The following information comprises the minutes for a special meeting of the City Council, a joint meeting of the Banning City Council and Banning Utility Authority and a joint meeting of the Banning City Council and the Banning City Council sitting in its capacity as the Successor Agency Board.
MINUTES 2/11/2025
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Council Member Cynthia Barrington Mayor Sheri Flynn
Council Member Leroy Miller
Mayor Pro Tem Richard Royce
Council Member Colleen Wallace
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: Laurie Sampson, Assistant City Manager
John Pinkney, Interim City Attorney
Vickie Sellers, City Clerk
Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk
John Garside, Multimedia Specialist
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Flynn called the special meeting to order at 4:31 p.m.
1.1 Roll Call
COUNCIL MEMBER PRESENT: ABSENT
Barrington, Cynthia
Flynn, Sheri
Miller, Leroy
Royce, Richard
Wallace, Colleen
2. PUBLIC COMMENT – Agenda Items
None
3. WORKSHOP
3.1 Discuss the New California State Water Resources Control Board Hexavalent Chromium Regulation, Impacts to the City of Banning and Path to Compliance Art Vela, Director of Public Works, presented the staff report.
Public Comment
None
Special Meeting Minutes 2/11/2025 Page 2 of 2
4. ADJOURNMENT
The Special City Council meeting was adjourned at 5:02 p.m.
Minutes Prepared by:
Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk
These minutes have been prepared as Action Minutes in accordance with City Council Resolution 1995-21 and Government Code Sections 36814, 40801, and 54953(c)(2).
This entire meeting and all associated documents may be viewed here:
https://banningca.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=1 ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Agenda Item 3.1: Staff Presentation
HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM
REGULATION, IMPACTS TO THE
CITY AND PATH TO COMPLIANCE
Department of Public Works
February 14, 2025
What is Hexavalent Chromium
(Cr-6)
• Chromium
• Metal found in natural deposits
• Soils and plants
• Chromium-3
• Most common natural form
• Essential for human health
• Present in foods
• Chromium-6
• Toxic, classified as a carcinogen
• Naturally occurring
• Anthropogenic sources
• Dyes, paint, wood
preservatives, chrome-plating
waste
Exhibit A
Chromium Regulation - State
50 ppb
1977
Total Cr
.02
ppb
1991
Public
Health
Goal
10 ppb
2014
Cr-6 2017 Invalidated
10 ppb
2024
Cr-6
Maximum Contaminant Level = MCL
Superior Court: “..did not adequately document
why the MCL was economically feasible”
Effective October 1, 2024
Chromium Regulation – Federal
(EPA)
50 ppb 1977
Total Cr
100
ppb
1991
Total Cr
Maximum Contaminant Level = MCL
Cr-6 Regulation
• Compliance Deadlines based
on Service Connections:
• Greater than 10,000
• 2 years (10/1/26)
• 1,000 to 10,000
• 3 years (10/1/27)
• Less than 1,000
• 4 years (10/1/28)
• Sample all wells by April 1,
2025
• Develop a Compliance Plan
• Notify the Public of the
exceedance of the MCL
Impacts to the City of Banning
• 9 of 21 production wells will likely
exceed MCL
• 9,900 gallons per minute
• Range = 9.6 ppb to 17 ppb
• 2 of 3 co-owned production wells
will exceed MCL
• 2,200 gpm
• Range = up to 13 ppb
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
January February March April May June July August September October November December Peak Day
22 23 24
05 10
15 20
25 30
MT 7
WELL 1
WELL 10
WELL 11
WELL 12
WELL 2
WELL 3
WELL 4
WELL 5
WELL 7
WELL 8
WELL 9
WELL C2
WELL C3
WELL C4
WELL C5
WELL C6
WELL C8
WELL M3
WELL M10
WELL M11
WELL M12A
ȋȧ
ȀȌ
Cr6 Total Cr Cr6 MCL
ǡ
ǡ
Compliance Studies
• 2016 Cr-6 Compliance Study
• Evaluation of treatment options and costs
• 2022 Cr-6 Compliance Study
• Update to 2016 Study
• Incorporating treatment technology
advancements
• Updating cost information
• 2024 Cr-6 Compliance Study
(draft)
• System wide update
• Analysis based on costs and non-costs
2024 Cr-6 Compliance Study
• Recommends Reduction, Coagulation and Filtration (RCF) • Beneficial if sewer collection system can handle backwash • Provides wide range of capital costs: $23.2M to $84.7M • Provide wide range of total annual costs: $2.4M to $7.1M Financial Impacts
• Current rate structure insufficient for level of investment needed for compliance.
• Estimated increases of 18% to 55% based on estimated annual costs • Grant application submitted with an ask of $10M for an estimated $16.8M project.
Path to Compliance
• Analysis of sewer collection system capacity
• Pilot Study
• Consideration of non-treatment alternatives
• New wells
• Non-potable blending (WWTP)
• Development of refined cost estimates
• Finance Strategy/Rate Study
• Environmental/Design/Construction
WILL TAKE
MORE THAN 2
YEARS !
Key Points
• Water quality has not changed; the regulation did
• Public Noticing and Public Concerns
• Will likely not comply by deadline
• Operate Wells in Violation vs. Significant Water User Restrictions • Revenue needs = Rate Increases
Questions
Contact Information
Art Vela, Director of Public Works
[email protected]