riverside should work toward resolving this litigation and returning money owed to ratepayers. If we are continuing to spend taxpayer dollars defending these transfers, we need to be able to produce a credible justification that an appeal will benefit residents. Using water transfer revenue to plug recurring budget gaps is not sustainable. It makes essential City services dependent on money collected through residents’ water bills and places an additional burden on ratepayers who are already struggling with the cost of living. As a Budget Engagement commissioner, I have pushed back against service cuts and higher costs for residents. I would bring that same approach to the Council: scrutinize spending, reduce unnecessary litigation, and develop a long-term budget plan that protects core services without treating utility customers as a source of revenue whenever the City falls short. **Rich Vandenberg, Ward 4:** I take the court’s ruling seriously. A $40.8 million judgment has significant consequences for Riverside, both for the ratepayers who paid those charges and for the city services that depend on General Fund revenue. Before deciding whether to continue the appeal, I would want a clear assessment from our legal counsel of the city’s chances of success, the cost of additional litigation, and the financial consequences if the appeal is unsuccessful. I would also want to explore whether a negotiated settlement could provide a fair resolution for ratepayers while limiting the financial impact on essential city services. If there is a sound legal basis and a reasonable chance of success, I would consider continuing the appeal. But if the likelihood of success is limited and we’re simply adding to the cost of an already expensive judgment, I would not support continuing that litigation. Regardless of the outcome, the Council has a responsibility to understand how we arrived at this situation, address any problems that contributed to it, and ensure we don’t repeat them. ### 2\. Utility transfers and city services **The city charter allows transfers of up to 11.5% of utility revenue to the General Fund. In your opinion, should the water and electric transfers be kept, reduced or ended, and what would that mean for ratepayers and city services?** **Aram Ayra, Ward 2:** I support gradually reducing and ultimately ending these transfers through a carefully planned transition that preserves City services. Relying on water and electric bills to cover general budget expenses is not sustainable and places a significant burden on residents already struggling with the cost of living. Riverside needs a clear timeline to reduce its dependence on utility revenue, paired with realistic replacement revenues and a thorough review of spending. Preserving City services is a high priority. I don’t think residents should have to choose between affordable utility bills and reliable road repairs, park maintenance, public safety, etc. An abrupt loss of revenue could put those services at risk, which is why this transition must be deliberate and fiscally sound. For ratepayers, the goal would be to reduce the portion of their bills supporting unrelated City expenses and keep utility revenue focused on reliable, affordable water and electricity. For the City, the focus needs to be building a more stable budget that protects the services that residents count on. **Rich Vandenberg, Ward 4:** I believe Riverside should work toward reducing its reliance on utility transfers, but we need to do it responsibly. One of my concerns is that when utility rates increase, the amount transferred into the General Fund can increase as well. While voters approved these transfers, subsequent rate increases don’t necessarily require another vote. I don’t believe utility rates should become a way to generate additional General Fund revenue beyond what residents originally intended. At the same time, these transfers provide significant funding for essential services, including police, fire, parks and infrastructure. Eliminating them without a plan would create a substantial budget shortfall and potentially affect services residents depend on. I would support a gradual reduction, beginning with a thorough review of spending, identifying opportunities for savings, and developing a long-term plan to reduce our dependence on this revenue. Utility rates should reflect the cost of providing reliable water and electricity. ### 3\. Funding fire protection **The city's fire master plan calls for 84 more firefighters and two new stations, including one in Ward 4\. Voters rejected Measure Z, and the budget doesn't fund the plan. If you were on the Council for the 2026-27 budget, would you have altered it to fund such? If so, what would you cut, delay or leave as is?** **Aram Ayra, Ward 2:** I would have pushed for phased fire staffing and station expansion backed by ongoing funding. I would scrutinize administrative spending and delay nonessential projects before cutting any frontline services. A one-time budget carve-out cannot sustain additional firefighters and stations. We need a thorough review of Measure Z spending, including the auditing and accountability we have called for on the Budget Engagement Commission. Voters approved Measure Z in 2016 to address critical City needs. Annual revenue later exceeded $80 million, substantially above the $48 million projected, yet the City struggles to fund the services Measure Z was supposed to support. Voters rejecting the June ballot measure reinforced the need for a clear accounting of where that money went and what it delivered. Inadequate transparency and communication were central reasons I opposed the Measure Z tax increase and extension. We cannot keep drawing from dwindling funds without addressing underlying spending decisions. Fire protection requires a lasting financial commitment. Any future City-sponsored tax increase for fire services should be a special tax, requiring 2/3rds voter approval and legally restricting spending to authorized purposes. Residents deserve enforceable commitments about how their tax dollars will be used. **Rich Vandenberg, Ward 4:** As vice chair of Riverside’s Budget Engagement Commission, I questioned why the proposed budget didn’t account for additional resources identified in the Fire Department’s master plan. We had a study identifying critical needs, yet the budget wasn’t adjusted accordingly. I opposed the June Measure Z proposal. Residents already face rising costs, and I did not support increasing the sales tax or making it permanent. Requiring voters to renew it provides accountability. I would have proposed extending the existing 1% Measure Z for 20 years beyond its 2036 expiration, without raising the rate. Subject to financial review, that longer revenue commitment could support bonds for fire stations and equipment. A voter-approved bond measure would legally restrict its proceeds to specified projects, unlike the proposed general sales tax, which did not guarantee additional revenue for the Fire Department. Additional firefighters would require ongoing operating revenue. I also would have revised the 2026-27 budget: reviewing discretionary spending, delaying lower-priority projects where appropriate and redirecting available funds toward urgent fire staffing needs. I would protect existing public safety services and essential infrastructure maintenance while developing a phased plan to address the remaining recommendations. ### 4\. New revenue for city priorities **Would you ask voters for new revenue for any city priority in the next two years? If so, under what conditions?** **Aram Ayra, Ward 2:** Yes. I would ask voters to approve a tax on logistics and shipping warehouses, particularly facilities that generate substantial truck traffic without generating local sales tax revenue from their operations. These facilities contribute to road damage, pollution and congestion, while residents subsidize the costs through taxes like Measure Z. We see those impacts along the 215 corridor and on Alessandro, Central, Watkins and other neighborhood streets used as shortcuts. Warehouse operators should contribute fairly toward addressing the many impacts their businesses create. My priority would be to dedicate the revenue to road repairs and enforcement of designated truck routes, keeping trucks from cutting through our neighborhoods. Before bringing a measure forward, I would prioritize a clear assessment of expected revenue, a specific spending plan and enforceable accountability provisions, including independent audits and public reporting. Redlands voters have approved a distribution-center tax increase, and Perris has a warehouse tax on this November’s ballot. Riverside should take similar action to protect our infrastructure and neighborhoods. I think this is a common-sense and long-overdue step toward making warehouse operators cover more of their impacts instead of leaving residents to foot the bill. **Rich Vandenberg, Ward 4:** No, I would not support asking Riverside residents to pay additional taxes over the next two years. Families and businesses are already dealing with rising costs across the board. I don’t believe asking them to pay more should be the City’s answer to its financial challenges. Having served on the Budget Engagement Commission, I understand the difficult decisions involved in balancing the City’s budget. I also believe we need to do a better job of prioritizing essential services, examining spending and making the most of the revenue we already receive. As I mentioned in my previous answer, I would support asking voters to consider extending the existing Measure Z tax at its current rate, with a defined expiration date. That is very different from asking residents to pay a higher tax. My priority would be ensuring that existing tax dollars are being spent responsibly, protecting essential services and finding ways to meet the City’s needs without placing an additional financial burden on our residents. --- *This questionnaire is part of the Raincross Gazette’s ongoing series with City Council candidates in wards 2 and 4\. Read the previous installment on* [*accountability, ethics and campaign finance*](https://www.raincrossgazette.com/ward-2-and-4-candidates-outline-positions-on-accountability-ethics-and-campaign-finance/)*.*