Banning City Council
February 27, 2024

RESOLUTION 2024-03 SA

A RESOLUTION OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY OF THE CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE MID-YEAR BUDGET PLAN FOR JULY 1, 2023 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2024,

AND MAKING APPROPRIATIONS TO MEET EXPENSES APPROVED THEREIN WHEREAS, the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Banning is a public body, corporate and politic, organized and existing under the California Community Redevelopment laws (Health & Safety Code § 33000, et seq.; hereinafter, the “CCRL”); and WHEREAS, as a result of Assembly Bill X1 26 (AB26), which was signed by the Governor on June 28, 2011 and confirmed by the Supreme Court (California Redevelopment Association, et al. v. Matosantos, et al. (Case No. S194861) on December 29, 2011, all California redevelopment agencies were dissolved as of February 1, 2012, and successor entities became responsible for winding down the affairs of the former redevelopment agencies; and WHEREAS, the City is, by operation of law, the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency for purposes of winding-down the Redevelopment Agency under ABX126; and WHEREAS, the Administrative Services Director prepared the Mid-Year budget plan for Fiscal Year 2023-24 which set forth all of the expected revenues of the City of Banning Successor Agency (“Agency”), and the recommended appropriations to meet the operating and capital expenses for all Agency funds; and
WHEREAS, the Mid-Year budget for Fiscal Year 2023-24 of the Successor Agency has been submitted to this Agency, and said budget has been considered and, is in form and substance satisfactory to the Agency Board; and
WHEREAS, the Agency departments may not exceed their appropriations by character of expense, with character of expense being defined as personnel services, services and supplies, capital outlay, debt service and interfund transfers, without the consent of the City Manager; and WHEREAS, the Agency may transfer appropriations, between departments and within their respective funds, with approval of the Administrative Services Director, as long as those appropriations do not exceed their fund total unless approved by this Board; and WHEREAS, the Agency departments may not hire in excess of the approved number of positions in the job classification as indicated by the budget detail without the consent of this Board; and
WHEREAS, it is essential that the Agency adopt a budget plan establishing the revenues and expenditures for all of its funds; and
WHEREAS, the Banning Oversight Board and California Department of Finance approve the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) every six months which incorporate expenditures identified in the budget; and
WHEREAS, the Budgetary and Fiscal Policies that are incorporated into the budget document provide some policies applicable to the Agency. 1078
Resolution 2024-03 SA

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Banning Successor Agency of the City of Banning as follows:

SECTION 1. The Banning Successor Agency approves and adopts the FY 2023-2024 Mid-Year Budget, as summarized in the fund summary, and is hereby approved and adopted in the form on file with the Banning Successor Agency Secretary.

SECTION 2. The Successor Agency authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to make necessary budget adjustments, appropriations, and transfers related to this resolution.

SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book of original resolutions.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of February 2024.

Alberto Sanchez, Chairperson
Banning Successor Agency
ATTEST:

Caroline Patton, Secretary
Banning Successor Agency

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL CONTENT:

Serita Young, Agency Counsel
Richards, Watson & Gershon
1079
Resolution 2024-03 SA

CERTIFICATION:

I, Caroline Patton, Secretary of the Banning Successor Agency, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution 2024-03 SA, was duly adopted by the Successor Agency of the City of Banning, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 27th day of February 2024 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Caroline Patton, Secretary
Banning Successor Agency
1080
Resolution 2024-03 UA

RESOLUTION 2024-03 UA

A RESOLUTION OF THE UTILITY AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE MID-YEAR BUDGET PLAN FOR THE FISCAL PERIOD JULY 1, 2023 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2024, AND MAKING APPROPRIATIONS TO MEET EXPENSES

APPROVED THEREIN
WHEREAS, the Administrative Services Director prepared the budget plan for Fiscal Year 2023-24 which sets forth all of the expected revenues of the City of Banning Utility Authority (“Authority”), and the recommended appropriations to meet the operating and capital expenses for all Authority funds; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has considered the recommendations and approved or modified them so as to best serve the interest of the citizens of the City of Banning; and WHEREAS, the Mid-Year budget for Fiscal Year 2023-24 of the City of Banning Utility Authority has been submitted to this Board, and said budget has been considered and, is in form and substance satisfactory to the Authority Board; and
WHEREAS, the Authority departments may not exceed their appropriations by character of expense, with character of expense being defined as personnel services, services and supplies, capital outlay, debt service and interfund transfers, without the consent of the City Manager; and WHEREAS, the Authority may transfer appropriations, between departments and within their respective funds, as long as those appropriations do not exceed their fund total unless approved by this Board; and
WHEREAS, the Authority departments may not hire in excess of the approved number of positions in the job classification as indicated by the budget detail without the consent of this Board; and
WHEREAS, it is essential that the Authority adopt a budget plan establishing the revenues and expenditures for all of its funds.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Banning Utility Authority of the City of Banning as follows:

SECTION 1. The Banning Utility Authority approves and adopts the FY 2023-2024 Mid-Year Budget, as summarized in the fund summary, and is hereby approved and adopted in the form on file with the Banning Utility Authority Secretary.

SECTION 2. The Utility Authority authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to make necessary budget adjustments, appropriations, and transfers related to this resolution.

SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book of original resolutions. 1081
Resolution 2024-03 UA

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of February 2024.

Alberto Sanchez, Chairperson
Banning Utility Authority
ATTEST:

Caroline Patton, Secretary
Banning Utility Authority

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL CONTENT:

Serita R. Young, Authority Counsel
Richards, Watson & Gershon
1082
Resolution 2024-03 UA

CERTIFICATION:

I, Caroline Patton, Secretary of the Banning Utility Authority, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution 2024-03 UA, was duly adopted by the Utility Authority of the City of Banning, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 27th day of February 2024 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Caroline Patton, Secretary
Banning Utility Authority
1083

CITY OF BANNING

STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Douglas Schulze, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Doug Schulze, City Manager
MEETING DATE: February 27, 2024
SUBJECT: Consideration of Resolution 2024-33, Creating a Community Revitalization Investment Authority to Operate within the Community, and Making Certain Findings and Taking Certain Actions in Connection Therewith, and Resolution 2024-02 SA, Making Certain Findings Relating to the City of Banning's Creation of a Community Revitalization Investment Authority to Operate within the Community
RECOMMENDATION:
1) That the Successor Agency adopt Resolution 2024-02 SA; and 2) That the City Council adopt Resolution 2024-33.

BACKGROUND:

The Community Revitalization and Investment Authority (CRIA) in California, established by Assembly Bill 2 in 2015, offers several benefits for designated districts. CRIA works by enabling tax increment financing to fund projects within a designated Revitalization Area. As developers and businesses improve properties in the investment area, the higher appraised value results in greater property tax assessment. This increased revenue is then allocated directly to the CRIA for use only within the investment area. The CRIA can be created by a resolution of the governing body of a city or county, and once formed, it can conduct a variety of activities, including funding infrastructure improvements, affordable housing projects, seismic retrofits, property acquisition, tenant improvements, and undertaking brownfield cleanup
The CRIA is intended to provide a source of tax increment funding for infrastructure and housing in disadvantaged communities, and it does not require a public vote for creation or issuance of bonds. The CRIA's sponsoring jurisdiction can provide a loan to the CRIA in the interim period while the revenue is generated. Overall, the CRIA offers a way to revitalize areas without raising taxes, providing a sustainable way to fund much-needed projects.

Some of the key benefits include:

1. Increased Funding for Affordable Housing: CRIAs increase funding for and production of affordable housing in disadvantaged communities, with a mandatory affordable housing set-aside of 25%.

2. Powers of Eminent Domain: CRIA's entail the powers of eminent domain for the first 12 years, which can be used to acquire private property for public use with fair compensation to the property owner.

3. No Public Vote Required: Unlike some other financing districts, CRIAs do not require a public vote for creation or issuance of bonds, although they are subject to a majority protest at adoption.

4. Tax Increment Financing: CRIA's use tax increment funds to finance projects within a designated 1084
Revitalization Area, providing a mechanism for funding community improvements and economic development.

5. Job Creation and Training: The CRIA program can also lead to job creation and training opportunities through community revitalization and cleanup efforts, as evidenced by grants from the EPA's Brownfields Jobs Training Program.

The process for creating a Community Revitalization and Investment Authority (CRIA) in California involves several steps, as outlined by the California Government Code and various local government resources:

1. Feasibility Analysis: Conduct a feasibility analysis to determine if the creation of a CRIA is suitable for the community. This process has been completed.
2 . Community Outreach: Hold public informational meetings and provide notice of informational meetings to property owners and residents, typically at least 10 days prior to the meeting. City Council has previously completed this process. As a result, Council directed the City Manager to discuss creation of a joint City/County District with Riverside County. Meetings were held with Riverside County staff from 5th District Supervisor Gutierrez' office as well as staff from the County Executive's Office. Riverside County staff expected some additional incentive from the City. The conditions required by the County for partnership in the CRIA would render the CRIA financially infeasible for the City.

3. Resolution by Governing Body: A single-member CRIA (City only) may be created by resolution of the governing body. This is the next step required in the process, if Council desires to proceed.

4. Adoption of Revitalization Plan: Once formed, the CRIA board adopts a Revitalization Plan, which outlines the activities the CRIA will undertake, such as funding infrastructure improvements, affordable housing projects, seismic retrofits, property acquisition, tenant improvements, and undertaking brownfield cleanup. CRIA funds could be used for implementation of the recently adopted Downtown Revitalization and Complete Streets Plan.

5. Board Composition: The CRIA is governed by a board, typically made up of at least 3 members of a legislative body and 2 public members.

JUSTIFICATION:

A Community Revitalization Investment Authority (CRIA) will provide tools to achieve City Council goals of cleaning up the Ramsey Street corridor and creating a vibrant downtown.

FISCAL IMPACT:

CRIA funding capacity is estimated in the range of $23 to $46 million in present value terms.

ALTERNATIVES:

1. Approve Resolutions as recommended;

2. Do not approve Resolutions.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution 2024-33, CRIA Formation.docx

2. Resolution 2024-02 SA.docx

3. Banning CRIA Next Steps 2-13-2024.pdf
1085
Resolution 2024-33

RESOLUTION 2024-33

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA,

CREATING A COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION INVESTMENT AUTHORITY TO OPERATE

WITHIN THE COMMUNITY, AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND TAKING CERTAIN

ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
WHEREAS, the California Legislature approved Assembly Bill 2 (Stats. 2015, c. 319, as amended), and thereby enacted Part 1 (commencing with Section 62000) of Division 4 of Title 6 of the Government Code (the “CRIA Law”) to create a planning and financing tool for local governments to address areas characterized by unsafe or unhealthy buildings in which persons live or work, conditions that make the viable use of buildings or parcels difficult, high business vacancies and lack of employment opportunities, and inadequate public improvements, water, or sewer utilities; and
WHEREAS, the CRIA Law authorizes cities to create a public body, corporate and politic known as a “Community Revitalization Investment Authority” (“CRIA”) to operate in the community, and to grant the CRIA jurisdiction to carry out a community redevelopment revitalization plan (“Plan”) within a community revitalization investment area (“Plan Area”); and WHEREAS, a CRIA may be created by the adoption of a resolution by the legislative body of a city, and the composition of the CRIA’s governing board is comprised of three (3) appointed members of the legislative body, and two (2) appointed members of the public that live or work within the Plan Area; and,
WHEREAS, a CRIA is an “agency” as described in subdivision (b) of Section 16 of the California Constitution for purposes of receiving tax increment revenues, with the powers and duties set forth in Government Code Section 62002, which include, but are not limited to: providing funding to rehabilitate, repair, upgrade, or construct infrastructure; providing for low- and moderate-income housing in accordance with Part 2 (commencing with Section 62100) of Division 4, Title 6 of the Government Code; remediating or removing a release of hazardous substances pursuant to the Polanco Redevelopment Act; providing for seismic retrofits or existing buildings in accordance with applicable laws and regulations; acquiring and transferring real property; issuing bonds in conformity with Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 53506) and Article 5 (commencing with Section 53510 of Chapter 3 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code; borrowing money, receiving grants, or accepting financial or other financial assistance from the state or federal governments, or any other public agency or private lending institution; making loans or grants for owners of tenants to improve, rehabilitate, or retrofit buildings or structures within the Plan Area; and providing direct assistance to businesses within the Plan Area in connection with new or existing facilities for industrial or manufacturing uses; and, WHEREAS, following its creation, a CRIA is required to adopt a Plan that includes the elements set forth in Section 62003 of the Government Code, and a CIRA may carry out the adopted Plan within a Plan Area that satisfies the conditions and requirements set forth in subsections (d) or (e) of Section 62001 of the Government Code; WHEREAS, a CRIA’s adoption of a Plan must be considered at three (3) public hearings held at least thirty (30) days apart, and such public hearings must comply with the procedural and substantive requirements set forth in Section 62004 of the Government Code; 1086
Resolution 2024-33

WHEREAS, a CRIA formed by a city that created a redevelopment agency that was dissolved pursuant to Part 1.85 (commencing with Section 34170) of Division 24 of the Health & Safety Code may not become effective until the successor agency of the former redevelopment agency has adopted findings of fact that satisfy the requirements of subsection (b)(3) of Section 62001 of the Government Code; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Banning is a California general law city located in Riverside County; and,
WHEREAS, following the dissolution of the Banning Redevelopment Agency, the City has had difficulty remediating blighted conditions existing throughout the community, encouraging private investment and development in the area, attracting new to and retaining existing businesses in the community, funding vital development and infrastructure improvements, and providing affordable housing opportunities and programs for its residents, among other things; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Banning therefore desires to create a CRIA to operate within its jurisdiction boundaries to address these issues, to support the economic revitalization of the community, and to address geographical areas within its boundaries marked by deteriorated buildings, conditions that make the viable use of buildings or parcels difficult, high incidents of business vacancies and unemployment, and inadequacies in public improvements and utilities; and,
WHEREAS, contemporaneously with adoption of this Resolution, the Successor Agency of the Former Banning Redevelopment Agency has adopted a Resolution making the findings required by subsection (b)(3) of Section 62001 of the Government Code; and, WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Banning as follows:

SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein this Resolution as substantive findings.

SECTION 2. Pursuant to Part 1 (commencing with Section 62000) of Division 4 of Title 6 of the Government Code, the City Council hereby creates, and authorizes and declares the existence of, a community revitalization investment authority within the City of Banning, to be known as the Banning Community Revitalization Investment Authority, a public body, corporate and politic (the “Authority”).

SECTION 3. The Authority is hereby authorized and directed to prepare and adopt a community revitalization and investment plan that complies with and satisfies the requirements of Section 62003 of the Government Code (“Authority Plan”), and is further authorized and directed to implement and carry out said plan within a community revitalization investment area that complies with and satisfies the requirements of subdivision (d) of Section 62001 of the Government Code (“Authority Plan Area”). The Authority is authorized and directed to take any and all actions necessary and appropriate to identify, prepare, and adopt the Authority Plan and Authority Plan Area.

SECTION 4. The City Council hereby appoints the following three (3) members of the City Council to the Governing Board of the Authority Governing Board (“City Council Members”):
1087
Resolution 2024-33

Member 1:

Member 2:

Member 3:

SECTION 5. The City Council Members shall appoint two (2) public members to the Governing Board of the Authority, and such persons shall either reside in or work within the Authority Plan Area (“Public Members”). City staff is hereby authorized and directed to prepare a draft Authority Plan (“Draft Plan”) for consideration by the Authority, and between publication of the notice for the first public hearing required by subsection (c) of Section 62004, and the date of the first public hearing on the Authority Plan, the City Council Members shall accept nominations for and make appointments of the Public Members to the Governing Board of the Authority. Such nominations and appointments of the Public Members shall be completed in the manner directed by the City Council Members. The Authority may, on its own initiative, or it shall upon the direction of the City Council, adopt rules and regulations governing the manner and method of future appointments to the Governing Board of the Authority, as well as the terms of office of members of the Governing Board of the Authority.

SECTION 6. Following its adoption of a Plan in accordance with Section 62004 of the Government Code, the Authority is hereby authorized and empowered to do all of the actions and activities authorized by the CRIA Law, including but not limited to those set forth in Section 62002 of the Government Code.

SECTION 7. This Resolution is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, as it can be seen with certainty that the actions authorized by this Resolution will not have an impact on the environment, in that the Authority’s adoption of the Authority Plan and Authority Plan Area are subject to future discretion of the Governing Board of the Authority, and the Authorities contents and scope of the Authority Plan and Authority Plan Area are too speculative at this time to enable environmental review.

SECTION 8. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book of original resolutions.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of February 2024.

Alberto Sanchez, Mayor
City of Banning
1088
Resolution 2024-33

ATTEST:

Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk
City of Banning

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL CONTENT:

Serita R. Young, City Attorney
Richards, Watson & Gershon
1089
Resolution 2024-33

CERTIFICATION:

I, Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk of the City of Banning, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution 2024-33, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Banning, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 13th day of February 2024 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk
City of Banning, California
1090
Resolution 2024-02 SA

RESOLUTION 2024-02 SA

A RESOLUTION OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE FORMER BANNING

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS RELATING TO THE CITY OF BANNING’S CREATION OF A COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION INVESTMENT AUTHORITY

TO OPERATE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY
WHEREAS, the California Legislature approved Assembly Bill 2 (Stats. 2015, c. 319, as amended), and thereby enacted Part 1 (commencing with Section 62000) of Division 4 of Title 6 of the Government Code (the “CRIA Law”) to create a planning and financing tool for local governments to address areas characterized by deteriorated buildings in which persons live or work, conditions that make the viable use of buildings or parcels difficult, high business vacancies and lack of employment opportunities, and inadequate public improvements, water, or sewer utilities; and
WHEREAS, the CRIA Law authorizes cities to create a public body, corporate and politic known as a “Community Revitalization Investment Authority” (“CRIA”) to operate in the community, and to grant the CRIA jurisdiction to carry out a community redevelopment revitalization plan (“Plan”) within a community revitalization investment area (“Plan Area”); and WHEREAS, a CRIA formed by a city that created a redevelopment agency that was dissolved pursuant to Part 1.85 (commencing with Section 34170) of Division 24 of the Health & Safety Code (the “Dissolution Law”) may not become effective until the successor agency of the former redevelopment agency has adopted findings of fact that satisfy the requirements of subsection (b)(3) of Section 62001 of the Government Code; and WHEREAS the City of Banning has heretofore created a redevelopment agency, known as the Banning Redevelopment Agency (“Former Agency”), which was dissolved by virtue of the Dissolution Law, and the Successor Agency to the Former Agency (“Successor Agency”) is charged with overseeing and effectuating the “wind down” of the Former Agency’s affairs in accordance with statutory mandates; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Banning will, contemporaneously with adoption of this Resolution, consider the creation of the Banning Community Revitalization Investment Authority (“Authority”) pursuant to the CRIA Law; and
WHEREAS, the Successor Agency desires to facilitate the creation and effectiveness of the Authority by adopting this resolution making the findings set forth in subsection (b)(3) of Section 62001 of the Government Code; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE FORMER BANNING REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HEREBY FINDS, DECLARES, AND RESOLVES as follows:

SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein this Resolution as substantive findings.

SECTION 2. Pursuant to subsection (b)(3) of Section 62001, and based upon staff presentations and reports, public testimony, and other matters presented during its consideration of this matter, the Successor Agency hereby makes the following findings of fact:
1091
Resolution 2024-02 SA

(A) The Successor Agency has received a finding of completion from the Department of Finance pursuant to Section 34179.7 of the Health & Safety Code, with such finding of completion dated April 13, 2013;
(B) Neither the City or the Successor Agency is currently or has been a named plaintiff in any litigation against the state in which assets of the Former Agency are the subject, and accordingly no assets of the Former Agency which are the subject of such litigation will be used to benefit any efforts of the Authority, and further that no assets of the Former Agency which may be the subject of any such future litigation will be used to benefit any efforts of the Authority unless such litigation has been resolved by entry of a final judgment by any court of competent jurisdiction and any appeals have been exhausted; and (C) The Successor Agency has complied with all orders of the State Controller pursuant to Section 34167.5 of the Health & Safety Code, as such orders and the Successor Agency’s compliance therewith are evidenced by the State Controller’s Asset Transfer Review for the City of Banning.

SECTION 3. The Secretary of the Successor Agency shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and it shall become effective immediately upon approval.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of February 2024.

Alberto Sanchez, Chairperson
Banning Successor Agency
ATTEST:

Caroline Patton, Secretary
Banning Successor Agency

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL CONTENT:

Serita Young, Agency Counsel
Richards, Watson & Gershon
1092
Resolution 2024-02 SA

CERTIFICATION:

I, Caroline Patton, Secretary of the Banning Successor Agency, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution 2024-02 SA, was duly adopted by the Successor Agency of the City of Banning, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 13th day of February 2024 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Caroline Patton, Secretary
Banning Successor Agency
1093
Prepared by:

Kosmont Companies
Community Revitalization and
Investment Authority (CRIA)
Next Steps for Implementation
February 13, 2024
1094
Executive Summary
Communicating in a Digital World
2 • City of Banning has potential for private sector investment and development across multiple opportunity site areas in the City
• Investments in critical infrastructure and property assemblage, particularly in the Downtown / Ramsey Street area, are needed to support investment and economic revitalization • A public/private financing strategy that includes Tax Increment Financing (TIF) financing in the form of a Community Revitalization and Investment Authority (CRIA) has been evaluated by staff and consulting firm Kosmont to be well-suited to capture value from new development to fund acquisition and infrastructure costs, particularly due to eminent domain authority of CRIA • CRIA funding capacity is estimated in the range of $23 to $46 million in present value terms (25% of funding being set aside for affordable housing uses, or $6 to $11 million) 1095
Executive Summary (Continued)
Communicating in a Digital World
3 • City staff and consultants have had multiple discussions with County of Riverside staff and elected officials, and the conditions required by the County for partnership in the CRIA would render the CRIA financially infeasible for the City
• It is thus suggested that the City proceed with CRIA implementation without the County • Purpose of today’s meeting is to formally create the CRIA entity and appoint City Councilmembers to the CRIA governing board
• Next steps include drafting the guiding CRIA Plan, followed by a set of public meetings and hearings to present and vet the CRIA Plan with the community • Completion of the CRIA formation process is anticipated in the Fall of 2024 1096
Outline
Communicating in a Digital World
4 1. Overview of TIF / CRIA

2. Banning CRIA Boundary and Strategic Considerations

3. Targeted Property Assembly Activities and Infrastructure Projects

4. Financing and Funding Alternatives

5. Next Steps
1097
5 $0M
$100M
$200M
$300M
$400M
$500M
$600M
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Baseline Property Value
Property taxes continue to flow to City / County / Schools / Other Taxing Entities as normal New Property Value from
New Development / Rehabilitation
Available to TIF District
Years from District Formation
Assessed
Property Value
(A/V) within
TIF District
Boundaries
New Total
Value After
TIF District
Benefits all
Taxing Entities
Period of New
Development
Note: Illustrative. Conservative 2% growth of existing assessed value (A/V) shown; does not include mark-to-market increases associated with property sales.

What is Tax Increment Financing (TIF) –Not a New Tax
1098
CRIA Fundamentals
Communicating in a Digital World
6 Does NOT increase property taxes
Term 30 years to issue debt; 45 years to repay
Public agency separate from the city, county that created it; implements governing Governance document (CRIA Plan) City or County that meets disadvantaged community definitions (median income, unemployment, crime, deterioration) Eligibility
Mandatory public hearings for formation (includes protest opportunity); no public Approvals vote to issue debt Infrastructure, affordable housing, remediation, acquire and transfer property (incl. via eminent domain), loans and grants to property owners and businesses; 25% affordable housing set aside
Eligible
Projects
1099
7 CRIA versus Former Redevelopment Agencies
Sample of Similarities and Differences
Former RDA CRIA
Eligible Use of Funds • Infrastructure and affordable housing • Market-rate housing
• Parcel assembly
• Tax and other private business /
developer subsidies, incl. golf courses,
casinos, big box retail, auto malls
• Infrastructure and affordable housing
• Market-rate housing
• Parcel assembly
• Assistance to businesses
• Assistance not allowed for golf courses,
casinos, big box retail, auto malls
Eminent Domain /
Condemnation
• Allowed • Allowed for first 12 years of CRIA lifetime Eligible Areas • Must qualify as “blighted” with loose
definition
• “Blight” defined quantitatively
Governance • City Council or County Board
• School entity participation
• CRIA Board, including public members
(no school entities)
Formation • Vote of governing body, limited ongoing
review
• 3 public hearings, majority protest
opportunity, annual review required,
“check-in” at 15 years post-formation
1100
Why are Public Agencies Authorizing TIF Districts?
Communicating in a Digital World
8 1. Return on Investment: Private sector investment induced by district commitment accelerates growth of net fiscal revenues, job creation, housing production, essential infrastructure improvements

2. Ability to attract additional funds / other public money (“OPM”) – tax increment from other entities (county, special districts), federal / state grants / loans (e.g., for TOD, water, housing, parks, remediation)

3. Eminent domain authority (specific to CRIA)
1101
TIF Districts in Progress
Statewide
(Partial List)
Fully Formed In Formation Process Under Evaluation
Jurisdiction Purpose
Apple Valley Industrial and housing supportive infrastructure Banning Downtown revitalization, industrial infrastructure Barstow Industrial and housing supportive infrastructure Brentwood Housing, employment, and transit-supportive infrastructure Buena Park Mall reimagination, housing-supportive infrastructure Carson + L.A. County Remediation, affordable housing, recreation Citrus Heights Mall reimagination
Covina Downtown housing and blended use supportive infrastructure Fairfield Downtown, housing, and transit-supportive infrastructure Fresno Downtown, housing and transit-supportive infrastructure Fresno County Industrial and commercial supportive infrastructure Humboldt County Coastal mixed-use and energy supportive infrastructure Indian Wells Housing and tourism-supportive infrastructure Imperial County Industrial, renewable energy, and housing and infrastructure La Verne + L.A. County Housing and transit-supportive infrastructure Long Beach Economic empowerment and affordable housing
Los Angeles (Downtown, San Pedro, other) Affordable housing and transit-supportive infrastructure Los Angeles County Uninc. West Carson Housing / bio-science / tech infrastructure Madera County (3 Districts) Water, sewer, roads and other housing infrastructure Modesto + Stanislaus County Downtown, housing, and recreation infrastructure Mount Shasta + Siskiyou County Rural brownfield mixed-use infrastructure Napa Downtown, housing, tourism supportive infrastructure Oakland Affordable housing and infrastructure
Ontario Industrial and housing infrastructure
Palmdale + L.A. County Housing and commercial infrastructure Pittsburg Housing, commercial, and tech park infrastructure Placentia + Orange County Housing and TOD infrastructure Rancho Cucamonga Blended use and connectivity infrastructure Redlands Education related and blended use infrastructure Redondo Beach + L.A. County Parks / open space, recreation infrastructure Riverside Affordable housing and infrastructure
Sacramento County (Unincorporated) Industrial / commercial supportive infrastructure San Jose Affordable housing and TOD infrastructure
Sanger Housing and commercial supportive infrastructure Santa Cruz Downtown and blended use infrastructure
Santa Fe Springs Blended use infrastructure
Selma Water, sewer, and other housing supportive infrastructure Vacaville Housing and business park infrastructure
Yucaipa Housing and commercial infrastructure 1102
CRIA Qualification Analysis
+ Economic Development Opportunity Sites
10 Source: City of Banning, ESRI (2023)
• Income
• Unemployment
• Crime
• Planned and proposed projects
1103
Draft CRIA Boundary
Refined Iteratively Over the Last 12 Months
11 Source: City of Banning, Riverside County Auditor-Controller (2023) • Approx. 3,226 acres (22% of
Citywide acreage)
• Approx.$766.9M in existing
assessed value (32.7% of
Citywide A/V)
• (100% within the City of Banning)
1104
CRIA Boundary Land Uses
12 Source: City of Banning, General Plan and Zoning Map (2021) 1105 13 Potential Targeted Improvements
• Acquisition / assemblage of underutilized parcels for redevelopment, particularly along Ramsey Street
• Development off-site infrastructure (e.g., water / sewer / storm drain, other utilities) • Roadway, streetscape improvements
• Affordable housing
• Parks and open space
1106
14 Future Development Assumptions
Absorption Assumed over 30 Years
Note: AV at buildout values in current 2024 dollars.

Source: City of Banning Planning and Economic Development Staff, CoStar (2023) Area # SF or Units Estimated
AV Factor
Estimated
Total AV at Buildout
Residential 600 units $325,000 per unit $195 million
Industrial 3,000,000 SF $185 PSF $555 million
Cannabis/Flex Space 65,000 SF $165 PSF $11 million
Grandave Studios 225,000 SF $165 PSF $37 million
Retail 80,000 SF $250 PSF $20 million
Total New Development Assumed within CRIA Study Area $818 million 1107
15 Potential Partner Agencies
Property Tax Distribution
• Primary non-school recipients and potential
contributors of property tax are City of
Banning and County of Riverside
• City receives approx. 16% of every $1 collected
in property taxes within the CRIA Study Area
 City additionally receives equivalent of approx.
11% of property tax in lieu of MVLF, also
available to CRIA
• County receives approx. 11%
 County additionally receives equivalent of
approx. 9% of property tax in lieu of MVLF, also
available to CRIASchool-related entities
cannot participate
Tax Rate Area (TRA) weighted average distributions for CRIA Study Area shown. Post-ERAF (Education Revenue Augmentation Fund) distribution.

Parcels within former Redevelopment Agency Project Areas are subject to RPTTF revenue flow until expiration of ROPS obligations.

Source: Riverside County Auditor Controller (2023)
City
16%
County
11%
Other Entities /
Schools (not
eligible)
73%
Weighted Average Property Tax Distribution
within CRIA Study Area
1108
16 Scenario Analysis Summary Matrix
Boundary Scenario #2
CRIA Revenue
Contribution Scenario
Year 5
Accumulated
Revenue +
Bonding
Capacity*
Year 10
Accumulated
Revenue +
Bonding
Capacity*
45-Year
Present Value
@ 3%
25% Affordable
Housing
Set-Aside
A) City 25% Scenario $2,428,000 $7,593,000 $22,950,000 $5,738,000 B) City 50% Scenario $5,501,000 $15,831,000 $45,900,000 $11,475,000 City contribution includes contribution from both AB8 + MVLF in-lieu property tax. * Bonding capacity assumes Year 5 is first bond issuance for CRIA. “Year 5 means fifth year of revenue following district formation. Net proceeds shown. Bondable revenue assumes $25,000 admin charge, 150% debt service coverage. 6.5% interest rate; 30-year term. Proceeds net of 2% underwriter's discount, estimated reserve fund (maximum annual debt service), costs of issuance estimated at $350,000.

Source: Kosmont Financial Services (KFS), registered municipal advisor. 1109
17 Nominal vs. Present-Value Dollars
Revenue Allocation
Scenarios
Present Value Dollars
(3% Discount Rate)
Nominal 2024
Dollars
City 25% Scenario $23M $52M
City 50% Scenario $46M $103M
1110
18 Potential Cash Flow / Debt Issuance Approaches
• Kosmont Financial Services is in active discussions with public finance underwriters regarding CRIA debt issuances in other jurisdictions
• Underwriters have proposed several approaches for the leverage of CRIA tax increment for accelerated debt issuance (e.g., 2-3 years from CRIA formation), for example:
a) CRIA increment only
b) Overlapping CRIA and CFD (CFD Backstop) – landowners / developers must be willing to pay CFD special taxes in the short term (e.g., 5-10 years) until CRIA increment reaches a level to cover debt service
c) CRIA increment with City or County general fund backstop • There are advantages and disadvantages with each approach (e.g., upfront proceeds available, public agency risk, cost of capital)
• Additional alternatives are available if private sector partners (e.g., landowners / developers are willing to advance infrastructure funding in exchange for reimbursement from CRIA proceeds)
1111
19 CRIA Helps Attracts Other Funding
Federal & State Sources
 Cap-and-Trade / HCD grant & loan
programs (AHSC, IIG, TCC)
 Prop 1 bond funds / Prop 68
 SB 1 Road funds
 SB 2 Transfer Tax funds
 Federal DOT / EPA / EDA funding
Other Potential Funding Sources
 Development Agreement / impact fees
 Benefit assessments (e.g., contribution from CFD)
 Private investment
Communities with CRIAs are more likely to win state grant funding sources 1112
City “Return on Investment”
20 • Implementation of regional economic development policy objectives, including affordable housing, community revitalization in a Disadvantaged Community, quality of life improvement • Jobs and wages from both temporary construction activities and ongoing operation of new development, including 2,400+ permanent new jobs
• Acceleration of development and related fiscal revenues: $24.1 million in present value fiscal benefit for City General Fund over 45 years, net of tax increment contribution to EIFD, and net of estimated fiscal expenditures (45-year, 25% City allocation example) 1113
21 Fiscal ROI – Summary of Potential Net Fiscal Impacts Net of 25% Increment Contribution to Banning CRIA
Annual
(Stabilized
Year 20)
Year 0-45
Nominal
Total
Year 0-45
Present Value
@ 3.0%
City of Banning
Estimated Fiscal Revenues (Net of CRIA Allocation) $4,445,310 $205,601,200 $89,224,300 Estimated Fiscal Expenditures $3,083,000 $158,519,500 $65,168,600 Estimated Net Fiscal Impact to City $1,362,310 $47,081,700 $24,055,700 1114
22 Potential CRIA Formation Schedule
 Tax increment allocation begins fiscal year following district formation  Debt issuance, if desired, would occur after a stabilized level of tax increment has been established Target Date Task
TODAY: Feb 13, 2024 a) City adopts resolution creating the CRIA entity Feb-Mar 2024 b) CRIA drafts Community Revitalization and Investment Plan (CRIA Plan) Apr 2024 c) Distribute draft CRIA Plan to property owners and residents within CRIA boundary May 2024 d) Initial CRIA public meeting to present the draft CRIA Plan to the public and property owners Jul 2024 e) CRIA Public Hearing #1 to hear written and oral comments but take no action Jul or Aug 2024 f) City Council considers resolution approving the CRIA Plan and allocation of property tax increment to CRIA
Aug 2024 g) CRIA Public Hearing #2 to hear additional comments and take action to modify or reject Plan, if appropriate
Sept 2024 h) CRIA Public Hearing #3 to consider oral and written protests and take action to terminate proceedings or adopt CRIA Plan by ordinance
1115
23 Next Steps / Action Items
• For Tonight:
a) City Council to consider Resolution forming the CRIA entity b) Successor Agency to consider Resolution making findings of pre-requisites to CRIA formation
• Staff and consultants to prepare draft CRIA Plan, distribute publicly via mail and website, convene a public meeting of the CRIA to present the draft CRIA Plan (targeting May 2024) 1116
24 THANK YOU
Questions?
Kosmont Companies
1601 N. Sepulveda Blvd. #382 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Ph: (424) 297-1070 | Fax: (424) 286-4632
www.kosmont.com
1117
Disclaimer
25 The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or future results. Project pro forma and tax analyses are projections only.Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.

Discussions or descriptions of potential financial tools that may be available to the City are included for informational purposes only and are not intended to be to be “advice” within the context of this Analysis.

Municipal Advisory activities are conducted through Kosmont Companies’ affiliate, Kosmont Financial Services, which is Registered as a Municipal Advisor with the SEC and MSRB. 1118

CITY OF BANNING

STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Douglas Schulze, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Art Vela, Public Works Director
MEETING DATE: February 27, 2024
SUBJECT: Consideration of Resolution 2024-40, Authorizing the Submittal of a Grant Application Under the Bureau of Reclamation WaterSMART: Title XVI WIIN Act Water Reclamation and Reuse Program for Fiscal Year 2023 and for Fiscal Year 2024 for up to 25% of the Total Project Costs, Up To $30 Million, for the Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades and Authorizing the City Manager to Executed Related Grant Agreement to Receive Funding
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution 2024-40.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), also known as the Water Reclamation Facility, provides for the collection, treatment, and disposal of municipal sewage. The City has recognized that the WWTP is in need of capacity and treatment improvements in order to keep up with the City’s growth as well as to produce recycled water supply to bolster it’s water supply portfolio and to meet impending wastewater effluent discharge quality permit requirements.

On December 13, 2022, the Utility Authority approved Resolution 2022-14UA, “Awarding a Professional Services Agreement to N2W Engineering to Provide Owner Advisor Services and Preliminary Engineering for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvement Project in a “Not-to-Exceed” amount of $1,576,430. Resolution 2022-14UA, attached hereto, provides additional background on the City’s goal for improving the WWTP.

In anticipation of the WWTP Improvement Project, amongst other reasons (i.e. increasing operating costs, capital improvements, debt service obligations and reserve balances), the City Council approved Ordinance 1587, adopting new water and wastewater rate schedules, which would increase rates for a five-year period (FY 2022/2023 to FY 2026/2027).
2023 Title XVI Funding Opportunity
In September 2023, the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) issued a new Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for grants under the WaterSMART: Title XVI WIIN Act Water Reclamation and Reuse Program for fiscal years 2023 and 2024 (“Title XVI Program”). Through the Title XVI Program, BOR provides financial and technical assistance to local water agencies for the planning, design, and construction of water reclamation and reuse projects.

The Title XVI Program provides up to a maximum of 25% of the total cost of planning, design, and/or 1119
construction, up to a maximum of $30 million per project. To be eligible for funding under this NOFO, the project must have a completed Title XVI feasibility study submitted to BOR for review by November 7, 2023, for applications submitted under the first submittal period and by August 30, 2024, for applications submitted under the second submittal period. Completed feasibility studies must be found by BOR to meet all of the requirements of WTR 11-01 by February 7, 2024, for applications submitted under the first submittal period and by November 29, 2024, for applications submitted under the second submittal period.

A Feasibility Study was prepared by N2W Engineering, reviewed by staff and submitted prior to the November 7, 2023 deadline. On February 13, 2024, the City received notification that BOR approved the Feasibility Study on January 31, 2024.

City staff and N2W Engineering finalized a Title XVI grant application for the FY 2023 funding allocation and submitted the grant application prior to the deadline. The Title XVI Program allows applicants to apply for both fiscal year allocations even if an applicant receives funding in FY 2023. Awards for both fiscal years cannot collectively exceed the allowable funding (i.e. 25% or $30 Million).

JUSTIFICATION:

As part of the grant funding process, BOR requires that a resolution be adopted by the applicant’s governing body. The resolution must designate an authorized representative to submit the application for grant funding and to enter into an agreement to receive funding.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The approved Feasibility Study identifies a total project cost of $93,487,328 which was developed as a high level and conservative estimate for purposes of the Title XVI Program grant application. N2W Engineering has progressed in preliminary engineering efforts and research on construction costs and has prepared refined cost estimates indicating projected costs of $76,383,509. If the City is awarded Title XVI Program funding, it would receive up to $19,095,877.

Additional funding sources identified to fund the WWTP Improvement Project include:

Fund 661 - Water Improvement Fund (Approx. Fund Balance = $3,488,000) Fund 680 - Wastewater Operation Fund (Approx. Fund Balance = $4,200,000) Fund 681 - Wastewater Improvement Fund (Approx. Fund Balance = $10,834,000) Fund 682 – Tertiary Fund (Approx. Fund Balance = $7,883,000) The approved rate schedules included in Ordinance 1587 anticipated debt financing to cover the costs of the WWTP Improvement project. Debt financing options include the issuance of bonds and/or loans from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) or the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA).

ALTERNATIVES:

Do not adopt Resolution 2024-40, which would make the City ineligible to receive Title XVI Program funding.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution 2024-40, WaterSMART Grant Application.docx

2. SR Resolution 2022-14 UA, Award Owner Advisor WWTP.pdf

3. Banning WaterSMART Application Feasibility Study Not Included.pdf

4. City of Banning Feasibility Study_Revised and Approved.pdf

5. Attach X BOR Letter and Approval Memo Feas Study 1.pdf

6. Updated Cost Estimate and Site Plan 1.pdf
1120
Resolution 2024-40

RESOLUTION 2024-40

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA,

AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF A GRANT APPLICATION UNDER THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION WATERSMART: TITLE XVI WIIN ACT WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023 AND FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024 FOR UP TO 25% OF THE TOTAL PROJECT COSTS, UP TO $30 MILLION, FOR THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT

PLANT AND RECYCLED WATER UPGRADES AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO

EXECUTED RELATED GRANT AGREEMENT TO RECEIVE FUNDING
WHEREAS, the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Water Resources and Planning Office (“Reclamation”) has released a Funding Opportunity Announcement to provide federal grants under the WaterSMART: Title XVI WIIN Water Reclamation and Reuse Projects funding opportunity for fiscal years 2023 and 2024 as amended by the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (“WIIN Act”); and
WHEREAS, Reclamation is seeking applications from water agencies with projects eligible under section 4009(c) of the WIIN Act for grant funding for the planning, design and/or construction of water reclamation and reuse projects; and WHEREAS, the City of Banning is eligible to submit applications for grant funding for up to 25 percent of the total project cost, up to a maximum of $30 million, for its Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Banning as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Manager, or his designee, is hereby authorized to submit an application to Reclamation for grant funding for up to 25 percent of the total project cost, up to a maximum of $30 million, for its Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Project for Fiscal Year 2023 and 2024.

SECTION 2. The City Council has reviewed and supports the application for grants from Reclamation for the WaterSMART Title XVI WIIN Water Reclamation and Reuse Program.

SECTION 3. The City Council hereby confirms that it has the capability to provide 75 percent funding match as specified in the application’s funding plan.

SECTION 4. The City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized to enter into a cooperative agreements and any amendments thereto with Reclamation on behalf of the City of Banning.

SECTION 5. The City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized to work with Reclamation to meet the established deadlines for entering into a cooperative agreement.

SECTION 6. The City Council authorizes the Director of Public Works to be the City Manager’s designee.

SECTION 7. The Mayor shall sign this resolution and the City Clerk shall attest and certify to the passage and adoption thereof.
1121
Resolution 2024-40

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of February 2024.

Alberto Sanchez, Mayor
City of Banning
ATTEST:

Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk
City of Banning

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL CONTENT:

Serita R. Young, City Attorney
Richards, Watson & Gershon
1122
Resolution 2024-40

CERTIFICATION:

I, Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk of the City of Banning, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution 2024-40, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Banning, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 27th day of February 2024 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk
City of Banning, California
1123

CITY OF BANNING

STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Douglas Schulze, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Art Vela, Director of Public Works
MEETING DATE: December 13, 2022
SUBJECT: Consideration of Resolution 2022-14UA, Awarding a Professional Services Agreement to N2W Engineering to
Provide Owner Advisor Services and Preliminary Engineering for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvement Project in a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $1,576,430
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommend that the City Council adopt Resolution 2022-14UA:

1. Awarding a Professional Services Agreement to N2W Engineering to provide Owner Advisor services for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvement project in the “not-to-exceed” amount of $1,576,430.

2. Authorizing the City Manager or his designee to make necessary budget adjustments, appropriations and transfers related to the Professional Services Agreement with N2W Engineering for Owner Advisor services.

3. Authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute the Professional Services Agreement with N2W Engineering of Irvine, California in the “not to exceed” amount of $1,576,430.

BACKGROUND:

Wastewater Treatment Plant
The City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), also known as the Water Reclamation Facility, provides for the collection, treatment, and disposal of municipal sewage. The WWTP dates back to 1925 and began to see significant additions beginning in 1950’s and the last major renovation occurring in the early 2000’s. Currently, the WWTP treatment process consists of preliminary, primary, secondary, disinfection (currently not in use), and sludge disposal.

The WWTP has a design treatment capacity of 3.6 million gallons per day (MGD) and typical average daily discharges range from 2.0 MGD to 2.1 MGD into 10 unlined evaporation/percolation ponds. The treated effluent then percolates into the groundwater of the San Gorgonio Hydraulic Unit. Groundwater from this basin is used for municipal and industrial applications.
1124
Staff Report: Resolution 2022-14UA Owner Advisor Services December 13, 2022

In 2007, the City contracted Parsons to evaluate treatment technologies for a 1.5 MGD water reclamation facility (WRF) for the production of recycled water. Treatment alternatives investigated included oxidation ditch (OD), conventional activated sludge (CAS), and membrane bioreactor (MBR). The purpose of the evaluation was to determine the best option to comply with future Title 22 requirements for the beneficial reuse of recycled water. Parsons determined an MBR system was the best treatment option and completed a 90% design package of the WRF. Unfortunately, the project never reached 100% design and was terminated for various reasons.
2016 Regional Water Quality Control Board Order
On June 30, 2016, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Colorado River Basin Region (RWQCB) adopted Board Order R7-2016-0015 (Board Order), which describes the Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) and other terms and conditions of operation for the City’s WWTP. The Board Order requires the WWTP to remove constituents that present the greatest risk to groundwater quality such as nitrogen, coliforms, and total dissolved solids (TDS).

According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for Nitrate as Nitrogen (TN) is 10 mg/L. Currently, the average TN concentration in the WWTP’s effluent is 29 mg-N/L, well above the future TN limit of 10 mg-N/L specified in the Board Order.

As a result, the Board Order required the City to conduct a nitrogen removal analysis and to summarize the findings in a technical report that includes a tentative work plan and time schedule for the installation and implementation of nitrogen removal treatment alternatives. The final technical report (Nitrogen Removal Feasibility Study), attached hereto, was completed and submitted to the RWQCB by the due date of June 30, 2020.

The City has had plans for the development of a Title 22 compliant recycled water source dating back to the early 2000’s and for this reason, the scope of the Nitrogen Removal Feasibility Study was expanded beyond complying with TN limits and included discharge requirements related to the use of recycled water.

Additionally, the Board Order requires that the City submit a plan for capacity improvements to the RWQCB once the WWTP reaches 80% of its design capacity, or

2.88 MGD.
2018 Integrated Master Plan
In 2016 the Public Works Department set out to develop new master plans for the City’s water, wastewater and future recycled water systems, which were previously updated in 2006. The final document resulted in a combined plan titled the Integrated Master Plan (IMP). The objective of the IMP was to develop capital improvement plans that would guide the City in the planning and development of water, wastewater and recycled water system facilities to meet system performance for existing customers as well as to support anticipated demands through the City’s buildout.
1125
Staff Report: Resolution 2022-14UA Owner Advisor Services December 13, 2022

The IMP projected that the City would reach 80% capacity by 2025 (although could be later if development slows down) and have a buildout wastewater flow of 6.35 MGD. 2020 UWMP
On June 8, 2021 the City Council approved Resolution 2021-50, adopting the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The UWMP is a planning document with a 20-year planning horizon that assess the water supply and water demand for the City. As part of the assessment all current water supplies and in the future water supplies are include as part of the City’s water supply portfolio, which includes the use of recycled water to supplement potable demands (i.e. irrigation demands) and for groundwater recharge.

Owner Advisor
Staff determined that to comply with the Board Order; to increase treatment capacity at the WWTP to support development; and to add to the City’s water supply portfolio by developing a recycled water source, the City would need to move forward with major improvements to the WWTP. Current staffing levels would make it challenging to successfully complete such a large capital project in a timely manner. For that reason, staff developed a Request for Qualifications to hire an Owner Advisor (OA) which would be dedicated to the project.

An OA is typically a design and/or construction consultant or consulting firm that has extensive knowledge in the specific type of project being represented. The OA, generally, is responsible for project execution including the management of communications, time, cost, quality, risk, procurement, design, construction, and acceptance.

On July 21, 2022 the City released the attached RFQ on the OpenGov ProcureNow platform as well as sent to several qualified consulting firms. Qualification submittals were due on August 15, 2022. The RFQ was downloaded 30 times from ProcureNow. As a result of the of the RFQ solicitation the City received only one submittal from N2W Engineering. An evaluation committee reviewed the qualifications of N2W Engineering and agreed that they were qualified and experienced and subsequently an interview was conducted on October 4, 2022.

Following the interview staff worked with N2W Engineering to define the scope of work and negotiated a fee for said scope, attached hereto.

It is staff’s recommendation that City Council award a Professional Services Agreement to N2W Engineering, based on qualifications and fee statement. If approved, the term of the Professional Services Agreement is estimated to extend to fiscal year 2026/2027.

JUSTIFICATION:

Based on current and future wastewater regulatory requirements, implementation of the Integrated Master Plan and the City’s strategy for developing a robust water supply portfolio, it is necessary to move forward with the improvements to the City’s WWTP. Due 1126
Staff Report: Resolution 2022-14UA Owner Advisor Services December 13, 2022

to current staff resource and size and complexity of the WWTP project, it is recommended by staff to hire an Owner Advisor to move the WWTP project forward.

City staff evaluated N2W Engineering’s experience and qualifications and interviewed the firm for the WWTP project and subsequently have found them as a qualified firm to represent the City as its Owner Advisor.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The negotiated fee for the identified scope of work is in the amount of $1,576,430.

The funding for this project was programmed in the approved 5-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) as follows:

Account Project Desc. FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025
680-8000-454.90-10 WWTP Owner Advisor $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 680-8000-454.95-12 WWTP Upgrades $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 681-8000-454.95-12 WWTP Upgrades $130,000 $650,000 $650,000 Total $360,000 $880,000 $880,000
An appropriation from Fund 680 (Wastewater Fund) and Fund 681 (Wastewater Capital Facilty Fund) fund balances will be required to allocate the needed funds in FY 2023. The appropriation would be offset by reducing/eliminating the expenditures in FY 2024 and FY 2025 as shown in the table above. The revised CIP table will be as follows:

Account Project Desc. FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025
680-8000-454.90-10 WWTP Owner Advisor $300,000 $0 $0
680-8000-454.95-12 WWTP Upgrades $390,000 $0 $0
681-8000-454.95-12 WWTP Upgrades $886,430 $0 $543,570
Total $1,576,430 $0 $543,570
In summary, appropriations in the amount of $460,000 from Fund 680 and $756,430 from Fund 681 are required to fund the Professional Services Agreement with N2W Engineering.

ALTERNATIVES:

1. Approve as presented.

2. Approve with modifications.

3. Do not approve Resolution 2022-14UA and provide alternate direction to staff.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution 2022-14UA
https://banningca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/11872/Att-1-Resolution-2022-14-UAOA-WWTP 1127
Staff Report: Resolution 2022-14UA Owner Advisor Services December 13, 2022

2. Nitrogen Removal Feasibility Study
https://banningca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/11873/Att-2-Banning-Nitrogen-RemovalFeasibility-Study-FINAL-REV-1-STAMPED

3. Request for Qualifications
https://banningca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/11874/Att-3-RFQ-22-019-OwnerAdvisor-COB-WaterWasterwater

4. Statement of Qualifications
https://banningca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/11868/Att-4-Statement_of_Qualifications

5. Scope of Services
https://banningca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/11869/Att-5-Scope_of_Services-11-22- 2022

6. Fee Statement
https://banningca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/11870/Att-6-Fee-11-22-2022

7. Draft Professional Services Agreement
https://banningca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/11871/Att-7-C00778-N2W-EngineeringInc Approved by:

Douglas Schulze
City Manager
1128
WaterSMART: Title XVI WIIN Act Water
Reclamation and Reuse Projects for Fiscal
Years 2023 and 2024
(NOFO No. R23AS00464)
Wastewater Treatment Plant and
Recycled Water Upgrades
Submitted by:

City of Banning
99 E. Ramsey Street
Banning, CA 92220
December 7, 2023
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
Title of WaterSMART: Title XVI WIIN Act Water Reclamation and Reuse Projects City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Applicant Name:

City of Banning
Project Manager:

Arturo Vela, Director of Public Works
Applicant Address:
99 E. Ramsey Street
Banning, CA 92220
Applicant Email Address:
[email protected]
Applicant Telephone No.:
951-922-3134
1137
Page | i
Table of Contents

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................................... 1

2. PROJECT LOCATION ............................................................................................................................ 2

3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................................... 2

3.1 Background Information ..................................................................................................................... 2

3.2 Project Description .............................................................................................................................. 4

3.3 Proposed Scope of Work .................................................................................................................... 7

3.4 Performance Measures ...................................................................................................................... 10

4. EVALUATION CRITERIA ................................................................................................................... 11 Evaluation Criterion 1—Water Supply (35 points) ................................................................................ 11 Subcriterion No. 1a—Stretching Water Supplies (18 points) ............................................................. 11 Subcriterion No. 1b—Contributions to Water Supply Sustainability (17 points) ............................... 14 Evaluation Criterion 2—Environment and Water Quality (15 points) ................................................... 16 Evaluation Criterion 3—Economic Benefits (25 points) ........................................................................ 17 Subcriterion No. 3a—Cost Effectiveness (15 points) ......................................................................... 17 Subcriterion No. 3b—Economic Analysis and Project Benefits (10 points) ...................................... 22 Evaluation Criterion 4—Presidential and Department of the Interior Priorities (15 Points) .................. 25 Evaluation Criterion 5— Reclamation’s Obligations and Watershed Perspective (10 Points) .............. 29 Subcriterion No. 5a— Reclamation’s Legal and Contractual Water Supply Obligations (5 points) .. 29 Subcriterion No. 5b— Watershed Perspective (5 points) ................................................................... 29

5. PROJECT BUDGET .............................................................................................................................. 31

5.1 Funding Plan ..................................................................................................................................... 31

5.2 Budget Narrative ............................................................................................................................... 33

6. ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE ........................................... 36

7. REQUIRED PERMITS OR APPROVALS ............................................................................................ 39

8. OVERLAP OR DUPLICATION OF EFFORT STATEMENT ......................................................... 39

9. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ............................................................. 40

10. UNIFORM AUDIT REPORTING STATEMENT ......................................................................... 40

11. SF-LLL: DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES .............................................................. 40

12. LETTERS OF SUPPORT ............................................................................................................... 40

13. OFFICIAL RESOLUTION............................................................................................................. 40

14. LETTERS OF FUNDING COMMITMENT .................................................................................. 40

15. RFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 40 1138
Page | ii
List of Figures
Figure 1. City of Banning Project Map (courtesy of 2018 IMP) .................................................... 2 Figure 2. San Gorgonio Region Physical Setting (courtesy of 2018 RWS) ................................... 5 Figure 3. Potential Recharge Areas (courtesy of 2018 RWS) ........................................................ 5 Figure 4. City of Banning Project Map (courtesy of 2018 RWS) ................................................ 27 Figure 5. City of Banning Disadvantaged Communities Census Tracts ACS 2016-2020 (courtesy of CA Department of Water Resources) ....................................................................................... 28 List of Tables
Table 1. Recycled Water Produced and/or Used in City ................................................................ 3 Table 2. Wastewater Flows Collected in the City........................................................................... 4 Table 3. Potential Recycled Water Users ....................................................................................... 6 Table 4. Projected Recycled Water Production and/or Use ............................................................ 7 Table 5. Phase I Project Components ............................................................................................. 9 Table 6. Project Schedule – Phase 1 ............................................................................................... 9 Table 7. Project Performance Measures for Primary Benefits ..................................................... 10 Table 8. WWTP Effluent Concentrations and Limitations ........................................................... 13 Table 9. Estimated Construction Cost per Year, in 2023 dollars .................................................. 18 Table 10. Total Planning and Design Costs by Year, in 2020 dollars .......................................... 18 Table 11. Average Annual O&M Costs for Phase I of the Project, in 2023 dollars ..................... 19 Table 12. Replacement Cost Timing, in 2023 dollars .................................................................. 19 Table 13. Monetary Analysis ........................................................................................................ 22 Table 14. Non-Monetary Criteria ................................................................................................. 22 Table 15. Monetary Analysis ........................................................................................................ 22 Table 16. Imported Water Purchases ............................................................................................ 23 Table 17. Potential Climate Change Impacts ................................................................................ 26 Table 18. Funding Contributions by Source ................................................................................. 32 Table 19. Phase I Costs ................................................................................................................. 33 Table 20. Monetary Analysis ........................................................................................................ 35 List of Appendices
Appendix A – Signed Executive Memorandum
Appendix B – City of Banning Feasibility Study (Appendices not included) Appendix C – Letters of Support
Appendix D – Draft Resolution
1139
Page | 1

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Banning (City), a Disadvantaged Community, has prepared this grant application for WaterSMART: Title XVI WIIN Act Water Reclamation and Reuse Projects for Fiscal Years 2023 and 2024 (NOFO No. R23AS00464) for the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project (Project). The Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Feasibility Study was submitted to the Bureau of Reclamation on November 7, 2023, for review.

Initial review indicated that the Feasibility Study “appears to contain the required information, and Reclamation will now initiate the review, which will be completed in accordance with the process and criteria that are included in the Reclamation Manual Directives and Standards (D&S).” See Appendix A for the Signed Executed Memorandum from the Bureau of Reclamation.

The existing City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) consists of preliminary treatment, primary treatment, secondary treatment, solids handling, disinfection (currently not in use), and evaporation/percolation ponds. The WWTP effluent is currently in compliance with discharge requirements, but it requires significant upgrades to comply with impending water quality discharge limits by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). WWTP effluent discharges to percolation ponds that recharge into the Cabazon Groundwater Basin but is not entirely extracted by the City of Banning - the percolated water flows to other water agencies located downgradient.

The proposed Project will consist of three phases:

I) upgrading the existing WWTP to recycled water standards and building pipelines to connect the WWTP to customers currently using ground water from non-potable wells; II) building pipelines to connect the WWTP to future recycled water customers, and; III) building pipelines to connect the WWTP to a groundwater recharge basin upgradient of the Banning storage unit.

Since the ability to implement non-potable reuse is expected to be easier and faster than indirect potable reuse, it is assumed that non-potable reuse (Phases I and II) will be implemented in the near term, and indirect potable reuse (Phase III) will be implemented in the long-term. Phase I is expected to take 3 years and the estimated completion date is December 2027.

At this time, the City relies upon purchasing imported water from the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency (SGPWA) for groundwater recharge. The Project implementation would allow the City to increase local non-potable water supplies and decrease its existing and future reliance on the SGPWA, and on its supplier, the State of California, via the California Aqueduct – a critical part of the State Water Project, thereby reducing diversions from natural watercourses in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The Project will also benefit the City by improving its non-potable water supply reliability and drought resiliency.

The proposed Project is not located on a Federal facility and will not involve Federal land.

Date: December 7, 2023 Applicant: City of Banning
City: Banning County: Riverside State: California
1140
Page | 2

2. PROJECT LOCATION
The City of Banning (City), a Disadvantaged Community, is located in northern Riverside County in Southern California, approximately 25 miles east of downtown Riverside and 85 miles from downtown Los Angeles and is located within the jurisdiction of the Colorado Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Region 7. The City encompasses 23.2 square miles astride Interstate 10 in the San Gorgonio Pass and is bounded by the City of Beaumont on the west, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians in the east, the San Bernardino Mountains to the north, and the San Jacinto Mountains to the south. See Figure 1 for a map of the City, courtesy of the 2018 City of Banning Integrated Master Plan (2018 IMP).

Figure 1. City of Banning Project Map (courtesy of 2018 IMP)

3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.1 Background Information
Climate Change Concerns
With climate change bringing on more unpredictable and severe variations in weather which have recently been more frequent, and longer duration droughts in California and the entire Western United States, it is crucial for water agencies to engage in comprehensive planning to develop and implement sustainable sources of water. The effects of drought are clearly demonstrated with the Governor of California declaring a statewide State of Emergency due to drought. The Governor’s State of Emergency declaration is accompanied by a call for all state residents to cut down on water use by 15%.
1141
Page | 3
The last severe drought to affect the State occurred only a few years ago between 2012-2017 with 2013-2014 having extraordinarily dry conditions. The current drought may even be on a more dire path as the 2020 water year was the third driest water year on record in the last 127 years. With climate change resulting in hotter, drier summers and reduced precipitation, severe and prolonged droughts are forecast to be a normal part of California’s future. This water reclamation Project will generate sustainable supplies to the City’s water supply portfolio that will help Banning better prepare for future water supply challenges.

Existing Recycled Water Production
At this time, there are no non-potable reclaimed water uses that have been implemented in Banning. Therefore, no wastewater has been “recycled” (re-used) within the City’s service area from 2019 to 2023, as Table 1 indicates. The proposed Project involves upgrading the existing Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) at the City of Banning (City or Banning) to Title 22 standards for recycled water use.

Table 1. Recycled Water Produced and/or Used in City
Year Recycled Water Produced or Used (AF)
2019 0
2020 0
2021 0
2022 0
2023 0
Existing Non-Potable Water System
Currently, the City’s existing non-potable water system delivers water from a non-potable groundwater well, Well M7, to Sun Lakes Country Club for irrigation use. The City has begun constructing a 24-inch diameter pipeline to connect the existing non-potable water pipe to the WWTP. The backbone pipeline is expected to be completed, tested, and accepted by the end of 2023. Once reclaimed water becomes available from the upgraded WWTP, the WWTP will replace Well M7 to serve Sun Lakes Country Club and other irrigation customers as part of this Project.

At that time, Well M7 will be converted to a potable water well to provide additional production capacity to the City’s water system.

City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant
The City’s WWTP has a current capacity of 3.6 MGD and is designed to treat wastewater to secondary standards. The generated wastewater is proportional to the City’s population and the water used by its residents. The wastewater flows are metered at the influent point to the WWTP.

Total wastewater collected in the City between 2018 and 2022 is shown in Table 2 on the following page. The WWTP, located in the southeast corner of the City, collects the wastewater discharged from the City through a network of 112 miles of gravity sewer mains. 1142
Page | 4
Table 2. Wastewater Flows Collected in the City
Year Wastewater (AFY) Wastewater (MGD)
2018 2,259 2.02
2019 2,234 2.00
2020 2,185 1.95
2021 2,226 1.99
2022 2,307 2.06
Average 2,242 2.00
At this time, effluent from the WWTP meets the effluent water quality discharge requirements.

However, the WWTP will not be able to meet the impending discharge limits proposed by the Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Boad (RWQCB). In addition, many treatment facilities at the plant have reached the end of their useful life. WWTP effluent is currently discharged to percolation ponds that recharge into the Cabazon Groundwater Basin but is not entirely extracted by Banning - the percolated water flows to other water agencies located downgradient.

By replacing existing equipment with new facilities that can treat the water to tertiary disinfected recycled water standards, the WWTP effluent can be used to meet current and future non-potable water demands in the City. This allows the City to both meet the impending RWQCB requirements and the Beaumont Basin Plan limits as well as benefit from their WWTP effluent. These benefits include reducing the City’s reliance on imported water and improving the reliability of groundwater for drinking water purposes. Since the City is considered a Disadvantaged Community, a reliable local supply of water will also support City growth and economic development, which are dependent on the availability of water supplies.

3.2 Project Description
This Project will allow the City to reduce its reliance on imported water and serve irrigation customers with recycled water from the City’s upgraded WWTP.

The City’s treated wastewater from the WWTP is currently percolated into the groundwater basin but is not extracted in its entirety by the City of Banning - the majority of percolated water flows to the east outside of the City limits and service area. Therefore, in addition to meeting irrigation demands, this project involves conveying a portion of the WWTP effluent to new local groundwater aquifers upgradient of the City of Banning groundwater storage unit in order to keep groundwater recharge within the City’s wells.

By diversifying the City’s water supply portfolio, this recycled water project will provide the City with the opportunity to both depend less on imported water as well as serve its communities directly with a drought resilient water supply. See Figure 2 for a map of the groundwater storage units and Figure 3 for potential recharge areas, courtesy of the 2018 San Gorgonio Region Recycled Water Study (2018 RWS).
1143
Page | 5
Figure 2. San Gorgonio Region Physical Setting (courtesy of 2018 RWS) Figure 3. Potential Recharge Areas (courtesy of 2018 RWS) The total capacity of the Banning WWTP is 3.6 MGD, or 4,035 AFY. This reclaimed water Project involves treating this WWTP effluent to Title 22 disinfected recycled water standards and using it for non-potable reuse and indirect potable reuse purposes. A portion of the WWTP effluent will serve the existing and future non-potable irrigation demands for non-potable reuse. This total 1144
Page | 6
demand is 1,666 AFY (see Table 3 below). The remaining recycled water supply from the WWTP will flow to one of two groundwater aquifers for indirect potable reuse. By percolating to new basins upgradient of the Banning groundwater storage unit, this will keep groundwater recharge within the City’s wells. With the combination of both non-potable reuse and indirect potable reuse, the City will have seasonal flexibility and will be able to maximize the use of recycled water throughout the year. The estimated net yield of the Project is 4,035 AFY (3.6 MGD) – the total WWTP capacity.

The City has recently equipped a groundwater well near the WWTP (NP-1). NP-1 is under the influence of the WWTP percolation ponds, and as such can be used for non-potable purposes only.

The City plans to convert current wells that are used for irrigation to potable water and use NP-1 instead. This Project will be performed in three (3) Phases:

1. Phase I involves constructing a two-stage reverse osmosis (RO) system and brine evaporation ponds for Well NP-1, which will later be repurposed for WWTP use. The RO treatment is needed to meet the water quality requirements for the Beaumont Basin (the Beaumont Basin requirements), which extends under parts of the City. A new 3.6 MGD membrane bioreactor (MBR) facility and chlorine disinfection tank will be installed to meet Title 22 recycled water standards, and other miscellaneous upgrades of the WWTP will also be implemented in this phase. Laterals will be built along the backbone pipeline to connect the WWTP to the existing customers currently using potable water or groundwater from non-potable wells that can utilize recycled water to meet irrigation demands.

2. Phase II will involve connecting the backbone pipeline to the future recycled water customers and building an additional RO module to meet the Beaumont Basin requirements to serve these remaining customers.

3. Phase III involves building a pipeline to connect the recycled water to basins upgradient of the Banning storage unit for groundwater recharge.

Table 3 shows the potential recycled water users that will be served in the Project, including both existing and future customers.

Table 3. Potential Recycled Water Users
Customer Recycled Water Demand
(AFY)
Recycled Water Demand
(MGD)
Existing Customers Currently Using Potable Water or Groundwater from Non-Potable Wells Sun Lakes Country Club 850 0.76
Banning High School 175 0.16
Dysart Park 87 0.08
Lions Park 79 0.07
Subtotal 1,191 1.07
Projected Future Developments
Rancho San Gorgonio Development 217 0.19
Five Bridges Development 223 0.20
1145
Page | 7
Customer Recycled Water Demand
(AFY)
Recycled Water Demand
(MGD)
Neighborhood Park 35 0.03
Subtotal 475 0.42
Total 1,666 1.49
Table 4 outlines the recycled water production and usage resulting from the implementation of all three (3) Phases of the Project.

Table 4. Projected Recycled Water Production and/or Use Year Phase Recycled Water
Produced / Used (AFY)
Recycled Water
Produced / Used (MGD)
2025 N/A 0 0
2027 I 4,035/1,191 3.6/1.07
2030 II 4,035/1,666 3.6/1.49
2040 III 4,035/4,035 3.6/3.6
Since the ability to implement non-potable reuse is anticipated to be easier and faster than indirect potable reuse, it is planned that non-potable reuse (Phases I and II) will be implemented in the near term, and indirect potable reuse (Phase III) will be implemented in the long-term to allow sufficient time to acquire property and obtain regulatory approvals.

3.3 Proposed Scope of Work
The City of Banning has developed the following scope of work to implement the Project.

Task 1: CEQA Documentation and Permitting: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation will be completed prior to initiation of construction of each component. The City does not anticipate that the Project will have significant impacts on endangered or threatened species, public health or safety, hydrology and water quality, regulated waters of the United States, or cultural resources. As such, the City will prepare an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) to obtain CEQA coverage and expects that Reclamation will adopt a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to obtain National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) coverage for the Project.

Permitting includes the application and receipt for all applicable permits for the Project, including construction permits. Anticipated permits are listed below. The City will work with its consultants to complete permitting.

1. State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water (DDW) Title 22 Engineering Permit which will support Phase I of the project.

2. Regional Water Quality Control Board – Colorado River Basin General Permit (combining Non-Discharge National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System [NPDES], Waste Discharge Requirement [WDR], and Waste Recharge Requirements [WRR])

3. RWQCB Notice of Intent (NOI)

4. RWQCB Notice of Applicability (NOA)
1146
Page | 8

5. DDW – Recycled Water Customer Conversion Approval

6. Air Quality Management District (AQMD)

7. CEQA (IS-MND)
A Title 22 Engineering Report is required to be submitted for approval by DDW for meeting water quality requirements of the treated recycled water and groundwater recharge requirements. After the WWTP’s design documents are finalized, the City will submit the necessary reports, analyses, and applications to obtain required permits from the RWQCB.

Task 2: Design: Work under this task will include additional preliminary design, field investigations, planning and design of WWTP upgrades and conveyance, and construction of the components as designed.

Preliminary Design:

Preliminary Design will include preliminary investigations consisting of a site assessment and background research of the WWTP site. In preparation for the work, the WWTP site will be visited to identify locations suitable for new facilities. These assessments will evaluate and address the potential logistical issues, including but not limited to site access, available space for equipment, obstructions, above ground and underground utilities, location of water source, discharge options, and noise constraints.

A preliminary design report will be prepared that will summarize the evaluation of the WWTP site. The report will also include a planning-level estimate of contractor costs (i.e. engineer’s estimate), and preliminary design drawings. The planning-level cost estimate (i.e., engineer’s estimate) of contractor costs for the construction, development, and testing of the proposed WWTP upgrades will be prepared based on local conditions and recent Contractor cost estimates for similar projects.

Upon completion of the preliminary design report, the most beneficial project delivery method will be evaluated and assessed to ensure an efficient and cost-effective execution of the Project.

Some of the Project delivery methods to be evaluated include Design-Bid-Build, Fixed Price Design Build, Progressive Design Build, and others.

Design and Construction:

Design/construction comprises the bulk of the work to be completed under the Project. The final design consisting of technical plans and specifications for the WWTP upgrades will be developed based on the preliminary design information. It is anticipated that the Project’s design will include the activities related to developing the final plan and technical specifications for the Project components shown in Table 5 on the following page.

Additionally, a detailed schedule of values will be developed to be included with the bid package, with specific line items showing anticipated units and unit quantities for the construction of each item. Bidding and construction of the WWTP upgrades will be performed, including construction of each component, startup, commissioning, and testing.

Task 4: Construction Administration: Construction administration will span the construction duration of the Project. This task includes confirmation of compliance with permits, as well as review of construction activities, inspection during the construction, environmental monitoring during construction, and other construction administration needs. 1147
Page | 9
Project management will span the duration of the Project and includes preparation of the Request for Proposals (RFP) and contractor selection, oversight of contractors, and coordination with the City and contractors.

Table 5. Phase I Project Components
Item
Phase 1
RO system
Brine Drying Beds and Evaporators
MBR Facility (3.6 MGD)
Primary Clarifier
Chlorine Tank
Upgrade Ferric Sulfate Feed/Storage System
Digester Coating
Replace Piping in Grit Chamber
Replace TF Center Drives
Replace East Primary Clarifier Center Drive
Replace Existing PVC Digester Gas Piping
Replace Digester Hot Water Boiler
Replace TF Effluent Distribution Valves (4)
Replace TF Recirculation Pumps (2)
Replace Grit/Cyclone Unit
Replace Two Old Grit Pumps
Customer Connections with Recycled Water Laterals
Table 6 provides an overview of project timing and associated tasks for Phase I. Phases II and III will occur after the close of this NOFO and is dependent on the Project’s Phase I completion.

Table 6. Project Schedule – Phase 1
Milestone / Task / Activity Planned Start
Date
Planned
Completion Date

1. CEQA Documentation January 2024 January 2025

2. Permits January 2024 December 2027

3. Design January 2024 June 2026

4. Bidding, Construction, Start-up, Testing,
Commissioning
January 2025 December 2027

5. Construction Administration April 2025 December 2027 1148
Page | 10

3.4 Performance Measures
Primary benefits of the overall Project (consisting of three (3) Phases) include improved WWTP effluent water quality, improved groundwater quality of the Cabazon Basin, an increase of 4,035 AFY of non-potable water recycled water, and a decrease of potable water usage, all of which will be achieved through upgrades of the City’s WWTP. Benefits and performance measures are shown in Table 7.

Table 7. Project Performance Measures for Primary Benefits Primary Benefits & Measurement Performance Measure
Improved
WWTP effluent
water quality
This Project will lower the TN and TDS limits of
the WWTP effluent to meet the impending
RWQCB Board Order limits and Beaumont Basin
maximum benefit objectives to serve water to Sun
Lakes Country Club. This benefit will be
measured by analyzing the water quality of the
WWTP effluent after the last stage of treatment.

TN and TDS levels less
than 5 mg/L and 330
mg/L, respectively
upon completion of
Phase I of the Project in
2027
Improved
groundwater
quality in the
Cabazon Basin
This Project involves improving the WWTP
effluent with a new MBR system and RO facility
to meet Title 22 disinfected tertiary recycled water
requirements. For Phases I and II, WWTP effluent
that is not sent to irrigation customers will
continue to discharge to percolation ponds above
the Cabazon Basin. For Phase III, remaining
WWTP will flow to local groundwater aquifers
upgradient of the Banning storage unit. This
improved effluent quality will therefore result in
improved groundwater quality in the Cabazon
Basin, which is located downgradient of the
WWTP. This benefit will be measured with
groundwater quality monitoring adjacent to the
percolation ponds.

Phases I and II:

TN reduction from 17
mg/L to 5.7 mg/L
Phases I, II, and III:

TDS reduction from
430 mg/L to 260 mg/L
and TN reduction from
17 mg/L to 5.7 mg/L
Production of
non-potable
recycled water
supply
This Project will create a new, drought-proof local
non-potable supply that will help improve supply
reliability. This benefit will be measured by
determining the amount of recycled water that is
generated by the Project.
4,035 AFY upon
completion of Phase I
of the Project in 2027
Supplementing
potable water
use
This Project will create a recycled water supply for
irrigation customers currently using potable water
or groundwater from non-potable wells. The nonpotable groundwater wells will be converted to the potable water supply, and therefore the WWTP
effluent will supplement potable water to be used
for other purposes. This benefit will be measured
Phase I:
1,191 AFY delivered to
recycled water
customers
Phases II and III:
1149
Page | 11
Primary Benefits & Measurement Performance Measure
by tracking the amount of recycled water
deliveries.
1,666 delivered to
recycled water
customers

4. EVALUATION CRITERIA
Evaluation Criterion 1—Water Supply (35 points)
The overall Project (consisting of three (3) Phases) will increase supply and usage of locally sourced non-potable recycled water supply by an estimated 4,035 AFY. Currently, there are no non-potable recycled water projects that have been implemented in the City. This project will provide a drought resilient and local non-potable water supply for the City of Banning, allowing the City to reduce existing potable water resources usage in the region and to reduce the City’s reliability on imported water that it purchases from the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency (SGPWA) for groundwater recharge.

Subcriterion No. 1a—Stretching Water Supplies (18 points)

1. How many acre-feet of water are expected to be made available each year upon completion of the Project? What percentage of the present and/or future annual demand in the project sponsor’s service area will the Project's reclaimed water be expected to provide upon Project completion? The percentage should be based on the expected total service area demand, not just recycled water demand. Use the total expected capacity of the entire Project upon completion, not just the water that will be produced by the activities that will be completed over the next 3 years.

An estimated 4,035 AFY (3.6 MGD) of locally sourced non-potable recycled water will be made available each year upon completion of the Project. The average total annual potable water demand is 7,054 from 2012-2015. The percentage of recycled water supply in respect to total potable water demand will therefore be 57% (4,035 AFY / 7,054 AFY).

2. Will the Project reduce, postpone, or eliminate the development of new or expanded non-recycled water supplies? Explain.

The Project involves serving existing non-potable water customers currently using potable water or groundwater from non-potable wells. Since the recycled WWTP effluent will supplement these needs, the groundwater wells will be converted to potable water wells, and thus these potable water sources can be used to serve other existing and future demands. With these new available potable water supplies that this Project will yield, projects to improve the potable water system such as new wells and storage reservoirs will be postponed. The implementation of the Project will also reduce the City’s dependency on imported water, thereby reducing the development of new imported water supplies for groundwater recharge.

If the Project is not implemented, the City has explored other potential recycled water supply enhancement alternatives to meet recycled water supplies in its service area - a “Do Nothing” alternative, where the City will use Well NP-1 to supply 850 AFY (0.76 MGD) to Sun Lakes Country Club in place of Well M7. The WWTP treatment process will not be upgraded, and WWTP effluent will continue to discharge to the percolation ponds within the Cabazon Basin. 1150
Page | 12
However, this alternative will become not feasible as Well NP-1’s Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) and Total Nitrogen (TN) levels currently do not meet the Beaumont Basin Plan requirements (330 mg/L for TDS and 5 mg/L for TN), and therefore, the well cannot serve Sun Lakes Country Club (note that the Sun Lakes Country Club is located above the Beaumont Basin). In addition, the “Do Nothing” alternative will still not address required WWTP upgrades to meet impending Board Order requirements. Therefore, to meet the impending Board Order restriction which will exceed the WWTP treatment capacity, the existing treatment process at the WWTP would need to be upgraded regardless.

3. Will the Project alleviate pressure on existing water supplies and/or facilities? If so, please describe the existing water supplies, identify the supplies and/or facilities that will be impacted and explain how they will be impacted by the Project, including quantifications where applicable.

Currently, the City does not use any recycled water produced by any other neighboring agencies. In addition, no wastewater has been recycled within the City’s service area using the existing City’s WWTP. All the non-potable City needs are currently being supplied by potable water or non-potable water from groundwater wells.

The City operates two non-potable groundwater wells to meet these water supply needs:

Well M7 with an estimated average capacity of 0.5 MGD and Well M12 with an estimated capacity of 1.4 MGD. Well NP-1, located near the WWTP, is an additional non-potable groundwater well that was recently equipped and has an estimated average capacity of 1.2 MGD. City staff plans to eventually convert Well M7 and Well M12 over to the potable water system by the end of year 2025 and year 2040, respectively, to supplement the potable water supply. Along with this conversion, it is assumed that Well NP-1 will supplement the recycled water system supply.

To meet the Project objectives and City’s long-term recycled water plans, and upon completion of the upgrades, approximately 4,035 AFY (3.6 MGD) – the total projected WWTP effluent – of recycled water will be available to recycled water customers. As a result, existing Groundwater Wells M7 and M12 will be converted for potable water use, and the upgraded WWTP and Well NP-1 will meet the City’s recycled water needs.

This Project will therefore reduce the demand on local potable water supplies by providing an additional, drought resilient source of water to meet irrigation demands and eventually recharge the City’s local aquifers. The conversion of Wells M7 and M12 to a potable supply source will also provide redundancy and reliability in the City’s production capacity.

4. What performance measures will be used to quantify actual benefits upon completion of the Project?
The performance measures that will be used to quantify actual benefits upon completion of the Project are described below:
• Improved WWTP effluent quality: By installing an MBR system and RO facility to meet the Title 22 tertiary disinfected recycled water requirements, RWQCB water quality requirements, and Beaumont Basin Plan requirements, the final effluent of the WWTP will have significantly improved water quality, specifically in reduced TDS and TN concentrations.
1151
Page | 13
• Improved groundwater quality: In Phases I and II, remaining WWTP effluent not used to serve irrigation customers will continue to discharge to percolation ponds above the Cabazon Basin. In Phase III, remaining WWTP effluent will flow to local groundwater aquifers upgradient of the Banning storage unit. The improved water quality of the WWTP will therefore result in improved groundwater quality in the Cabazon Basin, which is located downgradient of the WWTP.
• Production of recycled water: This Project will create 4,035 AFY of disinfected tertiary recycled water that will be used for direct potable reuse and indirect non-potable reuse. • Improved supply reliability: The Project will create a new, drought-proof local recycled water supply that will help improve supply reliability by 100% upon completion of the project in 2040.
• Delivery of recycled water: By the end of Phase I, 1,191 AFY will be delivered to the existing non-potable water customers currently using potable water or groundwater from non-potable wells. By the end of Phase II, an additional 475 AFY will be delivered to expected future non-potable customers, for a total of 1,666 AFY delivered to recycled water customers.
• Reduced purchases of imported water: Implementing the Project components will increase the local supply of water, and therefore purchases of imported water will decrease by approximately 752 AFY.
• RWQCB Water Quality Compliance: Implementing the Project will allow the City to meet impending regulatory compliance requirements (from RWQCB adopted Board Order R7-2016-0015) to remove constituents that present the greatest risk to groundwater quality such as nitrogen, coliforms, and total dissolved solid (TDS) per Table 8.

Table 8. WWTP Effluent Concentrations and Limitations
Parameter Units Impending RWQCB
WWTP Effluent
Limits
Beaumont Basin
Plan Maximum
Benefit Objectives
Current WWTP
Effluent Quality
30-Day Mean 7-Day Mean
Flow MGD 3.6 N/A N/A 2.06
20C BOD5 mg/L 30 45 N/A 25
TSS mg/L 30 45 N/A 20
pH -- 6.0 – 9.0 N/A
TDS mg/L Not to Exceed 300 mg/L of
the Water Supply
330 410
TN (as N) mg/L 10 5 27
• Beaumont Basin Plan Water Quality Compliance: Since the City’s main potential recycled water customer, Sun Lakes Country Club, is located above the Beaumont Basin, the Basin’s Plan requires the recycled water to meet Basin’s water quality requirements. 1152
Page | 14
Implementing the Project will allow the City to meet the Beaumont Basin maximum benefit objectives shown in Table 8 on the previous page.

Subcriterion No. 1b—Contributions to Water Supply Sustainability (17 points)

1. Will the Project make water available to address a specific concern? Consider the number of acre-feet of water and/or the percentage of overall water supply to be made available by the Project. Explain the specific concern and its severity. Also explain the role of the Project in addressing that concern and the extent to which the Project will address it. Specific concerns may include, but are not limited to:
• Water supply shortages
• Water supply reliability
• Groundwater depletion
• Water quality issues
• Natural disasters that may impact water supply infrastructure • Heightened competition for water supplies
• Availability of alternative supplies
• Increasing cost of water supplies
Water quality issues
Currently, the existing WWTP treatment process does not effectively remove nitrate from the wastewater to meet the impending RWQCB water quality limits. By upgrading the WWTP’s biological treatment system to MBR, this will greatly reduce the total nitrogen in the effluent.

This would not only assist the City in meeting the Board Order requirements, but also alleviate the rising nitrate levels observed in some wells in the Region. In addition, the Project implementation will allow the City to meet the Beaumont Basin water quality maximum benefit objectives of 330 mg/L for TDS and 5 mg/L for TN.

Water supply reliability
The implementation of the Project will create a new, drought-proof local recycled water supply that will help improve non-potable water supply reliability by 100% upon Project completion in 2040. The project will also remove reliance on imported water for groundwater recharge.

Groundwater depletion
Currently, there are three existing customers using potable water or groundwater from nonpotable wells. These customers consist of parks, schools, and other landscape irrigation users.

To meet the Project objectives and City’s long-term recycled water plans, approximately 4,035 AFY of recycled water will be available to recycled water customers and for groundwater recharge. As a result, existing groundwater wells M7 and M12 will be converted for potable water use, and the upgraded WWTP will meet the City’s recycled water needs. This project will therefore reduce the impact on the existing groundwater aquifer supply sources as well as supply additional groundwater aquifers upgradient of the Banning storage unit.

Availability of alternative supplies
Alternative supplies have been examined for the implementation of this Project to rely on local and regional water rather than imported supplies. The City currently relies upon purchasing water from the SGPWA for groundwater recharge. By implementing the Project, the City will 1153
Page | 15
create an alternative recycled water supply source for its service area, decreasing demands on the SGPWA, and on its supplier, the California State Water Project.

Heightened competition for water supplies
As discussed above, the availability of local, drought-proof supply in the City of Banning is limited. Reliance on imported water by agencies serviced by SGPWA has historically increased and will likely increase in the foreseeable future. Naturally, the competition for water allocations to water retailers, including the City of Banning, by SGPWA will also increase and become much more difficult to deliver. In the future, it is expected that water orders submitted by water retailers are likely not going to be fully fulfilled due to a lack of available imported water. Therefore, creating a local, drought-proof supply of recycled water through this Project will buffer the City from the effects of the potential for future competition for imported potable and groundwater resources.

Natural disasters that may impact water supply infrastructure Supplying recycled water to the City’s non-potable water customers reduces the City’s reliance on imported and potable water as well as increases water supply reliability, making local water available in the event of a natural disaster or emergency. For instance, it will allow the City to take preventative measures for the increased wildfire activity in recent years, as additional water supplies will be required for firefighters to successfully combat potential wildfire occurrences in the area.

In addition, natural disasters such as earthquakes can impact imported water conveyance. This Project will create a local water supply to reduce reliance on imported water, and therefore greatly mitigate the severity of the impact of this potential natural disaster to the City.

2. Will the project help create additional flexibility to address drought? Will water made available by this Project continue to be available during periods of drought? To what extent is the water made available by this Project more drought resistant than alternative water supply options? Explain.

The implementation of all the Project phases will provide the City of Banning with the flexibility of diversifying its water supply by reducing its reliance on groundwater wells and imported water purchased from the SGPWA. As climate change conditions become worse, the likelihood of future droughts becomes higher, leading to groundwater supplies depleting and Federal and State water supplies becoming scarcer. By relying on the constant supply of wastewater rather than groundwater or imported sources, the Project guarantees non-potable water supply reliability and drought resiliency.

3. Has the area served by the Project been identified by the United States Drought Monitor as experiencing severe, extreme, or exceptional drought at any time in the last 4 years? Beginning in January 2021, the City of Banning service area has been identified by the United States Drought Monitor as experiencing severe, extreme, or exceptional drought.

4. Has the area served by the Project been designated as a drought disaster area by the State in the last 4 years?
In the last four years (2018, 2019, 2021 and 2022) the City of Banning service area has been designated as a drought disaster area by the State of California. 1154
Page | 16
Evaluation Criterion 2—Environment and Water Quality (15 points)

1. Will the Project improve the quality of surface water or groundwater? If so, how? Implementation of the Project will improve the water quality of the groundwater as the Project involves upgrading the WWTP’s biological treatment from Trickling Filters to an MBR system. MBR yields very high effluent water quality, leading to lower total nitrogen, BOD, and TSS levels. An RO system will also be implemented post MBR treatment to meet the Beaumont Basin requirements, further lowering TDS and TN levels. WWTP effluent that is not used to meet irrigation demand will discharge to unlined percolation ponds above the Cabazon groundwater storage unit (Phases I and II) or flow to a groundwater storage basin above the Banning storage unit (Phase III). This improved water quality of the WWTP effluent will therefore result in better water quality of the groundwater.

2. Will the Project improve effluent quality beyond levels necessary to meet State or Federal discharge requirements?
In order to serve Sun Lakes Country Club, which is located above the Beaumont Basin, the WWTP must meet the Beaumont Basin maximum benefit objectives of 330 mg/L for TDS and 5 mg/L for TN. This restriction is stricter than that of the Federal Title 22 requirements for disinfected tertiary recycled water as well as the RWQCB Board Order for the City of Banning.

In order to meet the Beaumont Basin maximum benefit objectives, an RO system will need to be implemented at the WWTP as the last stage of treatment. With this RO treatment, the effluent water quality that will be distributed to recycled water customers will be beyond that of Federal and State discharge requirements.

3. Will the Project improve flow conditions in a natural stream channel? If so, how? The Project does not involve discharge into a natural stream channel. In Phase III of the Project, the remaining WWTP effluent not used to meet non-potable water demands will be sent to a groundwater recharge basin within the Banning groundwater storage unit to serve the City of Banning.

4. Will the Project restore or enhance habitat for non-listed species? If so, how? This Project will produce a reliable, local water source which will decrease demand for imported water supplies drawn from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) by a total of 752 AFY, thereby improving flow conditions in the natural stream channels of the Delta. The Delta encompasses 1,600 square miles and provides habitat for more than 500 species of fish and wildlife. The 2013 Bay Delta Conservation Plan identified over 30 non-listed species potentially impacted by withdrawals from that system through the SWP (DWR, 2013). Impacts from withdrawals occur due to the change of river flow by pumping, capture within pumping equipment, and increased saltwater intrusion due to pumping. A decrease in water imported through the SWP could help to alleviate these pressures on the Delta ecosystem and could help restore habitat for non-listed species.

In addition, recent droughts resulted in reduced flows into the Delta. With continued exports for water supply, there was an overall reduction in aquatic habitat availability and higher contaminant concentrations from agricultural runoff in both river systems. Therefore, since this Project involves cutting down on the importation of water from the Delta, the Project will help enhance the habitat for all affected species by allowing it to become more resilient to 1155
Page | 17
climate changing patterns. Non-listed species will benefit greatly, as many species rely on this habitat for ecologic function at various life stages.

5. Will the Project provide water or habitat for federally listed threatened or endangered species? If so, how?
As described in the Sections above, the Project will produce non-potable water supplies that will directly offset imported water from the Delta. The bolstering of local water supply sources will allow the City to reduce imported water purchases and therefore demand for diversions from the Delta, leaving additional water in the Delta that can support native habitats for fish and wildlife. The Project will provide indirect riparian and ecosystem benefits in these systems, contributing to the protection of habitat for native species.

In the Delta system, this could lead to increased outflow through the San Francisco Bay, helping to reduce salinity and improve habitat for fish and other species. In addition to the number of non-listed species mentioned in the Section above, there are 21 federally listed threatened and endangered species in the Delta that will benefit from the reduction of imported water purchases. These species include the Delta smelt, Chinook salmon, Least Bell’s vireo, and Conservancy fairy shrimp. Some fish species, such as the Delta smelt, live their entire lives within the Delta ecosystem. Other fish species, including the Chinook salmon and steelhead, rely on the Delta for spawning, rearing, and migration during critical times of year. With more water in the Delta, these species become more resilient to changes in the ecosystem.

Evaluation Criterion 3—Economic Benefits (25 points)
Subcriterion No. 3a—Cost Effectiveness (15 points)

1. Reclamation will calculate the cost per acre-foot of water produced by the Project using information provided by Project sponsors. For a description of how this calculation is done, please see the Title XVI Frequently Asked Questions webpage at www.usbr.gov/watersmart/title/faq.html

2. Please provide the following information for this calculation:

The cost estimate for the Project includes a project contingency of 25%. Other project soft costs were estimated as percentages of the construction costs which included 10% for construction management and engineering services during construction, 10% for engineering design and Project Management during the design, and $300,000 for environmental and permitting. The annual O&M cost estimate includes electricity, chemicals, labor, and repair costs. The unit electricity cost used for the estimate is $0.20/KWh. (a) The total estimated construction costs, by year, for the Project (include all previous and planned work) as shown in Table 2.

Table 9 on the following page allocates construction costs by year. Construction of Phase I will begin in 2025 and approximately 11% of the total construction costs will be expended. Phase I construction will continue through 2027 with 21% of the construction will be completed in 2026, and the remaining Phase I construction will be completed by 2027 with 56% of total costs. Although Phases II and III are not currently planned, it is estimated that all of Phase II construction costs are approximately 3% of the total project cost and will be completed in 2030; and Phase III construction costs are approximately 9% of the total project cost and will be completed in 2040. 1156
Page | 18
Table 9. Estimated Construction Cost per Year, in 2023 dollars Phase Calendar Year Cost
Phase I 2025 $8,753,600.00
Phase I 2026 $17,040,475.00
Phase I 2027 $44,696,325.00
Phase II 2030 $2,332,900.00
Phase III 2040 $7,213,900.00
(b) The total estimated or actual costs to plan and design the Project. Note: This should not include the cost to complete a feasibility study that meets the requirements of Reclamation’s Directives and Standards
https://www.usbr.gov/recman/wtr/wtr11-01.pdf
Table 10 below details these costs broken down by phase of the project. All Phase I planning and design costs are expected to be completed by June 2026. The total planning and design costs for the Project components are approximately $8,003,720.

Table 10. Total Planning and Design Costs by Year, in 2020 dollars Year Planning or Design Activity Cost
2024 Well NP-1 RO System and Brine Evaporation Ponds $875,360.00 2025 WWTP Upgrades $3,516,110.90
2026 WWTP Upgrades, Recycled Water Laterals $2,657,569.10 2030 RO Module and Remaining Recycled Water Laterals $233,290.00 2039 Groundwater Basin Upgrades and Pipeline $216,417.00 2040 Groundwater Basin Upgrades and Pipeline $504,973.00 Total $8,003,720.00
(c) The estimated expected average annual operation and maintenance costs for the life of the Project. Please do not include periodic replacement costs in the operation and maintenance costs. Periodic replacement costs should be provided separately in response to (f) below. Note: this is an annual cost—not total cost.

Average annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for the Project components in Phase I are presented in Table 11 on the following page. These costs are based on estimates provided by the City’s Owner’s Engineer consultant, who developed them based on similar projects and planning-level estimates. These costs were developed in the 2023 Feasibility Study (Appendix B, Section 4.3, page 27) and are presented in 2023 dollars. As shown in the table, total annual O&M costs for Phase I of the Project are projected to be approximately $3,890,000.
1157
Page | 19
Table 11. Average Annual O&M Costs for Phase I of the Project, in 2023 dollars Project Component Estimated Annual O&M Cost
Labor $1,200,000.00
Power $1,638,120.00
Chemicals $564,380.00
Repairs $487,500.00
Total O&M Costs $3,890,000.00
(d) The year the Project has or is expected to begin to deliver reclaimed water.

As shown in the Project Schedule in Table 6 (see Section 3.3 Proposed Scope of Work), Phase I construction is expected to be complete by December 2027. Phases II and III will occur after the close of this NOFO and is dependent on the Phase I completion.

However, is estimated that Phase II shall be completed in 2030, and Phase III in 2040. (e) The Projected life (in years) that the Project is expected to last. Note: this should be measured from the time the Project starts delivering water.

The City of Banning WWTP Upgrade Project has an expected 50-year project life.

Phase I of the WWTP Upgrades Project is expected to be completed in 2027 with the first full year of delivery in 2028. The Project life is therefore through 2077. (f) All estimated replacement costs by year as shown in Table 5. If there are multiple replacement costs in one (1) year, or at the same interval, please total them and put them on one line with the year or interval.

Similar to the average O&M costs presented in Table 11, replacement costs for the Project components are based on planning level estimates from the Owner’s Engineer consultant and similar projects. Replacement costs and timing are presented in Table 12, and assume replacement frequency will begin in 2028, the first full year of deliveries for Phase I of the Project. It shall be noted that the estimated replacement costs are presented in 2023 dollars without any escalation.

Table 12. Replacement Cost Timing, in 2023 dollars
Description of Replacement
Requirement
Replacement
Frequency
Year(s) Cost
Mechanical, Electrical/Controls
Replacements Every year
Every Year from 2028
to 2077 $868,658.82
RO Membrane Replacement
and MBR Membrane
Replacement Every 5 years
2032, 2037, 2042,
2047, 2052, 2057,
2062, 2067, 2072, 2077 $2,200,000.00
(g) The maximum volume of water (in acre-feet) that is expected to be produced annually upon completion of the Project. This volume of water must correspond to the costs provided above. If costs are only provided for a portion or phase of 1158
Page | 20
the project, then only the water produced by that same portion or phase of the project will be considered under this criterion.

The entire Project consists of three (3) Phases. Completion of Phase I of the Project will allow the City to produce 4,035 AFY of non-potable water.

3. Reclamation will calculate the cost per acre-foot for the Project using the information requested in question No. 1 and compare it to the non-reclaimed water alternative, and any other water supply options that the applicant identifies to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the Project. Please provide the following information for this comparison:

1. A description of the conditions that exist in the area and projections of the future with, and without, the Project.

The City faces many challenges regarding its water supply. Droughts, precipitation variability, population growth, and legal and environmental constraints combine to reduce water supply reliability, particularly imported water. The City of Banning currently imports 752 AFY of its water, and the projected cost of imported water will continue to increase in the future.

With the Project, the City will be able to utilize recycled water for direct deliveries to irrigation customers that would offset both existing and figure potable demands (Phases I and II) as well as recharge local groundwater aquifers for extraction with the surplus of recycled water (Phase III).

Without the project, existing and future irrigation demands would be met with imported water used for recharge, which is expected to be an unreliable source of water in the future. In addition, without the Project, the City would not be able to meet the impending water quality discharge limits by the RWQCB.

2. Provide the cost per acre-foot of other water supply alternatives that could be implemented by the non-Federal Project sponsor in lieu of the Project. This must include, but is not limited to, one non-reclaimed water alternative that would satisfy the same demand as the Project. Other water supply alternatives beyond one non-reclaimed water alternative are not required but may be provided where available to demonstrate the cost effectiveness of the Project.

If the Project were not to be implemented, the City of Banning would continue to import water from the SGPWA to recharge the groundwater wells. Existing irrigation customers in the City would continue to use potable water or non-potable water from these groundwater wells. As mentioned in the Section above, the City imports 752 AFY per year. The cost of this imported water is $399/AF. This Project, however, would produce 4,035 AFY of recycled water, thus offsetting the 752 AFY of the City’s current potable water imports.

3. If available, provide the cost per acre-foot of one water supply project with similar characteristics to the Project. This information does not have to be provided if it is not available. It is intended to provide another possible comparison to demonstrate the cost effectiveness of the Project. 1159
Page | 21
This information is not currently available. However, the City will analyze available data and compile the information on the cost per acre-foot of one water supply project with similar characteristics to the Project to be provided to the Bureau of Reclamation.

4. Discussion of the degree to which the Project is cost-effective. Where applicable, include a discussion of why the Project may be cost effective even if the overall Project cost appears to be high.

As described in Section 4.2, pages 22-25, of Appendix B, three (3) alternatives were developed for the proposed Project. Descriptions of the three (3) Alternatives are as follows:
1) a “Do Nothing” alternative, where the City would continue to operate Well NP1 to supply 850 AFY to Sun Lakes Country Club in place of Well M7. The WWTP treatment process will not be upgraded, and WWTP effluent will continue to discharge to the percolation ponds within the Cabazon Groundwater Basin. A more detailed description of this alternative (Alternative 1) is described in Section 4.2.1, page 22, of Appendix B.
2) a “Non-Potable Reuse” alternative, where in Phase I, Well NP-1 (with an installed RO system to meet Beaumont Basin requirements) would replace Well M7 to serve Sun Lakes Country Club; evaporation beds would be constructed for RO Brine (which will later be repurposed for WWTP use); the WWTP biological treatment system would be upgraded with an MBR facility to meet Title 22 requirements; and laterals would be constructed for existing recycled water customers. As Phase II of this alternative, laterals for future recycled water customers would be constructed, and an additional RO module would be installed; the remaining WWTP effluent not serving irrigation customers would continue to be discharged to the existing percolation ponds. A more detailed description of this alternative (Alternative 2) is described in Section 4.2.2, page 23, of Appendix B.
3) A "Hybrid Non-Potable Reuse and Indirect Potable Reuse” would include Phases I and II described in the “Non-Potable Reuse” alternative, as well as an additional Phase. Phase III of the Project would include construction of a pipeline to connect the recycled water to basins upgradient of the Banning storage unit for groundwater recharge. The remaining WWTP effluent not serving irrigation customers would flow to these basins rather than to the existing percolation ponds A more detailed description of this alternative (Alternative 3) is described in Section 4.2.3, pages 24-25, of Appendix B.

Table 13 and Table 14 show that the selected Alternative 3 (Project) offers the most cost-effective option for the WWTP effluent to meet the water quality requirements of Beaumont Basin maximum benefit objectives of 330 mg/L for TDS and 5 mg/L for TN and to meet Board Order requirements of 10 mg/L for TN. Although Alternative 3 (implementing both non-potable reuse and indirect potable reus) has the higher capital, O&M, and annual cost than Alternative 2 (non-potable reuse only), Alternative 3 has a lower unit cost due to the higher yield.
1160
Page | 22
Table 13. Monetary Analysis
Estimated
Annual Yield
(AFY)
Capital Cost O&M Cost Annual
Cost
($/year)
Unit Cost
($/AF)
Alternative 1 0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Alternative 2 1,666 $93,487,328 $3,721,200 $4,146,000 $2,489 Alternative 3 4,035 $80,037,200 $3,901,200 $4,391,025 $1,089 Table 14. Non-Monetary Criteria
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Regulatory Compliance 1 5 5
Reliability/Process Robustness 2 5 5
Enhancement of Indirect Potable Reuse 1 2 5
Groundwater Quality Enhancement 1 5 5
Flexibility for Future Water Reuse 1 5 5
Operational Simplicity 5 4 4
Ease of Implementation/Funding 5 5 4
Total 16 31 33
Subcriterion No. 3b—Economic Analysis and Project Benefits (10 points)

1. Summarize the economic analysis performed for the Project including information on the Project’s estimated benefits and costs. Describe the methodologies used for the analysis that has been conducted. Points will be awarded based on a comparison of the benefits and costs of the Project. The information provided should include:
(a) Quantified and monetized Project costs, including expected capital costs and operations and maintenance costs.

The costs of the Project stem from capital costs, O&M costs, and foreseeable replacement costs. These costs have been described in detail under Subcriterion 3a. The present value of these costs over the 50-year lifetime of the Project’s three (3) phases are estimated to be $104.9M, with Phase 1 - $93.4M, as seen in Table 15.

Table 15. Monetary Analysis

Estimated Annual
Yield (AFY)
Capital
Cost
O&M
Cost
Annual Cost
($/year)
Unit Cost
($/AF)
Phase I 1,191 $93,487,328 $3,500,000 $3,890,000 $3,267
Phase II 475 $2,799,480 $221,200 $256,000 $539
Phase III 2,369 $8,656,680 $180,000 $245,025 $104
(b) Quantified and monetized Project benefits. This includes benefits that can be quantified and expressed as a monetized benefit per acre-foot. These may include, but are not limited to, benefits related to water supply quantity and water supply 1161
Page | 23
reliability, recreational benefits, ecosystem benefits, water quality, energy efficiency, and environmental compliance and permitting. Benefits may also include the avoided costs of no action (i.e., the costs that would be incurred if the Project were not implemented), and the willingness of users or customers to pay for a benefit or to avoid a negative outcome (e.g., the willingness of households to pay for a water supply system that would reduce groundwater overdraft). If quantified and/or monetized information for these benefits is not available, they may be addressed in response to question two below.

One of the primary benefits of the Project would be the avoidance of purchasing imported water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. This supply requires a substantial amount of infrastructure to transport, treat, and deliver. The current cost of the imported water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is $399 per AF. Based on the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, the City's recent imported water purchases from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta through SGPWA for years 2015 to 2020 is shown in Table 16.

Table 16. Imported Water Purchases
Year Purchases (AF)
2015 686
2016 1,477
2017 1,350
2018 500
2019 250
2020 250
Average: 752
2010-2015 Avg. (2015 UWMP) 847
As a result, it costs the City on average more than $300,000 per year to for the imported water, which the City would continue to incur if the Project is not implemented.

In 2022, the City Council and rate payers supported and approved a significant rate increase to provide partial funding for the improvements at the WWTP and recycled water development. The rate increase was reviewed and approved by the City’s rate payers, showing the willingness of Banning customers to pay for the reliability of recycled water.

Since deliveries of imported water can be unreliable, the implementation of the Project would allow City of Banning to offset costs of imported water and create a more reliable recycled water supply for the City’s customers. During the recent drought, allocations of Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta supplies were limited to 5% in 2014, and 20% in 2015.

Although conditions improved in the following years, allocations remained limited to 60% in 2016. Moreover, the allocation forecast in 2024 is estimated to be 10%. It is assumed that the allocation of available water will continue to worsen.

The economic value of reliability can vary depending on how much value individual customers receive from their water and how flexible they can be in cutting back demand. 1162
Page | 24
In the case of the Project, Phase I of the Project would produce 4,035 AFY of recycled water, thus offsetting 752 AFY of the City’s current potable water imports. 1,191 AFY would be used to serve the existing customers currently supplied with potable water or nonpotable water from groundwater wells, while the remaining 2,844 AFY would continue to discharge to percolation ponds near the WWTP site. In Phase II, 1,166 AFY would be used to serve both the existing and future recycled customers, while the remaining 2,369 AFY would continue discharging to the percolation ponds. Furthermore, with the completion of Phase III of the Project, the City would utilize 4,035 of the 4,035 AFY recycled water yield, as 1,666 AFY would serve recycled water customers and the remaining 2,369 AFY would flow to local groundwater aquifers for indirect potable reuse.

For the period from 2015 through 2020, the City imported on average 752 AFY from Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Table 16 on the previous page). Thus, the Project would offset this entire Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta water supply. (c) A comparison of the Project’s quantified and monetized benefits and costs. *Please note that information must be included in the proposal to be considered. Scores will not be based on information provided in the Project’s feasibility study if the information is not included in the proposal.

The majority of the benefits resulting from the implementation of the Project are difficult to quantify as they include climate impact benefits, improved water supply quality and reliability, and positive environmental impacts. However, one of the main quantified benefits of the Project implementation consists of the reduction of City reliance on imported water from Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. This will allow City to save more than $15M in 2023 dollars over the anticipated 50 years life span of the Project.

2. Some Project benefits may be difficult to quantify and/or monetize. Describe any economic benefits of the Project that are difficult to quantify and/or monetize. Provide a qualitative discussion of the economic impact of these benefits. Points will be awarded based on the potential economic impact of the Project-related benefits. Some examples of benefits may include, but are not limited to, acres of land or stream miles that may be benefitted or not harmed, benefits to habitat or species, flood risk mitigation, local impacts on residents and/or businesses, job creation, and regional impacts. This may also include benefits listed in question one, if they have not been monetized (e.g., water reliability, water quality, and recreation).

Currently, no non-potable water reuse is being practiced in the City, and the effluent from the City’s WWTP discharges to percolation ponds but is not entirely extracted by Banning – the percolated water flows to other water agencies downgradient. Producing reclaimed water would significantly increase the City’s economic advantage because of the sustainable growth and profit from selling the WWTP effluent to irrigation customers.

At this time, the City uses imported water for groundwater replenishment. By supplying these irrigation customers with a reclaimed local water supply instead of pumped groundwater (as is currently done), this will reduce the amount of required imported water for the City, thereby reducing the City’s overall water costs, as well as reduce the impact to the existing groundwater aquifer supply sources. In addition, when all three (3) Phases of the Project are constructed, the City will be able to convert non-potable wells M7 and M12 to potable, thus benefiting from the investments made in drilling and equipping these wells. 1163
Page | 25
Another economic benefit of the Project is its impact on City growth. City growth is dependent on the availability of water supplies to meet various demands for new City population.

Increasing the reliability of drinking water will therefore allow the City to meet its needs for growth.

In addition to these benefits, the Project would also lessen the load on the infrastructures required to deliver imported water. Demands on imported SGPWA supplies will, over time, require new or expanded infrastructure to ensure reliability and efficient delivery of water from the Delta. For example, current estimates of the cost of the California Water Fix, the plan to construct tunnels to divert water from the Sacramento River to the SWP, bypassing the environmentally sensitive and structurally risky Delta, hover around $16.7 billion, according to an article by the Sacramento Bee in 2018. By reducing the City’s demands on purchased water from SGPWA, the Project would postpone the development of new or expanded infrastructure, such as the California Water Fix, necessary to deliver purchased water to the region.

The Project would also have benefits related to recreation and the ecosystem. As explained in the Sections above, the Project will produce recycled water supplies that will directly offset imported water from the Delta, which contains 21 federally listed threatened and endangered species. By reducing the amount of imported water purchased, more water supplies will be available for these species in their natural habitats. And healthy ecosystems and fisheries have economic benefits. For example, the Delta provides a variety of recreational opportunities including fishing, hunting, boating, camping, picnics, and viewing nature, which amount to approximately $809M in income and economic value added per year, based on an article from the University of California in 1998.

Evaluation Criterion 4—Presidential and Department of the Interior Priorities (15 Points)

1. Climate Change. Points will be awarded based on the extent the project will reduce climate pollution; increase resilience to the impacts of climate change; protect public health; and conserve our lands, waters, oceans, and biodiversity. Address the following as relevant to your project.

The Project will increase resilience to the impacts of climate change and conserve water by utilizing recycled water supplies and freeing up imported water for other water managers throughout the state and the region. A reliance on imported water leaves the City vulnerable to the threats from climate change, reoccurring drought, and natural disasters. Table 17 on the following page lists potential regional climate change impacts that are anticipated for the City.

By producing local supplies of recycled water, the Project will reduce demand on the Delta supplies, which will contribute to ecosystem benefits by supporting fish and wildlife corridors within the hydrologic system, some of which are endangered. Diverting water (to the region) from this source has a negative effect on the ecosystems on which fish and wildlife depend.

Ecological resilience to climate change will be provided through reduced greenhouse gas emission from reduction in the need for transporting and treating imported supplies. 1164
Page | 26
Table 17. Potential Climate Change Impacts
Impact Effect
Temperature 1.5°F to 4.5°F average temperature increase Rainfall
Variable projections predict between 35% drier and 17% wetter Increase in variability between years
Supply Up to 25% decrease in Delta supply
Wildfires
40% increase in California Coastal Shrub acreage burned in Southwestern U.S.
54% increase in overall acreage burned in Western U.S.

2. Combating the Climate Crises: E.O. 14008: Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, focuses on increasing resilience to climate change and supporting climateresilient development. For additional information on the impacts of climate change throughout the western United States, see: www.usbr.gov/climate/secure/docs/ 2021secure/2021SECUREReport.pdf. Please describe how the project will address climate change, including the following:
• Please provide specific details and examples on how the project will address the impacts of climate change and help combat the climate crisis.

By reducing imported water demand, this project achieves the E.O. 14008 goal of conserving water, protecting biodiversity, and addressing climate change. Additionally, by increasing water use efficiency, the Project reduces energy use and thus avoids the production of greenhouse gases, thereby supporting the intent of E.O. 14008 to strengthen resilience against the impacts of climate change.

Although California is already subject to highly variable precipitations patterns, studies show that variability will intensify in the future, bringing heavier winter storms and more severe droughts. To combat this issue, the City of Banning will take aggressive measures with this Project to diversify its water supply portfolio by developing local, droughtresilient supplies and relying less on imported water. • Does this proposed project strengthen water supply sustainability to increase resilience to climate change? Does the proposed project contribute to climate change resiliency in other ways not described above?
By investing in RO technology, developing a sustainable and reliable recycled water supply, and reducing the City’s reliance on the imported water, the City of Banning is increasing its resilience to climate change. By reducing the quantity of imported water into the City, water that would have been designated for the City of Banning can remain in its natural hydrologic cycle, providing ecological benefits to the Bay Delta. As mentioned in the Sections above, this will help protect and maintain critical habitats that support several species, including the Delta Smelt. Additionally, the reduction in energy demands due to the Project’s offset of imported water will reduce greenhouse emissions associated with 1165
Page | 27
the City of Banning’s water system. This will help the City adapt to potential changes in future water supply reliability.

Another contribution of the Project is the improvement of groundwater. Since onsite treatment systems and the existing WWTP do not effectively remove nitrate from wastewater, this Project would reduce the amount of nitrate that percolates into the groundwater within the Cabazon storage unit. This would alleviate the rising nitrate levels observed in some wells in the Region.

3. Disadvantaged or Underserved Communities Points will be awarded based on the extent to which the project directly serves disadvantaged, underserved, or Tribal communities.

E.O. 14008 and E.O. 13985 affirm the advancement of environmental justice and equity for all through the development and funding of programs to invest in disadvantaged or underserved communities. For the purpose of this criterion, Tribes and insular areas (Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands) are considered disadvantaged.
a. Please use the White House Council on Environmental Quality’s interactive Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool, available online at Explore the map - Climate & Economic Justice Screening Tool (screeningtool.geoplatform.gov/en/#17.59/

36.63278/-105.181329) to identify any disadvantaged communities that will benefit from your project. In addition to identifying specific census tracts that are disadvantaged, the CEJST considers the lands of Federally Recognized Tribes as disadvantaged communities. In addition, regardless of whether a Federally Recognized Tribe has land, all Federally Recognized Tribal entities are considered disadvantaged communities for the purposes of the Justice40 Initiative.2 If applicable, describe how the project benefits those disadvantaged or underserved communities identified using the tool. For example, does the project improve water quality, provide economic growth opportunities, improve or expand public access to nature, or provide other benefits in a disadvantaged or underserved community? The City of Banning’s service area includes the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, as shown in Figure 4. The Project will provide will improve overall groundwater reliability and water quality, thus benefiting relevant Tribes in the area.

Figure 4. City of Banning Project Map (courtesy of 2018 RWS) 1166
Page | 28
In addition, based on the data from the California Department of Water Resources shown in Figure 5 on the following page, most of the City’s service area meet the definition of a Disadvantaged Community (shown in blue). Producing a reliable local supply of water will support economic development of the Disadvantaged Communities, which are dependent on the availability of water supplies.

Figure 5. City of Banning Disadvantaged Communities Census Tracts ACS 2016-2020 (courtesy of CA Department of Water Resources)

4. Tribal Benefits. Points will be awarded based on the extent to which the Project will honor the Federal government’s commitments to Tribal Nations. The Department of the Interior is committed to strengthening Tribal sovereignty and the fulfillment of Federal Tribal trust responsibilities. The President’s memorandum, “Tribal Consultation and Strengthening Nation-to-Nation Relationships,” asserts the importance of honoring the Federal government’s commitments to Tribal Nations. • Does the proposed project directly serve and/or benefit a Tribe? Will the project improve water management for a Tribe?
The City of Banning service area includes land owned by the Morongo Band of Mission Indians (MBMI). MBMI is one of the groundwater producers downstream of the WWTP and will benefit from the better effluent quality of the discharge/recharge at the City’s percolation ponds (Phases I and II) and local groundwater aquifers above the Banning storage unit (Phase III). In addition, this Project will reduce the amount of imported potable water delivered to the City. This will allow more potable water to be available to meet the obligations for Local Water and Supplemental Water deliveries to Tribes in the Region. 1167
Page | 29
• Does the proposed project support Tribal resilience to climate change and drought impacts or provide other Tribal benefits such as improved public health and safety by addressing water quality, new water supplies, or economic growth opportunities? As described in the Section above, the Project will produce higher quality effluent that will discharge to the percolation ponds near the WWTP site (Phases I and II) or flow to groundwater aquifers above the Banning storage unit (Phase III). This will improve groundwater quality in the Cabazon Basin (located downgradient of the WWTP) and therefore for the MBMI. While direct deliveries of recycled water will not be available to the MBMI parcel in Banning, they will benefit from the additional recharge in the City’s local aquifers.
• Does the proposed project support Reclamation’s Tribal trust responsibilities or a Reclamation activity with a Tribe?
The project does not support Reclamation’s Tribal trust responsibilities or a Reclamation activity with a Tribe.

Evaluation Criterion 5— Reclamation’s Obligations and Watershed Perspective (10 Points) Subcriterion No. 5a— Reclamation’s Legal and Contractual Water Supply Obligations (5 points)

1. Points will be awarded for Projects that help to meet Reclamation’s legal and contractual obligations. Explain how the Project relates to Reclamation’s mission and/or serves a Federal interest. Does the Project help fulfill any of Reclamation’s legal or contractual obligations such as providing water for Indian Tribes, water right settlements, river restoration, minimum flows, legal court orders, or other obligations? If so, explain.

Note: A Project may help Reclamation fulfill its obligations even if the project sponsor is not a Reclamation contractor, and indirect benefits to Reclamation will also be considered under this criterion.

The Project components will not directly fulfill the Reclamation’s legal or contractual obligations but, by developing the recycled water supply, MBMI will benefit from the better effluent quality from the discharge/recharge at the City’s percolation ponds.

Subcriterion No. 5b— Watershed Perspective (5 points)

1. Points will be awarded based on the extent to which the Project promotes or applies a watershed perspective by implementing an integrated resources management approach, implementing a regional planning effort, forming collaborative partnerships with entities representing diverse interests, or conducting public outreach.

A watershed perspective generally means an approach to planning directed at meeting the needs of geographically dispersed localities across a region or a watershed that will take advantage of economies of scale and foster opportunities for partnerships. This approach also takes into account the interconnectedness of water and land resources, encourages the active participation of all interested groups, and uses the full spectrum of technical disciplines in activities and decision making. Does the Project:

1. Implement or relate to a regional or state water plan or an integrated resource management plan? Explain.
1168
Page | 30
The Project components support various local and regional integrated resources management plans and planning efforts. The implementation of the Project is an essential component of the City’s water supply portfolio, as it will allow the City of Banning to reduce its reliance on imported potable water, thus making this potable water supply available to the region.

Although this Project itself does not involve multiple region-wide partners for implementation, the benefits of the project are not limited to the City of Banning, its users, and the local ecological environment. The promotion and utilization of locally available recycled water creates sustainable, drought-resilient non-potable water supplies that are independent of precipitation and temperature patterns or interregional factors and jurisdictions. Locally produced recycled water production offsets the need for imported water from the Delta. This allows for increased natural flows in the Bay Delta to benefit diverse ecosystems and species such as the Delta Smelt.

The Project supports State water plans summarized below. 2023 Draft California Water Plan (CWP) Update
The 2023 Draft CWP Update has seven objectives, recommendations, and actions for advancing the themes and strategies to make California more resilient to climate resilience and water equity for all Californians. The Project addresses the following objectives:
• Support watershed resilience planning and implementation. • Improve resilience of State, federal, and regional “backbone” built water infrastructure. • Advance equitable outcomes in water management.
• Support and learn from Tribal water and resource management practices.

The Project also supports the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act described below.

Department of Water Resources – Sustainable Groundwater Management Act The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) was passed by the California State Legislature in September 2014, establishing new requirements for groundwater management in medium and high priority groundwater basins. The act requires the development and implementation of Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) for each groundwater basin and subbasin. The GSP must contain objectives and actions to achieve and maintain groundwater sustainability and to avoid the undesirable results of overdraft. SGMA also requires the establishment of Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) to oversee development and implementation of GSPs and provides authority to GSAs to sustainably manage groundwater.

Local water authorities and counties have primary responsibility and authority for the development and implementation of GSPs and GSAs; however, the State has been given authority to intervene if specific requirements are not met. See Sections 8.32 and 8.33 on pages 39 and 40 in Appendix B for further information on the GSAs and GSPs, respectively.

Regional Collaborations
The City is a member of the San Gorgonio Pass Regional Water Alliance (Alliance). The Alliance was created to identify challenges in water supply and water quality in the region and to improve coordination and communication among local, state, and federal governments and water purveyors and other water resource stakeholders in the San Gorgonio Pass region.

Since 2015, the City has also participated in the following three additional agreements:
1169
Page | 31

1. San Gorgonio Integrated Regional Water Management Group, which includes: City of Banning, Banning Heights Mutual Water Company, Cabazon Water District, High Valleys Water District, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (CFCWCD), and the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency.

2. San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agency, which includes: the Desert Water Agency, Banning Heights Mutual Water District, Cabazon Water District, Mission Springs Water District, San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency and the City of Banning.

3. San Timoteo Groundwater Sustainability Agency, which includes: City of Banning, Beaumont-Cherry Valley Water District, City of Redlands, Yucaipa Valley Water District, San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency.

The City also participates in the Beaumont Management Zone (BMZ) Maximum Benefits Program, which is under the oversight of the RWQCB and is intended to ensure the long-term sustainability of water quality in the BMZ. Yucaipa Valley Water District, Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District, and City of Beaumont also participate in the program.

2. Help meet the water supply needs of a large geographic area, region, or watershed? Explain.

This Project focuses on a local supply of recycled water for the City of Banning’s service area within the local watershed. However, by reducing the City’s demand on existing potable water supply, this will lower their purchases of imported water from the Delta. This leaves water available in the river for other users or for habitats.

3. Promote collaborative partnerships with multiple stakeholders representing diverse interests? Explain.

The Project components do not directly involve collaboration or partnerships with other agencies about water-related issues. However, as mentioned in Section above, the City is part of the 2023 Draft California Water Plan, Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, and the listed regional collaborations. Thus, the Project will have a positive impact on these activities in terms of both supply and water quality.

4. Include public outreach and opportunities for the public to learn about the project? Explain.

The majority of the proposed facilities will be within the footprint of the City’s existing WWTP. As such, no public opposition is anticipated for the Project. As the Project progresses, more public outreach activities will be conducted to increase publicity for the proposed Project.

5. PROJECT BUDGET

5.1 Funding Plan
The total cost of Phase I of the Project is estimated at $93,487,328. Under this NOFO, the City is therefore requesting $23,371,832, which would be 25% of the Phase I Project cost of $93,487,328.

Phases II and III are to be incurred past the timeframe of this NOFO and are not currently eligible for consideration. Remaining costs will be covered by non-federal funding sources to provide the minimum 75% funding match. Table 18 on the following page includes more detail regarding the funding contributions by source for the Project.
1170
Page | 32
Table 18. Funding Contributions by Source
Funding Source Amount
Non-Federal Entities
City of Banning $70,115,496.00
Federal Entities
Requested Reclamation Funding $23,371,832.00
Total Cost $93,487,328.00
The City’s cost share will be provided by the City’s Water Operations and Wastewater Operations Funds. There is a current fund balance in the Water Operations Fund of $17.5M and a fund balance in the Wastewater Operations Fund of $3.7M. In addition to operating and capital revenues related to rates, the City has continued to charge a monthly Tertiary Surcharge of $2.72/month per account to fund capital improvements at the wastewater treatment plant. The Wastewater Tertiary Fund has a fund balance of $7.7M of which $7M would be allocated to the Proposed Project.

Additionally, the City has the capability to fund projects through either cash payment or debt issuance. See Section 9.4, pages 45-47, in Appendix B for more details on the City’s Project Funding Plan.

City staff time will not be documented as a project cost. Invoices will be provided to Reclamation following grant award, or at Reclamation’s request. The City anticipates Phase I costs will be incurred by December 30, 2027. All project costs are presented in Table 19 on the following page.

The construction cost of $70,490,400 listed in Table 19 is based on the Feasibility Study in Section

4.3, page 27, of Appendix B. That construction cost did not include any additional soft costs, such as CEQA and Permitting, Design, Construction Administration, and overall project contingencies.

Section 5 of this application covers all of these additional costs and provides the estimating methodology.

5.2 Budget Narrative
A detailed explanation of the costs incurred under each budget category in included in Table 20.

Salaries and wages
The City will account for its staff time for this Project as part of its normal operating costs and will not be tracking or submitting staff time for match or reimbursement. As such, these costs are not included in the total project cost. Contractor salaries and wages are included in the contractor costs, under the Contractual/Construction section of the proposed budget.

Key Personnel for the Project will include staff from the City of Banning, along with project managers for each of the consultants and contractors hired to support the Project. The Program Manager for the Project is Arturo Vela, Director of Public Works for the City of Banning.

Compliance with Reporting Requirements will be completed through combined efforts of the Program Manager, Administrator, and Finance Specialist, and is anticipated to require a combined total of 30 hours per submittal. Each submittal is anticipated to include a Financial Report and an 1171
Page | 33
Table 19. Phase I Costs
Price/Rate Unit Quantity Recipient Reclamation
Not applicable $ - $ - $ -
$ -
Not applicable percent $ - $ - $ -
$ -
Not applicable $ - $ - $ -
Subtotal $ - $ - $ -
Not applicable $ - $ - $ -
$ -
Phase 1 Costs: City of Banning WWTP Upgrades
Task 1: CEQA
CEQA (bio, cultural, air quality & IS/MND) $180,000 LS 1.0 $ 135,000 $ 45,000 $ 180,000 Permitting $120,000 LS 1.0 $ 90,000 $ 30,000 $ 120,000
$ 300,000
Task 2: Design
Preliminary Design $1,409,808 % of cost 2.0% $ 1,057,356 $ 352,452 $1,409,808 Final Design $5,639,232 % of cost 8.0% $ 4,229,424 $ 1,409,808 $5,639,232 $ 7,049,040
Task 3: Construction
RO system $ 3,497,500 LS 1.0 $ 2,623,125 $ 874,375 $ 3,497,500 Brine Drying Beds and Evaporators $ 5,256,100 LS 1.0 $ 3,942,075 $ 1,314,025 $ 5,256,100 MBR Facility (3.6 MGD) $ 52,887,000 LS 1.0 $ 39,665,250 $ 13,221,750 $ 52,887,000 Primary Clarifier $ 1,944,100 LS 1.0 $ 1,458,075 $ 486,025 $ 1,944,100 Chlorine Tank $ 2,377,700 LS 1.0 $ 1,783,275 $ 594,425 $ 2,377,700 Upgrade Ferric Sulfate Feed/Storage System $ 298,100 LS 1.0 $ 223,575 $ 74,525 $ 298,100 Digester Coating $ 463,500 LS 1.0 $ 347,625 $ 115,875 $ 463,500 Replace Piping in Grit Chamber $ 58,300 LS 1.0 $ 43,725 $ 14,575 $ 58,300 Replace TF Center Drives $ 499,300 LS 1.0 $ 374,475 $ 124,825 $ 499,300 Replace East Primary Clarifier Center Drive $ 99,900 LS 1.0 $ 74,925 $ 24,975 $ 99,900 Replace Existing PVC Digester Gas Piping $ 16,700 LS 1.0 $ 12,525 $ 4,175 $ 16,700 Replace Digester Hot Water Boiler $ 176,400 LS 1.0 $ 132,300 $ 44,100 $ 176,400 Replace TF Effluent Distribution Valves (4) $ 174,800 LS 1.0 $ 131,100 $ 43,700 $ 174,800 Replace TF Recirculation Pumps (2) $ 124,900 LS 1.0 $ 93,675 $ 31,225 $ 124,900 Replace Grit/Cyclone Unit $ 299,600 LS 1.0 $ 224,700 $ 74,900 $ 299,600 Replace Two Old Grit Pumps $ 174,800 LS 1.0 $ 131,100 $ 43,700 $ 174,800 Recycled Water Laterals $ 2,141,700 LS 1.0 $ 1,606,275 $ 535,425 $ 2,141,700 $ 70,490,400
Task 4: Construction Admin
Construction Management and Inspection $7,049,040 % of cost 10.0% $ 5,286,780 $ 1,762,260 $ 7,049,040 Environmental Monitoring and Support during Construction $100,000 LS 1.0% $ 75,000 $ 25,000 $ 100,000 $ 7,149,040
Contingency (10% of project cost) $8,498,848 % of cost 10.0% $ 6,374,136 $ 2,124,712 $ 8,498,848 $ 8,498,848
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS: 70,115,496.00 23,371,832.00 $ 93,487,328 Not applicable $ -
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT/ACTIVITY COSTS: $ 93,487,328

SALARIES AND WAGES

BUDGET ITEM DESCRIPTION

COMPUTATION

TOTAL COST
Subtotal
Subtotal
FRINGE BENEFITS - See proposal in official file for detailed calculations Subtotal
EQUIPMENT - Leased Equipment use rate + hourly wage/salary x est. hours for assisted activity—Describe equipment to be purchased, unit price, # of units for all equipment to be purchased or leased for assisted activity: Do not list contractor supplied equipment here.

SUPPLIES/MATERIALS - Describe all major types of supplies/materials, unit price, # of units, etc., to be used on this assisted activity.

Subtotal
CONTRACTUAL/ CONSTRUCTION - Explain any contracts or sub-Agreements that will be awarded, why needed. Explain contractor qualifications and how the contractor will be selected.

Subtotal
Subtotal
Subtotal
OTHER - List any other cost elements necessary for your project; such as extra reporting, or contingencies in a construction contract.

Subtotal

INDIRECT COSTS -
1172
Page | 34
Interim Program Performance Report, and submittals are expected to be provided quarterly, but no less frequently than semi-annually. The Final Program Performance Report is expected to require an additional 60 hours for the final project and evaluation.

Fringe benefits
Like salaries and wages, fringe benefits for employees as they relate to the Project will be accounted for by the City through normal operating costs. As a result, incurred fringe benefit costs related to the Project will not be sourced from grant funds. Contractor fringe benefits are incorporated into contractor billing rates under the Contractual/Construction section of the proposed budget.

Travel
Travel costs related to the Project will not be sourced from grant funds. All City staff travel costs incurred over the duration of the Project will be absorbed by the City as normal operating costs.

Contractor travel costs are incorporated into contractor costs under the Contractual/Construction section of the proposed budget. All reimbursable travel costs will be reimbursed at a rate consisted with federal allowance.

Construction contractors are anticipated to participate in weekly or bi-weekly in-person meetings with City of Banning Staff, including the Project Manager and Project Engineer. Construction contractors are anticipated to be local, and no mileage reimbursement, flights, car rentals, hotels, or per diem anticipated.

Travel expenses are incorporated into consultants’ fee estimates, and any travel costs billed to the grant will be consistent with applicable state or federal rates.

Equipment
Equipment costs for the Project are incorporated into the Contractor costs under the Contractual/Construction section of the proposed budget.

Supplies and Materials
Supplies and materials costs for the Project are incorporated into the Contractor costs under the Contractual/Construction section of the proposed budget.

Contractual/Construction
As indicated in the Budget Table (Table 19 on the previous page), the Project will include support from consultants and contractors. The Project’s Phase I design consultant will be procured in Fall of 2024. Contractors to perform Project’s Phase I construction activities have not yet been procured. Construction-related soft costs (Project Management, Construction Administration) have been estimated based on percentage methodology guideline outlined in the 2022 California Multi-Agency CIP Benchmarking Study shown in Table 20 on the following page.

Task 1: CEQA and Permitting – It is assumed that the Project will require preparation of CEQA documentation by developing an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), based on the Project footprint of less than 20 acres. At minimum, three technical studies are to be conducted to support the IS/MND:

1. Biological Resources report that allows for federal consultation with U.S. Fish & Wildlife under the Endangered Species Act
1173
Page | 35
Table 20. Monetary Analysis

2. Cultural Resources report that allows for federal consultation with the State Historical Preservation Office under the National Historic Preservation Act

3. Air Quality Modeling report that allows for federal approvals under the Clean Air Act.

Compilation of a complete IS/MND that addresses the above-referenced federal laws and all other federal cross-cutters includes preparation of a public review draft, circulation and noticing, and preparation of a final IS/MND. Total CEQA costs are estimated at $180,000. Additional costs anticipated to be incurred by the City over the duration of this project include permitting fees totaling an estimated $120,000.

Task 2: Design – Phase 1 Design level of effort is estimated at 10% of the construction cost based on percentage methodology guideline outlined in the 2022 California Multi-Agency CIP Benchmarking Study. The activities for Phase 1 Design are shown in Table 5 (see Section 3.3 Proposed Scope of Work).

Task 3: Construction – Phase I construction costs were estimated based on the American Association of Cost Engineers Class 4 guidelines utilizing various factors, such as market conditions, cost escalation, and construction level of difficulties. The cost estimate was developed based on the Feasibility Study level of details (as shown in Section 4.3, page 27, of Appendix B).

The estimate will be validated after the receipt of the bid results during the contractors’ procurement process. The estimated construction cost for the activities in Phase I is estimated at $70,490,400.

Task 4: Construction Administration

1. Phase 1 Construction Administration – Estimated at 10% of the construction cost based on percentage methodology guideline outlined in the 2022 California Multi-Agency CIP Benchmarking Study.

2. Environmental Monitoring and Support during Construction – Estimated at $100,000. 1174
Page | 36
Environmental and Regulatory Compliance Costs
Costs incurred under this budget category have already been accounted for under Task 1 Permitting and Contractual/Construction.

Other Expenses
Additional costs incurred by the City include a contingency of 10% of the overall project cost.

Indirect costs
The City does not anticipate that the Project will require any indirect costs that will not otherwise be recovered or accounted for under other proposed budget categories.

6. ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE
The City does not anticipate that the Project will have significant impacts on endangered or threatened species, public health or safety, hydrology and water quality, regulated waters of the United States, or cultural resources. The City does not anticipate that the Project will have significant environmental effects as defined by State and Federal environmental laws. As such, the City will prepare a Negative Declaration to obtain CEQA coverage and expects that USBR will adopt a Finding of No Significant Impacts (FONSI) to obtain NEPA coverage for the Project. The City completed an Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND) in October 2007. The 2007 IS-MND covered significant elements of the current proposed project. The findings of the 2007 IS-MND were either “Less Than Significant Impact” or “No Impact”. The 2007 IS-MND provided a basis for the following Sections, but the City will conduct an IS-MND for the new proposed Project.
• Will the proposed project impact the surrounding environment (e.g., soil [dust], air, water [quality and quantity], animal habitat)? Please briefly describe all earthdisturbing work and any work that will affect the air, water, or animal habitat in the project area. Please also explain the impacts of such work on the surrounding environment and any steps that could be taken to minimize the impacts.

Air Quality:

Around 17 acres of excavation activities will be required for construction of the Project.

An air quality analysis will be completed as part of the CEQA analysis. Project construction will comply with local air quality requirements. Typical dust control measures, such as watering and reducing off-road vehicle speeds, will be employed. Project operations will be evaluated for consistency with the State greenhouse gas reduction targets found in AB 32 and SB 32. Emissions from operation of the proposed facilities are not expected to exceed applicable significant thresholds.

Biological Resources:

Construction of the project facilities is not expected to impact biological resources. Biological resources will be surveyed prior to design, and sensitive species and their habitats will be avoided in the project design. The Project is not expected to impact wetlands or waters of the U.S. as regulated by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, RWQCB, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Project will comply with the adopted Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Community Conservation Plans.
1175
Page | 37
Operations of the Project is not anticipated to affect biological resources, as all O&M activities will be constrained to the WWTP site. Operations will be sustainable and will have no impact on riparian and aquatic habitats.

Hydrological Impacts:

Hydrologic impacts, including erosion and siltation during construction of the proposed facilities would be minimized through compliance with existing regulations, including enrollment in an NPDES construction general permit, completion of a storm water pollution prevention plan, and implementation of required BMPs.

The City will characterize the RO brine discharge to evaporation beds to verify the quality of the solids before final disposal.

The proposed Project is not within the 100-year floodplain. During the design, this conclusion will be confirmed.

Noise:

Construction noise is considered a nuisance and is regulated by the City’s Noise Ordinance. The majority of construction activities for the Project will be in the vicinity of the WWTP site which is located in an isolated part of the City. Construction equipment will be fitted with approved mufflers and other measures may be utilized to comply with the existing regulations.

The City will ensure all project components comply with mitigation measures identified to further reduce impacts. It is expected that impacts to hydrology and water quality as well as animal habitats would be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures, while air quality impacts would be significant and unavoidable. As described above, a project-level air quality analysis will be conducted to determine air quality impacts resulting from the project.

Mitigation measures will be incorporated as necessary to reduce impacts to the extent feasible. • Are you aware of any species listed or proposed to be listed as a Federal threatened or endangered species, or designated critical habitat in the project area? If so, would they be affected by any activities associated with the proposed project? The City is currently not aware of any species listed or proposed to be listed as a Federal threatened or endangered species nor any designated critical habitats in the project area. The Project will comply with the adopted Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Community Conservation Plans.

Operation of the Project is not anticipated to affect biological resources, as all O&M activities will be constrained to the WWTP site. The City will carry out all mitigation measures identified and required by the CEQA analysis to minimize impacts to special-status species and critical habitats.

At the project-level, a biological resources assessment will be conducted to identify project activities that may further adversely affect special-status species. Such findings will be incorporated into the analysis to identify actions that minimize any additional impacts to specialstatus species or designated critical habitats to the extent feasible. • Are there wetlands or other surface waters inside the project boundaries that potentially fall under CWA jurisdiction as “Waters of the United States”? If so, please describe and estimate any impacts the proposed project may have.

There are no wetlands or surface water inside the project boundaries that potentially fall under the CWA jurisdiction as “Waters of the United States”, and therefore, no wetlands or surface water 1176
Page | 38
will be impacted by the Project. All Project components will comply with applicable permitting requirements if impacts to jurisdictional waters are to occur. • When was the water delivery system constructed?
The initial water system was developed in the early 1900’s and has continued until today. • Will the proposed project result in any modification of or effects to, individual features of an irrigation system (e.g., headgates, canals, or flumes)? If so, state when those features were constructed and describe the nature and timing of any extensive alterations or modifications to those features completed previously.

The Project will not result in any modification to the individual features of an irrigation system, e.g., headgates, canals, or flumes.
• Are any buildings, structures, or features in the irrigation district listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places? A cultural resources specialist at your local Reclamation office or the State Historic Preservation Office can assist in answering this question.

No buildings, structures, or features located within the Project area are listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The City does not anticipate the Project will have any adverse effects on historic properties.
• Are there any known archeological sites in the proposed project area? There are currently no known archeological sites within the Project area. However, because the project includes excavation, there is the potential that the Project may impact archaeological resources. A Phase 1 Archeological Resources Assessment will be conducted at the project-level.

A Phase 2 Archeological Resources Assessment will be conducted if resources are identified during the Phase 1 assessment. Based on findings from the Phase 1 and 2 assessments, mitigation measures will be identified in the CEQA/NEPA analysis to reduce impacts to archeological resources.

Cultural resources will be surveyed prior to design and the Project will be designed to avoid any potential identified cultural sites. Onsite construction monitoring mitigation may be necessary to ensure that discovery of any previously unidentified archeological resources is handled appropriately. The City will comply with California Assembly Bill 52 regarding formal consultation with Native American tribes about the proposed Project. Archeological sensitivity training for construction personnel and the presence of a qualified archeological monitor to supervise all excavations activities will be included as a mitigation measure. The archaeologist will have the authority to temporarily halt or redirect ground-disturbing activity, if necessary. • Will the proposed project have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on low income or minority populations?
The Project activities are not anticipated to have a disproportionately high or adverse effect on low income or minority populations. The Project components will directly increase the amount of available recycled water to the City and will, therefore, provide benefits to all City customers within its service area. Benefits realized by all City of Banning customers include improved recycled water supply reliability.
1177
Page | 39
• Will the proposed project limit access to, and ceremonial use of, Indian sacred sites or result in other impacts on Tribal lands?
The implementation of the Project does not anticipate any impacts to sacred sites or tribal lands.

However, to comply with California Assembly Bill 52 regarding formal consultation with Native American tribes about the proposed Project, the City will implement additional mitigation in the CEQA/NEPA analysis to minimize potential impacts to sacred sites or tribal lands, as needed. • Will the proposed project contribute to the introduction, continued existence, or spread of noxious weeds or non-native invasive species known to occur in the area? It is not anticipated that Project activities will contribute to the introduction, continued existence, or spread of noxious weeds or non-native invasive species. The Project activities will take place primarily in disturbed, developed, and ornamental plant-covered areas and will not disturb native vegetated communities. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Project implementation will cause the introduction of non-native invasive species within and surrounding the project area.

7. REQUIRED PERMITS OR APPROVALS
Permits and approvals required for the completion of the Project components are listed below.

Although this table includes all permits known to be required for this project, additional permit requirements may be identified during project-level CEQA and NEPA efforts, as well as design progress. All required permits and approvals will be obtained prior to beginning construction.

1. State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water (DDW) Title 22 Engineering Permit which will support Phase I of the project.

2. Regional Water Quality Control Board – Colorado River Basin General Permit (combining Non-Discharge National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System [NPDES], Waste Discharge Requirement [WDR], and Waste Recharge Requirements [WRR])

3. RWQCB Notice of Intent (NOI)

4. RWQCB Notice of Applicability (NOA)

5. DDW – Recycled Water Customer Conversion Approval

6. Air Quality Management District (AQMD)

7. CEQA (IS-MND)
A Title 22 Engineering Report is required to be submitted for approval by DDW for meeting water quality requirements of the treated recycled water and groundwater recharge requirements. After the WWTP’s design documents are finalized, the City will submit the necessary reports, analyses, and applications to obtain required permits from the RWQCB. As mentioned in Section 6, the City will prepare a Negative Declaration to obtain CEQA coverage for the Project in parallel with Project design.

8. OVERLAP OR DUPLICATION OF EFFORT STATEMENT
There is no overlap between the Project and any other active or anticipated proposals or projects in terms of activities, costs, or commitment of key personnel. The proposal submitted for consideration under this program does not in any way duplicate any proposal or project that has been or will be submitted for funding consideration to any other potential funding source. 1178
Page | 40

9. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
There are no actual or potential conflicts of interest that exist at the time of submission.

10. UNIFORM AUDIT REPORTING STATEMENT
The City of Banning will submit a Single Audit report for FY 2023, prior to the grant award.

11. SF-LLL: DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
This section is not applicable to the City of Banning’s Project, as the City has not made or agreed to make payments to any lobbying entity for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with a covered Federal action.

12. LETTERS OF SUPPORT
The City has received letters of support for the Project from the following organizations:
• Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh, United States Senator
• Laphonza Butler, United States Senator
• Raul Ruiz, United States House Representative
• Yxstian Gutierrez, District 5 Commissioner of the County of Riverside • Paula Rasmussen, Executive Officer, Colorado River Basin RWQCB Copies of these letters are provided as Appendix C of this application.

13. OFFICIAL RESOLUTION
The official resolution was not able to be brought to City Council before the application due date due to the short window of time between the NOFO release and the application due date, the timing of the City Council meetings (twice a month but once a month during November, December and January), and the requirement to have documents submitted in advance of City Council meetings.

Per Section D.2.2.11 of the NOFO, the official resolution may be submitted prior to the award date, if an applicant is selected, after the application deadline. The draft resolution in Appendix D will be brought to City Council on January 23, 2024 so that the signed Resolution can be submitted.

14. LETTERS OF FUNDING COMMITMENT
The third-party cost share currently is not anticipated for the Project.

15. RFERENCES
Carollo Engineers, Inc. 2018 Integrated Master Plan. March 2018.

City of Banning Water/Wastewater Utilities Department. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. October 2007.

Stantec Consulting, Inc., et al. California Multi-Agency CIP Benchmarking Study. December 2022.

West Yost & Associates Engineering, Inc. and John Robinson Consulting, Inc. 2020 Urban Water Management. June 2021.

Woodward & Curran, Inc. San Gorgonio Region Recycled Water Study. February 2018. 1179
Appendix A – Signed Executive Memorandum

1180
1181
Appendix B – Feasibility Study (Appendices not included) 1182
Appendix C – Letters of Support

1183
December 6, 2023
Ms. Camille Touton
Commissioner
Bureau of Reclamation
1849 C Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20240-0001
RE: Support for the City of Banning’s Application for its Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project
Dear Commissioner Touton:

I write in support of the City of Banning, a Disadvantaged Community, and its application for funding from the WaterSMART grant program for Water Reclamation and Reuse Projects, administered through the United States Bureau of Reclamation.

The City of Banning is requesting funding for its Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project, which would produce recycled water for irrigation customers and reduce the City’s reliance on imported water. Upgrading the treatment plant will go a long way to help increase the City’s water supply independence and protect the integrity of the local groundwater sources that the City relies on.

If awarded funding, the City will implement a Membrane Bioreactor, chlorine disinfection, and two-stage reverse osmosis system at the Wastewater Treatment Plant to produce tertiary disinfected recycled water.

This supply of recycled water will improve the reliability of local water supplies, decrease dependence on outside water sources, and ensure that the City of Banning is better prepared for future water supply challenges.

For these reasons, I fully support the City of Banning’s application. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact my District Office at (909) 335-0271.

Sincerely,

ROSILICIE OCHOA BOGH
Senator, 23rd District
1184
U.S. SENATOR LAPHONZA BUTLER COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

CALIFORNIA - CHAIR, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION

COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION
December 6, 2023
The Honorable Camille Touton
Commissioner
Bureau of Reclamation
1849 C Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20240
Dear Commissioner Touton,
I write in support of the City of Banning’s application for funding from the WaterSMART Grant Program: Title XVI WIIN Act Water Reclamation and Reuse Projects, administered by the Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of Interior.

The City of Banning is requesting funding for its Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades project. Home to approximately 29,500 residents, the City of Banning is situated in the San Gorgonio Pass region of Riverside County and is identified as a disadvantaged community by the Council for Environmental Quality’s Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool. The city’s wastewater treatment plant currently provides for the collection, treatment, and disposal of municipal sewage.

If awarded, this grant would enable the City of Banning to make upgrades to its existing wastewater treatment plant to produce recycled water for irrigation customers, thereby reducing reliance on imported water. Specifically, the project would implement a Membrane Bioreactor, chlorine disinfection, and a two-stage reverse osmosis system at the wastewater treatment plant to produce tertiary disinfected recycled water. These improvements would improve the reliability of local water supplies and decrease dependence on imported water resources, ensuring that the disadvantaged residents of Banning and the greater Inland Empire region are better prepared for future water supply challenges.

I urge you to give the City of Banning’s application every consideration. Please keep my office informed of the status of this request, and if I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact my Los Angeles office at (310) 914-7300.

Sincerely,
A
Laphonza Butler
United States Senator
1185
The Honorable Camille Calimlim Touton
Commissioner
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
1849 C Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20240
Dear Commissioner Touton:

I write in support of the City of Banning and their application for WaterSMART Water Reclamation and Reuse Projects grant funding administered through the United States Bureau of Reclamation. If awarded, this funding would upgrade the city’s treatment plant and help to increase the city’s water supply independence in Banning, California.

The City of Banning’s Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project would enable the city to produce recycled water for irrigation customers, thereby reducing its reliance on imported water. The grant funding would also allow the city to implement a membrane bioreactor, chlorine disinfection, and two-stage reverse osmosis system at the Wastewater Treatment Plant to produce tertiary disinfected recycled water. This increased water supply will benefit my constituents while promoting resiliency against future droughts that may affect Southern California.

As the Representative of California’s 25th Congressional District, I understand the impact that the City of Banning’s water recycling projects and water supply independence would have on the lives of the individuals I serve and represent. Efforts to reclaim water, like the innovative recycled water projects that the City of Banning proposes, would improve the reliability of local water supplies, decrease dependence on imported water sources, and ensure that the City of Banning is better prepared for future water supply challenges. Addressing drought impacts and working towards alternative sources of water are essential to fortifying the region’s water infrastructure to withstand the increasingly evident effects of climate change.

The City of Banning is a disadvantaged community in my district. The city is home to over 30,000 individuals and in desperate need of environmentally responsible ways to increase water supply independence as the demand grows greater. For this reason, I believe the city has the RAUL RUIZ, M.D.

Member of Congress
25th District of California
Washington, D.C. Office:
2342 Rayburn House
Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: 202-225-5330
November 29, 2023
1186
capacity to successfully implement the Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project, and I urge full and fair consideration, consistent with all relevant program rules and regulations. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 225-5330.

Sincerely,
Raul Ruiz, M.D.

Member of Congress
1187
1188
1189
1190
Appendix D – Authorizing Resolution
1191
Resolution 2024-XX

RESOLUTION 2024-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF A WATERSMART: TITLE XVI WIIN ACT WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2023 AND 2024 AND

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO SIGN AND SUBMIT ALL

REQUIRED DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE PLANNING, DESIGN AND

CONSTRUCTION GRANT APPLICATION
WHEREAS, the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) is soliciting applications for authorized projects for WaterSMART: Title XVI WIIN Act Water Reclamation and Reuse Projects for Fiscal Years 2023 and 2024 per Funding Opportunity Announcement No. R23AS00464; and
WHEREAS, the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) is soliciting applications for authorized projects for WaterSMART: Title XVI Congressionally Authorized Water Reclamation and Reuse Projects for Fiscal Years 2023 and 2024 per Funding Opportunity Announcement No. R23AS00463; and
WHEREAS, the City of Banning will be upgrading its Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), also known as the Water Reclamation Facility, to reduce City’s reliance on imported water and to keep groundwater recharge within the City’s wells; and WHEREAS, the City desires to improve the WWTP in order to treat its wastewater and produce recycled water; and
WHEREAS, the City of Banning is seeking grant funding to further fund the design/build construction of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City of Banning is preparing a grant application under this Program for Fiscal Years 2023 and 2024 with an application due date of December 7, 2023; and WHEREAS, USBR has directed applicants to include in its application an official resolution adopted by the applicant's board of directors or governing body verifying 1) the identity of the official with legal authority to enter into an agreement, 2) the board of directors, governing body, or appropriate official who has reviewed and supports the application submitted, 3) the capability of the applicant to provide the amount of funding and/or in-kind contributions specified in the funding plan, and 4) that the applicant will work with Reclamation to meet established deadlines for entering into a grant or cooperative agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Banning as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Council has reviewed and supports the application for USBR Funding Opportunities R23AS00464 and R23AS00464 to be submitted by the 7th day of December, 2023.
1192
Resolution 2024-XX

SECTION 2. The City of Banning is able to provide the minimum 75% funding match specified in the funding plan for both applications.

SECTION 3. The City Manager, or his designee, is hereby authorized and directed to prepare the necessary data, conduct investigations, file such applications, and execute grant agreements with the USBR in association with this application process. The City of Banning will work with the USBR to meet established deadlines required for entering into a cooperative agreement to obtain the aforementioned grant funding.

SECTION 4. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager, or his designee, to sign and file a Financial Assistance Application for grant agreement from USBR WaterSMART: Title XVI WIIN Act Water Reclamation and Reuse Projects for Fiscal Years 2023 and 2024 per Funding Opportunity Announcement No. R23AS00464, and WaterSMART: Title XVI Congressionally Authorized Water Reclamation and Reuse Projects for Fiscal Years 2023 and 2024 per Funding Opportunity Announcement No. R23AS00463 and for and on behalf of the City.

SECTION 5. The City Manager, or his designee, is authorized to represent the City in carrying out the City's responsibilities under the grants agreement, including certifying disbursement requests on behalf of the City and compliance with applicable state and federal laws.

SECTION 6. The City Manager or designee is authorized to make necessary budget adjustments, appropriations and transfers related to the Financial Assistance Application for grant agreement from USBR.

SECTION 7. The City Manager’s designee shall be the Director of Public Works.

SECTION 8. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book of original resolutions.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of January 2024 /

Alberto Sanchez, Mayor
City of Banning
1193
Resolution 2024-XX

ATTEST:

Caroline Patton, Deputy City Clerk
City of Banning
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT:

Serita R. Young, City Attorney
Richards, Watson & Gershon·
1194
Resolution 2024-XX

CERTIFICATION:

I, Caroline Patton, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Banning, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution 2024-XX, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Banning, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 23rd day of January 2024 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Flynn, Gonzales, Minjares, Sanchez, and Wallace.

Caroline Patton, Deputy City Clerk City
of Banning, California
1195
Page | i
City of Banning
Wastewater Treatment Plant
and Recycled Water Upgrades
Feasibility Study (Revision 1)
January 5, 2024
N2W Engineering, Inc. T 714.716.1711
3240 El Camino Real, Suite 150, Irvine, CA 92602 [email protected] 1196
Page | ii
Prepared by: Iris Jimenez and Jamal Awad
Reviewed by: James Wang

1197
Page | iii
Table of Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1 Prelude ............................................................................................................................ 1 Non-Federal Project Sponsor .......................................................................................... 1 Study Area and Project Map ........................................................................................... 1

1.3.1 Land Use ...................................................................................................................... 4

1.3.2 Climate ........................................................................................................................ 6

1.3.3 Population ................................................................................................................... 6 Reclaimed Water Area .................................................................................................... 7

2. Statement of Problem and Needs .......................................................................................... 8 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 8 Need for Water Reclamation .......................................................................................... 8 Current Water Supplies................................................................................................... 8

2.3.1 Water Sources and Supplies ....................................................................................... 8

2.3.2 Wastewater Treatment Plant Flows ......................................................................... 12

2.3.3 Non-Potable Groundwater Well Capacities .............................................................. 15

2.3.4 Recycled Water Production ...................................................................................... 16 Current and Projected Water Demands ....................................................................... 16

2.4.1 Current Water Demands ........................................................................................... 16

2.4.2 Projected Water Demands........................................................................................ 17

2.4.3 Projected Recycled Water Demands ........................................................................ 18

2.4.4 Projected Water Supply and Demand Imbalances ................................................... 19 Future Recycled Water Supplies ................................................................................... 20 Water Quality Concerns ................................................................................................ 20

2.6.1 Regional Water Quality Control Board Order ........................................................... 20

2.6.2 Title 22 Requirements ............................................................................................... 22

2.6.3 Beaumont Basin Plan Requirements ........................................................................ 22

3. Water Reclamation, Recycling Opportunities ....................................................................... 23 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 23 Uses for Reclaimed Water ............................................................................................ 23 Water Market Available to Utilize Reclaimed Water ................................................... 23 1198
Page | iv

3.3.1 Methodology ............................................................................................................. 23

3.3.2 Potential Customers.................................................................................................. 24 Considerations That Will Prevent Implementing Water Reclamation ......................... 24 Agencies with Jurisdiction Over Sources of Reclaimed Water ..................................... 24 Potential Sources to be Reclaimed ............................................................................... 24 Description and Location of Source Water Facilities .................................................... 24 Current Water Reclamation Taking Place in Study Area .............................................. 24 Other Current and Projected Wastewaters and Disposal Options ............................... 25 Water Reclamation Technology Use in Study Area ...................................................... 25

4. Description of Alternatives ................................................................................................... 26 Non-Federal Funding Condition .................................................................................... 26 Specific Objectives Alternatives Are Designed to Address ........................................... 26

4.2.1 Alternative 1 - Do Nothing ........................................................................................ 26

4.2.2 Alternative 2 - Non-Potable Reuse ........................................................................... 27

4.2.3 Alternative 3 – Hybrid Non-Potable Reuse and Indirect Potable Reuse .................. 28 Description of the Proposed Water Reclamation Project ............................................ 30 Estimated Costs of Alternatives .................................................................................... 32 Waste-Stream Discharge Treatment ............................................................................ 32 Alternative Technologies .............................................................................................. 33

5. Economic Analysis ................................................................................................................. 34 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 34 Economic Analysis ......................................................................................................... 34 Cost Comparison of Alternatives that Would Satisfy Demand of Proposed Project .... 34 Description and Benefits of Water Supply Alternatives ............................................... 35 Alternative Most Likely to be Implemented in Absence of Project .............................. 35 Qualitative Benefits and Justification of Water Reclamation ....................................... 35

6. Selection of the proposed Water Reclamation Project ........................................................ 37 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 37 Justification of Water Reclamation as Selected Alternative......................................... 37 Analysis of Water Reclamation ..................................................................................... 37 1199
Page | v

6.3.1 Reduction, Postponement, or Elimination of Development of New or Expanded Water Supplies and Reduction of Diversions of Natural Water Courses ............................. 37

6.3.2 Reduction of Demand on Existing Federal Water Supply Facilities .......................... 37

6.3.3 Reduction, Postponement, or Elimination of new or Expanded Wastewater Facilities 38 7. Environmental Considerations and Potential Effects ........................................................... 39 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 39 Potential Environmental Impacts and Effects .............................................................. 39 Public Outreach ............................................................................................................. 41 Effect of Historic Properties .......................................................................................... 41 Avoiding Public Health and Environmental Quality Issues Associated with Use of Reclaimed Water....................................................................................................................... 41

8. Legal and Institutional Requirements ................................................................................... 43 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 43 Analysis of Water Rights Issues .................................................................................... 43 Discussion of Legal and Institutional Requirements with Potential to Affect Implementation of Project ........................................................................................................ 43

8.3.1 Department of Water Resources – Sustainable Groundwater Management Act .... 43

8.3.2 Groundwater Sustainability Agencies ....................................................................... 43

8.3.3 Groundwater Sustainability Plans ............................................................................. 44

8.3.4 San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin ..................................................................................... 44

8.3.5 Santa Ana River Basin Plan ....................................................................................... 45 Discussion of Need for Multi-Jurisdictional or Interagency Agreements ..................... 45 Discussion of Permitting Procedures Required ............................................................ 45 Discussion of Unresolved Issues Associated with Implementing Proposed Project .... 46 Identification of Current and Proposed Discharge Requirements ............................... 46 Rights to Wastewater Discharges ................................................................................. 46

9. Financial Capability of Sponsor ............................................................................................. 47 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 47 Schedule ........................................................................................................................ 47 Willingness and Capability of the City of Banning to Fund the Project ........................ 49 Project Funding Plan ..................................................................................................... 49 1200
Page | vi

9.4.1 Operating Budgets .................................................................................................... 49

9.4.2 Development Impact Fees ........................................................................................ 50 Other Funding Sources ................................................................................................. 51

10. Research Needs ..................................................................................................................... 52

11. References ............................................................................................................................ 53 List of Figures
Figure 1. City of Banning Project Map (courtesy of 2018 Integrated Master Plan (2018 IMP)) .... 3 Figure 2. City of Banning – Known Developments (courtesy of 2018 IMP).................................... 5 Figure 3. City of Banning Reclaimed Water Area (courtesy of 2018 IMP) ...................................... 7 Figure 4. City of Banning Reclaimed Wastewater Treatment Plant Location (courtesy of 2018 IMP) ....................................................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 5. Process Schematic for Existing WWTP ........................................................................... 15 Figure 6. City of Banning Potential Recycled Water Customers (courtesy of 2018 IMP) ............. 19 Figure 7. Preliminary Site Layout for Alternative 3 (courtesy of 2018 IMP) ................................. 29 List of Tables
Table 1. Current Land Use & Economic Statistics for Riverside County and City of Banning Land 4 Table 2. Recent Climate Characteristics (2022 – 2023) .................................................................. 6 Table 3. Imported Water Purchases, courtesy of the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (2020 UWMP) ............................................................................................................................................ 9 Table 4. Imported Water Purchases, courtesy of the 2020 UWMP ............................................. 10 Table 5. Projected Water Supply Availability in AFY, courtesy of the 2020 UWMP ..................... 10 Table 6. Wastewater Flows Collected in City ................................................................................ 13 Table 7. Projected Wastewater Flows Collected in City ............................................................... 13 Table 8. Existing City Non-Potable Groundwater Well Capacities ............................................... 15 Table 9. Recycled Water Produced and/or Used in City ............................................................... 16 Table 10. City Recent Water Use .................................................................................................. 17 Table 11. Projected Water Demand by Sector in AFY, courtesy of the 2020 UWMP .................. 17 Table 12. Potential Recycled Water Users .................................................................................... 18 Table 13. Projected Water Supply and Demand Imbalances ....................................................... 19 Table 14. Projected Recycled Water Production and/or Use ....................................................... 20 Table 15. Banning WWTP Effluent Concentrations and Limitations ............................................ 21 Table 16. Preliminary Cost Estimate ............................................................................................. 30 Table 17. Cost Summary of Phase I of the Proposed Project, in 2023 dollars ............................. 31 Table 18. Replacement Costs, in 2023 dollars .............................................................................. 32 Table 19. Monetary Analysis ......................................................................................................... 32 Table 20. Non-Monetary Criteria .................................................................................................. 35 1201
Page | vii
Table 21. Potential Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................ 39 Table 22. Project Schedule – Phase 1 ........................................................................................... 48 Table 23. Rate Increases ............................................................................................................... 50 List of Appendices
Appendix A – RO Analysis Technical Memo
Appendix B – Rancho San Gorgonio Water Supply Assessment Appendix C – 50-Year Lifecycle Cost
Appendix D – Preliminary Detailed Site Plan and Process Flow Diagram Appendix E – Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate
Appendix F – Nitrogen Removal and Plant Reliability Technical Memo Appendix G – WDR Board Order R7-2016-0015

1202
Page | viii
List of Abbreviations
ADD – average day demand
AFY – acre-feet per year
BMP – best management practice
BMZ – Beaumont Management Zone
CEQA – California Environmental Quality Act
CIP – capital improvement plan
CWSRF – Clean Water State Revolving Fund
DDW – State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water DWR – California Department of Water Resources
ETo – evapotranspiration
FONSI – Finding of No Significant Impacts
gpm – gallons per day
GSAs – Groundwater Sustainability Agencies
GSPs – Groundwater Sustainability Plans
IS-MND – Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration
MBR – membrane bioreactor
MCL – maximum contaminant level
MGD – million gallons per day
MWC – Banning Heights Mutual Water Company
NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act
NTU – nephelometric turbidity unit
O&M – operation and maintenance
RO – reverse osmosis
RWQCB—Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board SGMA – Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SGPWA – San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency
STMZ – San Timoteo Management Zone
SWP – California State Water Project
SWRCB – State Water Resources Control Board
TDS – total dissolved solids
TN – total Nitrogen
US EPA – United States Environmental Protection Agency
UVAOP – ultraviolet advanced oxidation
WDRs – waste discharge requirements
WIFIA – Water Infrastructure Finance Innovation Act
WWTP – City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant
1203
Page | ix

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Banning (City) has prepared this feasibility study to support a grant application for WaterSMART: Title XVI WIIN Act Water Reclamation and Reuse Projects for Fiscal Years 2023 and 2024 per Funding Opportunity Announcement No. R23AS00464. This study evaluates the feasibility of upgrading the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) to tertiary disinfected recycled water standards for non-potable reuse under the terms of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) Water Reclamation and Reuse (Title XVI) program. This study is structured to follow the Bureau of Reclamation Manual, Directives and Standards, “WTR 11-01.” The existing WWTP consists of preliminary treatment, primary treatment, secondary treatment, solids handling, disinfection (currently not in use), and evaporation/percolation ponds. The WWTP effluent is currently in compliance with discharge requirements, but it requires significant upgrades to comply with impending water quality discharge limits by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). In addition, the Trickling Filters, which perform secondary treatment, have reached their end of life. WWTP effluent discharges to percolation ponds that recharge into the Cabazon Groundwater Basin but is not entirely extracted by Banning - the percolated water flows to other water agencies located downgradient.

The proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project (Project) evaluated by this study consists of three phases: I) upgrading the existing WWTP to recycled water standards and building pipelines to connect the WWTP to customers currently using ground water from non-potable wells, II) building pipelines to connect the WWTP to the future recycled water customers, and III) building pipelines to connect the WWTP to a groundwater recharge basin upgradient of the Cabazon storage unit. Phase I will be implemented in the near term, and Phases II and III will be implemented in the long-term. Phases II and III are not included in this Feasibility Study for clarity. The City has only requested funding for Phase I in the WaterSMART funding application but will seek additional funding for Phases II and III in the future and will provide an updated Feasibility Study at that time.

Currently, there are no non-potable recycled water uses that have been implemented in the City.

By implementing both project components, non-potable reuse and indirect potable reuse, the supply and usage of locally sourced non-potable water supply will increase by an estimated 4,035 AFY (3.6 MGD) of recycled water.

The City relies upon purchasing water from the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency (SGPWA) for groundwater recharge. The increased supply of local non-potable water supplies produced from this Project would decrease demands on the SGPWA, and on its supplier, the California State Water Project, thereby reducing diversions from natural watercourses in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The Project also provides non-quantifiable benefits including improving nonpotable water supply reliability and drought resiliency. 1204
Page | 1

1. INTRODUCTION
Prelude
The proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project (Project) is the subject of this feasibility study, which supports a grant application for WaterSMART: Title XVI WIIN Act Water Reclamation and Reuse Projects for Fiscal Years 2023 and 2024 per Funding Opportunity Announcement No. R23AS00464. This study is structured to follow the Bureau of Reclamation Manual, Directives and Standards, “WTR11-01," which was intended for reclamation projects. The purpose is to evaluate Project feasibility under the terms of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) Water Reclamation and Reuse (Title XVI) program.

The Project evaluated by this study involves upgrading the existing Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) at the City of Banning (City) to Title 22 standards for recycled water use.

At this time, effluent from the WWTP meets the effluent water quality discharge requirements.

However, the WWTP will not be able to meet the impending discharge limits proposed by the Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Boad (RWQCB). In addition, many treatment facilities at the plant have reached the end of their useful life. WWTP effluent is currently discharged to percolation ponds that recharge into the Cabazon Groundwater Basin but is not entirely extracted by Banning - the percolated water flows to other water agencies located downgradient.

By replacing existing equipment with new facilities that can treat the water to tertiary disinfected recycled water standards, the WWTP effluent can be used to meet current and future nonpotable water demands in the City. This allows the City to both meet the impending RWQCB requirements as well as benefit from their WWTP effluent. These benefits include reducing the City’s reliance on imported water and improving the reliability of groundwater for drinking water purposes. Since the City is considered a Disadvantaged Community, a reliable local supply of water will also support City growth and economic development, which are dependent on the availability of water supplies.

Non-Federal Project Sponsor
The City of Banning is serving as the non-federal project sponsor. The City was incorporated as a Charter City in 1913, pursuant to the California Constitution Article XI and the California Government Code and is governed by an elected five-member council. It is a full-service city, providing water and wastewater services through its Water and Wastewater Utilities Department, under the purview of the City Council.

Study Area and Project Map
The City of Banning is in the northwestern portion of Riverside County, approximately 25 miles east of downtown Riverside and approximately 30 miles west of the City of Palm Springs. The City 1205
Page | 2
is bounded by the San Bernardino Mountains to the north; Cherry Valley to the northwest; the City of Beaumont to the west and southwest; unincorporated County area to the south; the San Jacinto Mountains to the southeast; and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians and unincorporated community of Cabazon to the east. The City’s total land area is 14,848 acres or

23.2 square miles. See Figure 1 on the following page for a map of the City boundaries.

The City’s water service area comprises 100 percent of the population residing within the City limits, and a small unincorporated area of Riverside County. The City's Water Service Area comprises about 16,908 acres or 26.4 square miles.

The City is a retail agency and within the San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin portion of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin. The City is a member of the San Gorgonio Pass Regional Water Alliance (Alliance). The Alliance was created to identify challenges in water supply and water quality in the region and to improve coordination and communication among local, state, and federal governments and water purveyors and other water resource stakeholders in the San Gorgonio Pass region.

Since 2015, the City has participated in the following two additional agreements:

1. San Gorgonio Integrated Regional Water Management Group, which includes: City of Banning, Banning Heights Mutual Water Company, Cabazon Water District, High Valleys Water District, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (CFCWCD), and the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency.

2. San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agency, which includes: the Desert Water Agency, Banning Heights Mutual Water District, Cabazon Water District, Mission Springs Water District, San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency and the City of Banning.

3. San Timoteo Groundwater Sustainability Agency, which includes: City of Banning, Beaumont-Cherry Valley Water District, City of Redlands, Yucaipa Valley Water District, San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency.

The City participates in the Beaumont Management Zone (BMZ) Maximum Benefits Program, which is under the oversight of the RWQCB and is intended to ensure the long-term sustainability of water quality in the BMZ. Yucaipa Valley Water District, Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District, and City of Beaumont also participate in the program.

1206
Page | 3
Figure 1. City of Banning Project Map (courtesy of 2018 Integrated Master Plan (2018 IMP)) 1207
Page | 4

1.3.1 Land Use
The City includes a mixture of residential uses and equestrian estates, combined with more recently planned residential housing developments. The community focal point is an extended commercial downtown stretching along Ramsey Street. Ramsey Street largely parallels Interstate 10; consequently, one can find almost any type of restaurant, bank, or service station here - a wider variety than one would expect in a city of this size. Table 1 provides some basic statistics on current land use and economy for the County of Riverside and the City. Figure 2 on the following page shows the City’s known developments, which includes the agricultural, open space, and community areas.

Table 1. Current Land Use & Economic Statistics for Riverside County and City of Banning Land Item Riverside County Banning
Land Area (sq. miles) 7,206 sq. miles 23 sq. miles
Land Area (acres) 4,611,840 acres 14,720 acres
Agricultural Land 263,796 acres 1,200 acres
Developed Land 165,151 acres 428 acres
Population 2,470,546 31,125
Housing Units 857,148 10,991
Median Home Price $350,100 $234,900
Owner Occupancy Rate 66.3% 65.9%
Employed (16yrs +) 59.7% 44.5%
Median Household Income $67,005 $42,274
Percent in Poverty 11.3% 20.6%
Manufacturing $15.1 Billion $72.8 Million
Agriculture/Crops $3.9 Billion N/A
Retail & Wholesale Sales $43.8 Billion $248.7 Million
1208
Page | 5
Figure 2. City of Banning – Known Developments (courtesy of 2018 IMP) 1209
Page | 6

1.3.2 Climate
The City is located within the San Gorgonio Pass, which is a transitional zone where coastal climates transition to desert, resulting in significantly differing landscape and geology. The climate can best be characterized by hot, dry summers and short, mild winters. The region receives an average annual rainfall of approximately 19.7 inches, most of which takes place between December and March. Evapotranspiration (ETo) in the area ranges from 7.88 inches in July to 1.94 inches in December.

As the State of California and the Riverside County region has undergone a several-year drought, rainfall has been much lower in the City. Recent ETo and rainfall for the City is listed in Table 2.

Table 2. Recent Climate Characteristics (2022 – 2023)
CIMIS Station 239 (Hemet)
(cimis.water.ca.gov)
Month Rainfall (in.) Eto (in.)
Mar (2022) 0.69 2.30
Apr (2022) 0.27 3.15
May (2022) 0.00 4.21
Jun (2022) 0.02 6.14
Jul (2022) 0.00 7.89
Aug (2022) 0.00 7.70
Sep (2022) 0.17 9.16
Oct (2022) 0.25 8.34
Nov (2022) 1.77 6.47
Dec (2022) 1.18 4.65
Jan (2023) 0.91 2.87
Feb (2023) 0.69 2.13
Totals 5.95 65.01

1.3.3 Population
According to the 2020 Census Data, the resident population of the City is 29,528, and estimated to be 30,273 as of July 1, 2021. Since the City's water service area comprises 100 percent of the population residing within the City limits, the total current resident population served by the City’s water system is approximately 31,125 persons, including those outside City limits. The City is currently experiencing a peak population, based on State of California Department of Finance estimates. Since the City is a commercial and government-services center for the region, daytime population increases demand for potable water beyond the City's resident population. 1210
Page | 7
Reclaimed Water Area
There are no non-potable reclaimed water uses that have been implemented in Banning.

Currently, the City’s existing non-potable water system delivers water from a non-potable groundwater well, Well M7, to Sun Lakes Country Club for irrigation use. The City has begun constructing a 24-inch diameter pipeline to connect the existing non-potable water pipe to the WWTP. The backbone pipeline is expected to be completed, tested, and accepted by the end of 2023. Once reclaimed water becomes available from the upgraded WWTP, the WWTP will replace Well M7 to serve Sun Lakes Country Club and other irrigation customers as part of this Project. The existing non-potable water system and planned backbone pipeline are shown in Figure 3 below.

Figure 3. City of Banning Reclaimed Water Area (courtesy of 2018 IMP) 1211
Page | 8

2. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM AND NEEDS
Introduction
This section reviews the City’s need for water reclamation, as well as short- and long-term recycled water demands and supplies. This section also includes discussions of sources of additional supplies and water quality concerns.

Need for Water Reclamation
With climate change bringing on more unpredictable and severe variations in weather which have recently been more frequent, and longer duration droughts in California and the entire Western United States, it is crucial for water agencies to engage in comprehensive planning to develop and implement sustainable sources of water. The effects of drought are clearly demonstrated with the Governor of California declaring a statewide State of Emergency due to drought. The Governor’s State of Emergency declaration is accompanied by a call for all state residents to cut down on water use by 15%.

The last severe drought to affect the State occurred only a few years ago between 2012-2017 with 2013-2014 having extraordinarily dry conditions. The current drought may even be on a more dire path as the 2020 water year was the third driest water year on record in the last 127 years. With climate change resulting in hotter, drier summers and reduced precipitation, severe and prolonged droughts are forecast to be a normal part of California’s future.

This water reclamation Project will generate sustainable supplies to the City’s water supply portfolio that will help Banning better prepare for future water supply challenges.

In addition to drought preparation, water reclamation will help reduce the City’s reliance on imported water. Currently, the City has access to imported water from the Sacramento-San Jaquin River Delta in Northern California through the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency (SGPWA).

The Bay Delta water system provides Southern California agencies with over 1 million acre-feet of water annually. According to the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (2020 UWMP), the City purchased an average of 847 acre-feet per year (AFY) per year between 2010 – 2015, and an average of 752 AFY per year between 2015 – 2020 for groundwater recharge. By providing recycled non-potable water from the WWTP to irrigation customers, this will allow the City to rely less on imported water and depend on its local water supply to meet non-potable water demands.

Current Water Supplies

2.3.1 Water Sources and Supplies
The City currently uses potable water and non-potable water to meet the water needs of its service area. The City’s water is obtained entirely from groundwater through nineteen (19) potable groundwater wells, one (1) non-potable groundwater well, and three (3) co-owned wells 1212
Page | 9
with the Beaumont-Cherry Valley Water District (BCVWD). The City also has access to imported water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta in Northern California through the SGWPA and surface water from the Whitewater River. Both imported and surface water are used to recharge the groundwater aquifers.

Imported Water Sources
The SGPWA is one of 29 agencies in the State that have a State Water Project (SWP) Water Supply Contract with the Department of Water Resources (DWR). These agencies receive an allocation from the SWP each year. SGPWA also acquires water supplies through contracts with other agencies and annual water transfers and exchanges. Currently, as a wholesale agency, SGPWA distributes imported SWP water to three (3) member agencies: the City of Banning, BCVWD, and Yucaipa Valley Water District.

Table 3 shows the City’s recent imported water purchases from 2015 to 2020 and compares them to the years 2010 to 2015. As shown in the table, the City purchased an average of 752 AYF per year from 2015 to 2020.

Table 3. Imported Water Purchases, courtesy of the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (2020 UWMP)
Year Purchases (AFY)
2015 686
2016 1,477
2017 1,350
2018 500
2019 250
2020 250
2015-2020 Avg. 752
2010-2015 Avg. (2015 UWMP) 847
Groundwater Sources
The City is within the boundaries of the Coachella Valley Hydrologic Unit, which encompasses several groundwater basins, including the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin (Basin), within which the City is located. The Basin extends from Banning to the Salton Sea.

The City is underlain by the San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin (SGP Subbasin) portion of the Basin. The SGP Subbasin is divided into water storage units. The City extracts groundwater from the Banning 1213
Page | 10
Storage Unit, the Banning Bench Storage Unit, the Cabazon Storage, the Beaumont Storage Unit, and the Banning Water Canyon Storage Unit.

Over the past five years of operation, groundwater extraction has averaged 7,513 AFY. Table 4 displays the City's groundwater supplies from 2015 to 2020.

Table 4. Imported Water Purchases, courtesy of the 2020 UWMP Year Production (AFY)
2015 6,723
2016 7,035
2017 7,576
2018 7,924
2019 7,226
2020 8,596
Average 7,513
2010 – 2015 Avg. (2015 UWMP) 8,246
Currently, the City does not utilize the entire capacity of all of its storage units. The maximum annual amount pumped by the City in the past 10 years is just under 9,000 AFY. Due to the projected developments, the City expects pumping to increase by 25% within 10 years and over 50% by the end of 2045. Table 5 below shows the City’s projected water supplies and available volumes.

Table 5. Projected Water Supply Availability in AFY, courtesy of the 2020 UWMP Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Basin Projected
(Available)
Projected
(Available)
Projected
(Available)
Projected
(Available)
Projected
(Available)
Beaumont Basin(1) 1,491
(1,491)
1,267
(1,267)
1,077
(1,077)
916
(916)
778
(778)
West Banning
Basin
1,430
(1,430)
1,430
(1,430)
1,430
(1,430)
1,430
(1,430)
1,430
(1,430)
Cabazon Basin 853
(N/A)
960
(N/A)
1,054
(N/A)
1,136
(N/A)
1,208
(N/A)
Banning Bench 1,055
(1,330)
1,187
(1,330)
1,304
(1,330)
1,330
(1,330)
1,330
(1,330)
Banning Water
Canyon
3,679
(3,730)
3,730
(3,730)
3,730
(3,730)
3,730
(3,730)
3,730
(3,730)
Imported Recharge
into Beaumont
Basin
250 500 1,000 1,750 2,500
Water Supply
Deficit(2)
999 2,126 3,156 4,128 4,991
1214
Page | 11
Total Available
Local
Groundwater
Supply
8,508 8,574 8,595 8,542 8,476
Storage Banked in
the Beaumont
Basin
42,169 38,422 30,291 19,510 7,622
Notes:
(1) The City’s appropriated water rights will continue to decrease over time due to overlying water rights or demand increases. (2) The water supply deficit is currently covered by Beaumont storage.

Surface Water
The Whitewater Flume was built to provide water and power to the City and Banning Heights Mutual Water Company (BHWMC). BHWMC utilizes approximately 1,000 AFY of the Whitewater River diversions in the Flume, and the remainder of the diverted water flows into the San Gorgonio River below the Banning Heights Mutual Water Company (BHMWC) extraction point.

A portion of the natural runoff and the Whitewater River diversions are diverted into spreading ponds located approximately one mile north of the Banning Bench in order to increase groundwater recharge.

Since 1913, surface water from the Whitewater River has been diverted into the Banning Water Canyon Storage Unit, with an average of 1,500 AFY diverted into Banning Water Canyon since 1961.

Rights to Groundwater
The City’s rights to annual groundwater extraction are shown in Table 5. The City will pull the differential amounts between the “Projected” and “Available” from the Beaumont Basin Storage Account. Water recharged (i.e., imported water) in the Beaumont Basin will also be credited in the City’s storage account, allowing the “Projected” volume to increase. The City also anticipates that it would recharge more during wet years so that water supply can be available during drought periods when local groundwater levels are impacted.

The amount of “Available” yield not produced in the Beaumont Basin by the Overlying Water Right holders is issued to the retail agencies, with the City of Banning receiving 31.43% of the “Available” yield. The amount of Unused Overlying Water from the Beaumont Basin that will be allocated to the City of Banning is projected to decrease by 15% every five years from 2024 on.

Planned Supply Projects
The City continually reviews practices that will provide its customers with adequate and reliable supplies. Trained staff continue to ensure the water quality is safe and the water supply will meet present and future needs in an environmentally and economically responsible manner. The City coordinates its long-term water shortage planning with SGPWA and other local agencies through the development of their respective UWMPs. The City also meets bi-monthly with the San 1215
Page | 12
Gorgonio Pass Regional Water Alliance, which is comprised of thirteen (13) local water purveyors, to discuss local issues with different agencies.

Any new City water supply projects will be to add, replace, or upgrade wells to support population growth and new development. The projects that have been identified to improve the City’s water supply reliability and enhance the operations of the City's facilities include replacement of water meters, fire hydrants, valves, and pipelines and construction of new storage reservoirs.

2.3.2 Wastewater Treatment Plant Flows
The City provides sewer service to the area within City limits and to unincorporated areas of Riverside County that surround the southeast portion of the City. The City of Banning is responsible for the collection, conveyance, treatment, and disposal of wastewater generated within its service area. Municipal wastewater in the City’s service area is generated from residential, commercial, and institutional sewer discharges. The City does not currently have any major industrial sewer discharges (i.e., brine). However, there are some cannabis cultivation facilities that will be operational soon, which will need to be monitored and regulated.

The City’s wastewater collection system drains primarily from west to east. The wastewater discharged from the City is collected from a network of 112 miles of gravity sewer mains. The local collector sewers discharge into larger sewer trunk mains, then to the Banning WWTP, located in the southeast corner of the City (see Figure 4 on Page 14).

The WWTP has a current capacity of 3.6 million gallons per day (MGD) and is designed to treat wastewater to secondary standards. The WWTP consists of preliminary treatment, primary treatment, secondary treatment, solids handling, disinfection (currently not in use), and evaporation/percolation ponds. The preliminary treatment system consists of a mechanical bar screen, compactor, grit removal system, and cyclone separator. Effluent from the preliminary treatment system is gravity fed to two primary clarifiers. Primary effluent is pumped to two Trickling Filters, each rated for 1.8 MGD. The Trickling Filter effluent is sent to two secondary clarifiers. Secondary effluent flows through a chlorine contact chamber and is then discharged to 10 unlined evaporation/percolation ponds which recharges the Cabazon Groundwater Basin. This recharge is provided only through surface percolation, and no injection wells are used by the City.

Primary and secondary sludge is processed via two primary anaerobic digesters. A second-stage digester is currently used as a sludge holding tank before thickened sludge is sent to the sludge drying beds. Sludge is allowed to dry and then is hauled offsite for final disposal. A gravity thickener was used to thicken secondary sludge but is currently not in service. An overall process schematic of the existing WWTP is shown in Figure 5 on Page 15.

The quantities of wastewater generated are proportional to the City’ population and the water used by its residents. The wastewater flows are metered at the influent point to the WWTP. Total wastewater collected in the City between 2018 and 2022 is shown in Table 6.

1216
Page | 13
Table 6. Wastewater Flows Collected in City
Year Wastewater (AFY) Wastewater (MGD)
2018 2,259 2.02
2019 2,234 2.00
2020 2,185 1.95
2021 2,226 1.99
2022 2,307 2.06
Average 2,242 2.00
Due to projected housing developments within the City’s service area, wastewater flows are expected to significantly change. Based on review of available data, it was determined that the most accurate forecasting methodology for projected sewer flow included a combination of population and land use flow factors. Table 7 below shows the projected wastewater flows from the years 2023 through 2027:

Table 7. Projected Wastewater Flows Collected in City

Year Flows (AFY) Flows (MGD)
2023 2,352 2.10
2024 2,430 2.17
2025 2,520 2.25
2026 2,610 2.33
2027 2,700 2.41
1217
Page | 14
Figure 4. City of Banning Reclaimed Wastewater Treatment Plant Location (courtesy of 2018 IMP)
1218
Page | 15
Figure 5. Process Schematic for Existing WWTP

2.3.3 Non-Potable Groundwater Well Capacities
The City has been operating one well (Well M7) and estimates that this well produces an average capacity of approximately 350 gpm. In addition, the City also started to operate a second well (Well M12) in mid-year 2017 with an estimated capacity of approximately 1,000 gpm. A third well (Well NP-1) is located near the WWTP, which was recently equipped. The status and capacities of the wells are summarized in Table 8.

Table 8. Existing City Non-Potable Groundwater Well Capacities Well Number Current Status Future Status Estimated
Capacity (AFY)
Estimated
Capacity (MGD)
Well M7 Operational Potable 560 0.5
Well M12 Operational Potable 1,568 1.4
Well NP-1 Recently
Equipped
Non-Potable 1,344 1.2
Total 3,472 3.1
1219
Page | 16
As listed in Table 8, the total estimated capacity of the three wells with the addition of Well NP1 is approximately 3,472 AFY (3.1 MGD) of non-potable water. Although Wells M7 and M12 are both equipped, City staff plans to eventually convert Well M7 and Well M12 over to the potable water system by the end of year 2025 and year 2040, respectively, to supplement the potable water supply. Along with this conversion, it is assumed that Well NP-1 will supplement the recycled water system supply. With only Well NP-1 and Well M12 online by the end of year 2025, the groundwater well supply is estimated to provide up to 2,912 AFY (2.6 MGD) of non-potable water. By the end of year 2040, only Well NP-1 is assumed to be online, which results in a groundwater well supply of 1,344 AF (1.2 MGD). The capacities listed in MGD reflect the assumption that wells would be pumping 24 hours per day.

2.3.4 Recycled Water Production
As mentioned in Section 2.3.1, the Banning WWTP is the only wastewater treatment facility for the City. The WWTP currently provides only secondary treatment, and the treated wastewater does not meet Title 22 Standards. Further, the City does not use any recycled water produced by any other neighboring agencies. Thus, no wastewater has been “recycled” (re-used) within the City’s service area from 2019 to 2023, as Table 9 indicates.

Table 9. Recycled Water Produced and/or Used in City
Year Recycled Water
Produced or Used
(AFY)
2019 0
2020 0
2021 0
2022 0
2023 0
The amounts indicated in Table 9 above coincide with the projections in the City’s 2020 UWMP.

That is, the 2020 UWMP did not project any recycled water use through the year 2020.

Current and Projected Water Demands

2.4.1 Current Water Demands
Annual water consumption from 2016 to 2020 listed in Table 10 range from a high of 8,325 AF in 2020 to a low of 6,712 AF in 2016, with an average of 7,648 AF.

1220
Page | 17
Table 10. City Recent Water Use
Year Total Consumption
(AFY)
Per Capita (GPCD)
2016 6,997 203
2017 7,381 213
2018 7,927 228
2019 7,297 209
2020 8,369 240
Average from 2016 to 2020 219

2.4.2 Projected Water Demands
Future water use projections must consider significant factors on water demand, such as development and/or redevelopment, and climate patterns, among other less significant factors that affect water demand. Climate conditions will continue to be a major influence on demand as drought conditions will increase demand at a time when these supplies are limited.

The City's projected water use for 2025-2045 is broken down by sector in Table 11 below.

Table 11. Projected Water Demand by Sector in AFY, courtesy of the 2020 UWMP Sector 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Water Service Area
Population
38,180 45,235 52,290 59,345 66,400
Consumption Rate (GPCD)
Including 1.0% Annual
Passive Savings
222 211 201 191 181
Demands
Single Family Residential 4,505 5,071 5,569 6,004 6,382 Multi-Family Residential 92 103 114 123 130
Commercial 2,263 2,548 2,798 3,016 3,206
Industrial 195 220 241 260 276
Institutional/Governmental 26 29 32 35 37
Landscape Irrigation 977 1100 1208 1,302 1,384
Total Water Sales 8,059 9,070 9,961 10,739 11,415
Unaccounted for Water 1,448 1,630 1,790 1,930 2,052
Total Water Consumption
(Total Supply into System)
9,507 10,701 11,751 12,670 13,467

1221
Page | 18

2.4.3 Projected Recycled Water Demands
The City currently serves one customer, Sun Lakes Country Club, with non-potable water from Well M7 and Well M12. Typical annual demand for the Sun Lakes Country Club is 850 AFY (0.76 MGD). Since the Sun Lakes Country Club is located on the westerly end of the City, once the City constructs the recycled water backbone pipeline to reach the Sun Lakes Country Club, other potential customers would be within proximity to receive recycled water. Therefore, construction of recycled water facilities would prove feasible if the funding for recycled water improvements and pipeline infrastructure was covered, at least in-part, by developers, and an agreement was in place for the use of recycled water. The City would then be able to provide recycled water to its customers. The City’s previous 2006 Recycled Water Master Plan (2006 RWMP) identified potential customers across the Interstate 10 Freeway. The methodology to determine these customers and their demands is described in Section 3.3. However, the 2018 Integrated Master Plan indicated that these potential customers were not feasible, due to the challenges to cross the 10 Freeway. The potential recycled water customers are listed in Table 12 below and shown in Figure 6 on the following page.

Table 12. Potential Recycled Water Users
Customer Recycled Water Demand
(AFY)
Recycled Water Demand
(MGD)
Existing Customers Currently Using Potable Water or Ground Water from Non-Potable Wells
Sun Lakes Country Club 850 0.76
Banning High School 175 0.16
Dysart Park 87 0.08
Lions Park 79 0.07
Subtotal 1,191(1) 1.07
Projected Future Developments
Rancho San Gorgonio
Development
217 0.19
Five Bridges Development 223 0.20
Neighborhood Park 35 0.03
Subtotal 475(2) 0.42
Total 1,666 1.49
Notes:
(1) Will serve in Phase I of the Project.
(2) Will serve in Phase II (future phase) of the Project. 1222
Page | 19
Figure 6. City of Banning Potential Recycled Water Customers (courtesy of 2018 IMP)

2.4.4 Projected Water Supply and Demand Imbalances
Table 13 shows the imbalances between the projected water supplies and demands of the City.

As shown in the table, demand continues to increase as supplies decrease. This indicates the need for a new, drought-proof local supply of water to meet the demands of the City.

Table 13. Projected Water Supply and Demand Imbalances
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Total Available Local
Groundwater Supply in AFY
(see Table 5)
8,508 8,574 8,595 8,542 8,476
Total Water Consumption in
AFY (Total Supply into
System) (see Table 11)
9,507 10,701 11,751 12,670 13,467
1223
Page | 20
Local Groundwater Supply
Shortage in AFY Supplied by
Storage Banked in
Beaumont Basin
-999 -2,127 -3,156 -4,128 -4,991
Storage Banked in the
Beaumont Basin in AFY (see
Table 5)
47,169 43,422 35,291 24,510 12,622
Future Recycled Water Supplies
The City plans to upgrade the existing WWTP treatment to meet tertiary treatment standards and facilitate infrastructure to supply recycled water. This proposed expansion described in the 2018 IMP is also in accordance with the City’s 2006 RWMP. The proposed WWTP upgrade will include enhancing biological treatment and constructing recycled water laterals along the backbone pipeline. Facilities to be constructed would include recycled water pipelines to transport recycled water to the recycled water customers.

Upon completion of the upgrades, approximately 4,035 AFY (3.6 MGD) – the total projected WWTP effluent – of recycled water will be available to recycled water customers. Assuming that the improvements would be completed by the year 2027, projected recycled water use would be as shown in Table 14 below.

Table 14. Projected Recycled Water Production and/or Use Year Phase Recycled Water
Produced / Used (AFY)
Recycled Water
Produced / Used (MGD)
2025 N/A 0 0
2027 I 4,035/1,191 3.6/1.07
The projected quantities shown in Table 14 above show the recycled water produced and used in Phase I of the project (described further in Section 4.2). Once the WWTP upgrades are completed, 4,035 AFY (3.6 MGD) will be available for recycled water use. Phase I will serve the existing customers currently using potable water or ground water from non-potable wells (Sun Lakes Country Club, Banning High School, Dysart Park, and Lions Park) with a total demand of 1,191 AFY.

Water Quality Concerns
The main water quality concerns are the standards and regulations that the potential recycled water sources currently do not meet. These include the Regional Water Quality Board Order, Title 22 Requirements, and Beaumont Basin Plan requirements.

2.6.1 Regional Water Quality Control Board Order
1224
Page | 21
On June 30, 2016, the RWQCB adopted Board Order R7-2016-0015 (Board Order), which describes the Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) and other terms and conditions of operation for the WWTP. The Board Order requires the WWTP to remove constituents that present the greatest risk to groundwater quality such as nitrogen, coliforms, and total dissolved solid (TDS). According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for Nitrate as Nitrogen is 10 mg/L. Per the Board Order, it is assumed all nitrogen available converts to nitrate/nitrite so Total Nitrogen (TN) is used as the measurement of concern. The wastewater effluent limitations per the Board Order are outlined in Table 15.

Table 15. Banning WWTP Effluent Concentrations and Limitations Parameter Units Impending Effluent Limits
30-Day Mean 7-Day Mean
Flow MGD 3.6 N/A
20C BOD5 mg/L 30 mg/L 45 mg/L
TSS mg/L 30 mg/L 45 mg/L
pH -- 6.0 – 9.0
TDS mg/L Not to Exceed 300 mg/L of the Water Supply
TN(1) mg/L 10 mg N/L
Notes:
(1) City does not need to comply with this limit at this time.

The WDRs identified TN and TDS as constituents of concern. Currently, the average TN concentration in the WWTP’s effluent is 27 mg-N/L, well above the future TN limit of 10 mg-N/L specified in the Board Order. The two existing Trickling Filters used for secondary treatment at the WWTP are therefore not able to meet the impending water quality limits by the Board Order.

Based on a recent structural condition assessment, both Trickling Filters are also nearing the end of their lifecycle. This Project therefore involves implementing a new biological treatment system with nitrification/denitrification (NDN) to ensure nitrogen levels in the WWTP’s effluent meet the impending Board Order TN requirement. The selected system to replace the existing Trickling Filters is Membrane Bioreactor (MBR). Section 4.6 describes the analysis that was done to select MBR as the recommended biological treatment option for the City.

The WDRs also state that effluent TDS is not to exceed a level of 300 mg/L above the potable water supply “reasonably protects present and anticipated beneficial uses of groundwater in the area,” (typical incremental addition of dissolved salts from domestic water usage is 150 to 380 mg/L.) The level of TDS in Banning’s potable water supply is approximately 200 mg/L, which would result in an effluent TDS limit of approximately 500 mg/L. Currently, the average TDS in the treated wastewater is about 390 mg/L, so future TDS limits in an updated WDR would not require additional treatment.
1225
Page | 22

2.6.2 Title 22 Requirements
In order for the WWTP effluent to be used as recycled water to meet the current and project non-potable irrigation water demands, it must meet tertiary disinfected recycled water standards. The current WWTP effluent does not comply with State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water (DDW) water recycling criteria outlined in the California Code of Regulations Title 22 requirements. To comply with Title 22, the effluent must meet the following requirements for “Disinfected Tertiary Recycled Water”:
• Average daily turbidity less than 2 nephelometric turbidity unit (NTU); approximately 3 – 5 mg/L TSS.
• Effluent cannot exceed 5 NTU more than 5% of the time. • Effluent cannot exceed 10 NTU at any time.
• Coagulant must be added if the influent to the filter exceeds 5 NTU for more than 15 minutes, or 10 NTU at any time.
• The disinfection process must provide a chlorine residual that provides 450 milligram minutes per liter (mg-min/L) under minimal modal contact time (CT) of 90 minutes. o This corresponds to a residual of 5 mg/L or less, or any process that achieves 5-log virus removal.
• Total coliform cannot exceed the average most probable number (MPN) of 2.2 per 100 milliliters (mL).
• No more than one sample per month can exceed an MPN of 23 per 100 mL.

In order to supply recycled water, the City will be required to improve the removal efficiency of the existing WWTP to comply with the TN, turbidity, and disinfection requirements. The Project involves implementing MBR and chlorine disinfection at the WWTP. These proposed treatment systems ensure that the WWTP will comply with Title 22 requirements for disinfected tertiary recycled water.

2.6.3 Beaumont Basin Plan Requirements
In order to serve Sun Lakes Country Club, which is located above the Beaumont Basin, the WWTP and Well NP-1 must meet the Beaumont Basin maximum benefit objectives of 330 mg/L for TDS.

Currently, the WWTP effluent and Well NP-1 have an average TDS of 390 mg/L and 430 mg/L, respectively. Therefore, neither source currently meets this limit. Due to this restriction, and potential stricter TDS limits for the San Gorgonio region in the future, a TDS treatment is required.

The proposed TDS treatment for this Project is a two-stage reverse osmosis (RO) system to be implemented as the last step in the WWTP treatment process. Details about the RO requirements for the WWTP and Well NP-1 can be found in the RO Analysis Technical Memo in Appendix A.

1226
Page | 23

3. WATER RECLAMATION, RECYCLING OPPORTUNITIES
Introduction
This section provides a discussion of the City’s water reclamation and reuse opportunities including:
• Potential uses for reclaimed water and sources to be reclaimed • Markets available to use the water produced
• Considerations that may prevent implementation of a water reuse project • Water and wastewater agencies with jurisdiction and their facilities • Current water reuse
• Water reclamation and reuse technology currently in use and opportunities for improvement
Uses for Reclaimed Water
The available market is the non-potable demand from the existing customers currently using potable water or ground water from non-potable wells as well as the future recycled water customers listed in Section 2.4 Table 12. These customers consist of parks, schools, and other landscape irrigation users. The market for water produced by Phase I of this Project (described further in Section 4.2) is expected to be 1,191 AFY (1.07 MGD).

Appendix B includes the Rancho San Gorgonio Water Supply Assessment, which states that the Rancho San Gorgonio Development must utilize recycled water for all common area irrigation demands (see Appendix B, Section 5 “Recycled Water System,” pages 37-41 of the document, page 38-42 of the PDF). For the other customers, discussions have been initiated to obtain letters of intent.

Water Market Available to Utilize Reclaimed Water
The future recycled water demand projections listed in Section 2.4 Table 12 are based on a review of the identified potential customers in the 2006 RWMP. This section describes the methodology used to project the future demand potential.

It should be noted that the future demands described herein do not necessarily represent the actual future demands. This section is limited to identifying the future demand potential.

3.3.1 Methodology
As described in Section 2.4, the 2006 RWMP identified potential 18 recycled water customers based on the following three criteria:

1. Location shall be near a recycled water distribution pipeline or in proximity of other potential customers.

2. ADD exceeds 10,000 gpd. Potential customers with ADD less than 10,000 gpd may be eligible if their location is near a recycled water pipeline. 1227
Page | 24

3. Location within City limits.

The list of potential recycled water customers was reviewed to determine the current irrigation status of each customer and the feasibility of tying into the recycled water system, resulting in an updated list of 15 customers.

3.3.2 Potential Customers
Since the 2006 RWMP, several customers, including Caltrans, Repplier Park, and Gilman Ranch Museum, have reduced demands due to changes such as drought tolerant landscaping. Based on an initial review of the recycled water system layout, connecting these customers was not considered cost effective. In addition, customers north of the Interstate 10 would require a second pressure zone, resulting in an additional pump, large lengths of pipeline, and additional storage to serve these customers. Since those customers were not large users, City staff decided to keep the recycled water system south of the Interstate 10. The customers that are included in this analysis and their demands are summarized in Section 2.4, and the location of the recycled water customers is shown in Figure 6.

Considerations That Will Prevent Implementing Water Reclamation One consideration of concern is water quality, particularly TN and TDS levels of the WWTP. As mentioned previously in Section 2.5, the WWTP must comply with the Board Order, Title 22, and Beaumont Basin Plan requirements to supply recycled water. One of the main objectives of this Project is therefore to overcome these water quality limitations by implementing treatment systems that will effectively lower TN and TDS to allowable levels.

Another consideration is community push back for tertiary recycled water. With this in mind, the community will be involved with this Project through public meetings to voice their concerns. It is, however, expected that the reliability and high water quality of recycled water will help to stimulate recycled water demand and mitigate the public’s concerns.

Agencies with Jurisdiction Over Sources of Reclaimed Water The WWTP and groundwater wells are solely owned by the City.

Potential Sources to be Reclaimed
Effluent from the City of Banning WWTP and Well NP-1 are two potential sources to be reclaimed.

Descriptions of the two sources are described in Section 2.3.

Description and Location of Source Water Facilities
Effluent from the City of Banning WWTP and Well NP-1 are two potential sources to be reclaimed.

Descriptions of the two sources are described in Section 2.3.

Current Water Reclamation Taking Place in Study Area
As discussed in Section 1.4, there is no water reclamation taking place in the City of Banning. 1228
Page | 25
Other Current and Projected Wastewaters and Disposal Options If the WWTP does not get upgraded to Title 22 standards, the current disposal option will remain; the effluent from the WWTP will continue to percolate into the 10 unlined percolation ponds within the Cabazon Groundwater Basin, with no benefits to the City.

In order to meet the Board Order TN restriction, however, the biological treatment process at the WWTP would need to be upgraded regardless of whether the WWTP effluent was used for reclaimed water purposes.

Water Reclamation Technology Use in Study Area
As discussed in Section 1.4, there is no water reclamation taking place in the City of Banning.

1229
Page | 26

4. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
Non-Federal Funding Condition
If Federal funding were not provided for the Project, the City would delay the project and continue to apply for funding under other opportunities as described in Section 9.5.

Specific Objectives Alternatives Are Designed to Address The objectives of the proposed Project are to:
• Increase water supply availability, reliability, and drought resiliency by supplementing a local water supply, and
• Improve local water supply reliability by proactively planning for facilities needed to meet future demand.

There are three proposed potential recycled water project alternatives to achieve these objectives. These alternatives include:
• Alternative 1: Do Nothing
• Alternative 3: Non-Potable Reuse
• Alternative 4: Hybrid Non-Potable Reuse and Indirect Potable Reuse

4.2.1 Alternative 1 - Do Nothing
This alternative involves no recycled water upgrades of the WWTP. The existing facilities would remain at the WWTP, and effluent from the WWTP would continue to discharge to the percolation ponds near the WWTP site. Under this alternative, due to the WWTP’s current high TN levels, the plant would not meet the impending Board Order requirements. In addition, the existing non-potable water customers would continue to be served by potable water or ground water from non-potable wells, and therefore Wells M7 and M12 would not be converted to the potable water system. In order to recharge the groundwater to serve these customers, the City would continue to purchase imported water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta through SGPWA. However, with worsening climate change conditions, State water supplies are becoming scarcer. Because of this, competition for water allocations to water retailers will increase, making it more challenging for the City to receive imported water. Therefore, imported water should not be solely relied on to meet future demands that exceed the City’s local supply.

The O&M costs for the “Do Nothing” alternative include the purchase of imported water and pumping costs to serve the existing non-potable water customers. The current estimated annual O&M cost to deliver imported water is estimated at $463,848 per year. This includes an average (based on 2015-2020) purchase of 752 AF of imported water at $399/AF, or $300,048, plus $163,800 for pumping, or $463,848 per year. The projected O&M cost for imported water in 2045 is $2,779,000 for purchase and $1,517,090 for pumping for a total of $4,296,090. This is based on a purchase of 2,500 AF of imported water (see Table 5 in Section 2.4) and a 5% price escalation rate of imported water purchases and pumping per year.
1230
Page | 27

4.2.2 Alternative 2 - Non-Potable Reuse
Alternative 2 involves three phases. Phase I will begin early 2025 to meet the current demands of Sun Lakes Country Club. Phase II will begin by 2029 to meet the demands of the future remaining recycled water customers.

Phase I
Since Well M7 is planned to be converted to the potable water system by the end of 2025, Phase I involves using Well NP-1 to supply 850 AFY (0.76 MGD) to Sun Lakes Country Club in place of Well M7.

A recent Well NP-1 pump test shows an 800-gpm capacity, which exceeds the demand of the Sun Lakes Country Club. As a result, Well NP-1 will operate intermittently to satisfy the current recycled water demand.

Construction of the backbone pipeline along Lincoln Street to connect Well NP-1 to the Sun Lakes Country Club will be completed by the end of 2023. The design of the two reservoirs/forebays and booster stations needed to store the Well NP-1 supply and pump the water to the backbone pipeline, respectively, will be completed during the first quarter of 2024. The City is currently developing environmental documentation and will begin construction of the reservoirs/forebays and booster stations within the second quarter of 2024.

To meet Beaumont Basin requirements for TDS and TN, a 1 MGD RO system will be implemented at Well NP-1, and evaporation beds will be constructed for the RO brine. The RO permeate will travel through the backbone pipeline to Sun Lakes Country Club, with the forebay storing Well NP-1 supply and the booster station pumping the water from the forebay to the backbone pipeline.

Well NP-1 will continue to serve Sun Lakes Country Club until the WWTP upgrades are completed at the end of 2027.

The next step of Phase I is to upgrade the WWTP. The existing Trickling Filters and secondary clarifiers will be decommissioned, and a new 3.6 MGD MBR facility and chlorine disinfection tank will be installed to meet Title 22 recycled water standards. Other miscellaneous upgrades of the WWTP, including headworks, primary clarifier, and digester facilities, will also be implemented in this phase.

Laterals with pipeline diameters ranging from 6-12 inches will be constructed to connect the remaining customers currently using potable water or ground water from non-potable wells listed in Section 2.4 (Banning High School, Dysart Park, and Lions Park).

Once the construction of the WWTP upgrades is complete, the RO system and brine evaporation ponds used for Well NP-1 will be repurposed for WWTP effluent use. 1,191 AFY (1.07 MGD) of the WWTP effluent will serve the demands for Sun Lakes Country Club, Banning High School, Dysart Park, and Lions Park, and the rest will continue to discharge to the percolation ponds. 1231
Page | 28
Since the WWTP effluent will be used to meet the recycled water demands, Well NP-1 will be used as a backup source.

Phase II
In Phase II, laterals will be constructed to connect the future recycled water customers, including Rancho San Gorgonio Development, Five Bridges Development, and Neighborhood Park to the main recycled water system.

In order to meet the Beaumont Basin requirements to serve these remaining customers, an additional RO module will be installed at the WWTP. The permeate from the RO modules will blend for a total of 1,666 AFY (1.49 MGD) of WWTP effluent to serve the recycled water customers. The remaining WWTP effluent will continue to discharge to the percolation ponds.

Figure 6 in Section 2.4 shows the proposed layout of Alternative 2.

4.2.3 Alternative 3 – Hybrid Non-Potable Reuse and Indirect Potable Reuse Alternative 3 is similar to Alternative 2 but incorporates an additional phase for indirect potable reuse. Instead of the WWTP effluent that is not used to meet recycled water demands discharging to the percolation ponds, in Alternative 3, the remaining effluent will flow to one of two groundwater aquifers for indirect potable reuse. By percolating to new basins upgradient of the Banning groundwater storage unit, this will keep groundwater recharge within the City’s wells.

Options for recharge of groundwater aquifers via recharge basins include North Basin and Five Bridges. The requirements to recharge to North Basin and Five Bridges Basin are described in the sections below. Figure 7 on the next page shows the proposed layout of Alternative 3.

Due to the limited surface recharge capacity of the proposed groundwater basins, injection wells may be required to recharge groundwater in the targeted area. In order to allow for indirect potable reuse through injection wells, ultraviolet advanced oxidation (UVAOP) will be required.

The current facility plan would include needed infrastructures (e.g., transformer size, space allocation, etc.) to facilitate this addition in the future when needed. The surface recharge at these basins will take into account ground water travel time to the nearest potable groundwater wells and appropriate monitoring wells for full compliance with Title 22 regulations.

North Basin
North Basin is in the northeastern part of the City boundary. This site is not owned by the City.

Since the site has been mined and a large pit exists, it is assumed that minimal earthwork will be required. The site improvements included as part of this analysis include a berm on all four sides of the basin, a berm to create two cells for operational flexibility, basin piping, maintenance ramps, security, and monitoring equipment. Since the potential recharge basin is at a higher elevation than the WWTP, an 800 hp pump and 15,000 feet of 16-inch diameter pipeline will be 1232
Page | 29
required to convey water from the WWTP to the recharge basin. The City will also need to add monitoring wells and lysimeters.

Five Bridges Basin
This option involves groundwater recharge at the future Five Bridges Recharge Basin, which is located at the southwest part of the City within the Five Bridges Development. The site will likely be owned by the City. Although the Five Bridges development is not anticipated to occur until the build-out phase, City staff believe that the basin can be constructed beforehand. It is anticipated that site improvements will include earthwork, berms on all four sides of the basin, a berm to create two cells for operational flexibility, maintenance ramps, security, and monitoring equipment. This alternative will require an approximately 2,000 feet of 16-inch diameter pipeline to convey water from the WWTP to the recharge basin. The City will also need to add monitoring wells and lysimeters.

Figure 7. Preliminary Site Layout for Alternative 3 (courtesy of 2018 IMP) 1233
Page | 30
Description of the Proposed Water Reclamation Project
The selected alternative is Alternative 3. This alternative includes non-potable reuse with a total demand of 1,666 AFY (1.49 MGD). The remaining recycled water supply from the WWTP will be used for indirect potable reuse at either North Basin or Five Bridges. With the combination of both non-potable reuse and indirect potable reuse, the City will have seasonal flexibility and will be able to maximize the use of recycled water throughout the year. Since the City will be able to maximize the recycled water supply from the WWTP, the estimated net yield is 4,035 AFY (3.6 MGD).

This Project (i.e. Alternative 3) will be done in 3 Phases, however, only Phase I will be implemented at this time. Phases II and III are future phases that will be implemented in the longterm. The City has only requested funding for Phase I in the WaterSMART funding application but will seek additional funding for Phases II and III in the future at which time the City will develop updated feasibility studies to includes Phases II and III.

As mentioned in Section 4.2, Phase I involves constructing an RO system and brine evaporation ponds for Well NP-1, which will later be repurposed for WWTP use. A new 3.6 MGD MBR facility and chlorine disinfection tank will be installed to meet Title 22 recycled water standards, and other miscellaneous upgrades of the WWTP will also be implemented in this phase. Laterals will be built along the backbone pipeline to connect the WWTP to the existing customers currently using potable water or ground water from non-potable wells that can utilize recycled water to meet irrigation demands.

The preliminary cost estimates for Phase I of the proposed Project are summarized in Table 16 below. A breakdown of the capital costs and replacement costs (over a 50-year period – the expected lifecycle of the Project) associated with Phase I of the Project are shown in Tables 17 and 18, respectively. Lifecycle costs over the 50-year span of the Project can be found in Appendix C, and a preliminary detailed site plan and process flow diagram for the Project can be found in Appendix D.

Table 16. Preliminary Cost Estimate
Estimated
Annual Yield
(AFY)
Capital Cost(1) O&M Cost Annual
Cost
($/year)
Unit
Cost
($/AF)
Phase I 1,191 $93,487,328 $3,500,000 $3,890,000 $3,668
Notes:
(1) Capital costs include a construction contingency of 25% and additional markups for mobilization (5%), general conditions (5%), contractor profit (5%), and escalation to-point of construction (5%). Cost estimates and cost assumptions are provided in detail in Appendix E. 1234
Page | 31
Table 17. Cost Summary of Phase I of the Proposed Project, in 2023 dollars Item Cost
CEQA
CEQA (Biological, Cultural, Air Quality, and IS/MND) $180,000 Permitting $120,000
Subtotal $300,000
Design
Preliminary Design $1,409,808
Final Design $5,639,232
Subtotal $7,049,040
Construction
RO system $3,497,500
Brine Drying Beds and Evaporators $5,256,100
MBR Facility (3.6 MGD) $52,887,000
Primary Clarifier $1,944,100
Chlorine Tank $2,377,700
Upgrade Ferric Sulfate Feed/Storage System $298,100
Digester Coating $463,500
Replace Piping in Grit Chamber $58,300
Replace TF Center Drives $499,300
Replace East Primary Clarifier Center Drive $99,900
Replace Existing PVC Digester Gas Piping $16,700
Replace Digester Hot Water Boiler $176,400
Replace TF Effluent Distribution Valves (4) $174,800
Replace TF Recirculation Pumps (2) $124,900
Replace Grit/Cyclone Unit $299,600
Replace Two Old Grit Pumps $174,800
Recycled Water Laterals $2,141,700
Subtotal $70,490,400
Construction Administration
Construction Management and Inspection $7,049,040
Environmental Monitoring and Support During Construction $100,000 Subtotal $7,149,040
Other
Contingency $8,498,848
Subtotal $8,498,848
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS $93,487,328
1235
Page | 32
Table 18. Replacement Costs, in 2023 dollars
Description of Replacement
Requirement
Replacement
Frequency
Year(s) Cost
Civil/Structural, Mechanical,
Electrical/Controls Replacements Every year
Every Year from 2028
to 2077 $868,658.82
RO Membrane Replacement and
MBR Membrane Replacement Every 5 years
2032, 2037, 2042,
2047, 2052, 2057,
2062, 2067, 2072,
2077 $2,200,000.00

Estimated Costs of Alternatives
Estimated capital and annualized costs were developed for each of the project options and are summarized in Table 19.

Table 19. Monetary Analysis
Estimated Annual
Yield (AFY)
Capital Cost O&M Cost Annual Cost
($/year)
Unit Cost
($/AF)
Alternative 1 752 (from
groundwater)
$0 $463,848 $493,848 $657
Alternative 3
(Phase I only)
1,191 $93,487,328 $3,500,000 $3,890,000 $3,668
As seen in Table 19, the proposed Project (Alternative 3 Phase I) has higher capital and annual costs than the “Do Nothing” Alternative. However, most of the benefits resulting from the implementation are difficult to quantify, as they include climate change and environmental impacts, as well as improved water supply quality and reliability.

Waste-Stream Discharge Treatment
The following waste streams will be involved in the Project: screenings, grit, primary sludge, secondary sludge and RO brine.

The WWTP currently has a mechanical bar screen and a grit chamber to remove debris and solid materials from the wastewater. These screenings and grit are then hauled offsite to a landfill.

Downstream of the headworks, there are two primary clarifiers that separate settleable solids from wastewater. After primary treatment, the effluent flows to the Trickling Filters then the secondary clarifiers, which separate biological floc from the treated wastewater. Sludge from the primary and secondary clarifiers is processed by two primary anaerobic digesters. A second-stage digester is used as a sludge holding tank before dewatered sludge is sent to the sludge drying beds. Sludge is allowed to dewater in these beds and is then hauled offsite for final disposal. 1236
Page | 33
For Phase I of the Project, an additional primary clarifier will be added to the treatment process for redundancy in the system and to allow for peak flows in the WWTP influent. Additionally, the Trickling Filters will be replaced by MBR treatment, and the secondary clarifiers will be decommissioned. Therefore, the sludge from the primary clarifiers will combine with the waste activated sludge from the MBR system, rather than from the secondary clarifiers, to be processed by the digesters.

An additional waste stream that will be included in the Project is RO brine from the RO system.

There is expected to be around 0.035 MGD of RO brine that will require approximately 15 acres of salt evaporation ponds and 10 evaporators. This amount will increase as recycled water demand increases and more RO modules are needed. The brine evaporation ponds will be constructed on the WWTP property near the existing percolation ponds.

Alternative Technologies
Four viable biological treatment options were selected for evaluation to treat the anticipated average daily flow of 3.6 MGD. The treatment alternatives include:

1. Return Flow from Trickling Filter Effluent to Primary Clarifier

2. Conventional Activated Sludge

3. Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor

4. Membrane Bioreactor
See Appendix F for the Nitrogen Removal and Plant Reliability Technical Memo comparing the four alternatives. Due to its high effluent water quality, operational ease, flexibility to meet more stringent permit regulations, and scalability, a Membrane Bioreactor was recommended in the Technical Memo to be considered for future implementation. 1237
Page | 34

5. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Introduction
The following sections provide an economic analysis of the Project compared to other alternatives.

Economic Analysis
Currently, no non-potable water reuse is being practiced in the City, and the effluent from the City’s WWTP is discharging to percolation ponds that Banning gains no benefits from. Producing reclaimed water would significantly enhance the City’s drinking water reliability and increase its economic advantage because of the sustainable growth and profit from selling the WWTP effluent to irrigation customers. The City has taken significant steps in establishing a water recycling program in the City including:
• Identifying existing and future customers that can utilize recycled water • Serving existing customers from non-potable groundwater wells • Constructing 24-inch backbone pipelines that extend across the City with easy access to existing customers that can utilize recycled water and future recycle water customers When the proposed facilities are complete (Phase I is constructed), the City will be able to convert all non-potable wells to potable, thus benefiting from the investments made in drilling and equipping these wells.

At this time, the City uses imported water for groundwater replenishment. By supplying these irrigation customers with a reclaimed local water supply instead of pumped groundwater (as is currently done), this will reduce the amount of required imported water for the City, thereby reducing the City’s overall water costs.

Another economic benefit of the Project is its impact on City growth. City growth is dependent on the availability of water supplies to meet various demands for new City population. Increasing the reliability of drinking water will therefore allow the City to meet its needs for growth.

As mentioned in Section 2.6, there is a compliance order from RWQCB that limits the TN from the WWTP. MBR, the selected treatment system, will be a reliable process that would meet these requirements. Among the alternatives proposed in Section 4.6, MBR would produce the best water quality. With the addition of RO, effluent from the WWTP would consistently meet the Beaumont Basin Plan requirements as well, allowing the City to supply recycled water to Sun Lakes Country Club and the remaining customers with significant irrigation demand.

Cost Comparison of Alternatives that Would Satisfy Demand of Proposed Project See Section 4.4 for a cost comparison of the proposed alternatives. 1238
Page | 35
Description and Benefits of Water Supply Alternatives
Table 20 below compares the non-monetary criteria of the three Alternatives.

Table 20. Non-Monetary Criteria
Alternative 1 Alternative 3
(Phase I only)
Regulatory Compliance 1 5
Reliability/Process Robustness 2 5
Enhancement of Indirect
Potable Reuse
1 2
Groundwater Quality
Enhancement
1 5
Flexibility for Future Water
Reuse
1 5
Operational Simplicity 5 4
Ease of
Implementation/Funding
5 5
Total 16 31
As seen in Table 20, the proposed Project (Alternative 3 Phase I) has a higher ranking in terms of non-monetary criteria than the “Do Nothing” alternative (Alternative 1). Alternative 1 will keep the current WWTP system as is, keeping facilities that have reached their end of life, and therefore remaining non-compliant with the impending Board Order restrictions. Therefore, Alternative 1 is ranked the lowest in terms of regulatory compliance, enhancement of indirect potable reuse, groundwater quality enhancement, and flexibility for future water reuse.

Alternative 3 (Phase I only) is ranked the highest for regulatory compliance, reliability/process robustness, groundwater quality enhancement, and flexibility for future water reuse, as this alternative involves upgrading the treatment from the existing Trickling Filters to MBR to meet Board Order requirements and Title 22 standards (with the addition of chlorine disinfection).

Alternative Most Likely to be Implemented in Absence of Project The Alternative that would most likely be implemented in the absence of the Project is Alternative 1 – do nothing.

However, In order to meet the impending Board Order TN restriction which will exceed the WWTP treatment capacity, the biological treatment process at the WWTP would need to be upgraded regardless of whether the WWTP effluent was used for reclaimed water purposes.

Qualitative Benefits and Justification of Water Reclamation The non-quantifiable benefits are numerous. The sustainable recycled water supply will be tolerant to drought and will benefit the City’s customers through improved water supply reliability. 1239
Page | 36
Another benefit is the reduction of reliance on imported water and the implementation of regional management of water supplies and groundwater quality.

Reclaiming treated wastewater also has environmental impacts. By using a local supply of water, energy is saved by not pumping imported water from the Bay Delta. By not using water resources imported from other regions, more water is available for environmental uses in those areas.

Additionally, since onsite treatment systems and the existing WWTP do not effectively remove nitrate from wastewater, another benefit of this Project would be the reduction of the amount of nitrate that percolates into the groundwater. This would not only help the City meet the Board Order requirements, but also alleviate the rising nitrate levels observed in some wells in the Region.

1240
Page | 37

6. SELECTION OF THE PROPOSED WATER RECLAMATION PROJECT
Introduction
This section describes the benefits of water reclamation for the City.

Justification of Water Reclamation as Selected Alternative The Project meets the objective of providing a cost-effective non-potable water supply. The Project has numerous qualitative and environmental benefits. These benefits are as follows:
• Increases local supply of non-potable water,
• Improves non-potable water supply reliability,
• Environmental benefits,
o Reduction of nitrate in the groundwater,
o Energy savings from less imported water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta,
o Decreases demand on the regional wholesale water agency, SGPWA, which makes more water available for environmental uses from imported supply areas, o Reduces the use of existing diversions from natural watercourses. By implementing the Project, the City will reduce dependence on imported water supplies which are diverted from natural watercourses in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta The proposed facilities do not pose significant impacts to the environment and the City does not anticipate opposition to the Project. No obstacles have been identified that would prevent implementation of the project.

Analysis of Water Reclamation

6.3.1 Reduction, Postponement, or Elimination of Development of New or Expanded Water Supplies and Reduction of Diversions of Natural Water Courses To the extent that agencies like the City of Banning can develop local supplies, the wholesale agencies forego the need to expand their own supply sources or can reduce their reliance on other sources. Most of the imported supplies are obtained from diversions from natural water courses, including the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. Local supply projects like this Project result in reduced development efforts by the wholesalers.

6.3.2 Reduction of Demand on Existing Federal Water Supply Facilities The California State Water Project (SWP) and the federal Central Valley Project share the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta as a water supply. The imported water supply utilized by the SGPWA and the City comes from the SWP facilities. Although the Project would not reduce demand on the federal facilities, it could indirectly reduce the demand on the shared state and federal supply. 1241
Page | 38

6.3.3 Reduction, Postponement, or Elimination of new or Expanded Wastewater Facilities This Project involves expansion of limited processes, including a new primary clarifier. Although the two existing primary clarifiers at the plant accommodate an average flow of 3.6 MGD, they do not allow for peak flow of redundancy. Therefore, a new primary clarifier will be installed to handle daily peak flow rate. The rest of the facilities at the plant are sized for the expected influent flow of 3.6 MGD and will not require expansion.

Expanding the primary treatment system and upgrading other systems at the WWTP, including headworks, secondary treatment, and digester facilities, will eliminate the need for a new wastewater facility.

1242
Page | 39

7. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS AND POTENTIAL EFFECTS
Introduction
This section describes the potential environmental impacts and effects of the proposed Project, the environmental analysis and documentation prepared to date, how the project will affect water supply and water quality, and a discussion of public outreach and regional cooperation.

The governing laws are the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Potential Environmental Impacts and Effects
The City does not anticipate that the Project will have significant impacts on endangered or threatened species, public health or safety, hydrology and water quality, regulated waters of the United States, or cultural resources. The City does not anticipate that the Project will have significant environmental effects as defined by State and federal environmental laws. As such, the City will prepare a Negative Declaration to obtain CEQA coverage and expects that USBR will adopt a Finding of No Significant Impacts (FONSI) to obtain NEPA coverage for the Project. The City completed an Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND) in October 2007. The IS-MND covered significant elements of the current proposed project. The findings of the October 2007 IS-MND were either “Less Than Significant Impact” or “No Impact”. The City has identified the potential environmental impacts described in Table 21, along with best management practices (BMPs) and potential mitigation measures.

Table 21. Potential Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential Impact Potential Mitigation
Air quality and
greenhouse gases
An air quality analysis will be completed as part of the CEQA analysis. Project construction will comply with local air quality requirements. Typical dust control measures, such as watering and reducing off-road vehicle speeds, will be employed. Project operations will be evaluated for consistency with the State GHG reduction targets found in AB 32 and SB 32. Emissions from operation of the proposed facilities are not expected to exceed applicable significance thresholds.

Biological resources Construction of the project facilities is not expected to impact biological resources. Biological resources will be surveyed prior to design and sensitive species and their habitats will be avoided in the project design. The Project is not expected to impact wetlands or waters of the U.S. as regulated by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, RWQCB, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Project will comply with adopted Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Community Conservation Plans.
1243
Page | 40
Operation of the Project is not anticipated to affect biological resources as all O&M activities will be constrained to the WWTP and associated brine minimization and drying beds, Operation will be sustainable and will have no impact on riparian and aquatic habitats.

Cultural resources No Cultural resources are known to exist on the Project site.

Cultural resources will be surveyed prior to design and the Project will be designed to avoid any identified cultural sites.

Onsite construction monitoring mitigation may be necessary to ensure that discovery of any previously unidentified
archeological resources is handled appropriately.

The City will comply with California Assembly Bill 52 regarding formal consultation with Native American tribes about the proposed Project.

Hydrology and water
quality
The City will characterize the RO brine (concentrate) discharge to the evaporation (drying) beds to verify quality of the solids before final disposal.

The proposed Project is not within the 100-year floodplain.

During the design This conclusion will be confirmed.

Hydrologic impacts, including erosion and siltation during construction of the proposed facilities would be minimized through compliance with existing regulations, including enrollment in an NPDES construction general permit,
completion of a storm water pollution prevention plan, and implementation of required BMPs.

Groundwater levels,
supplies, and recharge
during operation
The Project will result in directing a portion of the WWTP effluent for non-potable water reuse. This will reduce the amount of WWTP effluent currently discharged to the
percolation ponds. The Project will not impact any drinking wells.

Transport, use, and disposal
of hazardous materials
during construction and
operation
The RO system will use a variety of chemicals typically used in water treatment, possibly including scale inhibitors, membrane cleaning solutions, chlorine, ammonia, and caustic soda. Some of the chemicals will be delivered to the plant while others may be generated on-site. Chemical storage will have full containment structures to prevent spills along with alarms. Proper handling of these chemicals will be
incorporated into the Standard Operating Procedures.

Compliance with existing regulations is expected to minimize impacts to a less than significant level.
1244
Page | 41
Noise Construction noise is considered a nuisance and is regulated by the City’s Noise Ordinance. The majority of construction activities for the Project will be in the vicinity of the WWTP which is located in an isolated part of the City. Construction equipment will be fitted with approved mufflers and other measures may be utilized to comply with the existing
regulations.

Traffic impacts during
construction
Construction traffic associated with the proposed facilities construction will be temporary, and the impacts will be insignificant. Construction traffic controls will be employed to reduce public hazards.

Public Outreach
The majority of the proposed facilities will be within the footprint of the existing WWTP. As such the City does not anticipate any public opposition to this Project. Also, the City will add significantly needed upgrades to its WWTP, which would enhance its reliability. The City plans to implement more public outreach and enhance publicity for the proposed Project. The upgraded WWTP and non-potable reuse are expected to promote growth in this disadvantaged community.

The City has constructed a significant portion of the non-potable reuse conveyance system, and this Project would complement the completed facilities.

Effect of Historic Properties
The City does not anticipate that the project will have any adverse effects on historic properties.

The majority of construction will be within the WWTP footprint.

Avoiding Public Health and Environmental Quality Issues Associated with Use of Reclaimed Water
The proposed treatment facilities for the WWTP upgrades including MBR and partial RO will result in a reliable high-quality effluent suitable for non-potable reuse for irrigation purposes.

The effluent water quality will consistently meet all State Title 22 requirements.

The City will apply the treatment technologies described in Section 4.2 so that the product water will meet state and federal non-potable reuse water quality requirements for irrigation purposes.

The primary requirements are outlined in the State Title 22 requirements. The City will work closely with the SWRCB the State’s enforcement agency, in developing and permitting the Project. Typical steps include:
• Meetings and coordination,
• Submittal of the Project application,
1245
Page | 42
• Review and approval of the preliminary design,
• Review and approval of the project plans and specifications, and operating plan, • Inspection of plant construction and witness of start-up testing, and • Amendment of the City’s discharge permits.

Future phases of the Project include groundwater recharge of the Banning groundwater storage unit. The planned upgrades at the WWTP will incorporate space and hydraulic head for additional advanced treatments to be added in the future.

1246
Page | 43

8. LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Introduction
This section focuses on the legal and institutional requirements which must be considered prior to implementation of the Project. The following is a discussion of water and wastewater rights, legal and institutional requirements, interagency agreements, permitting requirements, unresolved issues, and wastewater discharge requirements.

Analysis of Water Rights Issues
There are no anticipated water rights issues potentially resulting from implementation of the proposed project. Through various adjudications and overlying water rights, the City owns and operates the sources of water supply (WWTP and groundwater wells).

Discussion of Legal and Institutional Requirements with Potential to Affect Implementation of Project

8.3.1 Department of Water Resources – Sustainable Groundwater Management Act The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) was passed by the California State Legislature in September 2014, establishing new requirements for groundwater management in medium and high priority groundwater basins. The act requires the development and implementation of Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) for each groundwater basin and subbasin. The GSP must contain objectives and actions to achieve and maintain groundwater sustainability and to avoid the undesirable results of overdraft. SGMA also requires the establishment of Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) to oversee development and implementation of GSPs and provides authority to GSAs to sustainably manage groundwater.

Local water authorities and counties have primary responsibility and authority for the development and implementation of GSPs and GSAs; however, the State has been given authority to intervene if specific requirements are not met.

8.3.2 Groundwater Sustainability Agencies
SGMA requires that high and medium priority groundwater basins, as designated by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), create groundwater sustainability agencies by June 30, 2017. The bill authorizes any local agency or combination of agencies to become a GSA with the purpose of developing and implementing GSPs in order to meet the goals and standards of sustainable management of groundwater basins as described in SGMA. Multiple GSAs and GSPs in a single basin are allowed under the law; however, multiple GSPs within a basin must be coordinated and meet all requirements for achieving sustainable groundwater management within the entire groundwater basin or be subject to state intervention. A combination of agencies creating a GSA can be formed by a joint powers agreement, a memorandum of agreement, or other legal agreement.
1247
Page | 44

8.3.3 Groundwater Sustainability Plans
SGMA requires that GSAs develop and implement groundwater sustainability plans. GSPs must be completed by January 31, 2020 for basins deemed by DWR to be in critical overdraft. For all remaining medium and high priority basins, GSPs must be completed by January 31, 2022.

Implementation of the GSPs must result in groundwater quantity and quality sustainability within 20 years (by 2040 or 2042 based on the basin overdraft situation). DWR may grant up to two extensions of an additional five years to GSAs to achieve sustainability upon a showing of good cause. If the GSPs are not completed within the above timeframe, or if the SWRCB, in consultation with DWR, determines that groundwater sustainability is not being achieved in the time given, authority for developing and implementing a GSP will be designated to the RWQCB.

8.3.4 San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin
The SGP Subbasin (DWR Basin 7-021.04) is located in Southern California between the San Bernardino Mountains to the north, the San Jacinto Mountains to the south, Coachella Valley to the east and San Bernardino Valley to the west. The SGP Subbasin adjoins the San Timoteo Groundwater Subbasin to the west and the Indio Subbasin to the east. The SGP Subbasin boundaries generally correspond to the DWR’s California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118.

The San Gorgonio Pass (SGP) Subbasin (7-021.04) is one of several alluvial basins and subbasins identified by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) as being in a medium-priority subbasin in Bulletin 118 (2003). Beginning in 2015, GSAs within the SGP Subbasin formed to address the long-term reliability of groundwater through the development a single GSP. The SGP Subbasin GSP (SGP GSP) was developed in a coordinated fashion by the Desert Water Agency GSA, San Gorgonio Pass GSA, and Verbenia GSA with the goal of achieving sustainability for the SGP Subbasin as a whole. The SGP GSP was adopted by the respective GSAs and submitted to DWR on January 25, 2022, ahead of the January 31, 2022, deadline.

The SGP GSP jurisdiction includes the Desert Water Agency GSA, San Gorgonio Pass GSA, and Verbenia GSA. Desert Water Agency GSA consists of the Desert Water Agency. San Gorgonio Pass GSA consists of Banning Heights Mutual Water Company (MWC), the City of Banning, Cabazon Water District (WD) and San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency (SGPWA). Verbenia GSA consists of Mission Springs WD and SGPWA. The SGP Subbasin GSAs are not required to develop a Coordination Agreement. Despite this, the GSAs entered into a cooperative Memorandum of Agreement for development of the GSP and grant funding. The three GSAs have cooperatively worked together to coordinate SGP GSP development. The SGP Subbasin includes a portion of an adjudicated area, known as the Beaumont Basin, that resides outside the Plan Area. Since it was previously adjudicated, the portion of the Beaumont Basin located in the SGP Subbasin is not subject to SGMA regulations.
1248
Page | 45

8.3.5 Santa Ana River Basin Plan
An updated Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (Basin Plan) was adopted by the Regional Board on March 11, 1994, approved by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) on July 21, 1994, and approved by the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) on January 24, 1995. The Basin Plan identifies the Region’s ground and surface waters, designates beneficial uses for those waters, establishes water quality objectives for the protection of those uses, prescribes implementation plans and establishes monitoring and surveillance programs to assess implementation efforts. Amendments to the Basin Plan to incorporate a revised Total Dissolved Solids and Nitrogen Management Plan (Salt Management Plan) into the 1995 Basin Plan were approved by the Regional Board on January 22, 2004, by the State Water Resources Control Board on October 1, 2004 and by the Office of Administrative Law on December 23, 2004. The surface water standards provisions of the amendments were approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on January 20, 2007. This amendment included revised groundwater subbasin boundaries (now called management zones), revised TDS and nitrate-nitrogen (nitrate-N) groundwater quality objectives, revised TDS and nitrogen waste load allocations, revised reach designations, and revised TDS and nitrogen objectives and beneficial uses for specific surface waters.

Antidegradation water quality objectives set forth by the Basin Plan amendment restricted the use of recycled water for irrigation and groundwater recharge for certain groundwater management zones, including the Beaumont Management Zone (BMZ) and the San Timoteo Management Zone (STMZ). In particular, the ambient TDS concentrations of these management zones exceeded the antidegradation objectives, meaning that no assimilative capacity existed for which the Regional Board could allocate the use of the City’s recycled water within the BMZ or STMZ. Under the antidegradation objectives, the use of recycled water would require mitigation even though the reuse would not materially impact future TDS concentrations or impair beneficial uses. Thus, alternative maximum-benefit objectives were specified for the BMZ and the STMZ. The maximum-benefit objectives were established based on demonstrations by the involved agencies that antidegradation policies were satisfied.

Discharge of recycled water over the BMZ by the City of Banning as a result of the project will be in full adherence to the requirements set forth in the Basin Plan.

Discussion of Need for Multi-Jurisdictional or Interagency Agreements As the sole retail supplier of water in the service area, and the agency responsible for wastewater processing, the City of Banning is able to produce recycled water for distribution within its service area without agreements with any other agency.

Discussion of Permitting Procedures Required
The following permits will be required for the Project:

1. DDW Title 22 Permit
1249
Page | 46

2. California State Water Resources Control Board General Permit (combining NonDischarge National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System [NPDES], Waste Discharge Requirement [WDR], and Waste Recharge Requirements [WRR])

3. AQMD

4. CEQA (IS-MND)
A Title 22 Engineering Report is required to be submitted for approval by DDW for meeting water quality requirements of the treated recycled water and groundwater recharge requirements.

After the WWTP’s design documents are finalized, the City will submit the necessary reports, analyses, and applications to obtain required permits from both DDW and the RWQCB.

As described in Section 7, the City will prepare a Negative Declaration to obtain CEQA coverage for the Project in parallel with Project design.

Discussion of Unresolved Issues Associated with Implementing Proposed Project There are no unresolved issues associated with implementing the proposed project.

Identification of Current and Proposed Discharge Requirements The current discharge requirements for the WWTP are laid out in the RWQCB Board Order, which describes the WDRs and other terms and conditions of operation for the WWTP.

The Board Order can be found in Appendix G.

Rights to Wastewater Discharges
The City’s rights to groundwater extraction are in Table 5 in Section 2.3.

1250
Page | 47

9. FINANCIAL CAPABILITY OF SPONSOR
Introduction
The City has developed an implementation schedule and general funding plan that demonstrates that at the Feasibility Study stage, the City has the financial capability if the project moves to construction.

Schedule
The proposed schedule for the Project includes three phases, however only Phase I will be implemented in the near term. In Phase I, the RO system for Well NP-1 and WWTP upgrades will be installed, as well as the recycled water laterals for Banning High School, Dysart Park, and Lions Park.

The preliminary and final design of Phase I is expected to be completed by the 2nd quarter of 2026. Design includes initiating the necessary permits, completing CEQA/NEPA documentation, completing design, going out to bid, obtaining the authority to award the construction contracts, awarding contracts, and issuing notices to proceed.

The first step of construction for Phase I will be installing the Well NP-1 upgrades, including the RO system and brine evaporation ponds, and WWTP upgrades, including the new MBR facility, primary clarifier, chlorine tank, and lab and control building. Once easements have been obtained for the recycled water laterals, construction of the laterals will occur in parallel with construction of the WWTP upgrades. Development and testing of the new facilities will follow. Phase I is estimated to be completed in 3 years by the 4th Quarter of 2027, as shown in Table 22 on the following page.
1251
Page | 48
Table 22. Project Schedule – Phase 1
2024 2025 2026 2027
Project Component Duration Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Well NP-1 RO System and Brine Evaporation
Ponds
12 months
Predesign 3 months
Final design 3 months
Bidding 3 months
Construction/startup 3 months
WWTP Upgrades 33 months
Predesign 6 months
Final design 6 months
Bidding 3 months
Construction/startup 18 months
Recycled Water Laterals 24 months
Easements 6 months
Bidding 3 months
Design 6 months
Construction/development 6 months
Testing 3 months
1252
Page | 49
Willingness and Capability of the City of Banning to Fund the Project The Project will be funded through the City's capital replacement and operating budgets, as well as development activity revenues via the City’s local development impact fee program. The City also has the capability to fund projects through debt issuance.

Project Funding Plan

9.4.1 Operating Budgets
The City owns and manages both a water utility and wastewater utility as individual selfsupporting enterprises. Therefore, the utilities must develop financial plans that provide sufficient revenues to meet all operation and maintenance expenses, water purchases, wastewater treatment, debt service requirements, capital improvements funded from current revenues, and other expenditures.

In 2022, the City Council of the City of Banning approved a Water and Wastewater Rate Study (Rate Study). The Rate Study developed financial plans that projected operating revenue, expenses, and capital financing costs for the utilities over a five-year planning period beginning July 1, 2022 and ending June 30, 2027. The financial plans projected future rate revenues under existing rates, operation and maintenance (O&M) expenses, principal and interest expense on debt, transfers, and capital improvement program (CIP) requirements.

For the water utility, the Rate Study identified:
- Operation and Maintenance Expenses: The O&M expenses increase from $7.9M in FY 2023 to $10.0M in FY 2027.
- Debt Service: There is an existing revenue bond with an annual payment of $2.0M.

There is no future debt planned.
- Capital Improvements: The CIP identified an average of $6.2M per year in capital projects from FY 2023 to FY 2027.
- Reserves: Continue to maintain the operating fund reserve level. The operating fund reserve is designed to help cover fluctuations in day-to-day expenses. The new target, consistent with industry reserve guidelines, will be 90 days of O&M expenses, a change from the existing 10% of O&M expenses and debt service payments.

For the wastewater utility, the Rate Study identified:
- Operation and Maintenance Expenses: The O&M expenses increase from $3.7M in FY 2023 to $4.6M in FY 2027; increases in cost to operate and maintain the proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project are included as part of the Rate Study projections.
1253
Page | 50
- Debt Service: There is an existing revenue bond with an annual payment of $290k associated from a 2019 Refunding Revenue Bond. The City anticipates a net debt issuance of $25.0M in FY 2025, which will add an annual payment of $1.9M starting in FY 2025. The primary expense for the new debt issuance is for the Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project. The Rate Study ensures the appropriate level of debt service coverage.
- Capital Improvements: The CIP identified an average of $12.1M per year in capital projects from FY 2023 to FY 2027.
- Reserves: Continue to maintain the operating fund reserve level. The operating fund reserve is to help cover fluctuations in day-to-day expenses. The scheduled target will be 90 days of O&M expenses, a change from the existing 10% of O&M expenses and debt service payment.

The revenue requirements listed above for the water and wastewater utilities set the basis for the development of suitable rate schedules to produce revenues adequate to meet financial needs while recognizing customer costs of service. In November of 2022, City Council held a public hearing resulting the approval of the rate increases for a period of five years as shown in Table 23.

Table 23. Rate Increases
Fiscal Year Effective Month Water Utility Wastewater Utility FY 2022-2023 January 10.75% 40.00%
FY 2023-2024 July 0.00% 25.00%
FY 2023-2024 January 10.75% 25.00%
FY 2024-2025 January 10.75% 3.00%
FY 2025-2026 January 10.75% 3.00%
FY 2026-2027 January 10.75% 3.00%
There is a current fund balance in the Water Operations Fund of $17.5M and a fund balance in the Wastewater Operations Fund of $3.7M.

In addition to operating and capital revenues related to rates, the City has continued to charge a monthly Tertiary Surcharge of $2.72/month per account to fund capital improvements at the wastewater treatment plant. The Wastewater Tertiary Fund has a fund balance of $7.7M of which $7M would be allocated to the Proposed Project.

Additionally, the City has the capability to fund projects through either cash payment or debt issuance.

9.4.2 Development Impact Fees
In 2018 the City Council of the City of Banning completed and approved an Integrated Master 1254
Page | 51
Plan (2018 IMP) that evaluated the performance and condition of the City’s potable water, wastewater and recycled water system (future) systems under current and future conditions through year 2040. The 2018 IMP includes a capital improvement plan (CIP) to guide the City in the planning and development of facilities required to meet system performance for existing and future customers.

In September 2019, the City Council approved new and updated the development impact fees, including impacts fees to cover the costs for water, recycled water, and wastewater facilities.

The Water Impact Fee fund balance is approximately $3.3M of which $1.5M would be allocated to the Proposed Project.

The Wastewater Impact Fee fund balance is approximately $10.8M of which $7.5M would be allocated to the Proposed Project.

The City of Banning is currently witnessing a significant amount of growth in the residential sector. It is expected the available funding in the utility impact fee funds will continue to increase allowing for additional allocations to the Proposed Project.

The City has the capability to fund projects through either cash payment or debt issuance.

Over time, staff will present updated rate studies to City Council in order to ensure that rate revenues are sufficient to cover ongoing operations, maintenance, replacement costs and debt service coverage obligations.

Other Funding Sources
The City is also considering, as possible funding sources, the Water Infrastructure Finance Innovation Act (WIFIA) and Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF).

1255
Page | 52

10. RESEARCH NEEDS
The proposed water reclamation Project includes basic research needs and will solely use proven technologies and conventional system components. Further research to implement the proposed water reclamation project will not be necessary.

1256
Page | 53

11. REFERENCES
Carollo Engineers, Inc. 2006 Recycled Water Master Plan. 2006.

Carollo Engineers, Inc. 2018 Integrated Master Plan. March 2018.

West Yost & Associates Engineering, Inc. and John Robinson Consulting, Inc. 2020 Urban Water Management. June 2021.
1257
______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix A
RO Analysis Technical Memo

1258
City of Banning
WWTP Upgrade OA Service
Draft Reverse Osmosis Analysis
Technical Memo
November 22, 2023
N2W Engineering, Inc. T 714.716.1711
3240 El Camino Real, Suite 150 [email protected]
Irvine, CA 92602 www.n2weng.com
1259
Prepared by: Iris Jimenez and Jamal Awad
Reviewed by: James Wang

1260

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
There are two potential sources of recycled water for the City of Banning, the Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and a non-potable well (NP-1), however neither currently meets the Beaumont Basin Plan requirements for TDS and TN. In order to lower the TDS and TN at either source, a reverse osmosis (RO) treatment will need to be implemented. To recover around 1 MGD of available reuse water and obtain TDS and TN concentrations lower than the Beaumont Basin Plan requirements, the WWTP would require a 0.5 MGD RO system and the nonpotable well would require a 0.8 MGD RO system.

The recommended approach is to treat NP-1 with RO now, since construction of the WWTP upgrades is not expected to finish for another 3 years. Once the WWTP is upgraded to tertiary standards, the RO system can be converted to treat the WWTP effluent, or a second RO system can be built and the RO-treated NP-1 and WWTP effluent can blend to serve recycled water customers.

1261

1. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
The City’s existing non-potable water system delivers recycled water from Well M7 to the Sun Lakes Country Club. The City has served an average of 0.76 MGD from Well M7 to the Sun Lakes Country Club in the years 2012 through 2014. However, the City eventually plans to convert Well M7 and Well M12 (another operational non-potable well) over to the potable water system by the end of year 2025 and year 2040, respectively, to supplement the potable water supply.

According to the 2018 San Gorgonio Integrated Master Plan, the existing potential recycled water demand for the City of Banning is around 1.49 MGD: 0.76 MGD average day demand (ADD) from Sun Lakes Country Club, 0.20 MGD ADD from Five Bridges Development, 0.03 MGD ADD from Neighborhood Park, 0.08 MGD ADD from Dysart Park, 0.19 MGD ADD from Rancho San Gorgonio,

0.16 MGD ADD from Banning High School, and 0.07 MGD ADD from Lions Park. Based on recent discussions with the City, the aim will be to serve Sun Lakes Country Club first, and Banning High School, Dysart Park, Lions Park, Rancho San Gorgonio, Neighborhood Park and Five Bridges Development in the near-future.

In order to meet these recycled water demands, the City has plans to upgrade the existing wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) to meet tertiary standards. The City has already begun constructing an additional 3.4 miles of pipeline to connect the existing recycled water pipes to the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and to NP-1 located adjacent to the WWTP.

In addition to these standards, in order to serve Sun Lakes Country Club, which is located over the Beaumont Basin, the WWTP effluent must also meet the Beaumont Basin maximum benefit objectives of 330 mg/L for TDS and 5 mg/L for TN. With a current average TDS of 390 mg/L and an expected TN of 7.74 mg/L, once secondary treatment at the plant is upgraded to MBR, the WWTP effluent does not meet either of these objectives.

Near the WWTP is a non-potable well, NP-1, that may be able to supply water to these irrigation customers in place of the WWTP until the plant is upgraded to tertiary standards. The capacity of the well is 800 gal/min, or 1.15 MGD, and is expected to be fully operational within the next few months. Like the WWTP, the water quality of the well does not meet the Beaumont Basin maximum benefit objectives. Based on an analytical report from August of 2023, the average TDS and TN of NP-1 is 430 mg/L and 17 mg/L, respectively.

The purpose of this technical memo is to determine the best strategy for supplying recycled water to the City of Banning.

1262

2. TDS AND TN MASS BALANCES
In order to reduce TDS and TN levels at either the WWTP or NP-1, the most effective treatment method is reverse osmosis (RO). This section describes the RO treatment systems and final effluent quality at each location. In order to meet the current recycled water demand for Sun Lakes Country Club, the assumed output goal for available reuse water for both the WWTP and NP-1 is around 1 MGD.

Various recovery rates were analyzed for the proposed RO treatment system, including 75%, 80%, and 93%. Based on expected costs of brine treatment for each of the recovery rates, it was determined that maximizing RO recovery is the most cost beneficial. At this time, 93% recovery for a two-stage RO system is feasible based on the source water quality, and therefore TDS and TN mass balances in the following section assume a 93% recovery rate.

For both options, the proposed RO systems were sized to treat the final combined effluent to just below the Beaumont Basin Plan requirement (i.e., Beaumont Basin maximum benefit objective) for TN. For lower final combined effluent TN concentrations, additional RO treatment capacity can be added to the systems.

1263

2.1 Option 1
This first option involves treating a percentage of the WWTP effluent with RO for recycled water irrigation use. Since the WWTP must meet tertiary standards in order to be recycled, an MBR, chlorination tank, and RO system would all need to be implemented for this alternative.

Therefore, this process involves sending 1 MGD of the approximately 3.6 MGD WWTP influent through the MBR from the primary clarifiers, then to the chlorination tank; the remaining 2.6 MGD will continue discharging to the percolation ponds.

After disinfection, 0.5 MGD of this 1 MGD flow will be sent to the two-stage RO system and the remaining 0.5 MGD will blend with the RO permeate. Assuming 93% recovery, around 0.035 MGD of the RO treated 0.5 MGD will be converted into brine. This brine will be sent to mechanical evaporators and salt evaporation ponds that will be located near the RO facility. These salt evaporation ponds will require around 8 acres of surface area and will be designed to meet the Title 27 requirements described in Section 2.4. The 0.47 MGD RO permeate will combine with the 0.5 MGD WWTP effluent for a total of 0.97 MGD available for reuse.

The TDS and TN of the 0.97 MGD reuse water will be about 207 mg/L and 4.4 mg/L, respectively, meeting the Beaumont Basin Plan requirements of 330 mg/L for TDS and 5 mg/L for TN. The water quality of the remaining WWTP effluent that will discharge to the percolation ponds will remain unchanged, with a TDS of 390 mg/L TDS and TN of 7.5 mg/L. These concentrations are both below the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Colorado River Basin Region’s (RWQCB) Board Order R7-2016-0015 (Board Order) percolation limits of 440-490 mg/L for TDS and 10 mg/L for TN. See Figure 1 for the detailed mass balance of this option, including the evaluated available reuse water for 93%, 80% and 75% RO recovery. 1264
Figure 1. WWTP TDS Mass Balance

2.2 Option 2
The second alternative involves treating NP-1 with RO for recycled water irrigation use. For this option, 1 MGD will be pumped from NP-1. Of this 1 MGD, 0.8 MGD will flow to the two-stage RO system, and 0.2 MGD will blend with the RO permeate. Assuming 93% recovery, there will be approximately 0.056 MGD of RO brine, which will be sent to mechanical evaporators and salt evaporation ponds located near the RO facility. These salt evaporation ponds will require around 15 acres of surface area and will be designed to meet the Title 27 requirements described in Section 2.4. The 0.74 MGD RO permeate will blend with the 0.2 MGD non-treated water from the well for a total of 0.94 MGD available for reuse.

The final TDS and TN of the 0.94 MGD recycled water will be about 99 mg/L and 4.0 mg/L, respectively, below the Beaumont Basin Plan requirements. The water quality of the WWTP effluent that discharges to the percolation ponds will remain unchanged, with a TDS of 390 mg/L TDS and TN of 7.5 mg/L, both below the RWQCB Board Order percolation limits. See Figure 2 for the detailed mass balance of this option, including the evaluated available reuse water for 93%, 80%, and 75% RO recovery.
1265
Figure 2. NP-1 TDS Mass Balance

2.3 RO Facility Siting
Among the potential recycled water demands, the Sun Lakes Country Club with a demand of 0.76 MGD is the only one located over the Beaumont Basin. As such, an RO facility can be sized for the demand by the Sun Lakes Country Club and be located near the service connection. Brine from the RO facility would be discharged back into the sewer and treated at the WWTP.

The capital costs for this option would be smaller than siting the RO facility near the WWTP and NP-1 well. However, locating the RO facility at the service connection has significant drawbacks including:

1. The remote O&M will result in higher operations costs.

2. The brine flow will be discharged to the sewer and treated again at the WWTP. If treatment Option 1 is pursued, the return brine will result in gradual increase in the WWTP TDS level.

3. If lower TDS levels become important for the other potential users, it would be much harder to implement in the future.

4. Having the location by the WWTP allows for future brine management such as evaporation ponds.

Because of these drawbacks, it is recommended that the RO facility be located near the WWTP. 1266

2.4 Title 27 Requirements
The discharge of the RO to the brine evaporation ponds is subject to regulation under the California Code of Regulations, Title 27 Environmental Protection (27 CCR), Division 2 Solid Waste. This liquid-designated waste must be contained in a Class II surface impoundment constructed with a double liner and a leachate collection and removal system (LCRS) per CCR, Title 27. As part of the CCR, Title 27 requirements, the Discharger is also required to monitor the surface impoundments, including the vadose zone and groundwater beneath the site.

In order to comply with this regulation, the design of the evaporation ponds will include several layers of protection and monitoring capabilities. The uppermost layer will consist of a 60-mil textured HDPE primary liner, which will prevent leachate from migrating below the ponds. A second 60-mil HDPE drain liner will make up the bottom of the LCRS. The bottom liner is defined as the free-draining vadose zone monitoring system (VZMS).

This LCRS system will be designed to detect any leaks and collect any moisture that may develop in the LCRS. The bottom liner will capture any liquid that leaks through the upper primary liner, with the liquid being collected in a sump area for collection and removal. The sump will be continuously monitored using a level switch that will be installed in the monitoring tube of the LCRS sump.
1267

3. COST ESTIMATE

3.1 Option 1
The order of magnitude costs for Option 1 are detailed below. The capital costs required for the WWTP effluent to meet tertiary standards include MBR, disinfection, an RO system, as well as brine evaporation ponds and mechanical evaporators.

WWTP
MBR – 3.6 MGD $52,887,000
Chlorination Tank – 3.6 MGD $2,377,700
RO System – 0.5 MGD $1,619,000
Brine Evaporation Ponds and Mechanical
Evaporators
$5,256,100
TOTAL $62,139,800

3.2 Option 2
The order of magnitude cost for Option 2 is detailed below. The capital costs required for NP-1 to meet non-potable standards are an RO system as well as brine evaporations ponds and mechanical evaporators.

NP-1
RO System – 0.8 MGD $3,497,500
Brine Evaporation Ponds and
Mechanical Evaporators
$2,948,000
TOTAL $6,445,500

1268

4. RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended to implement Option 2 now and Option 1 once the upgrade of the WWTP is complete. The time of construction to upgrade the WWTP, including building the new MBR and chlorination tank, is estimated to take approximately 3 years. Therefore, in order to serve the current recycled water demands from Sun Lakes Country Club within these 3 years, a 1 MGD RO system for NP-1 can be built now. Once the construction for the upgrades of the WWTP is finished, depending on the recycled water demand at this time, either the RO system used for NP-1 can be converted for WWTP effluent use or a second 1 MGD RO system can be built for the WWTP effluent. If a second RO system is installed, the NP-1 and WWTP effluent, post ROtreatment, will blend to satisfy the recycled water demands, thereby keeping NP-1 in commission.
1269
______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix B
Rancho San Gorgonio Water Supply Assessment
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix C
50-Year Lifecycle Cost

1361
Inflation 3.75%
Discount rate (Nominal) 5%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Item 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 Capital 93,487,328$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Annual Costs (Labor, Electrical,
Chemical, Repairs) 3,890,000$ 4,035,875$ 4,187,220$ 4,344,241$ 4,507,150$ 4,676,168$ 4,851,525$ 5,033,457$ 5,222,211$ 5,418,044$ 5,621,221$ 5,832,017$ 6,050,717$ 6,277,619$ 6,513,030$ 6,757,269$ 7,010,666$ 7,273,566$ 7,546,325$ 7,829,312$ 8,122,911$ 8,427,520$ 8,743,552$ 9,071,436$ 9,411,615$ 9,764,550$ 10,130,721$ 10,510,623$ 10,904,771$ 11,313,700$ 11,737,964$ 12,178,137$ 12,634,818$ 13,108,623$ 13,600,197$ 14,110,204$ 14,639,337$ 15,188,312$ 15,757,873$ 16,348,794$ 16,961,873$ 17,597,944$ 18,257,867$ 18,942,537$ 19,652,882$ 20,389,865$ 21,154,485$ 21,947,778$ 22,770,819$ 23,624,725$ 24,510,652$ Civil/Structural, Mechanical,
Electrical/Controls Replacements -$ 868,659$ 901,234$ 935,030$ 970,093$ 1,006,472$ 1,044,215$ 1,083,373$ 1,123,999$ 1,166,149$ 1,209,880$ 1,255,250$ 1,302,322$ 1,351,159$ 1,401,828$ 1,454,396$ 1,508,936$ 1,565,521$ 1,624,228$ 1,685,137$ 1,748,329$ 1,813,892$ 1,881,913$ 1,952,484$ 2,025,702$ 2,101,666$ 2,180,479$ 2,262,247$ 2,347,081$ 2,435,097$ 2,526,413$ 2,621,153$ 2,719,446$ 2,821,426$ 2,927,229$ 3,037,000$ 3,150,888$ 3,269,046$ 3,391,635$ 3,518,822$ 3,650,777$ 3,787,681$ 3,929,720$ 4,077,084$ 4,229,975$ 4,388,599$ 4,553,171$ 4,723,915$ 4,901,062$ 5,084,852$ 5,275,534$ RO Membrane Replacement and
MBR Membrane Replacements -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,807,819$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,583,568$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,573,642$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5,837,255$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 7,449,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 9,508,273$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 12,135,234$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 15,487,975$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 19,767,017$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 25,228,280$ Total $ 97,377,328 $ 4,904,534 $ 5,088,454 $ 5,279,271 $ 5,477,244 $ 8,490,460 $ 5,895,739 $ 6,116,829 $ 6,346,210 $ 6,584,193 $ 10,414,669 $ 7,087,267 $ 7,353,039 $ 7,628,778 $ 7,914,858 $ 12,785,307 $ 8,519,602 $ 8,839,087 $ 9,170,553 $ 9,514,449 $ 15,708,496 $ 10,241,412 $ 10,625,465 $ 11,023,920 $ 11,437,317 $ 19,316,197 $ 12,311,199 $ 12,772,869 $ 13,251,852 $ 13,748,797 $ 23,772,650 $ 14,799,290 $ 15,354,264 $ 15,930,049 $ 16,527,426 $ 29,282,438 $ 17,790,224 $ 18,457,358 $ 19,149,509 $ 19,867,615 $ 36,100,626 $ 21,385,625 $ 22,187,586 $ 23,019,621 $ 23,882,856 $ 44,545,481 $ 25,707,656 $ 26,671,693 $ 27,671,881 $ 28,709,577 $ 55,014,466 50-Year Future Cost $ 486,892,000
50-Year Present Cost $ 224,149,159
Alternative 3 Phase I
1362
______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix D
Preliminary Detailed Site Plan and Process Flow Diagram

1363
N2W ENGINEERING, INC.
3240 El Camino Real. Suite 150
Irvine, CA 92602
WWW.N2WENG.COM
SHEET:

CLIENT:

PROJECT:

PROJECT NO.

STATUS:

FILE: C:\USERS\JAMES WANG\N2W ENGINEERING\N2W - SERVER\PROJECTS\105-CITY OF BANNING\105-0002 OWNER ADVISOR W&WWTP\6. PROJECT ENGINEERING AND DESIGN\06.01_PRELIMINARY DESIGN\DESIGN DRAWING\MBR SITE PLAN JAMES WANG 11 06 2023.DWG REV. DESCRIPTION DATE
PLOT DATE:
11/6/2023 5:26 PM
DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: APPROVED BY:

TITLE:

ORIGINAL SHEET SIZE
ANSI-D105-0002

PRELIMINARY
BANNING, CA 92220
789 N. SAN GORGONIO AVENUE

CITY OF BANNING
BANNING, CA 92220
2242 CHARLES STREET

BANNING WWTP

CIVIL SITE PLAN
C-101
1364
1365
______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix E
Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate

1366
Project: City of Banning MBR
Client: City of Banning MBR
Location: City of Banning
NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST UNIT LABOR UNIT LABOR COST MATERIAL TOTAL Division 01 - General Requirements
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 02 - Site Work
Site Clearing and General Demolition (Inlcuded in MBR cost) 1 LS -$ $0 $0 Excavation for 8" PVC RO Pipelines 556 CY 20$ $11,111 $11,111Backfill/Compaction for 8" PVC RO Pipelines 536 CY 20$ $10,723 $10,723Material Disposal for 8" PVC RO Pipelines 19 CY 10$ $194 $194 Total $22,100 $22,028
Division 03 - Concrete
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 04 - CMU
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 05 - Metals
Pipe Support 1 LS 15,000$ $15,000 $15,000
Total $15,000 $15,000
Division 07 - Thermal and Moisture Protection
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 08 - Doors and Windows
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 09 - Finishes
Painting and Coating 1 LS 15,000$ $15,000 $15,000
Total $15,000 $15,000
Division 10 - Specialties
Identification Device 1 LS 5,000$ $5,000 $5,000
Signage 1 LS 5,000$ $5,000 $5,000
Total $10,000 $10,000
Division 11 - Equipment
RO System (0.8 MGD, Includes Chemical Dosing System) 1 LS 1,035,000$ $1,035,000 207,000$ $1,242,000 RO Effluent Pumps (700 gpm @ 30 ft 10 HP) 2 EA 30,000$ $60,000 12,000$ $72,000 CIP Skid for 8" Membrane 1 EA 38,611$ $38,611 7,722$ $46,333 Total $1,133,700 $1,360,333
Division 13 - Speciality
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 15 - Mechanical
NP-1 Effluent to RO (8" PVC) 750 LF 100$ $75,000 15,000$ $90,000RO Effluent to NPR Pipeline (8" PVC) 750 LF 100$ $75,000 15,000$ $90,000Suction/Discharge Plug Valve (8") 4 EA 700$ $2,800 560$ $3,360 Discharge Swing Check Valve (8") 2 EA 1,600$ $3,200 640$ $3,840 8" 45/ 90 Degree Elbows 8 EA 400$ $3,200 640$ $4,000
Misc Piping 1 LS 10,000$ $10,000 2,000$ $12,000
Total $169,200 $203,200
Division 16 - Electrical
Electrical (Control Panel, Service Metering, Conduit,Wiring, Lighting, Grounding, VFD, Soft Starter, etc) 1 LS $ 340,110 $340,110 $ - $340,110 Total $340,200 $340,110
Division 17 - Instrumentation
Plant SCADA and Instrumentation (PLC, Master Control Panel, SCADA, Programming, etc) 1 LS $ 136,044 $136,044 $ - $136,044 Total $136,100 $136,044
Construction Total $2,101,716
Contingency and Construction Level of Difficulties 25% $525,429 Subtotal 1 $2,627,144
Mobilization and Insurance (Percentage of Subtotal 1) 5% $131,357 Subtotal 2 $2,758,502
General Conditions (Percentage of Subtotal 2) 5% $137,925 Subtotal 3 $2,896,427
Contractor Profit (Percentage of Subtotal 3) 15% $434,464 Subtotal 4 $3,330,891
Escalation to Mid-Point of Construction Assume 2022 (Percentage of Subtotal 4) 5% $166,545 Subtotal 5 $3,497,500
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST OPINION - RO System (Phase I)

MATERIAL

SUBTOTAL
LABOR

SUBTOTAL

MATERIAL &

INSTALLATION

SUBTOTAL

MATERIAL &

INSTALLATION TOTAL
1367
Project: City of Banning MBR
Client: City of Banning MBR
Location: City of Banning
NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST UNIT LABOR UNIT LABOR COST MATERIAL TOTAL Division 01 - General Requirements
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 02 - Site Work
Demolition 1 LS 15,000$ $15,000 $15,000
Site excavation 121000.00 CY 10$ 1,210,000$ $1,210,000
Total $1,225,000 $1,225,000
Division 03 - Concrete
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 04 - CMU
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 05 - Metals
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 07 - Thermal and Moisture Protection
60 mil HDPE - Double Lined Pond 653400 SQ FT 3$ $1,633,500 $1,633,500 Total $1,633,500 $1,633,500
Division 08 - Doors and Windows
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 09 - Finishes
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 10 - Specialties
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 11 - Equipment
Evaporator 10 EA 30,000$ $300,000 $300,000
Total $300,000 $300,000
Division 13 - Speciality
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 15 - Mechanical
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 16 - Electrical
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 17 - Instrumentation
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Construction Total $3,158,500
Contingency and Construction Level of Difficulties 25% $789,625 Subtotal 1 $3,948,125
Mobilization and Insurance (Percentage of Subtotal 1) 5% $197,406 Subtotal 2 $4,145,531
General Conditions (Percentage of Subtotal 2) 5% $207,277 Subtotal 3 $4,352,808
Contractor Profit (Percentage of Subtotal 3) 15% $652,921 Subtotal 4 $5,005,729
Escalation to Mid-Point of Construction Assume 2022 (Percentage of Subtotal 4) 5% $250,286 Subtotal 5 $5,256,100
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST OPINION - Brine Drying Beds and Evaporators (Phase I)

MATERIAL

SUBTOTAL
LABOR

SUBTOTAL

MATERIAL &

INSTALLATION

SUBTOTAL

MATERIAL &

INSTALLATION TOTAL
1368
Project: City of Banning MBR
Client: City of Banning MBR
Location: City of Banning
NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST UNIT
LABOR

UNIT LABOR
COST

MATERIAL
TOTAL
Division 01 - General Requirements
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 02 - Site Work
Site Cleaning 1 LS 50,000$ $50,000 $50,000
Yard Piping 1 LS 500,000$ $500,000 $500,000
Excavation 33,217 CY 20$ $664,344 $664,344
Backfill 18,906 CY 20$ $378,121 $378,121
Soil Disposal Onsite 19791.111 CY 10$ $197,911 $197,911 Paving 1 LS 200,000$ $200,000 $200,000
Grading 1.00 LS 400,000$ $400,000 $400,000
Total $2,390,400 $2,391,000
Division 03 - Concrete
Concrete 3,389 CY 1,250$ $4,236,852 $4,236,852
$4,236,900 $4,237,000
Division 04 - CMU
Building (Blower, MCC, Lab, Storage, Chemical, Pump, RO) 7200 SF 500$ $3,600,000 $3,600,000 Canopy for MBR 2800 SF 120$ $336,000 $336,000
$3,936,000 $3,936,000
Division 05 - Metals
Pipe Support 1 LS 250,000$ $250,000 $250,000
$250,000 $250,000
Division 07 - Thermal and Moisture Protection
Not Used $0
$0 $0
Division 08 - Doors and Windows
Not Used $0
$0 $0
Division 09 - Finishes
Painting and Coating (Concrete, Equipment, Piping) 1 LS 250,000$ $250,000 $250,000 Total $250,000 $250,000
Division 10 - Specialties
Identification Device and Signage Not Used 1 LS 50,000$ $50,000 $50,000 Total $50,000 $50,000
Division 11 - Equipment
Influent Fine Screen 3 EA 345,000$ $1,035,000 207,000$ $1,242,000 MBR 1 EA 9,660,000$ $9,660,000 2,415,000$ $12,075,000
Aeration Blower 4 EA 276,000$ $1,104,000 220,800$ $1,324,800 Aeration Diffuser 2000 EA 276$ $552,000 110,400$ $662,400 Sludge Thickener 2 EA 150,000$ $300,000 60,000$ $360,000 Total $12,651,000 $15,665,000
Division 14 - Conveying Systems
Bridge Crane 1 LS 100,000$ $100,000 $100,000
Total $100,000 $100,000
Division 15 - Mechanical
Piping, Fitting, Valving 1 LS 2,000,000$ $2,000,000 1,000,000$ $3,000,000 Total $2,000,000 $3,000,000
Division 16 - Electrical
Control Panel for Pump and Blower, Conduit, Wiring and Misc Electrical 1 LS $4,500,000 $4,500,000 $1,125,000 $5,625,000 Total $4,500,000 $5,625,000
Division 17 - Instrumentation
System Control / SCADA 1 LS 1,250,000$ $1,250,000 312,500$ $1,562,500 Total $1,250,000 $1,563,000
Construction Total $24,416,000
Contingency and Construction Level of Difficulties 25% $6,104,000 Subtotal 1 $30,520,000
Mobilization and Insurance (Percentage of Subtotal 1) 5% $1,526,000 Subtotal 2 $32,046,000
General Conditions (Percentage of Subtotal 2) 6% $1,922,760 Subtotal 3 $33,968,760
Contractor Profit (Percentage of Subtotal 3) 15% $5,095,314 Subtotal 4 $39,064,074
Escalation to Mid-Point of Construction Assume 2022 (Percentage of Subtotal 4) 3% $1,171,922 Subtotal 5 $40,236,000
Total

TOTAL COST
(with Packaged
MBR) $52,887,000
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST OPINION - MBR Facility (Phase I)

MATERIAL

SUBTOTAL
LABOR

SUBTOTAL

MATERIAL &

INSTALLATION

SUBTOTAL

MATERIAL &

INSTALLATION TOTAL
1369
Project: City of Banning MBR
Client: City of Banning MBR
Location: City of Banning
NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST UNIT LABOR UNIT LABOR COST MATERIAL TOTAL Division 01 - General Requirements
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 02 - Site Work
Site Clearing 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ $10,000
Site General Demolition (Building and Pavement) 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ $10,000Site Material Disposal 891.44 CY 10$ 8,914$ $8,914 Site Excavation 1565.68 CY 20$ 31,314$ $31,314
Site Backfill 674.24 CY 20$ 13,485$ $13,485
Shoring 2915.40 SF 50$ 145,770$ $145,770
PI Primary Influent Site Material Disposal 0.05 CY 10$ $1 $1 PI Primary Influent Site Excavation 62.52 CY 20$ $1,250 $1,250 PI Primary Influent Backfill 62.47 CY 20$ $1,249 $1,249 PE Primary Effluent Site Material Disposal 0.05 CY 10$ $1 $1 PE Primary Effluent Site Excavation 57.19 CY 20$ $1,144 $1,144 PE Primary Effluent Backfill 57.13 CY 20$ $1,143 $1,143 Total $224,300 $224,300
Division 03 - Concrete
Concrete Pad 169.65 CY 1,250$ 212,058$ $212,058Primary Clarifier 81.60 CY 1,250$ 102,006$ $102,006 Total $314,100 $314,100
Division 04 - CMU
Platform $0
Total $0 $0
Division 05 - Metals
Pipe Supports, Handrail 1 LS 40,000$ 40,000$ $40,000
Total $40,000 $40,000
Division 07 - Thermal and Moisture Protection
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 08 - Doors and Windows
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 09 - Finishes
Painting and Coating 1 LS 20,000$ 20,000$ $20,000
Total $20,000 $20,000
Division 10 - Specialties
Signage 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ $10,000
Total $10,000 $10,000
Division 11 - Equipment
Center Drive, Scraper, Platform 1 LS 250,000$ 250,000$ 50,000$ $375,000 Total $250,000 $375,000
Division 13 - Speciality
Not Used 0 LS $0
Total $0 $0
Division 15 - Mechanical
PI Primary Influent (12" steel) 70.33 LF 200$ $14,067 2,813$ $16,880 PE Primary Effluent (12" steel) 64.33 LF 200$ $12,867 2,573$ $15,440 Misc Piping 1 LS 30,000$ 30,000$ 6,000$ $37,500
Total $56,940 $69,820
Division 16 - Electrical
Electrical (Control Panel, Service Metering, Conduit,Wiring, Lighting, Grounding, VFD, Soft Starter, etc) 1 LS $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ - $75,000 Total $75,000 $75,000
Division 17 - Instrumentation
Plant SCADA and Instrumentation (PLC, Master Control Panel, SCADA, Programming, etc) 1 LS $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ - $20,000 Total $20,000 $40,000
Construction Total $1,168,220
Contingency and Construction Level of Difficulties 25% $292,055 Subtotal 1 $1,460,275
Mobilization and Insurance (Percentage of Subtotal 1) 5% $73,014 Subtotal 2 $1,533,289
General Conditions (Percentage of Subtotal 2) 5% $76,664 Subtotal 3 $1,609,953
Contractor Profit (Percentage of Subtotal 3) 15% $241,493 Subtotal 4 $1,851,446
Escalation to Mid-Point of Construction Assume 2022 (Percentage of Subtotal 4) 5% $92,572 Subtotal 5 $1,944,100
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST OPINION - Primary Clarifier (Phase I)

MATERIAL

SUBTOTAL
LABOR

SUBTOTAL

MATERIAL &

INSTALLATION

SUBTOTAL

MATERIAL &

INSTALLATION TOTAL
1370
Project: City of Banning MBR
Client: City of Banning MBR
Location: City of Banning
NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST UNIT LABOR UNIT LABOR COST MATERIAL TOTAL Division 01 - General Requirements
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 02 - Site Work
Site Clearing 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ $10,000Site Material Disposal 2816.00 CY 10$ 28,160$ $28,160Site Excavation 6332.50 CY 20$ 126,650$ $126,650Site Backfill 3516.50 CY 20$ 70,330$ $70,330FE Chlorination Pipe Site Material Disposal 0.05 CY 10$ $1 $1FE Chlorination Pipe Site Excavation 66.67 CY 20$ $1,333 $1,333FE Chlorination Pipe Backfill 66.61 CY 20$ $1,332 $1,332 Total $237,900 $237,900
Division 03 - Concrete
Concrete Tank 690.24 CY 1,300$ 897,313$ $897,313
Total $897,400 $897,400
Division 04 - CMU
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 05 - Metals
Pipe Support 1 LS 20,000$ 20,000$ $20,000
Total $20,000 $20,000
Division 07 - Thermal and Moisture Protection
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 08 - Doors and Windows
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 09 - Finishes
Painting and Coating 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ $10,000
Total $10,000 $10,000
Division 10 - Specialties
Signage 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ $10,000
Total $10,000 $10,000
Division 11 - Equipment
Tank - Schneider - 1500 gallon (IInstallation - 25%) 2 EA 20,000$ 40,000$ 10,000$ $62,500Chemical Injection Package 2 EA 15,000$ 30,000$ 6,000$ $45,000 Total $70,000 $107,500
Division 13 - Speciality
Not Used 0 LS $0
Total $0 $0
Division 15 - Mechanical
MBR Effluent to Chlorination (16" steel) 75 LF 400$ 30,000.00$ 6,000$ $36,000Misc Piping 1 LS 20,000$ 20,000$ 4,000$ $25,000 Total $50,000 $61,000
Division 16 - Electrical
Electrical (Control Panel, Service Metering, Conduit,Wiring, Lighting, Grounding, VFD, Soft Starter, etc) 1 LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ - $25,000 Total $25,000 $25,000
Division 17 - Instrumentation
Plant SCADA and Instrumentation (PLC, Master Control Panel, SCADA, Programming, etc) 1 LS $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ - $30,000 Total $30,000 $60,000
Construction Total $1,428,800
Contingency and Construction Level of Difficulties 25% $357,200 Subtotal 1 $1,786,000
Mobilization and Insurance (Percentage of Subtotal 1) 5% $89,300 Subtotal 2 $1,875,300
General Conditions (Percentage of Subtotal 2) 5% $93,765 Subtotal 3 $1,969,065
Contractor Profit (Percentage of Subtotal 3) 15% $295,360 Subtotal 4 $2,264,425
Escalation to Mid-Point of Construction Assume 2022 (Percentage of Subtotal 4) 5% $113,221 Subtotal 5 $2,377,700
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST OPINION - Chlorine Tank (Phase I)

MATERIAL

SUBTOTAL
LABOR

SUBTOTAL

MATERIAL &

INSTALLATION

SUBTOTAL

MATERIAL &

INSTALLATION TOTAL
1371
Project: City of Banning MBR
Client: City of Banning MBR
Location: City of Banning
NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST UNIT LABOR UNIT LABOR COST MATERIAL TOTAL Division 01 - General Requirements
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 02 - Site Work
Site Material Disposal 22.52 CY 80$ 1,801$ $1,801
Site Excavation 33.78 CY 30$ 1,013$ $1,013
Site Backfill 11.26 CY 50$ 563$ $563
Total $3,400 $3,378
Division 03 - Concrete
Concrete Pad and Walls 19.64 CY 1,500$ 29,460$ $29,460
Total $29,500 $29,500
Division 04 - CMU
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 05 - Metals
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 07 - Thermal and Moisture Protection
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 08 - Doors and Windows
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 09 - Finishes
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 10 - Specialties
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 11 - Equipment
Ferric Sulfate Tank 1 EA 6,250$ 6,250$ 1,250$ $9,375Chemical Injection Package 1 EA 31,250$ 31,250$ 6,250$ $46,875 Total $37,500 $56,250
Division 13 - Speciality
Not Used 0 LS $0
Total $0 $0
Division 15 - Mechanical
Misc Piping 1 LS 12,000$ 12,000$ 2,400$ $15,000
Total $12,000 $15,000
Division 16 - Electrical
Electrical/Controls 1 LS $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ - $75,000
Total $75,000 $75,000
Division 17 - Instrumentation
Not Used 0 LS $0
Total $0 $0
Construction Total $179,128
Contingency and Construction Level of Difficulties 25% $44,782 Subtotal 1 $223,910
Mobilization and Insurance (Percentage of Subtotal 1) 5% $11,195 Subtotal 2 $235,105
General Conditions (Percentage of Subtotal 2) 5% $11,755 Subtotal 3 $246,860
Contractor Profit (Percentage of Subtotal 3) 15% $37,029 Subtotal 4 $283,890
Escalation to Mid-Point of Construction Assume 2022 (Percentage of Subtotal 4) 5% $14,194 Subtotal 5 $298,100
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST OPINION - Upgrade Ferric Sulfate Feed/Storage System (Phase I)

MATERIAL

SUBTOTAL
LABOR

SUBTOTAL

MATERIAL &

INSTALLATION

SUBTOTAL

MATERIAL &

INSTALLATION TOTAL
1372
Project: City of Banning MBR
Client: City of Banning MBR
Location: City of Banning
NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST UNIT LABOR UNIT LABOR COST MATERIAL TOTAL Division 01 - General Requirements
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 02 - Site Work
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 03 - Concrete
Concrete Rehabilitation 1 LS 100,000$ 100,000$ $100,000 Total $100,000 $100,000
Division 04 - CMU
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 05 - Metals
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 07 - Thermal and Moisture Protection
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 08 - Doors and Windows
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 09 - Finishes
Internal Coating 2,308 LS 60$ 138,474$ $138,474
Total $138,500 $138,474
Division 10 - Specialties
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 11 - Equipment
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 13 - Speciality
Confined Space Entry 1 LS 40,000$ 40,000$ $40,000
Total $40,000 $40,000
Division 15 - Mechanical
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 16 - Electrical
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 17 - Instrumentation
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Construction Total $278,474
Contingency and Construction Level of Difficulties 25% $69,619 Subtotal 1 $348,093
Mobilization and Insurance (Percentage of Subtotal 1) 5% $17,405 Subtotal 2 $365,497
General Conditions (Percentage of Subtotal 2) 5% $18,275 Subtotal 3 $383,772
Contractor Profit (Percentage of Subtotal 3) 15% $57,566 Subtotal 4 $441,338
Escalation to Mid-Point of Construction Assume 2022 (Percentage of Subtotal 4) 5% $22,067 Subtotal 5 $463,500
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST OPINION - Digester Coating (Phase I)

MATERIAL

SUBTOTAL
LABOR

SUBTOTAL

MATERIAL &

INSTALLATION

SUBTOTAL

MATERIAL &

INSTALLATION TOTAL
1373
Project: City of Banning MBR
Client: City of Banning MBR
Location: City of Banning
NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST UNIT LABOR UNIT LABOR COST MATERIAL TOTAL Division 01 - General Requirements
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 02 - Site Work
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 03 - Concrete
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 04 - CMU
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 05 - Metals
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 07 - Thermal and Moisture Protection
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 08 - Doors and Windows
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 09 - Finishes
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 10 - Specialties
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 11 - Equipment
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 13 - Speciality
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 15 - Mechanical
4" Piping 100 LF 350$ 35,000$ $35,000
Total $35,000 $35,000
Division 16 - Electrical
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 17 - Instrumentation
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Construction Total $35,000
Contingency and Construction Level of Difficulties 25% $8,750 Subtotal 1 $43,750
Mobilization and Insurance (Percentage of Subtotal 1) 5% $2,188 Subtotal 2 $45,938
General Conditions (Percentage of Subtotal 2) 5% $2,297 Subtotal 3 $48,234
Contractor Profit (Percentage of Subtotal 3) 15% $7,235 Subtotal 4 $55,470
Escalation to Mid-Point of Construction Assume 2022 (Percentage of Subtotal 4) 5% $2,773 Subtotal 5 $58,300
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST OPINION - Replace Piping in Grit Chamber (Phase I)

MATERIAL

SUBTOTAL
LABOR

SUBTOTAL

MATERIAL &

INSTALLATION

SUBTOTAL

MATERIAL &

INSTALLATION TOTAL
1374
Project: City of Banning MBR
Client: City of Banning MBR
Location: City of Banning
NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST UNIT LABOR UNIT LABOR COST MATERIAL TOTAL Division 01 - General Requirements
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 02 - Site Work
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 03 - Concrete
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 04 - CMU
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 05 - Metals
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 07 - Thermal and Moisture Protection
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 08 - Doors and Windows
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 09 - Finishes
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 10 - Specialties
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 11 - Equipment
Center Drive (2 Total, 1 Per Trickling Filter) 1 LS 250,000$ $250,000 50,000$ $300,000 Total $250,000 $300,000
Division 13 - Speciality
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 15 - Mechanical
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 16 - Electrical
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 17 - Instrumentation
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Construction Total $300,000
Contingency and Construction Level of Difficulties 25% $75,000 Subtotal 1 $375,000
Mobilization and Insurance (Percentage of Subtotal 1) 5% $18,750 Subtotal 2 $393,750
General Conditions (Percentage of Subtotal 2) 5% $19,688 Subtotal 3 $413,438
Contractor Profit (Percentage of Subtotal 3) 15% $62,016 Subtotal 4 $475,453
Escalation to Mid-Point of Construction Assume 2022 (Percentage of Subtotal 4) 5% $23,773 Subtotal 5 $499,300
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST OPINION - Replace TF Center Drives (Phase I)

MATERIAL

SUBTOTAL
LABOR

SUBTOTAL

MATERIAL &

INSTALLATION

SUBTOTAL

MATERIAL &

INSTALLATION TOTAL
1375
Project: City of Banning MBR
Client: City of Banning MBR
Location: City of Banning
NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST UNIT LABOR UNIT LABOR COST MATERIAL TOTAL Division 01 - General Requirements
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 02 - Site Work
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 03 - Concrete
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 04 - CMU
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 05 - Metals
Pipe Support 1 LS -$ $0 $0
Total $0 $0
Division 07 - Thermal and Moisture Protection
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 08 - Doors and Windows
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 09 - Finishes
Painting and Coating 1 LS -$ $0 $0
Total $0 $0
Division 10 - Specialties
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 11 - Equipment
Center Drive (for East Primary Clarifier) 1 LS 50,000$ $50,000 10,000$ $60,000 Total $50,000 $60,000
Division 13 - Speciality
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 15 - Mechanical
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 16 - Electrical
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 17 - Instrumentation
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Construction Total $60,000
Contingency and Construction Level of Difficulties 25% $15,000 Subtotal 1 $75,000
Mobilization and Insurance (Percentage of Subtotal 1) 5% $3,750 Subtotal 2 $78,750
General Conditions (Percentage of Subtotal 2) 5% $3,938 Subtotal 3 $82,688
Contractor Profit (Percentage of Subtotal 3) 15% $12,403 Subtotal 4 $95,091
Escalation to Mid-Point of Construction Assume 2022 (Percentage of Subtotal 4) 5% $4,755 Subtotal 5 $99,900
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST OPINION - Replace East Primary Clarifier Center Drive (Phase I)

MATERIAL

SUBTOTAL
LABOR

SUBTOTAL

MATERIAL &

INSTALLATION

SUBTOTAL

MATERIAL &

INSTALLATION TOTAL
1376
Project: City of Banning MBR
Client: City of Banning MBR
Location: City of Banning
NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST UNIT LABOR UNIT LABOR COST MATERIAL TOTAL Division 01 - General Requirements
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 02 - Site Work
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 03 - Concrete
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 04 - CMU
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 05 - Metals
Pipe Support 1 LS -$ $0 $0
Total $0 $0
Division 07 - Thermal and Moisture Protection
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 08 - Doors and Windows
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 09 - Finishes
Painting and Coating 1 LS -$ $0 $0
Total $0 $0
Division 10 - Specialties
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 11 - Equipment
Valves 1 LS -$ $0 -$ $0
Total $0 $0
Division 13 - Speciality
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 15 - Mechanical
2"/3" PVC Piping 50 LF 100$ $5,000 5,000$ $10,000
Total $5,000 $10,000
Division 16 - Electrical
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 17 - Instrumentation
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Construction Total $10,000
Contingency and Construction Level of Difficulties 25% $2,500 Subtotal 1 $12,500
Mobilization and Insurance (Percentage of Subtotal 1) 5% $625 Subtotal 2 $13,125
General Conditions (Percentage of Subtotal 2) 5% $656
Subtotal 3 $13,781
Contractor Profit (Percentage of Subtotal 3) 15% $2,067 Subtotal 4 $15,848
Escalation to Mid-Point of Construction Assume 2022 (Percentage of Subtotal 4) 5% $792 Subtotal 5 $16,700
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST OPINION - Replace Existing PVC Digester Gas Piping (Phase I)

MATERIAL

SUBTOTAL
LABOR

SUBTOTAL

MATERIAL &

INSTALLATION

SUBTOTAL

MATERIAL &

INSTALLATION TOTAL
1377
Project: City of Banning MBR
Client: City of Banning MBR
Location: City of Banning
NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST UNIT LABOR UNIT LABOR COST MATERIAL TOTAL Division 01 - General Requirements
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 02 - Site Work
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 03 - Concrete
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 04 - CMU
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 05 - Metals
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 07 - Thermal and Moisture Protection
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 08 - Doors and Windows
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 09 - Finishes
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 10 - Specialties
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 11 - Equipment
Hot Water Boiler 1 LS 81,000$ $81,000 25,000$ $106,000
Total $81,000 $106,000
Division 13 - Speciality
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 15 - Mechanical
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 16 - Electrical
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 17 - Instrumentation
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Construction Total $106,000
Contingency and Construction Level of Difficulties 25% $26,500 Subtotal 1 $132,500
Mobilization and Insurance (Percentage of Subtotal 1) 5% $6,625 Subtotal 2 $139,125
General Conditions (Percentage of Subtotal 2) 5% $6,956 Subtotal 3 $146,081
Contractor Profit (Percentage of Subtotal 3) 15% $21,912 Subtotal 4 $167,993
Escalation to Mid-Point of Construction Assume 2022 (Percentage of Subtotal 4) 5% $8,400 Subtotal 5 $176,400
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST OPINION - Replace Digester Hot Water Boiler (Phase I)

MATERIAL

SUBTOTAL
LABOR

SUBTOTAL

MATERIAL &

INSTALLATION

SUBTOTAL

MATERIAL &

INSTALLATION TOTAL
1378
Project: City of Banning MBR
Client: City of Banning MBR
Location: City of Banning
NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST UNIT LABOR UNIT LABOR COST MATERIAL TOTAL Division 01 - General Requirements
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 02 - Site Work
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 03 - Concrete
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 04 - CMU
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 05 - Metals
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 07 - Thermal and Moisture Protection
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 08 - Doors and Windows
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 09 - Finishes
Painting and Coating 1 LS -$ $0 $0
Total $0 $0
Division 10 - Specialties
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 11 - Equipment
Trickling Filter Distribution Gate Valve (18") 4 EA 20,000$ $80,000 25,000$ $105,000 Total $80,000 $105,000
Division 13 - Speciality
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 15 - Mechanical
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 16 - Electrical
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 17 - Instrumentation
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Construction Total $105,000
Contingency and Construction Level of Difficulties 25% $26,250 Subtotal 1 $131,250
Mobilization and Insurance (Percentage of Subtotal 1) 5% $6,563 Subtotal 2 $137,813
General Conditions (Percentage of Subtotal 2) 5% $6,891 Subtotal 3 $144,703
Contractor Profit (Percentage of Subtotal 3) 15% $21,705 Subtotal 4 $166,409
Escalation to Mid-Point of Construction Assume 2022 (Percentage of Subtotal 4) 5% $8,320 Subtotal 5 $174,800
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST OPINION - Replace TF Effluent Distribution Valves (4) (Phase I)

MATERIAL

SUBTOTAL
LABOR

SUBTOTAL

MATERIAL &

INSTALLATION

SUBTOTAL

MATERIAL &

INSTALLATION TOTAL
1379
Project: City of Banning MBR
Client: City of Banning MBR
Location: City of Banning
NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST UNIT LABOR UNIT LABOR COST MATERIAL TOTAL Division 01 - General Requirements
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 02 - Site Work
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 03 - Concrete
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 04 - CMU
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 05 - Metals
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 07 - Thermal and Moisture Protection
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 08 - Doors and Windows
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 09 - Finishes
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 10 - Specialties
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 11 - Equipment
Trickling Filter Recirculation Pump (1800 GPM @ 20 ft 15 HP) 2 EA 25,000$ $50,000 25,000$ $75,000 Total $50,000 $75,000
Division 13 - Speciality
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 15 - Mechanical
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 16 - Electrical
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 17 - Instrumentation
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Construction Total $75,000
Contingency and Construction Level of Difficulties 25% $18,750 Subtotal 1 $93,750
Mobilization and Insurance (Percentage of Subtotal 1) 5% $4,688 Subtotal 2 $98,438
General Conditions (Percentage of Subtotal 2) 5% $4,922 Subtotal 3 $103,359
Contractor Profit (Percentage of Subtotal 3) 15% $15,504 Subtotal 4 $118,863
Escalation to Mid-Point of Construction Assume 2022 (Percentage of Subtotal 4) 5% $5,943 Subtotal 5 $124,900
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST OPINION - Replace TF Recirculation Pumps (2) (Phase I)

MATERIAL

SUBTOTAL
LABOR

SUBTOTAL

MATERIAL &

INSTALLATION

SUBTOTAL

MATERIAL &

INSTALLATION TOTAL
1380
Project: City of Banning MBR
Client: City of Banning MBR
Location: City of Banning
NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST UNIT LABOR UNIT LABOR COST MATERIAL TOTAL Division 01 - General Requirements
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 02 - Site Work
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 03 - Concrete
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 04 - CMU
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 05 - Metals
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 07 - Thermal and Moisture Protection
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 08 - Doors and Windows
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 09 - Finishes
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 10 - Specialties
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 11 - Equipment
Grit/Cyclone Unit (3.6 MGD Capacity) 1 LS 150,000$ $150,000 30,000$ $180,000 Total $150,000 $180,000
Division 13 - Speciality
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 15 - Mechanical
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 16 - Electrical
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 17 - Instrumentation
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Construction Total $180,000
Contingency and Construction Level of Difficulties 25% $45,000 Subtotal 1 $225,000
Mobilization and Insurance (Percentage of Subtotal 1) 5% $11,250 Subtotal 2 $236,250
General Conditions (Percentage of Subtotal 2) 5% $11,813 Subtotal 3 $248,063
Contractor Profit (Percentage of Subtotal 3) 15% $37,209 Subtotal 4 $285,272
Escalation to Mid-Point of Construction Assume 2022 (Percentage of Subtotal 4) 5% $14,264 Subtotal 5 $299,600
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST OPINION - Replace Grit/Cyclone Unit (Phase I)

MATERIAL

SUBTOTAL
LABOR

SUBTOTAL

MATERIAL &

INSTALLATION

SUBTOTAL

MATERIAL &

INSTALLATION TOTAL
1381
Project: City of Banning MBR
Client: City of Banning MBR
Location: City of Banning
NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST UNIT LABOR UNIT LABOR COST MATERIAL TOTAL Division 01 - General Requirements
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 02 - Site Work
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 03 - Concrete
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 04 - CMU
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 05 - Metals
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 07 - Thermal and Moisture Protection
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 08 - Doors and Windows
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 09 - Finishes
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 10 - Specialties
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 11 - Equipment
Grit Pump (220 GPM @ 50 ft 25 HP) 2 EA 40,000$ $80,000 25,000$ $105,000 Total $80,000 $105,000
Division 13 - Speciality
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 15 - Mechanical
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 16 - Electrical
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 17 - Instrumentation
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Construction Total $105,000
Contingency and Construction Level of Difficulties 25% $26,250 Subtotal 1 $131,250
Mobilization and Insurance (Percentage of Subtotal 1) 5% $6,563 Subtotal 2 $137,813
General Conditions (Percentage of Subtotal 2) 5% $6,891 Subtotal 3 $144,703
Contractor Profit (Percentage of Subtotal 3) 15% $21,705 Subtotal 4 $166,409
Escalation to Mid-Point of Construction Assume 2022 (Percentage of Subtotal 4) 5% $8,320 Subtotal 5 $174,800
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST OPINION - Replace Two Old Grit Pumps (Phase I)

MATERIAL

SUBTOTAL
LABOR

SUBTOTAL

MATERIAL &

INSTALLATION

SUBTOTAL

MATERIAL &

INSTALLATION TOTAL
1382
Project: City of Banning MBR
Client: City of Banning MBR
Location: City of Banning
NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST UNIT LABOR UNIT LABOR COST MATERIAL TOTAL Division 01 - General Requirements
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 02 - Site Work
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 03 - Concrete
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 04 - CMU
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 05 - Metals
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 07 - Thermal and Moisture Protection
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 08 - Doors and Windows
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 09 - Finishes
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 10 - Specialties
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 11 - Equipment
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 13 - Speciality
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 15 - Mechanical
Banning High School (6" Pipe) 1500 LF 165$ 247,500$ 49,500$ $297,000Dysart Park (6" Pipe) 3500 LF 165$ 577,500$ 115,500$ $693,000Lions Park (6" Pipe) 1500 LF 165$ 247,500$ 49,500$ $297,000 Total $1,072,500 $1,287,000
Division 16 - Electrical
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Division 17 - Instrumentation
Not Used $0
Total $0 $0
Construction Total $1,287,000
Contingency and Construction Level of Difficulties 25% $321,750 Subtotal 1 $1,608,750
Mobilization and Insurance (Percentage of Subtotal 1) 5% $80,438 Subtotal 2 $1,689,188
General Conditions (Percentage of Subtotal 2) 5% $84,459 Subtotal 3 $1,773,647
Contractor Profit (Percentage of Subtotal 3) 15% $266,047 Subtotal 4 $2,039,694
Escalation to Mid-Point of Construction Assume 2022 (Percentage of Subtotal 4) 5% $101,985 Subtotal 5 $2,141,700
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST OPINION - Recycled Water Laterals (Phase I)

MATERIAL

SUBTOTAL
LABOR

SUBTOTAL

MATERIAL &

INSTALLATION

SUBTOTAL

MATERIAL &

INSTALLATION TOTAL
1383
Price/Rate Unit Quantity Recipient Reclamation
Not applicable $ - $ - $ -
$ -
Not applicable percent $ - $ - $ -
$ -
Not applicable $ - $ - $ -
Subtotal $ - $ - $ -
Not applicable $ - $ - $ -
$ -
Phase 1 Costs: City of Banning WWTP Upgrades
Task 1: CEQA
CEQA (bio, cultural, air quality & IS/MND) $180,000 LS 1.0 $ 135,000 $ 45,000 $ 180,000 Permitting $120,000 LS 1.0 $ 90,000 $ 30,000 $ 120,000
$ 300,000
Task 2: Design
Preliminary Design $1,409,808 % of cost 2.0% $ 1,057,356 $ 352,452 $1,409,808 Final Design $5,639,232 % of cost 8.0% $ 4,229,424 $ 1,409,808 $5,639,232 $ 7,049,040
Task 3: Construction
RO system $ 3,497,500 LS 1.0 $ 2,623,125 $ 874,375 $ 3,497,500 Brine Drying Beds and Evaporators $ 5,256,100 LS 1.0 $ 3,942,075 $ 1,314,025 $ 5,256,100 MBR Facility (3.6 MGD) $ 52,887,000 LS 1.0 $ 39,665,250 $ 13,221,750 $ 52,887,000 Primary Clarifier $ 1,944,100 LS 1.0 $ 1,458,075 $ 486,025 $ 1,944,100 Chlorine Tank $ 2,377,700 LS 1.0 $ 1,783,275 $ 594,425 $ 2,377,700 Upgrade Ferric Sulfate Feed/Storage System $ 298,100 LS 1.0 $ 223,575 $ 74,525 $ 298,100 Digester Coating $ 463,500 LS 1.0 $ 347,625 $ 115,875 $ 463,500 Replace Piping in Grit Chamber $ 58,300 LS 1.0 $ 43,725 $ 14,575 $ 58,300 Replace TF Center Drives $ 499,300 LS 1.0 $ 374,475 $ 124,825 $ 499,300 Replace East Primary Clarifier Center Drive $ 99,900 LS 1.0 $ 74,925 $ 24,975 $ 99,900 Replace Existing PVC Digester Gas Piping $ 16,700 LS 1.0 $ 12,525 $ 4,175 $ 16,700 Replace Digester Hot Water Boiler $ 176,400 LS 1.0 $ 132,300 $ 44,100 $ 176,400 Replace TF Effluent Distribution Valves (4) $ 174,800 LS 1.0 $ 131,100 $ 43,700 $ 174,800 Replace TF Recirculation Pumps (2) $ 124,900 LS 1.0 $ 93,675 $ 31,225 $ 124,900 Replace Grit/Cyclone Unit $ 299,600 LS 1.0 $ 224,700 $ 74,900 $ 299,600 Replace Two Old Grit Pumps $ 174,800 LS 1.0 $ 131,100 $ 43,700 $ 174,800 Recycled Water Laterals $ 2,141,700 LS 1.0 $ 1,606,275 $ 535,425 $ 2,141,700 $ 70,490,400
Task 4: Construction Admin
Construction Management and Inspection $7,049,040 % of cost 10.0% $ 5,286,780 $ 1,762,260 $ 7,049,040 Environmental Monitoring and Support during Construction $100,000 LS 1.0% $ 75,000 $ 25,000 $ 100,000 $ 7,149,040
Contingency (10% of project cost) $8,498,848 % of cost 10.0% $ 6,374,136 $ 2,124,712 $ 8,498,848 $ 8,498,848
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS: 70,115,496.00 23,371,832.00 $ 93,487,328 Not applicable $ -
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT/ACTIVITY COSTS: $ 93,487,328

SALARIES AND WAGES

BUDGET ITEM DESCRIPTION

COMPUTATION

TOTAL COST
Subtotal
Subtotal
FRINGE BENEFITS - See proposal in official file for detailed calculations Subtotal
EQUIPMENT - Leased Equipment use rate + hourly wage/salary x est. hours for assisted activity—Describe equipment to be purchased, unit price, # of units for all equipment to be purchased or leased for assisted activity: Do not list contractor supplied equipment here.

SUPPLIES/MATERIALS - Describe all major types of supplies/materials, unit price, # of units, etc., to be used on this assisted activity.

Subtotal
CONTRACTUAL/ CONSTRUCTION - Explain any contracts or sub-Agreements that will be awarded, why needed. Explain contractor qualifications and how the contractor will be selected.

Subtotal
Subtotal
Subtotal
OTHER - List any other cost elements necessary for your project; such as extra reporting, or contingencies in a construction contract.

Subtotal

INDIRECT COSTS -
1384
______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix F
Nitrogen Removal and Plant Reliability Technical Memo

1385
City of Banning
WWTP Upgrade OA Service
Draft Nitrogen Removal and
Plant Reliability Technical Memo
November 27, 2023
N2W Engineering, Inc. T 714.716.1711
3240 El Camino Real, Suite 150 [email protected]
Irvine, CA 92602 www.n2weng.com
1386
Prepared by: Iris Jimenez and Jamal Awad
Reviewed by: James Wang
1387

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this memo is to evaluate biological treatment alternatives for nitrogen removal and the production of recycled water for the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant.

Wastewater treatment stages considered for this evaluation included biological, tertiary, and solids treatments. Several process options were assessed within each treatment stage to develop a list of wastewater treatment alternatives for further evaluation. The treatment alternatives are evaluated based on estimated construction and operating costs, operational issues, site constraints, and the ability to comply with current and future regulatory requirements.

Additionally, this evaluation considered existing treatment process operations, and the ability to upgrade or reuse facilities for future use. The viable wastewater treatment alternatives developed from the evaluation are listed below:

Alternative 1 - Return Flow from Trickling Filter Effluent to Primary Clarifier Alternative 2 - Conventional Activated Sludge
Alternative 3 - Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor
Alternative 4 - Membrane Bioreactor
The recommended alternative is the Membrane Bioreactor based on its expandability, operational reliability, effluent quality, and flexibility to meet future permit and reuse requirements.

1388
1 BACKGROUND
The City of Banning (City) owns and operates a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) located at 2242 East Charles Street, Banning, California 92220. The WWTP has a design treatment capacity of 3.6 million gallons per day (MGD) and currently discharges an average of 2.07 MGD into 10 unlined evaporation/percolation ponds. Future (Year 2035) average flow is expected to increase to 3.6 MGD. The treated effluent then percolates into the groundwater of the San Gorgonio Hydraulic Unit. Groundwater from this basin is used for municipal, industrial, and agricultural applications.

1.1 Regional Water Quality Control Board Order
On June 30, 2016, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted Board Order R7- 2016-0015, which describes the Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) and other terms and conditions of operation for the WWTP. The Board Order requires the WWTP to remove constituents that present the greatest risk to groundwater quality such as nitrogen, coliforms, and total dissolved solid (TDS). According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for Nitrate as Nitrogen is 10 mg/L. Per the Board Order, it is assumed all nitrogen available converts to nitrate/nitrite so Total Nitrogen (TN) is used as the measurement of concern. The wastewater effluent limitations per the Board Order are outlined in Table 1.

Table 1. WWTP effluent limitations per Board Order R7-2016-0015 Parameter 30-Day Average 7-Day Average
20°C BOD5 30 mg/L 45 mg/L
TSS 30 mg/L 45 mg/L
pH 6.0 - 9.0
30-Day Daily Dry
Weather Discharge < 3.6 MGD
DO Upper Zone of the Ponds > 1.0 mg/L
TDS Not to Exceed 300 mg/L above the Water
Supply
TN* 10 mg-N/L
*City does not need to comply with this limit at this time Currently, the average TN concentration in the WWTP’s effluent is 27 mg-N/L, well above the future TN limit of 10 mg-N/L specified in Board Order R7-2016-0015. As a result, the City will need to upgrade the biological treatment process at the WWTP to lower the TN below 10 mg-N/L.

1.2 Title 22 Requirements
The City is interested in utilizing WWTP effluent for beneficial non-potable reuse applications such as landscape, public parks, and golf course irrigation. However, the WWTP effluent, based 1389
on the Annual Operations Monitoring Report for 2022, does not comply with California’s water recycling criteria outlined in Title 22, Code of Regulations. To comply with Title 22 requirements, the effluent must meet the following requirements:
• Average daily turbidity less than 2 nephelometric turbidity unit (NTU); approximately 3 – 5 mg/L TSS.
• Effluent cannot exceed 5 NTU more than 5% of the time. • Effluent cannot exceed 10 NTU at any time.
• Coagulant must be added if the influent to the filter exceeds 5 NTU for more than 15 minutes, or 10 NTU at any time.
• The disinfection process must provide a chlorine residual that provides 450 milligramminutes per liter (mg-min/L) under minimal modal contact time (CT) of 90 minutes. o This corresponds to a residual of 5 mg/L or less, or any process that achieves 5-log virus removal.
• Total coliform cannot exceed the average most probable number (MPN) of 2.2 per 100 milliliters (mL).
• No more than one sample per month can exceed an MPN of 23 per 100 mL.

The WWTP currently discharges 27 mg/L TN and 20 mg/L TSS. In order to meet tertiary requirements, the City will be required to improve the removal efficiency of the existing WWTP to comply with the TN, turbidity, and disinfection requirements.

1.3 Beaumont Basin Plan Requirements
The largest potential recycled water user for the City of Banning is Sun Lakes Country Club, a golf course located above the Beaumont Basin Management Zone. In order to serve recycled water to Sun Lakes, the WWTP effluent must meet the Beaumont Basin maximum benefit objectives for TDS and TN of 330 mg/L and 5 mg/L, respectively. With a current average TDS of 390 mg/L and TN of 27 mg/L, the WWTP effluent does not meet either of these limits. Due to these restrictions, and potential stricter limits for the San Gorgonio region in the future, the City will need to implement a reverse osmosis train post-secondary treatment to further reduce the WWTP’s TDS and TN levels.

The purpose of this technical memo is to evaluate potential treatment alternatives for the WWTP that comply with the Regional Water Quality Board Order as well as Title 22 and Beaumont Basin Management Zone requirements for tertiary water, and recommend the most suitable system for the City.

1390
2 BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Four viable biological treatment options were selected for evaluation to treat the anticipated average daily flow of 3.6 MGD. The treatment alternatives include:

1. Return Flow from Trickling Filter Effluent to Primary Clarifier

2. Conventional Activated Sludge

3. Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor

4. Membrane Bioreactor
For Alternatives 2-4, BioWin modeling results from the 2020 Banning Nitrogen Removal Feasibility Study (2020 Study) were used to compare effluent water quality. For Alternative 1, a new BioWin simulation was conducted to determine a different strategy that would allow the existing trickling filters to comply with the Board Order TN requirements. The previous design from the 2020 Study of increasing the recirculation of the trickling filters to 350% was ruled out, as this only lowered the final TN to 9.92 mg/L, just below the Board Order requirement of 10 mg/L. Alternative 1, as currently being considered, would send recirculation flow from the trickling filters back to primary influent.

2.1 Alternative No. 1: Return Flow from Trickling Filter Effluent to Primary Clarifier

2.1.1 Overview
Trickling Filters (TF) are currently utilized by the City at the WWTP. TF, shown in Figure 1, is an aerobic attached growth process used for secondary treatment. It consists of a tank filled with different types of media such as crushed stone, rocks, or plastic materials ranging in size from 2 – 4 inches. Wastewater is distributed by a rotary distributor arm over the top area of a vessel containing non-submerged packing material. As the wastewater trickles through the bed, microbial growth on the media forms a biofilm. The organic material in the wastewater is degraded by microorganisms attached to the biofilm. Some of the ammonia nitrogen in the wastewater is oxidized by nitrifying bacteria to nitrate or nitrite to nitrogen. An essential element of the trickling filter design and operation is the recirculation of effluent to the filter media for process optimization and increased treatment performance.

There are four basic trickling filter types: low-rate, intermediate-rate, high-rate, and roughing filters. Low-rate filters are loaded at less than 40 kg BOD5 per day. The residual solids are usually well digested, producing a higher quality secondary effluent. Intermediate-rate filters are loaded up to 64 kg BOD5 per day. This system requires wastewater recirculation to ensure sufficient effluent quality. High-rate filters have a maximum organic load, ranging from 64 – 160 kg BOD5 per day. In this system, a secondary filtration stage is required to achieve effluent standards.

Roughing filters are typically loaded from 160 – 480 kg BOD5 per day. Overall, low-rate and highrate trickling filters achieve the highest organic removal rates. 1391
Figure 1. Trickling filters at the City WWTP
Advantages Disadvantages
• Simplicity in biological operation
• Low energy requirements
• Low maintenance requirements
• Low sludge production
• Appropriate for small and medium sized
communities
• No problems of sludge bulking in
secondary clarifiers
• Improved sludge thickening abilities
• Durable process elements
• Low loading rate requirements depending on
media
• Diffusion limitations and possibility of mass
transfer
• Higher BOD5 and solid concentrations in the
effluent
• Issues with biofilm maintenance due to
excess sloughing
• Odor problems
• Low efficiency at cold temperatures

2.1.2 Implementation at the WWTP
The existing operation of the trickling filters does not allow for sufficient N/DN to occur. One way to reduce trickling filter nitrate is to recycle trickling filter effluent to the headworks. Any denitrification achieved in the headworks and primary clarifiers would not only reduce the BOD in the primary effluent but also reduce the nitrate in the secondary effluent.

A recirculation pump, with a capacity of 1,400 gpm, will be installed at the Trickling Filter Recirculation Station. The pump will take trickling filter effluent and deliver it to the headworks at the Grit Chamber Splitter Box. Based on BioWin modeling results, the expected secondary effluent for the constituents of concern is provided in Table 2. As seen in Table 2, the operation of the trickling filters will comply with BOD5 and TN effluent goals. However, to confirm that this approach will effectively lower TN levels, a 2-month pilot test will be conducted at the Plant. 1392
Table 2. Secondary effluent water quality for Alternative 1 Parameter Secondary Effluent Water Quality
BOD5 24.74 mg/L
TSS 6.31 mg/L
TN 7.50 mg-N/L
A summary of the capital, annual O&M, and 20-year life cycle costs for Alternative 1 to comply with Board Order and Title 22 requirements is shown in Table 3. Annual O&M costs include pump power consumption, chemicals (NaOCl and polymers), and labor and maintenance of equipment.

Due to the age and condition of the existing TFs, the remaining service life of both TFs is expected to be 10 years maximum. Therefore, although the capital cost only involves the addition of the recirculation flow, the 20-year life cycle cost includes the replacement of both TFs in 2035.

A tertiary filter is required to comply with Title 22 turbidity requirements, and ultrafiltration is needed to meet the Beaumont Basin maximum benefit objectives. If the pilot test is unsuccessful, a denitrification filter will need to be implemented rather than the proposed recirculation flow to the primary clarifier.

Table 3. Capital, O&M, and life cycle cost summary for Alternative 1 Cost Component Cost
Capital
Recirculation to Primary Clarifier $705,500
Tertiary Filter $2,721,000
Ultrafiltration $5,900,000
Anaerobic Digester $2,100,000
Total Capital Cost $11,426,500
Annual O&M
Power $196,574
Chemical $18,750
Labor and Maintenance $1,080,000
Total O&M Cost $1,098,750
20-Year Life Cycle Cost
$44,768,000

1393

2.2 Alternative No. 2: Conventional Activated Sludge

2.2.1 Overview
The conventional activated sludge (CAS) process, shown in Figure 2, is a biological wastewater treatment system where various microorganisms growing as suspended flocs, called mixed liquor, degrade organic matter in the wastewater. The mixed liquor settles in the secondary clarifiers, effluent is discharged for further treatment, and the microorganisms are recirculated back to the bioreactor as return activated sludge (RAS). Oxygen is provided by blowers and diffusers to facilitate the growth of microorganisms. Excess sludge is wasted so that the system can be operated at a target solids retention time.

The conventional activated sludge process can be modified for biological nitrogen removal. This is accomplished by dividing the bioreactor into the aerobic zone and anoxic zone (where no oxygen is provided). Ammonia in the wastewater is oxidized to nitrite and nitrate in the aerobic zone, whereas nitrate and nitrite are denitrified to nitrogen gas in the anoxic zone. In the modified Ludzack-Ettinger (MLE) configuration, the anoxic zone is placed upstream of the aerobic zone. Nitrate and nitrite are recirculated back to from the end of the aerobic zone to the anoxic zone for denitrification. Other configurations, such as the step-feed activated sludge process, have also been used successfully for nitrogen removal.

Figure 2. Conventional activated sludge flow diagram
Advantages Disadvantages
• Plenty of operating experience
• Uniform mixing in aeration tanks
• High oxygen transfer efficiency
• Solid and liquid stream separation
• High quality effluent
• High operational cost
• Sludge disposal requirement
• Diffusers require regular cleaning

2.2.2 Implementation at the WWTP
Conventional activated sludge is one of the most common biological nutrient removal systems in the United States. New bioreactors with anoxic and aerobic zones will need to be constructed for 1394
this system. The City owns the property immediately to the west of the WWTP where the proposed CAS system could be located. The existing trickling filters will be decommissioned, while the existing primary clarifiers and primary effluent pump station will remain in operation. The existing secondary clarifiers will not be suitable for the increased flow as the underflow drain is only 6” in diameter. The new RAS line needs to be at least 12” in diameter to handle the increased RAS flows. New rectangular clarifiers will need to be constructed north of the bioreactors to handle half (1.8 MGD) of the average daily flow. An external carbon source is not necessary for this option. Modeled secondary effluent water quality from the 2020 Study is provided in Table

4. Table 4. Secondary effluent water quality for Alternative 2 Parameter Secondary Effluent Water Quality
BOD5 4.78 mg/L
TSS 10.96 mg/L
TN 7.49 mg-N/L
A summary of the capital, annual O&M, and 20-year life cycle costs for Alternative 2 is shown in Table 5. A tertiary filter is required to comply with Title 22 turbidity requirements, and ultrafiltration is needed to meet the Beaumont Basin maximum benefit objectives. Annual O&M costs are based on power, chemical (NaOCl and polymer), and labor and maintenance.

Table 5. Capital, O&M, and life cycle cost summary for Alternative 2 Cost Component Cost
Capital
Activated Sludge System $48,910,800
Tertiary Filter $2,721,000
Ultrafiltration $5,900,000
Anaerobic Digester -
Total Capital Cost $57,531,800
Annual O&M
Power $1,310,496
Chemical $18,750
Labor and Maintenance $1,080,000
Total O&M Cost $2,409,246
20-Year Life Cycle Cost
$119,328,000
1395

2.3 Alternative No. 3: Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor

2.3.1 Overview
The moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) process, shown in Figure 3, is a biological treatment process that was developed by combining the conventional activated sludge system and suspended biofilm carrier media. This process incorporates polyethylene or other material media that provides surface area for the growth of heterotrophic and autotrophic bacteria biofilm in uniformly mixed tanks. The MBBR contains media with a surface area ranging from 400 – 600 m2/m3. A final clarifier is used to remove suspended solids and to produce a clarified effluent.

Settled sludge can be returned to the bioreactor if necessary.

MBBRs may be used for aerobic, anoxic, or anaerobic processes. The system can handle high organic loads and high substrate concentrations. Nitrification rates are influenced by the organic load, dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration, ammonium nitrogen concentration, temperature, pH, and alkalinity in the reactor.

Figure 3. MBBR system components (courtesy of Veolia)
Advantages Disadvantages
• Backwash is not necessary
• A high specific biofilm surface area
• Continuous operation of the reactor without clogging
• Ability to increase the plant capacity without
expansion of existing reactor volume
• Easy to operate
• Stable operation at low temperature
• Long life expectancy of biofilm media carriers
• Media can wash out over
time; regular cleaning of
effluent screens
• Longer start up time
requirement
• Bacterial activity has to be
monitored periodically
• Cost of the media

2.3.2 Implementation at the WWTP
For the MBBR system, plastic biocarriers are suspended in the aerobic and anoxic tanks to allow for microorganism growth. The primary effluent enters a common influent channel where flow is evenly distributed into the four tanks. The first tank is aerobic where heterotrophs are predominant and organic removal primarily occurs. The next tank is also aerobic, but the conditions are enhanced for the growth of nitrifiers for ammonia removal. From here, wastewater enters the anoxic tank where denitrification occurs. With this process configuration, 1396
an external carbon source such as methanol or glycerol is added to promote denitrification.

Alternatively, the City can reverse this process by having an anoxic tank upstream of the aeration tanks and utilize an internal recycle to maintain the carbon requirements for denitrification. This would decrease chemical costs but increase power costs due to additional pumping requirements. A final, small polishing reaeration step is included to re-add oxygen back into the wastewater for the purpose of downstream processes that require oxygen in the system. The secondary effluent is conveyed to the existing secondary clarifiers where a small portion of the sludge is returned to the reaeration tanks. The reactors will be equipped with media retention screens to keep the media elements from leaving the MBBR basins. Modeled secondary effluent water quality from the 2020 Study is provided in Table 6.

Table 6. Secondary effluent water quality for Alternative 3 Parameter Secondary Effluent Water Quality
BOD5 4.34 mg/L
TSS 6.64 mg/L
TN 8.00 mg-N/L
A summary of the capital, annual O&M, and 20-year life cycle costs for Alternative 3 is shown in Table 7. A tertiary filter is required to comply with Title 22 turbidity requirements, and ultrafiltration is needed to meet the Beaumont Basin maximum benefit objectives. Annual O&M costs are based on power, chemical (NaOCl, methanol, and polymer), and labor and maintenance.

Table 7. Capital, O&M, and life cycle cost summary for Alternative 3 Cost Component Cost
Capital
MBBR $39,346,500
Denitrification Filter -
Tertiary Filter $2,721,000
Ultrafiltration $5,900,000
Anaerobic Digester $2,100,000
Total Capital Cost $50,067,500
Annual O&M
Power $1,474,308
Chemical $18,750
Labor and Maintenance $1,080,000
Total O&M Cost $2,573,058
20-Year Life Cycle Cost
$116,048,000
1397

2.4 Alternative No. 4: Membrane Bioreactor

2.4.1 Overview
Membrane Bioreactors (MBRs), shown in Figure 4, consist of a biological reactor with suspended biomass and solids separation by microfiltration or ultrafiltration membranes with the nominal pore size ranging from 0.07 – 2.0 μm and 0.008 – 0.2 μm, respectively. MBRs can be operated at higher MLSS concentrations (8,000 – 12,000 mg/L), as a result, the reactor size is reduced. Solids liquid separation is accomplished with membranes instead of clarifiers. There are two fundamental arrangements of MBRs: (1) integrated systems that have membranes immersed in an activated sludge reactor and (2) separate systems that have a membrane module placed outside the reactor. Immersed MBRs typically use hollow fiber membranes that operate at lower pressures, accommodate various types of biosolids, concentrate biosolids without settling concerns, and have lower life-cycle costs. Separate systems are typically pressure driven and the membranes are in a stand-alone tank. Properly configured, the MBR process removes nitrogen similar to the activated sludge process.

Figure 4. MBR Facility (courtesy of KY OCP)
Advantages Disadvantages
• Higher MLSS concentrations
therefore a small footprint
• Less sludge production due to
longer SRT design
• High effluent quality
• No secondary clarifier is needed
• Better site planning for City
WWTP
• No UF pretreatment for future
RO
• High capital costs (membranes)
• High energy costs compared to the
conventional process due to membrane
scouring
• Limited time on membrane life
• High cost membrane replacement
1398

2.4.1.1 Packaged vs Non-Packaged System
There are two options to consider for an MBR system: a packaged or non-packaged system. The main differences between the two options are cost, schedule, and aesthetics. Unlike packaged MBR systems which comprise of pre-engineered, prefabricated structures, non-packaged MBR systems require the contractor to source all related equipment, resulting in higher costs and longer construction schedules. Typically, packaged MBR systems involve stainless-steel tanks while non-packaged systems involve concrete tanks; the significant site work and material cost required for the construction of concrete costs also contribute to the higher overall cost of nonpackaged systems. As for aesthetics, concrete structures are more common at existing municipal treatment plants. However, a prefabricated building can be built around a packaged MBR system for appearance purposes.

2.4.2 Implementation at the WWTP
The MBR system combines conventional biological nutrient removal with the use of membranes for the separation of solids and treated effluent. The MBR process train is similar to Alternative 2 except that membranes replace the secondary clarifiers and tertiary filters. The design MLSS of the MBR system is also much higher than Alternatives 2, which allows for greater treatment capacity per unit volume of the aeration basin. One design note is that the high recycle from the membrane aeration zone impacts the denitrification ability and the carbon demand.

Consequently, a tank will be provided to allow the DO to decrease by endogenous respiration before the recycle stream is returned to the anoxic zone.

Membrane fouling is controlled by several methods of cleaning which includes the chemical clean in place (CIP) system, relaxation, and air scouring. Chemical CIP cleaning is also referred to as maintenance cleaning used to address irreversible fouling. This type of cleaning usually occurs at least 10 times a year and is completely automated; however, it can also be manually operated as needed. The membrane units are cleaned in place quickly by injecting a dilute solution of bleach into the permeate line which remains in the membranes for 1 to 3 hours and then the normal operation is resumed. During the cleaning of one basin, the other basins are left online and operated at a slightly higher flux rate as required to meet plant demand. Although this type of cleaning is efficient, the addition of chemicals will degrade any membrane material over time.

Therefore, replacement of the membranes will be required.

There are two types of membranes available for wastewater applications: hollow fiber and flat sheet. Hollow fiber membranes are constructed of a microporous structure and are densely packed into tubes to create the membrane module. These tightly packed modules allow for high membrane surface areas and high outside pressure tolerance. Typically, flow is applied to the outside of the membranes and permeate is removed via the inner tube of the module. However, some manufacturers offer the opposite (in-out) flow pattern. The typical vacuum pressure applied to the hollow fiber membranes is around 10 pounds per square inch (psi). Flat sheet membranes are constructed of paper-like backing material with a membrane cast on the surface of the paper. These plates are submerged into the membrane tank, and permeate pass through 1399
the membrane from the outside in. The membranes allow the biofilm to attach and are continuously aerated to prevent solids buildup.

Modeled secondary effluent water quality from the 2020 Study is provided in Table 8.

Table 8. Secondary effluent water quality for Alternative 4 Parameter Secondary Effluent Water Quality
BOD5 0.86 mg/L
TSS 0.00 mg/L
TN 7.74 mg-N/L
A summary of the capital, annual O&M, and 20-year life cycle costs for Alternative 4 is shown in Table 9. Annual O&M costs are based on power, chemical, and labor and maintenance. Chemical costs include NaOCl, polymer, citric acid, sodium bisulfite, and sodium hydroxide. Costs are based on the hollow fiber membrane type and include a range of costs from a non-packaged to a packaged system.

Table 9. Capital, O&M, and life cycle cost summary for Alternative 4 Cost Component Cost
Capital
MBR $52,887,000 - $68,996,868
Tertiary Filter -
Ultrafiltration -
Anaerobic Digester -
Total Capital Cost $52,887,000 - $68,996,868
Annual O&M
Power $1,638,120
Chemical $37,500
Labor and Maintenance $1,200,000
Total O&M Cost $2,875,620
20-Year Life Cycle Cost
$126,344,000 - $142,454,000

1400
3 COMPARISON OF TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
A comprehensive summary of the capital, annual O&M, and 20-year life cycle costs for the wastewater treatment alternatives developed for the City of Banning is shown in Table 10. The 20-year life cycle cost shows that Alternative 1 is the least expensive alternative. This alternative is essentially the baseline scenario to comply with Board Order and Title 22 requirements at 3.6 MGD and utilizes the existing treatment process as much as possible. However, this alternative provides the least flexibility regarding expected effluent water quality, particularly for BOD5 and TN. If future discharge permit limits become more stringent, or other constituents, such as phosphorus, become regulated, upgrades to Alternative 1 would be challenging and costly.

Table 10. Cost comparison summary for the treatment alternatives Treatment Alternative Capital Annual O&M 20-Year Life Cycle Alternative 1 Trickling Filter $11,426,500 $1,098,750 $44,768,000 Alternative 2 Activated
Sludge
$57,531,800 $2,409,246 $119,328,000
Alternative 3 MBBR $50,067,500 $2,573,058 $116,048,000
Alternative 4 MBR $52,887,000 - $68,996,868 $2,875,620 $126,344,000 - $142,454,000 The cost comparison summary identifies three groupings of the treatment alternatives.

Alternative 1 is the cheapest all-around option. Life cycle costs for Alternatives 2 and 3 are within $3,000,000 of one another and utilize the same treatment process with slightly varied components that alter the overall process operation. Between Alternatives 2 and 3, Alternative 3 provides the lower capital cost option due to the reduction in required tank size as compared to conventional activated sludge. Alternative 4 has an expensive capital cost, since the MBR system produces the highest effluent water quality. The capital cost for Alternatives 2 and 4 are relatively close to one another. However, the annual O&M costs show that Alternative 4 becomes more costly over a 20-year life cycle.

A breakdown of the required WWTP upgrades to meet Board Order requirements and Title 22 regulations for each alternative is provided in Table 11. The tertiary filter and ultrafiltration costs are the same for Alternatives 1 – 3, and not required for Alternative 4. Alternatives 2 and 4 do not require any additional anaerobic digesters, while Alternatives 1 and 3 will require a new anaerobic digester.
1401
Table 11. Unit operation cost comparison for the treatment alternatives Unit Alternative 1 Trickling
Filter
Alternative 2 Activated
Sludge Alternative 3 MBBR Alternative 4 MBR
Recirculation to
Primary Clarifier $705,500 - - -
Activated
Sludge - $48,910,800 - -
MBBR - - $39,346,500 -
MBR - - - $52,887,000 -
$68,996,868
Tertiary Filter $2,721,000 $2,721,000 $2,721,000 -
Ultrafiltration $5,900,000 $5,900,000 $5,900,000 -
Anaerobic
Digester $2,100,000 - $2,100,000 -
Total $11,426,500 $57,531,800 $50,067,500 $52,887,000 - $68,996,868
A comparison of the expected secondary effluent water quality for all alternatives is provided in Table 12. The concentrations presented do not reflect tertiary filter effluent to show the comparison between biological treatment systems. All the alternatives comply with the Board Order requirements with respect to nitrogen. Compared to Alternative 1, Alternatives 2 – 4 produce better water quality, can meet possible more stringent discharge limits, and have better flexibility to stay in compliance if treatment efficiency degrades. Alternative 4 produces the best all-around effluent water quality, and an additional tertiary filter is not required to comply with Title 22 requirements unlike Alternatives 1 – 3.

Table 12. Secondary effluent water quality comparison for the treatment alternatives Parameter
Secondary Treatment Effluent Concentration (mg/L)
Alternative 1
Trickling Filter
Alternative 2
Activated Sludge
Alternative 3
MBBR
Alternative 4
MBR
BOD5 24.74 4.78 4.34 0.86
TSS 6.31 10.96 6.64 0
TN 7.50 7.49 8.00 7.74
Non-monetary criteria for the alternatives are compared in Table 13. The criteria for each alternative were given a ranking from 1 to 5; 5 being the best (and in terms of footprint, smallest), and 1 being the worst (and in terms of footprint, largest). Alternative 1 is the least scalable, operationally reliable, and flexible to meet permit requirements when compared to Alternatives 2-4. Alternatives 2 and 3 are similar in terms of operational reliability, ease of operation, flexibility 1402
to meet permit requirements, footprint, and Title 22 reuse capability, but Alternative 3 is the more scalable of the two. Alternative 4 is the most scalable and operationally reliable of all alternatives, and because an MBR system does not require a secondary clarifier, it has the smallest overall footprint. Alternative 4 is also the only alternative that does not require additional filtration for Title 22 reuse. For overall rankings, Alternative 4 has the best score, followed by Alternative 3, Alternative 2, then Alternative 1.

Table 13. Non-monetary comparison summary for the treatment alternatives Treatment
Alternative
Scalability Operational
Reliability
Ease of
Operation
Flexibility to
Meet Permit
Requirements
Footprint Title 22
Reuse
Total Score
Alternative
1 Trickling
Filter
1 2 5 1 1 1 11
Alternative
2 Activated
Sludge
3 4 3 3 3 4 20
Alternative
3 MBBR
4 4 3 3 3 4 21
Alternative
4 MBR
5 5 2 5 5 5 27

1403
4 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The cost evaluation suggests that Alternative 1 is the cheapest option available to comply with Board Order and Title 22 requirements. However, based on the capacity of the existing infrastructure, this option has the least flexibility to maintain effluent TN treatment goals, and the existing trickling filter components are old and will require replacement within the next 10 years. Therefore, this alternative is not recommended for future implementation.

Alternatives 2 – 3 are similar in cost and operation. Among them,

1. Alternative 2 (CAS) are ubiquitous throughout the United States, are reliable to meet discharge limits, easy to operate, and have the ability to be upgraded with IFAS or MBBR in the future if required. However, these systems require a larger footprint as compared to Alternative 4 to meet effluent requirements.

2. Alternative 3 (MBBR) produces the best secondary effluent water quality out of these two alternatives and is the lowest capital and life cycle cost option. However, Alternative 3 is more complex to operate, requires an external carbon input, and the number of municipal installations in the United States is significantly less than Alternative 2.

Alternative 4 (MBR) can be the most expensive alternative, depending on whether a packaged or non-packaged system is selected, but it produces the best water quality. With advances in technology, the MBR system can also be operated fairly autonomously and does not require much operator input. Additionally, the City is familiar with the design of MBRs based on the 90% design of an MBR facility in 2007.

Alternative 4 also sets the City up for any changes to discharge or reuse requirements in the future. Unlike Alternatives 1 – 3, MBR systems have built-in filtration, and therefore they can produce recycled water without the use of tertiary filters as well as meet the Beaumont Basin Plan TDS and TN requirements without ultrafiltration.

Furthermore, since MBR is modular, it allows the system to be phased into the Plant. In the first phase of upgrades, one approach is to keep the two TFs in operation and install an additional 1.5 MGD MBR at the Plant. This option involves sending 1.5 MGD to the MBR for recycled water irrigation use. For the remaining 2.1 MGD, the Alternative 1 strategy of sending a return flow from the TF effluent to the headworks would be implemented to allow the 2.1 MGD to flow through the TFs then discharge into the percolation ponds. As recycled water demands increase and the TFs reach the end of their service lives, more MBR modules can be phased in for increased capacity until the total 3.6 MGD future average flow is treated by MBR.

Therefore, due to its high effluent water quality, operational ease, flexibility to meet more stringent permit regulations, and scalability, a Membrane Bioreactor is recommended to be considered for future implementation.
1404
______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix G
WDR Board Order R7-2016-0015
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
JOHN
SIMES
Digitally signed by JOHN
SIMES
Date: 2024.02.10
15:51:41 -08'00'
1434
1435

CITY OF BANNING

STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Douglas Schulze, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Art Vela, Public Works Director
MEETING DATE: February 27, 2024
SUBJECT: Discuss Adding a City of Banning Identifier to the San Gorgonio Avenue Overpass
RECOMMENDATION:

Discuss adding a City of Banning identifier to the San Gorgonio Avenue Overpass and provide direction to staff.

BACKGROUND:

Many City’s have begun to add architectural features including their names (“City Identifier”) on overpasses along interstates. These City Identifiers provide an opportunity for city’s to brand, create recognition and provide a positive image for existing and future residents and visitors traveling to and by their city’s, which could aid in additional economic development.

The City of Banning could add a City Identifier to the San Gorgonio overpass and enjoy those same benefits. In the limited research conducted by Public Work staff, it appears that a cost range for such an improvement could range from $500,000 to $1,500,000 depending on the design. The biggest challenge for this project would be funding. Funding sources could include grants (e.g. Clean California, etc.), finance districts (e.g. Infrastructure Finance Districts, etc.) and local funds. As of today the City does not have any funds allocated to this project.

If a majority interests exists, City Council could consider a few options:

Option #1: Do nothing.

Option #2: Direct staff to research grant opportunities and apply for grants as they become available.

Some grants may require a match, which could be funded by local funds or other sources.

Option #3: Direct staff to procure architectural services to develop several architectural renderings to choose from and to develop high level cost estimates. The results of these efforts could assist in bolstering the City’s grant applications.

The three options above are not intended to be an exhaustive list of options, but only those that would not require a large funding commitment at this time.

JUSTIFICATION:

A City Identifier on the San Gorgonio Avenue overpass could provide the City various benefits as described in this report.
1436
FISCAL IMPACT:

The cost for the preparation of a grant application(s) would range from $10,000 to $25,000 depending on the requirements of the grant guidelines and level of effort.

The cost for the preparation of architectural renderings and estimates would range from $20,000 to $30,000.

ALTERNATIVES:

1. Direct to move forward with one of the options listed in this report.

2. Provide alternative direction to staff.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Identifier Examples.pdf
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441

CITY OF BANNING

STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Douglas Schulze, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Doug Schulze, City Manager
MEETING DATE: February 27, 2024
SUBJECT: Discussion of Policy to Prohibit Use of Personal Cell Phones on Dais During Meetings
RECOMMENDATION:

A motion directing the City Manager to prepare a policy prohibiting the use of personal cell phones on the dais during public meetings.

BACKGROUND:

Council Member Flynn requested a future agenda item to discuss the use of personal cell phones on the dais. Many city councils have debated the issue of personal digital device use on the dais and some have adopted policies ranging from complete bans on use of personal devices to voluntarily turning off devices during meetings. However, it is frequently recognized that use of electronic devices is necessary because a growing number of cities no longer use printed agenda materials. In fact, many inland empire cities have transitioned to electronic agendas only.

While receiving text messages during meetings isn’t illegal, it could create legal problems if a council member receives a message pertaining to a quasi-judicial matter during a hearing if the message is not shared. Generally, city councils have recognized, at a minimum, the value of having personal digital devices for emergency communications with family members and care givers.

JUSTIFICATION:

A City Council policy and amendment to the Manual of Procedures would be appropriate, if the City Council supports a policy prohibiting the use of personal cell phones on the dais during meetings.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Staff time involved with preparation of a policy and resolution is estimated to be less than 10 hours at an average hourly rate of approximately $80 for a total cost of less than $1,000.

ALTERNATIVES:

1. Direct City Manager to prepare a policy and resolution prohibiting use of cell phones on the dais during public meetings.

2. Take no action.
1442

CITY OF BANNING

STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Douglas Schulze, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Doug Schulze, City Manager
Doug Schulze, City Manager
MEETING DATE: February 27, 2024
SUBJECT: Ring of Honor Selection Committee Appointment
RECOMMENDATION:

Discussion item only.

BACKGROUND:

The "Ring of Honor" program is to honor very special citizens who, through their efforts over a significant period of time, have enhanced the community.. The "Ring of Honor" expresses the appreciation of the community for the service and generosity of those individuals honored. Due the the special significance of the award and the established criteria, it will take a considerable number of years to complete the "Ring of Honor". The program also serves to raise individual and collective pride in the community.

A Selection Committee consisting of five (5) members is to be appointed by the City Council. The Committee shall consist of representatives from service clubs, churches, the school district and other community organizations. The Selection Committee meets on a bi-annual basis to consider nominations and forward any nomination to the City Council. This particular committee then ceases to exist after completing this task. Subsequent committees would be selected on a bi-annual basis. Meetings are to be held in April of each even numbered year. Therefore, members should be appointed no later than March of each even numbered year.

JUSTIFICATION:

Appointment of the Selection Committee is consistent with adopted policy.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Financial impact of appointment of the five member Selection Committee is minimal as it will require a few hours of staff time to prepare agenda materials and advertisement costs for interested members.

ALTERNATIVES:

1. Do not appointment Selection Committee and provide staff with alternate direction.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Ring of Honor Policy.pdf
1443
BANNING "RING OF HONOR"*
The purpose of the Banning "Ring of Honor" program is to honor very special citizens who, through their efforts over a significant period of time, have enhanced the community. This program will provide a lasting monument to those persons qualifying for such special honor.

It is proposed that the "Ring of Honor" would be located in the park west of City Hall. The circular structure in the park contains eleven pillars. Both sides of each pillar would be reserved for honored citizens with the placement of a bronze plaque containing a bas-relief picture of his/her bust, name and other information relating to his/her service to the community.

The "Ring of Honor" will express the appreciation of the community for the service and generosity of those individuals honored. Due to the special significance of the award and the established criteria, it will take a considerable number of years to complete the "Ring of Honor". This program will also serve to raise individual and collective pride in the community.
"Ring of Honor" Criteria
The criteria for being ~elected as a member of the "Ring of Honor" is as follows:

1. Honorees shall be those citizens who service to the community exceeds by a considerable degree that service provided by most citizens during their lifetime or tenure in the community.

Service to the community is defined as donation of time and effort in community projects, active participation in community organizations and service clubs, long time service as an elected city official, active participation in appointed positions in city government, active participation in charitable programs and activities, etc. Service should not normally require service in all the above, but must include a substantial part of described service. Additional service not listed here may be considered by the selecting committee if they regard such service as so outstanding that it would otherwise be included in the current list.-

2. Any citizen may submit a nomination on the form provided.

3. Awards may be made posthumously.

4. No current member of the City Council or the Selection Committee will be eligible.

Selection Committee
I. The Selection Committee shall consist of five (5) members and be appointed by the City Council. It shall consist of representatives from service clubs, churches, the school district and other community organizations.

2. The Selection Committee shall meet on a bi-annual basis to consider nominations and forward any nomination to the City Council. This particular committee would cease to exist after completing this task. Subsequent committees would be selected on a bi-annual basis.

Meetings shall be held in April of each even numbered year.

3. Any nomination to the City Council requires unanimous affirmation by the Selection Committee. The Council would then render a decision to accept or reject the nomination. All nominations shall be kept confidential.

4. Only one nomination will be permitted bi-annually, however there is none required if the committee decides not to forward a nomination to the City Council. Nominations may carry over to be considered by a subsequent committee.

5. Only one selection will be permitted bi-annually, however, none are required if the committee decides not to forward a selection to the City Council. Nominations may be carried over to be considered by a subsequent committee.
* Approved by City Council January 25, 2000
1444