Paradise City Council
August 11, 2026

Town of Paradise
Town Council Meeting Agenda
6:00 PM – August 11, 2026
Doug LaMalfa Town Council Chambers – 5555 Skyway, Paradise, CA

Meeting Procedures
I. The Mayor is the Presiding Chair and is responsible for maintaining an orderly meeting. The Mayor calls the meeting to order and introduces each item on the agenda.

II. The Town staff then provides a report to Council and answers questions from the Council.

III. Citizens are encouraged to participate in the meeting process and are provided several opportunities to address Council. Any speaker addressing the Council is limited to three minutes per speaker - fifteen minutes per agenda item A. If you wish to address the Council regarding a specific agenda item, please complete a “Request to Address Council” card and give it to the Town Clerk prior to the beginning of the meeting. This process is voluntary and allows for citizens to be called to the speaker podium in alphabetical order.

Comments and questions from the public must be directed to the Presiding Chair and Town Council Members (please do not address staff.) Town staff is available to address citizen concerns Monday through Thursday at Town Hall between the hours of 8am and 5pm.

B. If you wish to address Council regarding an item not on the agenda, you may do so under Item 4, “Public Communication.” Again, please fill out a card and give it to the Town Clerk before the meeting. State Law prohibits Council action on items not listed on a public agenda.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Compliance, persons who need special accommodations to participate in the Town Council meeting may contact the Town Clerk at least three business days prior to the date of the meeting to provide time for any such accommodation.

Town Manager, Jennifer Macarthy
Town Attorney, Scott E. Huber
Town Clerk/Elections Official, Melanie Elvis
CDD, Planning & Onsite, Susan Hartman
CDD, Building & Code Enforcement, Tony Lindsey
Finance Director/Town Treasurer, Aimee Beleu
Public Works Director/Town Engineer, Marc Mattox
Division Chief, CAL FIRE/Paradise Fire, Jason Finney
Chief of Police, Eric Reinbold
Recovery & Economic Development Director, Colette Curtis Human Resources & Risk Management Director, Crystal Peters Information Systems Director, Luis Marquez
Mayor, Steve Crowder
Vice Mayor, Steve “Woody” Culleton
Council Member, Greg Bolin
Council Member, Heidi Lange
Council Member, Ronald Lassonde
1 1. OPENING
1a. Call to Order
1b. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America 1c. Invocation
1d. Roll Call
1e. Fire Prevention update by Community Development Director Tony Lindsey. 1f. Fire Chief Jason Finney to provide an overview of the July 16, 2026 Dudley Fire.
1g. p5 Camp Fire Recovery Updates - Written reports are included in the agenda packet.

Colette Curtis, Recovery and Economic Development Director - recovery projects, advocacy, economic recovery and development, communications, emergency operations and Housing updates.

Marc Mattox, Assistant Town Manager -infrastructure updates. 1h. p15 Paradise Sewer Project Update by Assistant Town Manager Marc Mattox.

2. CONSENT CALENDAR
One roll call vote is taken for all items. Consent items are considered to be routine business that does not call for discussion.
2a. p120 Approve minutes of the July 14, 2026 Special and Regular Town Council meetings and the July 29, 2026 Special Town Council meeting. (Town Clerk/ Melanie Elvis)
2b. p130 Approve July 2026 Cash Disbursements in the amount of $11,239,716.51. (Finance Director/Aimee Beleu)
2c. p139 Adopt Resolution No. 2026-_____ , “A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Paradise approving an application for funding and the execution of a grant agreement and any amendments thereto from the 2023-2024 funding year of the State CDBG Mitigation Resilience Infrastructure (MIT-RIP) program.” (Assistant Town Manager/Marc Mattox)
2d. p143 Review and file the 4th Quarter Investment Report for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2026. (Finance Director/Aimee Beleu)
2e. p177 Adopt Resolution No. 2026-___, “A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Paradise Creating a Guideline for Transactions with the Town Involving U.S. Coins and Federal Reserve Notes.” (Town Attorney/Scott E. Huber)

3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR
2 4. PUBLIC COMMUNICATION
For matters that are not on the Council business agenda, speakers are allowed three (3) minutes to address the Council. The Town Council is prohibited from taking action on matters that are not listed on the public agenda. The Council may briefly respond for clarification and may refer the matter to the Town staff.

5. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None

6. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Action items are presented by staff and the vote of each Council Member must be announced. A roll call vote is taken for each item on the action calendar. Citizens are allowed three (3) minutes to comment on agenda items.
6a. p181 1. Hear a presentation regarding the City of Chico Regional Airport; and 2. Direct staff to amend the contract with the City of Chico to extend the original agreement for $75,000 towards the Chico Regional Airport Revenue Guarantee Fund until January 1, 2028; or 3. Direct staff to take no action and allow the existing contract to expire; or 4. Provide alternate direction. (ROLL CALL VOTE) (Recovery & Economic Development Director/Colette Curtis)
6b. p193 Consider adopting the following resolutions:

1.Resolution No. ______, “A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Paradise Acknowledging the Project Completion of the Eaglepointe Rental Housing Project, a 43- unit Affordable Large Family Housing Complex located at 5975 Maxwell Dr., (APN: 053-380-045-000).”

2. Resolution No. ______, “A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Paradise Acknowledging the Project Completion of the Cypress Family Rental Housing Project, a 70- unit Affordable Large Family Housing Complex located at 1633 Cypress Ln., (APN: 050-140-179-000).”

3. Resolution No. ______, “A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Paradise Acknowledging the Project Completion of the Kathy Court (aka Mayer Commons) Rental Housing Project, a 12- unit Affordable Large Family Housing Complex located at 1565 Kay Ct., (APN: 053-170-144- 000).”

4. Resolution No. ______, “A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Paradise Acknowledging the Project Completion of the Northwind Rental Housing Project, a 21- unit Affordable Senior Housing Complex located at 6983 Pentz Rd., (APN: 050-082-023-000).” (ROLL CALL VOTE) (Housing Program Manager/Nadia Alekseev)
6c. p204 Review and file the July 2026 Monthly Financial Report, and provide feedback to staff regarding whether the report meets the Council’s expectations and informational needs, including any recommendations for additional or revised financial information to be included in future monthly reports. (ROLL CALL VOTE) (Finance Director/Aimee Beleu) 6d. p206 Consider appointing a voting delegate and two alternatives to the League of California Cities Annual Conference. (ROLL CALL VOTE) (Town 3 Clerk/Melanie Elvis)

7. COUNCIL INITIATED ITEMS AND REPORTS
7a1. Discuss options to enhance the aesthetics of Paradise's gateways. (LANGE)
7a2. p212 Discuss approving a letter of support for Goats in Paradise, Inc. (LASSONDE)
7b. Council Members’ written reports on standing, external and ad hoc committee representation.
7c. Future Agenda Items

8. STAFF COMMUNICATION
8a. Town Manager Report

9. CLOSED SESSION - None

10. ADJOURNMENT

4 Town of Paradise
Council Agenda Summary
Date: August 11, 2026
Agenda Item: 1(g)
ORIGINATED BY: Colette Curtis, Recovery and Economic
Development Director
REVIEWED BY: Jennifer Macarthy, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Monthly Recovery Update

LONG TERM
RECOVERY PLAN:

Yes
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:

1. None
Background:

This report continues the Monthly Updates provided to keep the Town Council apprised of important developments related to the recovery of the Town of Paradise from the Camp Fire.

Included in this update are items related to recovery projects, advocacy economic recovery and development, communications and emergency operations.

In this report, red text denotes information that has changed from the last monthly update.

Analysis:

ECONOMC DEVELOPMENT
Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery (CDBG DR) Workforce Development  Compliance Consultant is now on board and advising Town and Partners.  Workforce Development Coordinator began work in May 2026  Town Staff and Partners completed the first trial program with Butte College in June and are working to refine intake and grant reporting requirements for a larger program launch.
 The Town and Paradise Unified School District (PUSD) are working together on classroom upgrades and equipment needs to full program launch in Fall 2026.  Town staff have been working with partners and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to adapt the program to increase the number of participants and increase the number of training programs and services offered.

Economic Development Committee
 The Economic Development Committee has been formed at the direction of Council.  The Committee identified working with businesses as a top priority and has begun planning several “business sector summits” to hear from the businesses directly.  Further outreach by the committee will be conducted on a quarterly basis, using different meeting times and outreach methods to try to connect with as many businesses as 5 possible.

Insurance Advocacy Committee
 The Insurance Advocacy Committee has been formed at the direction of Council.  Current areas of focus:
o Video for Insurance Company Executives/Underwriters
o Support for Butte County Fire Safe Council to increase Firewise Communities

RECOVERY
Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Mitigation Planning Public Services (CDBG DR MIT PPS)
 Long Term Community Recovery Plan Update
o Council approved selection of Urban Design Associates (UDA) to conduct the update and draft the plan.
o Economic Development Policies and programs are being developed with the public finance consultant Wildan.
 In Home Siren Units
o The Standard Agreement for funding for additional in-home siren units has been received, this will extend the number of units made available to residents with another 2,800 units available.
o Residents have begun receiving units from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funded grant, which are located at Town Hall for pickup.  Public Services
o Staff is working with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on the application for groups to become subrecipients to do mitigation work in Paradise.
o Applications are expected to be released in summer 2026.

Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation Grant
 Town was awarded $739,680 through the Extreme Heat and Community Resilience Program
 Funding will be used to create a Climate Resilience Plan which will identify prospective resiliency projects such as
o Community Evacuation/Cooling/Heating Centers
o Shade Tree Planting
o Fuels Reduction Projects
o Green space projects
 Identified projects may be eligible for future implementation funds through the same grant source.
 Public input will be gathered over the summer 2026 at community events.

FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Project Updates
Category 4 Tree Removal Program
 Project implementation is complete.
 As of October 2025, approximately 9.000 trees have been removed from 350+ parcels. 7-10 different tree removal crews are working across town in an efficient and effective partnership with property owners, local agencies, tribes, and contractors. 6  Final wrap up and closeout is ongoing and a full report on the project will be provided to Council when complete.

Emergency Warning System
 All 21 Towers are standing and operational.
 All active construction is complete.
 EWS Project has begun the closeout process.
 In-Home Safe Units are now available for pickup at Town Hall for Paradise residents.

Approximately 440 units have been distributed to the public.  Full grant closeout and documentation have been provided to CalOES as of March 2026.
 Town staff is working with the contractor on additional testing and troubleshooting of SAFE Units to assure reliability.

Residential Ignition Resistant Retrofit Program
 79 Properties are complete or in process. Town staff are working with the final 21 properties to have all work completed by September 1, 2026 in order to remain in the program.
 Staff are working with California officials on a future retrofit program modeled after this program for additional homes utilizing Prop 4 funds. More information should be available toward the end of 2026.

Hazardous Fuels Reduction Program
 Project is fully funded and moving forward.
 Town staff are working with the selected contractor and implementing the project with completion at the end of September 2026.

Defensible Space Code Enforcement
 Funding for the current grant will expire at the end of September 2026. In May a notice of intent was submitted to CalOES to request an additional three years of funding for this program. The NOI was accepted and a full application was submitted in September 2025. As of March 2026, CalOES has submitted the project to FEMA for consideration.  Additional funding sources are being pursued by Town staff for 2026-27 gap funding.

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
 The Town’s EOC Policy Group met to discuss the Emergency Warning Siren activation policy. Any identified changes will be brought to Council for consideration and approval.  An Emergency Operation Center Training for Town Staff was held in July 2026.  The Town continues to work with Butte County to fully establish Smart911 as the replacement for CodeRed.
 Implementation for VEOCI, our online EOC software, is ongoing. 7 FIRE PREVENTION
 The Fire Prevention Division continues to enhance community safety through education, engineering, and enforcement.
 Staff have inspected 11,198 parcels throughout the Town, with 85% currently in compliance with the Town's defensible space and hazardous fuel management requirements.
 This compliance rate exceeds the 83% achieved during the same period last year, demonstrating continued community participation and progress in reducing wildfire risk.

Advocacy
 Federal (The Ferguson Group – Federal Lobbyist)
o Town staff have worked closely with the Ferguson Group to pursue Congressional Directed Spending opportunities through the offices of Senator Padilla and Senator Schiff. The Town has been successful in these efforts previously. o Town staff continue to work with the Feguson Group to secure congressional funding allocation for the Town’s sewer project, originally made possible through the late Congressman LaMalfa’s office. This multi-year effort has focused on obtaining authorization from the US Army Corps of Engineers for an increment of work necessary to access appropriated funds.
 State (Broad and Gusman – State Lobbyist)
o Town staff are working with Broad and Gusman to engage state legislators and leadership at the Contractor’s State License Board (CSLB) on legislative issues related to California’s owner-builder laws.
o Broad and Gusman is also assisting the Town in developing and advancing proposed reforms to owner-builder statuses for consideration during the next state legislative session.

Financial Impact:

None.
8 Town of Paradise
Council Agenda Summary
Date: August 11, 2026
Agenda Item: 1(g)
ORIGINATED BY: Sarah Richter, Housing Program Coordinator REVIEWED BY: Jennifer Macarthy, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Housing Recovery Update

LONG TERM
RECOVERY PLAN:

No
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:

1. None
Background:

This report provides the Town Council with an update of Housing Activities. In this report, red text signifies new information from the last report.

Analysis:

Paradise has restored 43.83% of its pre-disaster housing stock, with 5,738 habitable homes currently available. This total includes 1,720 surviving homes and 4,018 newly completed homes with Certificates of Occupancy (up 39 since last month), compared to 13,091 housing units before the Camp Fire. Our total number of habitable dwellings does not include the number of mobile homes replaced in mobile home parks because those permits are issued by HCD instead of the Building Dept., but mobile homes in parks are included in the total number of pre-fire housing units. An estimate from tax data shows 144 mobile homes in parks, or 5,882 housing units in Paradise.

Town of Paradise Owner-Occupied Rehabilitation/Reconstruction Program ($12.5 million) This program helps homeowners rehabilitate or reconstruct their home. The CalHome-Disaster Assistance grant was set to expire at the end of 2025, but the Housing Department was granted a one-year extension to finish homes under construction. New applications to rebuild homes lost in the Camp Fire are no longer being accepted because it’s not feasible to complete a project before the expiration of the grant. Applications for essential home repairs on existing homes will continue to be accepted, funds for this activity are limited but do not have an expiration deadline.  73 homes completed
 5 homes in construction
 0 applications in process
Town of Paradise First-Time Homebuyer Program ($11 million) Helping to make homeownership more affordable. Applicants who were Disaster Affected can qualify under higher income limits, using 120% of Area Median Income (AMI). Other funding remains available to assist non-disaster affected households earning no more than 80% AMI.  114 households assisted
 19 applications in process
9 CDBG-DR Multifamily Rental Housing Program ($84.7 million) Affordable rental housing. Seven (7) projects are eligible for funding; a total of 292 units. Council will consider the close-out of four of the multifamily housing projects during the August 11th Council meeting.
 CHIP project- scattered site (4 units)
o Completed and Leased up in Spring of 2024
 Eaglepointe- 5975 Maxwell Dr (43 units)
o Completed and Leased up in Spring of 2025
 Mayer Commons- 1561 Kay Ct (12 units)
o Completed and Leased up in June of 2026
 Northwind Senior- 6983 Pentz Rd (21 units)
o Competed and Leased up in Fall of 2025
 Cypress Family- 1633 Cypress Ln (70 units)
o Completed and Leased up in April of 2026
 Clark Rd- 6480 Clark Rd (72 units)
o Construction is underway starting with land clearing and grading.  Cypress Senior (phase II)- 1633 Cypress ln (70 units) o Groundbreaking was on April 10th and construction has begun.

CDBG (2026 Annual Allocation=$54,430)
CDBG entitlement grants are on a 5-year plan cycle called the Consolidated Plan, and this year is the 1st year in the current plan. The Annual Action Plan for the 2026/2027 program year was approved by HUD.

HOME Infill New Construction ($700,000)
Create affordable housing for first-time homebuyers. The grant award letter was finally received from HCD in April of 2025. Program guidelines are complete and were adopted by Council. Staff is continuing to work-out funding logistics with HCD. Guidelines were approved by HCD and Authority to Use Grant Funds was signed by HCD and received by Town in June. An RFQ for general contractors is in the works and a program application has been developed.

Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) ($540,905)
Allocates matching funds to North Valley Housing Trust to administer for affordable housing projects.
 A predevelopment loan of $400,000 has been made for the Cape Cod multi-family project ($200,000 of PLHA funds). Construction began earlier this year.  $75,000 of PLHA funds was loaned to build a small, single-family home, which was finished and sold to a low-income Camp Fire survivor.
 $112,000 has been committed to North Valley Housing Trust for another single-family residence development on Cottage Lane. The contractor has submitted for a building permit, currently in plan review.
 PLHA operates on a 5-year funding cycle similar to CDBG. The NOFA for the next cycle is expected in the second quarter of 2026. PLHA allocates grant funds to CDBG entitlement cities, which the Housing staff will apply for, but will not have to compete with other communities to receive.

Financial Impact:

None.
10 1

TOWN OF PARADISE
Council Agenda Summary
Date: August 11, 2026
Agenda No. 1(g)
ORIGINATED BY: Marc Mattox, Public Works Director / Town Engineer REVIEWED BY: Jennifer Macarthy, Town Manager

SUBJECT: Camp Fire Recovery Updates - Infrastructure
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:

1. None, written monthly update only.

Background:

This report continues the Monthly Disaster Recovery Updates provided to keep the Town Council apprised of important developments related to the recovery of the Town of Paradise from the Camp Fire. Changes from the prior month’s reports are shown in red underline italics.

Analysis:

Road Rehabilitation
The Town of Paradise is endeavoring to pave nearly every public road mile by the end of 2026.

These projects are funded through Camp Fire Recovery Projects and are sequenced behind undergrounding of utilities and water service later replacements.

As of July 2026, the following paving progress can be reported:

Status Miles
Completed 72.10
Awarded/In-Progress 17.62
Planned Future 6.48
Total 96.19

On February 10, 2026, Paradise Town Council awarded two contracts to Knife River Construction for various roadway rehabilitation efforts scheduled for 2026.

Knife River Construction has started significant construction activities in various neighborhoods in Paradise. Work in general has involved roadway preparation including pulverization, grading and paving. Knife River Construction is preparing to start work on arterial roadways including night work along the Skyway corridor between Manchester Way and Bille Road, Upper Skyway between Wagstaff and Clark, Upper Clark between Wagstaff and Skyway in addition to Elliott Road between Skyway and Clark Road.

Separately, the Town of Paradise Engineering Division has informally bid and awarded the Skyway Maintenance Project to Knife River Construction. This project will make interim repairs to the road condition along Skyway between Bille Road and Wagstaff Road in August 2026. This stretch of Skyway will also be addressed in undergrounding of utilities (2027) and roadway widening (2028).
11 2
The active construction map with current information can be found below and at www.paradiseworks.com
A map of all paving efforts completed and planned can be found on the Town’s website at www.townofparadise.com by visiting “News and Announcements” from the homepage. 12 3
Capital Project Updates
The Public Works Department, in an effort to provide additional communications on various projects, has launched a new website under its ParadiseWORKS banner. ParadiseWORKS Engineering Resiliency now hosts individual project pages for current information, project descriptions and schedules. The website can be viewed here:
https://www.townofparadise.com/pwe/page/paradiseworks-engineering-resiliency Below is an abbreviated Project List intended to show the current status of each project. More information on each project’s scope and schedule can be found at. Typical project progressions and timeframes are as follows:
(1) Environmental, 6-24 months
(2) Design, 12 months
(3) Right of Way, 6-12 months
(4) Construction, 6-24 months
Project ID Project Title Project Phase
Anticipated
Construction
Completion Year
7303 On-System Road Rehabilitation Construction 2026
7307 Neal Road Rehabilitation Design 2028
8407 Off-System Road Rehabilitation Construction 2026
9389 Pentz Pathway Project Phase II Design 2029
9390 Paradise ATP Gateway Project (Neal Road Class I) Environmental 2028 9394 Paradise Sewer Project Environmental -
9424 Skyway Link ATP (Bille to Wagstaff) Environmental 2028 9425 Upper Skyway Widening (Bille to Wagstaff) Environmental 2028 9426 Skyway/Pentz Intersection Improvements Right of Way 2028 9427 Pentz Road Widening Environmental 2029
9428 Roe Road Phase 1 (Edgewood to S. Libby) Environmental 2029 9434 Roe Road Phase 2 (S. Libby to Clark) Environmental 2029 9438 Private Road Identification Safety Project Design 2027 9439 Storm Drain Resiliency Project Phase 1 Environmental 2028 9440 Storm Drain Resiliency Project Phase 2 Environmental 2028 13 4
Funding Pursuits
Below is a listing of active funding pursuits related to infrastructure recovery and status updates:

Program Project Title Amount
Requested
Anticipated
Award
Notification
Notes
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Paradise
Sewer Project
$2,000,000 of
$50,000,000
authorization
TBD
Town of Paradise has
submitted its required Letter of
Intent to the USACE and
Community Directed Spending
Requests to Senators Padilla
and Schiff. This request will be
pending federal budget
appropriations for Fiscal Year
2027.

State Water
Board Septic to
Sewer CWSRF
Paradise
Sewer Project
$27,000,000-
$75,000,000 TBD
Work to revise the project
application package is
resuming with new project
direction selected.

Active
Transportation
Project Cycle 8
Oliver Curve
Pathway $13,000,000 TBD
Application has been submitted
for formal consideration.

Determinations of award are
expected late 2026.
14 1

TOWN OF PARADISE
Council Agenda Summary
Date: August 11, 2026
Agenda No. 1(h)
ORIGINATED BY: Marc Mattox, Assistant Town Manager, Public Works Director REVIEWED BY: Jennifer Macarthy, Town Manager

SUBJECT: Paradise Sewer Project Update
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:

1. None, written monthly update only.

Background:

This report is a monthly effort to provide additional opportunity for public engagement on the status and next steps of the Paradise Sewer Project.

Analysis:

Since its incorporation in 1979, the Town of Paradise has sought a centralized wastewater system to address failing septic systems that impact public health, groundwater quality, and economic development. The need for sewer service became even more urgent following the 2018 Camp Fire, when the lack of modern wastewater infrastructure emerged as a major barrier to rebuilding businesses, housing, and community resiliency.

In 2022, the Town secured $30 million in CDBG-DR funds to begin pre-construction work, including environmental review, design, and permitting. To provide technical expertise, HDR was retained as Owner’s Agent, and a progressive design-build team was selected to develop a Basis of Design Report. That effort confirmed that a locally managed, phased sewer project was necessary to achieve both affordability and long-term community needs.

In January 2025, the Town Council formed a Sewer Project Ad Hoc Committee to evaluate local treatment and collection alternatives, with strong emphasis on public engagement and cost feasibility. The Committee, working alongside staff, HDR, and the Paradise Irrigation District, conducted community meetings, stakeholder workshops, site tours of other wastewater systems, and a technical alternatives analysis.

In August 2025, the Town Council unanimously voted to concur with the Paradise Sewer Project Ad Hoc Committee’s recommendation to direct a revised project description to include hybrid gravity/low-pressure collection system, aerated lagoon wastewater treatment, and percolation/evaporation pond effluent discharge. Subsurface investigations at potential wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) sites conducted in the spring of 2026 concluded that percolation ponds were not feasible for the Sewer Project. Further desktop geotechnical studies concluded that the conditions identified at the evaluated sites were likely to be representative of other potential sites in and around Paradise.

Subsurface investigations at potential wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) sites conducted in the spring of 2026 concluded that percolation ponds were not feasible for the Sewer Project.

Additional desktop geotechnical evaluations indicated that these conditions were likely to be representative of other potential sites in and around Paradise. As a result, the Town sought to 15 2
revise the project description to replace the lagoon and pond concept with a membrane bioreactor (MBR) treatment facility and surface water discharge of treated effluent. In June 2026, the Town Council voted to concur with the Paradise Sewer Project Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation to approve that revised project description.

Below is a summary of the main accomplishments in the last month and forecast for key activities in the month ahead:

Main Accomplishments
 Received the final Technical Memorandum: Comparison Between Full Low-Pressure Sewer System and Hybrid Gravity Sewer Collection System. (attached to this Agenda Summary)
 Ongoing development of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR).  Ongoing evaluation of potential WWTF alternative sites.

Key Activities (One Month Look-Ahead)
 Ongoing evaluation of potential WWTF alternative sites.  Ongoing preliminary design of Collection System.
 Resume preliminary design of the WWTF under the revised project description.  Pumped and Gravity Service Areas Workshop.
 Continue developing the project description for the Subsequent EIR. 16 2795 MITCHELL DRIVE ▪ WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94598 ▪ P 925-932-1710 pw://Carollo/CA/Paradise/204890-100000/04 Design/02 Deliverables/01 Reports/TM02 - Hybrid vs STEP Sewer Collection System/ProjMemo_FullSTEPvsHybrid.docx FINAL / 1

FINAL PROJECT MEMORANDUM

TOWN OF PARADISE
Paradise Sewer Project
Project No.: 204890
Date: August 4, 2026
Prepared By: Jill Shankel, PE and Nico Lozano Ordonez, PE Reviewed By: Darren Baune, PE
Subject: Technical Comparison between Full Low Pressure Sewer System and Hybrid Gravity Sewer Collection

1.0 PURPOSE
HDR prepared the Alternatives Analysis Technical Memorandum, Paradise Sewer Project (HDR, January 2026) to evaluate collection, treatment, and discharge alternatives for the Town of Paradise’s (Town) Sewer Project (Project). The Alternatives Analysis technical memorandum (TM) recommended that the Town implement the hybrid gravity/ septic tank effluent pumping (STEP) collection system, aerated lagoon treatment, and an evaporation/ percolation land discharge pond.

Carollo performed geotechnical investigations of the proposed treatment plant sites in 2026 and found very low percolation rates at each proposed site. The low percolation rates make the aerated lagoon treatment with evaporative/percolation ponds treatment technology infeasible. The Town decided to revise the treatment facility to a membrane bioreactor (MBR) with surface water discharge.

The Town requested that Carollo perform an independent technical evaluation of HDR’s recommendation to implement the hybrid gravity/septic tank effluent pumping (STEP) collection system. Specifically, the Town requested that Carollo evaluate the following collection system alternatives.  Full low-pressure sewer collection system (LPSS).
 Hybrid gravity and low-pressure sewer collection system.

The purpose of this Project Memorandum (PM) is the following:
 Perform a technical evaluation of the full low-pressure sewer collection system vs hybrid gravity and low-pressure sewer collection system.
 Summarize community input and discuss ideas proposed by the community.

Digitally signed by Darren G. Baune
Contact Info: Carollo Engineers, Inc.

Date: 2026.08.04 16:42:09-07'00'
17 FINAL PROJECT MEMORANDUM
FINAL / 2

2.0 PROJECT GOALS
The Town does not have a centralized sewer collection system and relies solely on septic systems for wastewater treatment and disposal from private residences, businesses, and industry. This has negatively impacted the Town’s economic recovery from the 2018 Camp Fire and poses a threat to the groundwater and surface water quality of the region.

The Sewer Project Ad Hoc Committee has identified the following goals for the Project:

1. Affordable: Implement a project that provides a long-term, efficient, and reliable wastewater disposal solution that remains affordable for the community while supporting economic recovery by eliminating septic-related capacity limitations and reducing the burden of on-site wastewater management for businesses.

2. Scalable: The Project should accommodate regrowth of the Town and be expandable in an efficient manner to allow service to the full sewer service area (SSA) and in the future to the extended SSA area.

3. Permittable: It is important to consider the permitting of the Project since the Town is considering wastewater treatment plants that will discharge treated effluent to surface water. New wastewater treatment plants must secure permits through the State Water Resources Control Board and local Regional Water Quality Control Board.

3.0 BACKGROUND

3.1 Sewer Collection System Overview
The Town’s proposed sewer collection system will convey wastewater from homes, businesses and industry within the SSA shown in Figure 1. The sewer flow will be collected with a system of pipelines to convey wastewater to a wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) that will be owned and operated by the Town. The SSA will serve approximately 256 parcels in Phase 1 and 1,500 parcels at full build out.

In February 2026, Carollo began the preliminary design for Phase 1 of the SSA based on the recommendations in the Alternatives Analysis TM (HDR, January 2026). Phase 1 includes the downtown area of the Town and includes parcels along Skyway, Pearson Road, Almond Street, and Black Olive.

Figure 1 shows the SSA and the preliminary Phase 1 sewer collection system area. The boundaries of the Phase 1 service area will be refined and finalized as design progresses. 18 FINAL PROJECT MEMORANDUM
FINAL / 3
Figure 1 Town of Paradise Sewer Collection System

3.2 HDR Alternatives Analysis Technical Memorandum
The Alternatives Analysis TM (HDR, January 2026) evaluated collection system alternatives including, a full gravity collection system, a full LPSS utilizing STEP, and a hybrid gravity/ STEP system. The Alternatives Analysis TM recommended a hybrid gravity/ STEP system, a Town-owned WWTF using aerated lagoon treatment, and an evaporation/percolation land discharge pond. The Alternatives Analysis TM concluded that a full LPSS was infeasible due to high system pressure in the sewer collection system because of the elevation change in Town.
19 FINAL PROJECT MEMORANDUM
FINAL / 4

4.0 OVERVIEW OF LOW PRESSURE AND HYBRID GRAVITY SEWER

COLLECTION SYSTEMS

4.1 Low Pressure Sewer Collection Systems
LPSS are wastewater collection systems that pump sewage from each home, business, or industrial connection into a low-pressure conveyance system. LPSS are typically used in low lying areas of a Town to lift wastewater up to a gravity flow pipeline or wastewater treatment facility. Low-pressure systems can be effective in communities where conventional gravity sewers are challenging to install due to shallow bedrock, high groundwater, and hilly or flat terrain.

Sewage from each parcel is pumped into the conveyance system using either STEP or grinder pump systems. The STEP and grinder pump stations include a tank, pump(s), vault, electrical supply, and control panels, which alarm if a pump malfunctions.

The following summarizes the key elements of LPSS:
 LPSS typically operate between 20 and 80 pounds per square inch (psi) of system pressure. The maximum operating pressure is generally limited by 90% of the pump’s maximum allowable total dynamic head which is approximately 70 psi to 90 psi depending on the type of pump and manufacturer.
 Compared to gravity sewer systems, LPSS utilize smaller diameter pipelines because the flow is pumped and conveyed under pressure.
 If the system uses fully welded high-density polyethylene (HDPE), LPSS typically have less infiltration and inflow. LPSS systems can also be constructed with gasketed polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipelines which will have infiltration and inflow.
 Since the system is pressurized, the pipelines can be designed to accommodate changing pipeline slopes to achieve required utility clearances. They also require appurtenances such as air-release valves at high points, back flow prevention valves at each pump location, and isolation valves every 500- to 800-feet (ft) and at major connections to operate and maintain the system.  Where LPSS systems discharge to gravity pipelines, turbulent flow from the pressurized laterals can increase hydrogen sulfide (H2S) off gassing in the mains creating a corrosive environment with foul odors. Without proper corrosion protection measures, H2S gas will corrode concrete and metal components over time.
 Due to H2S off-gassing, odor control measures are recommended at the air-release valves, and corrosion-resistant materials are recommended for the pipeline and appurtenances. Due to the absence of manholes, installation of pigging ports is recommended to access the pipeline for cleaning operations.

There are two types of LPSS systems common in the industry: STEP and grinder pump systems. The following sections describe each system in more detail. 20 FINAL PROJECT MEMORANDUM
FINAL / 5

4.1.1 Septic Tank Effluent Pump (STEP) LPSS
In a STEP LPSS, wastewater flows by gravity from a home, commercial business or industrial connection into a two-compartment septic tank where the solids settle and are retained in the tank. The liquid effluent flows into the second compartment of the septic tank, which contains a pump. The liquid effluent is then pumped through a small diameter lateral where it is discharged to a collection main. Figure 2 shows the general configuration of a STEP system.

Source: Orenco Prelos System
Figure 2 STEP System Schematic
STEP systems require a septic tank, effluent pump, control panel, and connection to power, which are all typically installed near the structure on private property. Settled solids in the septic tank accumulate over time until the septic tank reaches capacity and the settled solids are required to be removed with a vacuum truck. The solids from the septic pump outs will need be hauled to a septage receiving station.

Currently, property owners typically haul septage to Lincoln, CA for disposal which is approximately 70 miles away from Paradise.

Orenco is one of the primary manufacturers of STEP system equipment and there are relatively few manufacturers that provide complete STEP system packages. However, the pump and tank equipment can be purchased separately from various manufacturers, which means sole source procurement is not required. Table 1 provides descriptions and notes for the equipment required on private property for STEP systems.
21 FINAL PROJECT MEMORANDUM
FINAL / 6
Table 1 Equipment for STEP Systems located on Private Property Equipment Notes
Septic Tank  Tanks are sized per the sewer flow of each parcel and typically provide 24 hours of flow storage.
 Recommended tank sizes:
» 1,500 gallons for 1 EDU (or three-bedroom house).
» Commercial and multifamily housing tank sizes must be specifically engineered and designed for high flow. Sizes can range from 8,000- to 16,000- gallon tanks.  Tanks can be precast concrete or fiberglass.
 Tank lids are not generally designed to withstand H-20 traffic loading.  Re-use of existing septic tanks is possible but requires an evaluation of the structural integrity of each tank to check if the tank leaks and if it can be retrofitted for a STEP pump.
 It is anticipated that most of the existing septic tanks will require replacement during construction.
 Requires pump out of solids every 3 to 5 years.

Effluent Pump  Pump Size: 0.5 to 1 hp.
 TDH: Up to 240 ft.
 Pump housed in a pump filter – filter requires periodic cleaning.

Level Controls  Pumps are activated by a float control system.  A high-water level float triggers alarms.

Control Panel  Outdoor control panel on structure includes a pump run light, off switch, and alarms.

Lateral Discharge Piping  Discharge piping can be pressure-rated PVC or HDPE.  Check valve and isolation valve are included for every assembly.

Power Requirements  Single family houses (1 EDU) will require 120V power, with a dedicated 20 amp service.
 Commercial and multifamily properties will require 240V power and 20 amp service.  Two separate circuits are recommended – one for pump control and one for alarms.  Home, commercial, or multi-family properties will need to provide power supply.

Notes:

EDU – equivalent dwelling unit; hp – horsepower; TDH – total dynamic head; V - volts. 22 FINAL PROJECT MEMORANDUM
FINAL / 7
Table 2 summarizes the advantages and limitations of STEP systems.

Table 2 Advantages and Limitations of STEP Systems
Advantages Limitations
Ease of Construction: STEP pipelines are generally smaller diameter and installed at shallower depths than
conventional gravity pipes.

Power Requirements: STEP systems require power at each
service connection. This could be a limitation in areas that experience safety power shutoffs.

Primary Treatment: STEP tanks provide primary treatment at the septic tank when solids settle out of the liquid.

Long Term O&M: STEP tanks require periodic septic pump
outs, tank inspections, filter cleaning, and valve exercising.

At the end of its useful life, equipment would need to be replaced. The useful life of the equipment will vary widely between users but is estimated to be between 15 to
25 years for the pumps.

Storage: STEP tanks are sized with approximately 24 hours of emergency storage.

Town Equipment Access: Each STEP system will require
access to the equipment by the Town. This requires an
easement or MOU for every parcel with a STEP system.

Equipment Failure: STEP systems have more points of
failure than a conventional gravity system because they have more mechanical equipment. For example, rags can
clog pumps, floats can get stuck, or filters can get clogged.

Increased Owner Coordination during Construction: STEP
systems will require coordinating with each owner to decide the location of each STEP tank, control panel, and will involve connecting the STEP power to the owner’s
electrical system.

STEP Tank Size: A residential, 1,000 gallon tank is
approximately 10-ft long by 5-ft wide by 4.5-ft deep.

Installation will be more difficult on properties with limited space.

Interconnected Hydraulic System: In a full STEP system, each STEP tank pumps into a common pressurized sewer
network. Since the system pressure varies with elevation, the pressure will be the lowest at higher elevations and highest at lower elevations. Due to the Town’s topography, pressures at lower elevations exceed the capacity of typical STEP pumps preventing sewage from parcels at the bottom of the system from entering the pressurized sewer network.

The pressures also exceed the pressure ratings for
common pipes, valves, and appurtenances used in
wastewater systems.

Notes:

O&M – operations and maintenance; MOU - Memorandum of Understanding. 23 FINAL PROJECT MEMORANDUM
FINAL / 8

4.1.2 Grinder Pumps LPSS
The grinder pump LPSS consists of a semi-positive displacement grinder pump located inside a basin. The grinder pump station receives wastewater flow via gravity from the structure, macerates the wastewater and solids, and pumps it through a small diameter lateral where it is discharged to a collection main.

Figure 3 shows a general configuration of a grinder pump system.

Source: E-One Grinder Pump Systems
Figure 3 Grinder Pump Schematic
Grinder pumps do not require a septic tank. Wastewater flows into a basin located on the property that is generally smaller than septic tanks. Grinder pumps require a pump, control panel, and connection to power, which are all typically installed near the structure on private property similar to STEP systems.

E-One is one of the primary manufacturers of grinder pump LPSS systems. However, there are several manufactures that can provide a complete grinder pump package. Table 3 provides descriptions and notes for the equipment required on private property for grinder pump systems. 24 FINAL PROJECT MEMORANDUM
FINAL / 9
Table 3 Equipment for Grinder Pump Systems located on Private Property Equipment Notes
Pump Basin  The pump basins are sized for the sewer flow of each parcel and whether a simplex (one pump), duplex (two pumps), or quad (four pumps) system is used. Some residential parcels use duplex pump systems to provide an extra pump for redundancy.
 Recommended basin sizes for 1 EDU (or three-bedroom house):
» Simplex: Provides 100 gallons of storage capacity and is rated for a flow of 700 gpd.
» Duplex: Provides 150 gallons of storage capacity and is rated for a flow of 1,500 gpd.
 Commercial and multifamily basin sizes must be specifically engineered and designed for high flow. Basin capacity volumes can range from 250-to 500-gallons with flows rated up to 10,500 gpd.
 Tank lids are not generally designed to withstand H-20 Traffic Loading.  Re-use of existing septic tanks is not possible as the grinder pump basin layout is significantly different than a septic tank layout.

Semi-Positive Displacement
Grinder Pump
 Pump Size: 1 to 2 hp.
 TDH: Up to 185 ft.

Level Controls  Pumps activated by an integrated pressure switch which detects changes in an air column as the water level in the tank fluctuates.

Control Panel  Outdoor control panel on structure includes a pump run light, off switch, and alarms.

Lateral Discharge Piping  Discharge piping can be pressure-rated PVC or HDPE.  Check valve and isolation valve are included for every assembly.

Power Requirements  Single family houses (1 EDU) will require 240 V, with a dedicated 30-amp service.

Occasionally, a 120 V connection with a dedicated 40-amp service may be allowed with pumps rated up to 1 hp.
 Commercial and multifamily properties will require 240V power and 30-amp service.  Two separate circuits are recommended – one for pump control and one for alarms.

Notes:
gpd – gallons per day.
25 FINAL PROJECT MEMORANDUM
FINAL / 10
Advantages and limitations of grinder pumps are shown in Table 4.

Table 4 Advantages and Limitations of Grinder Pumps
Advantages Limitations
Ease of Construction: Conveyance pipelines are generally smaller diameter and installed at shallower depths than conventional gravity pipes.

Power Requirements: Grinder pumps require small
amounts of power to run. This could be a limitation in areas that experience safety power shutoffs.

Solids are Pumped: Grinder pumps do not require septic
pump outs since all solids are pumped.

Long Term O&M: Grinder pumps require periodic
inspections. At the end of its useful life, equipment would need to be replaced. The useful life of the equipment will vary widely between users but is estimated to be between 15 to 20 years for the pumps.

Town Equipment Access: Each grinder pump will require
access to the equipment by the Town. This means that an easement or MOU will be required for every parcel having a grinder pump.

Scouring Velocities: Grinder pumps will transport more
solids than STEP systems. This means that meeting
minimum scouring velocities in the pipeline is critical. The system will be designed to meet minimum scour velocities, however, during periods of low flow, minor settlement of solids may occur. As a result, more frequent pigging,
flushing or cleaning of the pipelines is recommended.

Increased Owner Coordination during Construction: Grinder pumps will require coordinating with each property owner to decide the location of each grinder pump vault, control panel, and will involve connecting the grinder pump power to the property owner’s electrical system.

Storage: Grinder basins provide 2.5 to 24 hours of storage.

Town staff will need to respond within that window to pump down the tank during an extended power outage.

4.2 Hybrid Gravity/LPSS Collection System
Hybrid gravity/LPSS collection systems use gravity sewers as the primary collection system and LPSS in low lying areas of Town. Figure 4 shows a potential hybrid gravity/LPSS collection system with a combination of gravity flow pipelines and a LPSS in low-lying areas of Town. 26 FINAL PROJECT MEMORANDUM
FINAL / 11
Figure 4 Potential Gravity Hybrid Sewer Layout
The detailed design of the gravity hybrid collection system will depend on the topography, existing utility locations and depths, ground conditions, and other factors. It is anticipated that both gravity and LPSS pipelines will need to be installed below the parallel water mains throughout Town to maintain the minimum vertical clearance required at each water service crossing.

Conversations with Paradise Irrigation District (PID) and record drawings suggest that the existing water lines have a minimum of 3.5 ft of cover. For the 6-inch to 12-inch water lines in the Phase 1 area, this will result in sewer lines with at least 5.5 ft of cover depending on the location. The gravity and LPSS sewer pipelines will be designed to be installed as shallow as possible, while meeting minimum burial depth and minimum utility clearance requirements as shown in Table 5. 27 FINAL PROJECT MEMORANDUM
FINAL / 12
Table 5 Gravity & LPSS Pipeline Design Requirements
Requirement Gravity Sewer LPSS Sewer
Minimum Pipe Cover(1) 3-ft minimum. 3-ft minimum
Minimum Horizontal Clearance to Dry
Utilities Joint Trench(2)(3)
3-ft minimum
5-ft recommended from high pressure
gas lines
3-ft minimum
5-ft recommended from high pressure
gas lines
Minimum Vertical Clearance to Dry
Utilities(2)
12-inches minimum 12-inches minimum
Minimum Horizontal Clearance to
Potable Water(4)
10-ft minimum 10-ft minimum
Minimum Horizontal Clearance to
Recycled Water(5)
6-ft minimum, 10-ft preferred 6-ft minimum, 10-ft preferred Minimum Vertical Clearance to Potable
Water(6)
12-inches minimum below water line 12-inches minimum below water line Notes:
(1) Minimum pipe cover is based on manufacturer recommendations based on pipe material and industry standards. (2) Dry utilities include electrical, gas, and fiber optic lines. Joint trenches have been installed throughout Town as part of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) undergrounding project in conjunction with AT&T and Comcast. Minimum horizontal clearance of 36 inches matches PG&E and American Water Works Association (AWWA) standards. Vertical clearance requirement per PG&E Greenbook and matches industry standard. (3) PG&E mapping in Town indicates multiple high-pressure gas lines. Work within 5-ft of a high-pressure gas line requires a pre-construction meeting with PG&E and a PG&E inspector to be on site during any excavation. (4) California Code of Regulations 64572 Title 22 (CCR T22) Chapter 16 requires sewers and force mains installed parallel to a water main to have a minimum of 10 ft of clearance between pipes. When local conditions or existing utilities do not allow for 10 ft of clearance, a sewer pipeline may be installed 4 to 10 ft clear from an existing water pipeline with special design and design review and approval by the Division of Drinking Water (DDW). (5) DDW letter to the Town titled, Division of Drinking Water’s Updated Response Comments, Pipeline Separation Requirements, Town of Paradise, dated May 14, 2026.
(6) CCR T22 Chapter 16. Minimum vertical clearance also applies to sewer main and sewer lateral crossings of water main lines and water services.

The hybrid gravity/LPSS option will require ongoing maintenance of equipment located on private property (STEP or grinder pump systems). Periodic gravity system maintenance includes flushing and closed-circuit television (CCTV) inspection of the mains. As referenced in Section 4.1, the turbulent flow from the LPSS pressurized laterals will increase H2S off-gassing in the gravity mains. Therefore, anti-corrosion measures are recommended at manholes located within 1,000-ft of locations where LPSS discharge to gravity sewers. Anti-corrosion measures could include the installation of polymer concrete manholes or lining of the interior of manholes. Odor control is recommended at the discharge points.

Table 6 lists the advantages and limitations of a hybrid gravity/LPSS sewer collection system. 28 FINAL PROJECT MEMORANDUM
FINAL / 13
Table 6 Advantages and Limitations of Hybrid Sewer Systems Advantages Limitations
Reduced Number of Equipment on Private Property:

Reducing the number of STEP or grinder pumps throughout Town results in less long-term O&M by the Town, fewer
easements required by the Town to access the equipment, and as a result, less impacts to property owners.

Minimum Scour Velocities: The hybrid system may require an accelerated cleaning schedule on the gravity portion for the first several years of operation if minimum scour
velocities are not met.

Flexibility: A hybrid system gives the Town the flexibility to install gravity or pressure sewers based on existing site conditions such as available space on private property and topography.

Increased Pipe Cost: Gravity sewer pipelines are larger in diameter than the pressurized mains which increases the excavation and pipeline raw material cost. In the Phase 1 area, gravity sewer pipelines are expected to be
approximately 8-inches in diameter, while low pressure
mains would be 4-inches in diameter for an LPSS area.

Easy Access for O&M: Manholes every 350-ft allow the
Town to periodically check the conditions of the gravity sewer and low-pressure system tie-in points.

Construction Complexity: Gravity sewers are generally
installed deeper than LPSS which increases construction complexity. It should be noted gravity sewers will be
installed as shallow as possible while meeting minimum
burial and utility clearance requirements shown in Table 5.

Ease of System Expansion: The Phase 1 system can be
expanded to include future phases.

5.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF FULL LPSS VERSUS HYBRID

GRAVITY/ LPSS
This section compares implementing a full LPSS throughout Town (STEP or grinder pump system) to a hybrid gravity / LPSS system. Since the Town is working to locate a site for the WWTF, this PM assumes the potential locations listed below, which are the most feasible sites at this time. Figure 5 shows the assumed locations of the WWTF.
 North of the intersection of Skyway and Media Way south of Town.  North of the intersection of Clark Road and Old Clark Road. 29 FINAL PROJECT MEMORANDUM
FINAL / 14
Figure 5 Town of Paradise Potential WWTF Locations

5.1 Technical Evaluation of Full LPSS Collection System The full LPSS would require installation of STEP or grinder pump stations on each parcel within the Phase 1 service area (as shown in Figure 6) that would pump into a low-pressure collection system. The low-pressure system would convey wastewater to the WWTF.

LPSS are typically used to pump uphill from low-lying areas of Town to a WWTF or gravity pipeline where the system breaks head. However, the Town’s potential WWTF locations are all located at significant elevation differences downhill from the users/connections which creates a unique and complex hydraulic system. Since the system is fully hydraulically interconnected, the lower portions of the system will see very high system pressures.

Skyway WWTF Clark WWTF
30 FINAL PROJECT MEMORANDUM
FINAL / 15
Figure 6 Phase 1 of Collection System (Full Low Pressure Sewer Service) 31 FINAL PROJECT MEMORANDUM
FINAL / 16
As part of this technical evaluation, Carollo met with both Orenco and E-One to better understand the capabilities and limitations of their collection systems and to discuss their experience implementing full LPSS in communities with similar conditions. This subsection expands on the estimated system pressures, as well as additional LPSS considerations such as pipeline bury depth, shared trenching, and long-term O&M considerations

5.1.1 System Pressure Considerations
Figure 7 shows a schematic drawing of the profile of the elevation change from the highest point in the collection system to the wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) located on Skyway. In a pressurized pipeline system, the internal pressure is primarily a function of the hydrostatic pressure and the dynamic friction losses in the pipeline. At any point in the system, hydrostatic pressure is created by the weight of the water column above that point, which increases by approximately 1 psi for every 2.31 feet of downward elevation change. Accordingly, all pipelines, pumps, valves, and other appurtenances must be rated to withstand the pressure conditions where they are installed in the system. Because hydrostatic pressure increases with decreasing elevation, the lowest point in the system (the WWTF) will experience the highest system pressure.

Any pump discharging into the pressurized wastewater collection system must generate sufficient pumping head to overcome dynamic friction loss in the pipeline between the pump and the discharge point, the elevation difference between the pump and the discharge point, and the system pressure.

Table 7 summarizes the estimated system pressures at the two proposed WWTF sites based on the elevation difference between each site and the system high point.

Figure 7 Town of Paradise LPSS Profile Schematic
32 FINAL PROJECT MEMORANDUM
FINAL / 17
Table 7 Town of Paradise Estimated Static Pressure in LPSS Sewer Phase Elevation at High
Point of System(1)
Elevation at
Skyway WWTF(2)
Static Pressure at
Skyway WWTF(4)
Elevation at Clark
WWTF(3)
Static Pressure at
Clark WWTF(4)
Phase 1 1,755-ft 1,120-ft 276-psi 1,555-ft 87-psi
SSA Build-Out 2,325-ft 1,120-ft 523-psi 1,555-ft 334-psi Notes:
(1) Phase 1 high point elevation is at Almond Street and Elliot Road. SSA build-out high point elevation is at Skyway and Clark Road.
(2) Skyway WWTF has been assumed to be located just north of Skyway and Media Way intersection. WWTF elevation was determined using a topographic survey performed in April 2026 as part of the design phase for the Town of Paradise Sewer Project.
(3) Clark WWTF has been assumed to be located just north of Clark Road and Old Clark Road intersection. WWTF elevation was determined using Google Earth.
(4) Static pressure was calculated by subtracting the low point elevation in the system from the high point elevation and dividing by 2.31 to convert from feet of water to psi.

The high system pressure developed in a single pressurized system due to the elevation difference in Paradise is a technical fatal flaw for the following reasons:
 Common operating pressure for LPSS is approximately 20 to 80 psi.  The system develops extremely high pressure in lower parts of the hydraulic system. » Phase 1 has a 635-ft elevation change from the high point in the system to the WWTF (assumed to be Skyway South for this analysis) that results in 276 psi at the WWTF. » At buildout, there is a 1205 ft elevation change from the high point in the system to the WWTF (assumed to be Skyway South for this analysis) that results in 523 psi at the WWTF.  276 to 523 psi is beyond the pressure rating of common pipes, pumps, valves and other wastewater system components.
 LPSS pumps are not rated for high pressures. The pump head must exceed the system pressure otherwise pumps will not pump into the system. STEP pumps are rated for 240-ft of TDH (105-psi) and grinder pumps are rated for 185-ft of TDH (80-psi). At lower elevations in the sewer system, where the system pressure is higher, the pumps would not be able to operate, especially when the SSA is fully built out.
 The typical pressure pipeline materials used in LPSS are HDPE and PVC. The highest pressure-rated HDPE pipe is HDPE DR 7 which is rated for 335 psi. The highest pressure rated PVC pipeline is AWWA C-900 DR-14 pipe, which is rated for 305-psi.

Carollo investigated installing wastewater pressure reducing valves (PRVs) to reduce pressure and create different pressure zones within the LPSS, similar to a potable water system. However, Carollo found that PRVs are generally unsuitable for wastewater collection systems because solids and other debris can clog pressure-reducing valve control ports, creating significant O&M challenges for the Town. Also, the LPSS manufacturers (E-One and Orenco) were not able to provide a case study where LPSS systems have been installed in a similar system that required significant pressure reduction. 33 FINAL PROJECT MEMORANDUM
FINAL / 18

5.1.2 Requirements for Clearance between Potable and Wastewater Pipelines for LPSS Pipelines
The California State Water Resources Control Board DDW requires 10-ft of horizontal clearance between sewer and potable water lines. If the sewer pipeline is located within 10-ft, a 1-ft vertical separation must be met between the parallel sewer and water pipelines. The sewer pipeline must be located below the potable water and the minimum 1-ft of vertical clearance between the two pipes must be maintained. Any proposed deviations to these requirements must be submitted to DDW for review and include additional measures to protect the potable water such as concrete encasement, a casing pipeline, or fused/restrained pipe joints.

The Town is in a unique position where all the Town’s utilities, including potable water, dry utilities (electrical and telecommunications), gas, and storm, have already been installed underground. Areas outside of the road, but within the Town’s right-of-way have electrical and communications vaults installed as part of PG&E’s underground efforts. Additionally, based on PG&E design drawings and discussion with PID, in some areas utilities were abandoned in place and left underground. The number of existing utilities in the right-of-way creates challenges where maintaining 10-ft of horizontal clearance from the potable water main while meeting the minimum required clearances from dry utilities (as shown in Table 5) will not always be possible. In these cases, the sewer pipeline would need to stay 1-ft below the parallel water main. Additionally, each sewer lateral that crosses a water pipeline must cross below the water pipeline with a minimum 1-ft of vertical clearance.

5.1.3 LPSS Joint Pipeline Trench Considerations
DDW has jurisdiction over water and recycled water line separation in public right of way, while the plumbing code governs private property. The separation criteria pursuant to the California Waterworks Standards, CCR T22, Chapter 16, Section 64572 requires domestic water pipeline installation shall not be installed in the same trench and shall be at least 10 ft horizontally from a parallel pipeline conveying non potable water.

DDW sent a letter to the Town titled, Division of Drinking Water’s Updated Response Comments, Pipeline Separation Requirements, Town of Paradise, dated May 14, 2026 (Attachment D) that clarified separation requirements between recycled water and sewer pipelines based on CCR T22. The letter states, “For instances of separation of recycled water lines and sewer lines, DDW applies pipeline separation requirements similar to those for potable water lines and pipelines conveying sewage. For horizontal separation between recycled water lines and sewer lines, a minimum separation of 6-ft should be maintained, though a 10-ft separation is preferred. Since the separation required is a minimum of 6-to 10-ft, installing recycled water and LPSS pipelines in the same trench would not reduce construction cost.

The ability to treat effluent to recycled water quality is part of a separate evaluation underway as part of the WWTF design.

5.1.4 LPSS Operations and Maintenance Considerations
There are currently no regulations in California dictating whether agencies or property owners must own the sewer pumping equipment on private property such as STEP or grinder pumps. However, due to the risk of sewer overflows from poorly maintained systems, it is recommended that the Town own and 34 FINAL PROJECT MEMORANDUM
FINAL / 19
maintain all pumping equipment on private property. For the full system SSA build-out, this means that the Town would be responsible for operating and maintaining up to 1,500 separate pumping systems throughout Town at buildout.

A summary of the O&M requirements is shown in Table 8.

Table 8 Full LPSS O&M Requirements
System O&M Component O&M Frequency
STEP System Septic tank inspections Annual
Septic tank cleanouts(1) Every 3-5 years
Effluent Filter Cleaning Every 3-5 years
Pump alarm system testing (floats, alarms, and controls) Annual Inspect lateral appurtenances (shutoff valve and check valve) Annual Grinder Pump Systems Grinder tank inspections Annual
Pump alarm system testing (floats, alarms, and controls) Annual Inspect lateral appurtenances (shutoff valve and check valve) Annual LPSS Collection System
Equipment(2)
Valve exercising Annual
Air-release valve inspection Annual
Odor Control Inspection/ Replacement Every six months
Mainline Pigging As needed
Notes:
(1) Septic tank cleanouts will require hauling the solids to a solids receiving station outside of Town. (2) Due to the corrosiveness of the effluent, isolation and air-release valves will be more prone to failure. An accelerated exercise, inspection, and replacement program may be necessary based on Agency feedback received (as discussed in Section 6).

In addition to the O&M requirements listed above, the Town would be responsible for responding to all property owner alarm calls as well as replacing the equipment above at the end of its useful lifecycle.

5.2 Technical Evaluation of Hybrid Gravity/ LPSS
Hybrid gravity/ LPSS collection systems use gravity sewers as the primary collection system and LPSS in low lying areas of Town that pump to the gravity sewers as shown in Figure 4. After setting the elevation of the gravity sewer as shallow as possible based on existing utilities, each area throughout Town would be evaluated to determine whether the area can flow via gravity, or whether it is advantageous to build a LPSS that discharges to the gravity sewer. The gravity mains and LPSS mains would be designed to meet the minimum vertical clearance requirements from adjacent and crossing utilities and would be installed with similar depths of cover.

5.2.1 System Pressure Considerations
The hybrid gravity/ LPSS system will not face system pressure challenges since the pipelines would be designed to flow open channel (not pressurized) to the WWTF. Pressurized sewer pipelines would only be used to pump uphill and high system pressures would not be a concern. Based on these reasons, this alternative is technically feasible.
35 FINAL PROJECT MEMORANDUM
FINAL / 20

5.2.2 Operations and Maintenance Considerations
As discussed in Section 5.1.4, it is recommended that the Town own and maintain all sewer pumping equipment on private property (STEP and grinder pump systems). With the hybrid gravity/ LPSS option, the Town would still be responsible for maintaining these systems. However, the number of parcels with this equipment would be lower under the hybrid option, allowing the Town to focus on other areas of the collection system. Where a lift station is required in the hybrid system to convey sewage to the WWTF or to the gravity main, additional maintenance will be required.

A summary of the O&M requirements is shown in Table 9.

Table 9 Hybrid Gravity/ LPSS O&M Requirements
System O&M Component O&M Frequency
STEP Systems(1) Septic tank inspections Annual
Septic tank cleanouts(1) Every 3-5 years
Effluent Filter Cleaning Every 3-5 years
Pump alarm system testing (floats, alarms, and
controls)
Annual
Inspect lateral appurtenances (shutoff valve and
check valve)
Annual
Grinder Pump Systems(1) Grinder tank inspections Annual Pump alarm system testing (floats, alarms, and
controls)
Annual
Inspect lateral appurtenances (shutoff valve and
check valve)
Annual
LPSS Collection System
Equipment
Valve exercising Annual
Air-release valve inspection Annual
Odor Control Inspection/ Replacement Every six months
Mainline Pigging As needed
Gravity Collection System
Equipment
Gravity Sewer CCTV(2) Every 3 to 5 years
Gravity Sewer Flushing(2) Every year until flow increases and 3 to 5 years after flow increases
Odor Control Inspection/ Replacement Every six months
Gravity Lift Stations Wet well inspections Annual
Pump alarm system testing (floats, alarms, and
controls)
Annual
Inspect lateral appurtenances (shutoff valve and
check valve)
Annual
Notes:
(1) The number of STEP and grinder pump systems in Town will be lower as a result of some parcels flowing to the gravity sewer main via gravity.
(2) CCTV and flushing requirements vary based on user and wastewater characteristics. At start-up, the Town will likely follow an accelerated CCTV and flushing program due to low flow and to determine any hot spot areas (areas that may require additional cleaning due to sediment buildup, fats, oils, and grease). The accelerated program will likely result in flushing and CCTV annually. Once flow has been established and the hot spot areas have been determined, CCTV and flushing occur every 3 to 5 years.
36 FINAL PROJECT MEMORANDUM
FINAL / 21

6.0 AGENCY INTERVIEWS
The project team consulted multiple professional engineers (10+) within Carollo across the United States to discuss their experience with planning, design, and construction of LPSS and hybrid collection systems.

In addition to discussing the project with internal experts, Carollo interviewed 9 agencies that operate LPSS. Interview information is provided in Attachment E. The agencies own a range of low-pressure systems installed in the 1970’s to systems installed in 2025 and included both STEP and grinder LPSS.

Table 10 summarizes the agencies interviewed during this project.

Table 10 Agency Interview Summary
Agency System Type System Age Current Connections
City of Camas, WA Hybrid Gravity/ STEP System STEP systems installed in early 1980’s
7,000 STEP
Marshall Beach, CA Full STEP System 2008 50 STEP
Nevada County, CA Hybrid Gravity/Grinder/ STEP
System
STEP installed in 1980’s;
Grinder installed in 2007
380 STEP; 100 grinder
pumps
Placer County, CA Hybrid Gravity/STEP System Late 1980’s 700 STEP Port Hadlock, WA Full Grinder System Online since
September 2025
60 grinder pumps
Snyderville Basin Water
Reclamation District, UT
Hybrid Gravity/Grinder System Early 2000’s Several hundred grinder pumps
Lacey, WA Hybrid Gravity/ Grinder/ STEP
System
STEP systems installed in
1992
4,200 STEP, 300 grinder
pumps, and the rest is gravity
Yelm, WA Full STEP System Early 2000’s 4,500 STEP; 2 City owned grinder pumps
Grizzly Ranch Community
Services District, CA
Currently converting from full
grinder to full STEP system
Started converting to STEP
in May 2019
62 STEP; Build-out is 299.

7.0 COMMUNITY INPUT AND RESPONSES

7.1 Community Input Letters
The Town requested that Carollo develop technical responses to two letters received from community members. Our responses are based on the current status of the preliminary design, available project information, applicable engineering standards, and professional engineering judgment. The community input letters and Carollo’s technical responses are included for reference in Attachments B and C.

7.2 Community Input regarding Serving the Downtown Only The Town has received input from community members suggesting that the wastewater project should include a smaller, downtown-focused, full STEP collection system. 37 FINAL PROJECT MEMORANDUM
FINAL / 22

7.2.1 Discussion
It is possible to implement a smaller, downtown-focused, full STEP collection system. This concept would require installing a treatment plant at a similar elevation as the collection system to mitigate the high system pressures discussed earlier in this PM.

However, this concept is not consistent with the Town’s objective to develop a wastewater collection system and treatment facility that can be expanded over time efficiently. Expanding a STEP system focused in the downtown would require constructing hydraulically independent STEP systems in other parts of Town with multiple treatment facilities due to the elevation difference in Town as discussed in this PM. Implementing multiple treatment facilities would require additional discharge locations, which will each have permitting requirements and would likely face challenges with community acceptance. This also reduces the economy of scale that supports project development, increases long-term O&M concerns, increases costs, and limits future expansion.

This concept also presents several challenges with siting the WWTF. For example, at this time the Town has not identified a feasible treatment plant site located near downtown, there are limited surface water discharge locations in this area, and it’s likely not desirable to locate the treatment plant near downtown.

7.3 Wastewater Treatment Implications for STEP vs Raw Wastewater The community input letters have noted that STEP systems reduce the cost of wastewater treatment considering most of the solids stay in the STEP tank.

7.3.1 Discussion
As discussed above, the full STEP collection system is not technically feasible for Paradise due to the significant elevation difference in the Town and cannot be implemented. However, we have provided a “theoretical” discussion below of the similarities and differences between a STEP fed WWTF and a raw wastewater fed WWTF.

The strength of the incoming wastewater is significantly lower in a STEP fed WWTF due to the removal of most of the solids in the septic tanks. With lower influent concentrations the following differences are likely:
 A STEP fed WWTF would likely have lower aeration demand, likely leading to smaller blowers being required and lower energy demand for the aeration system. However, the decrease would not be linear and may not be significant because the reduced strength of the influent wastewater would not contain enough carbon to support the nitrification and denitrification of the wastewater necessary to meet the expected effluent limit of 10 milligrams of nitrogen per liter (mg/L-N). Without adequate carbon supplied by the raw wastewater, supplemental carbon must be added, and the carbon creates an aeration demand that the aeration system must be able to accommodate.  A STEP fed WWTF would require a chemical handling system for delivery, storage, and handling of the carbon that would not be required for a raw wastewater fed WWTF. This additional system is an additional operations and maintenance expense that a raw wastewater fed WWTF does not have.  A STEP fed WWTF would likely have less solids production due to the lower influent concentration.

However, similar to the aeration demand, the additional carbon will lead to the production of additional biomass that will have to be handled.
38 FINAL PROJECT MEMORANDUM
FINAL / 23
Regardless of the type of incoming wastewater, all MBR plants require fine screens and grit removal upstream of the membranes. The membrane manufacturers will not guarantee the integrity of the membranes without these pre-treatment steps. Fine screens and grit removal systems are not sized based on the influent loading, but rather the influent flow. Most of these systems are modular in design and accommodate a range of flows. It is possible that at the low flow rates that are expected that the design of these systems would be similar.

Similarly, package plant MBRs come in pre-manufactured sizes that can typically accommodate a range of flows. It is likely that a similar sized MBR would be needed for both STEP fed and raw wastewater fed WWTFs.

Whether the MBR is STEP fed or raw wastewater fed, the grade of operator required to run the system is the same. The MBR plants under 1.0 million gallons per day (mgd) are classified as a Class III facility.

Regardless of the collection system type, the WWTF will fall in this classification for Phase 1 and require the same certifications.

7.4 Communications with STEP Effluent-Pump Manufacturer The community has requested a record of Carollo’s communication with Orenco, the STEP effluent-pump manufacturer.

7.4.1 Discussion
Carollo reached out to Orenco’s engineering representative on May 1, 2026, via email to share information about the Project. Carollo requested a technical proposal from Orenco for a full STEP system throughout Town in that email.

Orenco sent a technical proposal for a full STEP system in Paradise for Carollo’s review on May 21, 2026.

Carollo, HDR, and Town staff reviewed Orenco’s technical proposal and provided written comments and asked questions for clarification on May 27, 2026. Orenco did not respond to Carollo’s comments in writing. Carollo’s comments identified the technical fatal flaw of high system pressure in a full STEP system in the written comments.

Orenco responded on June 11, 2026, via email and acknowledged that design of a collection system with high system pressures and significant elevation drop is not an area that Orenco has extensive experience in, and the collection system design would need to rely heavily on Carollo’s expertise.

On June 23, 2026, Carollo held a meeting with Orenco to discuss Carollo’s comments on Orenco’s proposal. We discussed the high system pressure and terrain challenges in Paradise. Orenco acknowledged verbally that the high system pressure is a technical fatal flaw if the Town were to construct a full STEP system in Town.

On July 17, 2026, Orenco sent an email following up on the June 23rd meeting and asked if Carollo would like Orenco to evaluate areas in the Town where STEP systems could connect to the gravity sewer system.

Carollo responded on July 17, 2026, that we would appreciate their input on designing a low pressure sewer collection system in Phase 1. Carollo provided the Phase 1 startup flows and buildout flows. 39 FINAL PROJECT MEMORANDUM
FINAL / 24
It should be noted that Carollo also communicated with E-One during the preliminary design process. EOne designs and provides low pressure systems with grinder pump stations. E-One’s lead engineer stated that installing a full low-pressure system in the Town is technically not feasible due to the high system pressure.

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Carollo does not recommend moving forward with a full low pressure (STEP or grinder pump station system) throughout Town due to the high system pressure. Given that this limitation is inherent to the hydraulic characteristics of the system, and due to the pressure limitations of the piping, pumps, and valves, further evaluation of this alternative, including a detailed life-cycle cost analysis, is not recommended for a full LPSS alternative.

It is technically feasible to construct a low-pressure system for a portion of the downtown only assuming the WWTF would be constructed at a similar elevation and near downtown. However, Carollo does not recommend moving forward with this alternative because the Town’s stated goals are to implement a project that is affordable, scalable, and permittable. Implementing a low-pressure collection system and WWTF in the downtown is very challenging for the following reasons:
 The service area cannot be expanded beyond a narrow elevation range within Phase 1 without encountering similar pressure issues.
 Expanding the service area in the future will require multiple WWTFs to avoid high system pressures.

Each WWTF will require its own NPDES permit and a receiving water body for discharge. This approach will make future system expansion challenging due to permitting requirements. In addition, operating and maintaining multiple WWTFs will substantially increase the O&M costs.  Committing to an LPSS locks in all future system expansions to be pressurized connections and reduces flexibility for future expansion. Each future connection will be an additional asset owned and maintained by the Town.
 Each developed and undeveloped lot in future phases will require a new pump and tank/basin to connect to the central sewer system regardless of whether the sewage can flow via gravity.

Carollo recommends moving the hybrid gravity/LPSS system forward into final design. The hybrid gravity/ LPSS system would meet the Town’s stated project goals of building a collection system that is affordable, scalable, and permittable and does not have any technical fatal flaws. 40 FINAL PROJECT MEMORANDUM
FINAL
ATTACHMENT A 2026 HDR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS TM
The 2026 HDR Alternatives Analysis TM is available on the Town’s website through the following link: :
https://paradisesewer.com/download_file/view/dda3266a-2ef6-4dd8-ba6c-b506222c96e9/297 41 FINAL PROJECT MEMORANDUM
FINAL

ATTACHMENT B COMMUNITY INPUT LETTERS
42 Information for the Paradise Town Council
On the wastewater collection and treatment decision — for the Tuesday Council meeting To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Paradise Town Council From: Clifford L. Jacobson, Sr.; Melissa Schuster (Butte County Mosquito & Vector Control District Board); and Al McGreehan (former Community Development Director, Town of Paradise)
Date: June 2026
Encouraging common ground
We want to begin on a positive note. In our recent meeting, Town staff indicated the project is now moving toward membrane bioreactor (MBR) treatment producing Title 22 recycled-quality water. The reasons staff cited point clearly in one direction: there is not enough land to dispose of the effluent in percolation ponds; open ponds raise mosquito and vector concerns; and gaining the Water Board's permission to return the treated water to the environment — by land application or surface discharge — requires reaching Title 22 recycled-water quality, a level a percolation pond cannot achieve, because a pond is a means of disposal, not a process of treatment. In short, the Town has independently concluded it must treat to Title 22. That is real progress — and it is the foundation of the case below: once the water is being treated to Title 22 regardless, the real question becomes whether to put it to beneficial use rather than simply send it away. Our purpose here is to help the Council make sure the version it ultimately approves is the best-value, most resilient one, and to offer published, verifiable answers to the technical points that came up.

Three technical points, with sources

1. STEP works in Paradise's terrain. It was suggested that low-pressure STEP pumps cannot pump against the pressure created upstream in Paradise's topography. Respectfully, that is not how these systems work. STEP is a type of pressure sewer, and pressure sewers are the recommended solution precisely for hilly, rocky terrain — they follow the land's natural contours and avoid deep gravity trenching. Each home or business has a pump sized to overcome the system's pressure and elevation (its “total dynamic head”); these systems routinely serve networks of hundreds or thousands of connections across rolling ground. A pump that cannot meet the head simply means the pump was not sized for it — not that STEP cannot work here. (U.S. EPA, Pressure Sewers Technology Fact Sheet.)

2. A gravity system will not self-clean at 85 occupied parcels — which is why it needs STEP flow. Gravity sewers must maintain a minimum “self-cleaning” velocity, commonly 2 feet per second, to keep solids moving; design standards specifically warn that pipes shall not be oversized and require checking the velocity at low flow. With roughly 85 of 225 parcels occupied, a gravity main would run far below that velocity for years — causing solids to settle, along with hydrogensulfide odor, corrosion, and a need for routine flushing. This is the very reason the proposed hybrid relies on STEP effluent to provide the flow that carries the gravity system's solids. If STEP flow is what makes the system work, the fair question is why build and maintain the costlier gravity legs at all. (Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities “Ten States Standards”; state minimum-velocity design criteria.)

3. The cost of an MBR depends heavily on what is piped to it. This is the biggest single driver of treatment cost — and it is decided by the collection system. A gravity sewer delivers raw, whole sewage (grit, grease, rags, full solids) to the plant, so to protect the membranes a raw-sewage MBR must be preceded by a headworks and sludge train that a STEP-fed plant largely does not need:
• Coarse screening, then fine screening to 2 mm or smaller, often in multiple stages — membranes foul quickly on hair and fibers;
• Grit removal, washing, and disposal, to stop abrasion of pumps and membranes; • Fats-oils-grease (FOG) removal, to keep grease from blinding the screens and fouling the membranes; • Larger biological tanks and more aeration for the full raw organic load — aeration is the dominant energy cost; • Substantially more sludge handling — thickening, dewatering, and hauling — plus screenings and grit disposal; • Odor control at the headworks, and influent pumping and equalization sized for the infiltration and inflow a gravity system admits.
43 Each of these is both a capital item and an ongoing operating and replacement cost — energy, chemicals, screenings, grit and sludge hauling, more frequent membrane cleaning and earlier membrane replacement, and a higher-grade operator to run more processes. A STEP system removes most of this at the source: each parcel's interceptor tank settles the solids and grit, traps the grease, screens the effluent, and partly digests it, so the plant receives pre-treated, lower-strength, infiltration-free liquid. The MBR can then be smaller, foul more slowly, produce far less sludge, and cost markedly less to run. We ask that the Town's MBR cost be developed on STEP-effluent loading and compared, on a full lifecycle basis, against both a raw-sewage MBR and the evaporation/percolation-pond approach.

Putting the recycled water to use — and the trench question Because the plan is now to produce Title 22 recycled-quality water in order to surface-discharge it, that same water could instead be put to beneficial use through a recycled-water (“purple-pipe”) system — for landscape and revegetation irrigation, construction water, and dedicated wildfire-suppression storage — turning a discharge into a community asset.

On the question of whether purple pipe may share a trench: the governing separation rule (California Code of Regulations, Title 22, §64572) is written to protect the potable water main, and does not on its face prohibit a recycled-water line from sharing a trench with a sewer or STEP main. Where site conditions prevent standard separations, the State Water Board's Division of Drinking Water provides a formal Main Separation Alternative approval process. We respectfully request the specific written basis for any determination that co-trenching is not allowed, and that the Town pursue the alternativeapproval pathway rather than treat it as a flat prohibition.

A smaller, expandable system is easier to site — not harder When we suggested starting with a smaller, expandable system, the response was “where would you put it” and “no one wants a sewer in the town proper.” Both concerns actually favor this approach. What residents do not want is a conventional plant with open aerated lagoons and evaporation ponds — the odor, the footprint, the trucks. A membrane bioreactor treating pre-settled STEP effluent is the opposite: it needs no large secondary clarifier and far less land, it arrives as an enclosed, prefabricated package that can be housed in a building or placed below grade, and it produces little odor or noise. Systems like these are routinely sited discreetly within communities — at resorts, campuses, and small towns — because they go largely unnoticed. A small initial MBR near the first STEP cluster, sized to expand as the corridor rebuilds, lets the Town prove the approach at low cost and grow it only as far as demand warrants. That is easier to site, and easier to fund, than a single large plant-and-pond complex that has already failed to find an acceptable location twice.

On funding and the long-term bill
We understand the Town's capital funding picture has strengthened, and that is welcome news. Recent public reporting indicates roughly $115 million in Community Development Block Grant–Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funds, with an additional amount still being sought from the State Water Board. Two points for the Council. First, that additional State funding is not yet secured, and State programs increasingly score water-reuse projects more favorably — a reuse design strengthens that application rather than weakening it. Second, and more important: grants pay to build the system; they do not pay to operate it for the next forty years. The Town's own 2023 rate analysis concluded the project must be essentially entirely grant-funded because ratepayers cannot bear much of the cost. That makes the operating cost — and any offsetting recycled-water revenue — the figure that protects Paradise residents over time. The system that is cheaper to run, and that can sell recycled water, is the one that keeps rates affordable long after the grant dollars are spent.

On maintenance over time
Staff also raised long-term maintenance — STEP versus gravity, ten years out. The honest answer is that neither is maintenance-free; the real question is which costs less over its life, which is exactly what a side-by-side should settle. Two facts deserve the Council's attention. First, the hybrid design already includes lift stations — the same kind of mechanical equipment attributed to STEP, only concentrated into a few large stations whose failure can back up an entire basin, rather than small distributed pumps where a failure affects a single connection. Gravity systems also carry costs their “no moving parts” reputation hides: infiltration and inflow through joints and manholes (which overwhelm treatment, and to which sealed STEP mains are immune), grease and root blockages, hydrogen-sulfide corrosion, and the low-flow solids deposition noted earlier — all of it expensive to reach in Paradise's lava-cap ground. Second, where a community has actually tracked both over time, the numbers favor STEP: a hybrid system in Lacey, Washington recorded nearly twenty years of O&M and found its effluent-sewer (STEP) operating costs virtually the same as gravity's, with lower capital and replacement costs 44 making its lifecycle cost clearly lower. Coburg, Oregon's municipally-owned STEP system has run more than a decade at roughly $90 per connection per month. We ask only that maintenance be compared on a documented lifecycle basis, not asserted as a one-line concern.

A policy note
A concern was also raised that recycling water could reduce Paradise Irrigation District water sales. PID is a public agency owned by this community. Whatever the merits, the prospect of a public utility selling marginally less water should not, by itself, decide a $100-million-plus infrastructure choice or forgo the drought, recovery, and fire-resilience benefits of reuse.

We note it only so the Council is aware the consideration has been raised.

What we respectfully ask the Council to direct
• Have staff develop and cost the full STEP / MBR-on-effluent / Title 22 reuse alternative to the same level of detail as the adopted design, so the Council can compare them side by side. • Develop the MBR cost on STEP-effluent loading — not whole, raw-sewage loading — and compare it, on a full lifecycle basis, against both a raw-sewage MBR and the evaporation/percolation-pond approach. • Obtain the written regulatory basis for the purple-pipe trench position, and pursue the Division of Drinking Water alternative-approval process if separation is the only obstacle. • Ask to see the funding broken out — secured versus pending, and capital versus the full 40-year operating, maintenance, and replacement cost — so the decision reflects the long-term cost to ratepayers, not only construction. • Hold finalizing the Subsequent EIR project description until the Council has both options in front of it.

Sources: U.S. EPA, Pressure Sewers Technology Fact Sheet; Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities (“Ten States Standards”) and state gravity-sewer minimum-velocity criteria; California Code of Regulations, Title 22, §64572 and the State Water Board Division of Drinking Water Main Separation Alternative process; MBR pretreatment design guidance (fine screening, grit and FOG removal).

Respectfully submitted,
Clifford L. Jacobson, Sr. • Melissa Schuster • Al McGreehan 45 Technical Memorandum
Suitability of STEP / Low-Pressure Effluent Collection in Steep Terrain Response to the concern that low-pressure effluent pumps cannot operate against elevation-induced head To: Marc Mattox, P.E., Director of Public Works / Town Engineer, Town of Paradise From: Clifford L. Jacobson, Sr. — Paradise resident; 47 years in specialty water and wastewater chemistry Date: June 2026
Re: Whether Paradise's topography precludes a STEP collection system Marc, in our recent discussion you indicated that a STEP (septic tank effluent pumping) system would not be workable in Paradise's topography because low-pressure effluent pumps cannot pump against the pressure created by connections at higher elevations upstream. I want to respectfully lay out why that conclusion is not supported by pressure-sewer design practice, by the published design standards, or by the hydraulics of the pumps themselves — and to suggest the basis on which STEP should be evaluated before it is set aside.

1. How elevation head is actually handled
A STEP system is a form of pressure sewer. Each connection's pump discharges through a small-diameter lateral into a common pressurized main, and each pump is selected for the total dynamic head (TDH) it must develop at its location — the static lift from its elevation to the system's high point, plus the main's operating pressure and friction. The pumps that do this are small: STEP service uses fractional-horsepower effluent pumps that run only intermittently, in brief dosing cycles, so both their electrical draw and their energy use are low. Multiple pumps discharging into a shared pressurized main is normal operation, not a conflict: a check valve at each unit prevents backflow, and the network is designed around its operating pressure. A pump that cannot meet the head at a given location indicates a pump that was not specified for that location — a sizing decision, not an inherent limitation of STEP. These small effluent pumps have steep pump curves that develop ample head for the modest lifts a system like Paradise's requires; the same product lines offer higher-head models for genuinely steep applications, but those are a reserve for possible future zones, not anything the Phase 1 corridor needs. Where an unusually large elevation does arise, the standard approach is simply to divide the area into lower-pressure sub-systems feeding intermediate booster points, so no single pump lifts the full elevation.

2. Large elevation changes are a design input, not a disqualifier Elevation change is a standard design parameter for pressure sewers, managed with well-established tools: dividing the network into pressure zones and, where warranted, using intermediate booster points or separate discharge points so no single pump must lift the entire elevation; air- and vacuum-release valves at high points to prevent air binding and damp surges (wastewater-rated valves are made for exactly this service); and pressure-control valves to protect low-elevation pipe from the static pressure that accumulates at the bottom of a steep run — pressure rises roughly 0.43 psi per foot of fall. These are routine appurtenances, not exotic measures.

3. Applied to Paradise: an all-STEP Phase 1, zoned as it expands It is worth testing Paradise's own topography against these principles — and the Phase 1 service area makes the point most directly. Phase 1 is the downtown business corridor bounded by Skyway, Pearson Road, Black Olive Drive, and Elliott Road. Published figures place it between roughly 1,700 feet at its lower, southern end (near Pearson Road) and about 1,930 feet at its upper, northern end (near Elliott Road) — a drop of only about 230 feet over roughly a mile.

These spot elevations should be confirmed from the Town's GIS or a USGS topographic map before being used as design values, but they are consistent with the published town-center reference elevation of about 1,778 feet.

That settles the head question for the project actually under design. Across the corridor's roughly 230 feet of total fall, any individual connection develops only a modest head — well within the small, low-draw effluent pumps that are standard to STEP. Phase 1 can therefore be served entirely by STEP as a single pressure regime, with no elevation zoning and no oversized, high-amperage pumps required at all. As the system is later expanded beyond the corridor — up or down the ridge, where the relief grows — it is simply zoned to suit: additional pressure zones with intermediate booster points are added for each new service area as it comes online. The design starts as simply as the Phase 1 corridor allows and adds zoning only where, and only when, future expansion actually calls for it — which is exactly how pressure-sewer networks are meant to grow, and it matches the Town's own phased approach to building the system.

4. Pressure sewers are the technology recommended for this terrain Far from being unsuited to hilly ground, pressure sewers are specifically recommended for it. U.S. EPA guidance notes that gravity collection's slope requirements “may require deep excavations in hilly or flat terrain, as well as the 46 addition of sewage pump stations,” driving up cost — the very problem pressure sewers solve by following the land's natural contours in shallow, small-diameter trenches. Industry design references describe pressure sewers as “especially cost-effective in challenging topographical areas where the soil is wet, rocky, or hilly,” and capable of serving anything from a single building to a network of thousands of sources. The same shallow, contour-following installation is what makes pressure collection well suited to near-surface rock like Paradise's lava cap, where a deep gravity system would instead require rock excavation. None of this rests on analogy to any particular community — it follows directly from the pump curves and the published design guidance.

It has also been suggested that, because a STEP main must still be buried — and must pass beneath existing water lines — it requires the same trenching as gravity. It does not, and the reason is that the two are governed by different things. A gravity sewer's depth is set by slope: it must descend continuously at a minimum grade, so it grows progressively deeper along its run and may require significant excavation depths, or even tunneling, to hold an acceptable gradient toward the outfall, with deep manholes throughout. A STEP main needs no slope and no minimum flow; it follows the ground contour at a shallow, roughly constant depth — published references put effluent-sewer mains at only a metre or two of cover — dipping locally only where it must pass under a crossing utility, then returning to shallow depth. The separation requirement at issue (a sewer passing below a potable water main, with vertical clearance, to protect the drinking-water supply) is real, but it applies equally to a gravity sewer, and it is met by a local crossing detail, not by burying the whole line deep. The net excavation is therefore far smaller for STEP: a small-diameter pressure pipe in a shallow, constant-depth trench, versus a large-diameter gravity pipe in a deep, ever-deepening trench with manholes — a difference that is especially large, and especially costly, in Paradise's near-surface lava cap, where depth means rock.

And only the potable water main dictates that the sewer sit beneath it. Dry utilities do not: under California's General Order 128, electric lines require only about 12 inches of clearance from other pipe systems when paralleling and 6 inches when crossing, with communications and fiber treated the same way — a small clearance at the crossing, with lines offset rather than stacked. The STEP main may pass either above or below an electric or fiber conduit, whichever the crossing geometry favors, so long as that clearance is held and the crossing is supported; and since electric is itself typically buried only about thirty to forty-two inches, the pressure main shares that same shallow band. So the premise that “we have to trench deep anyway, so we might as well build gravity” does not hold. STEP does not trench deep: the water crossings are local duck-unders, the electric and fiber crossings are inches of clearance at the point of crossing, and between those points the main runs shallow along the contour. The deep, continuously deepening trench — and its cost in the lava cap — belongs to the gravity option alone; it is not a shared burden that cancels STEP's advantage. If anything, the burden runs the other way: a gravity main is driven deep by its slope, while electric sits only about thirty to forty-two inches down and cable shallower still, so a gravity line will almost certainly run beneath those utilities along its route — and, locked to a continuous grade, it cannot rise to weave over an obstruction the way a shallow pressure main can; it must hold its slope and pass under, deepening further into the rock to do so. It is the gravity sewer, not STEP, that must go under everything.

5. Clean effluent makes the head-management hardware more reliable, not less Since the reliability of pumps and valves in a pressure network is a fair concern, it is worth noting that STEP conveys screened, settled septic-tank effluent — not raw sewage. Each interceptor tank removes grit, grease, and settleable solids and screens the effluent before it is pumped. That clean effluent makes the pumps, check valves, air-release valves, and any pressure-control valves markedly more reliable and lower-maintenance than the same hardware on a raw-sewage or grinder main. The very components that manage elevation head are therefore more dependable in a STEP system, not less.

6. Request
None of this asserts that STEP is automatically the right choice — that is what a side-by-side evaluation should determine. But the categorical conclusion that STEP “won't work” in Paradise's hilly terrain is not consistent with the design literature, the published standards, or the pump hydraulics. I respectfully ask that STEP be evaluated on a properly sized hydraulic design to Paradise's actual elevation profile — pumps selected for the real total dynamic head, the network zoned to the terrain — rather than set aside on the premise that elevation head is disqualifying. I am glad to provide the pump-head data, the design references, and a STEP hydraulic design basis at your convenience.

Sources: U.S. EPA, Pressure Sewers Technology Fact Sheet; WaterWorld and Pumps & Systems pressure-sewer design references; Orenco effluent pump product literature and published pump curves for STEP service; air-release and hydraulic-control-valve technical literature; effluent-sewer and gravity-sewer burial-depth references; CPUC General Order 128 and utility joint-trench separation standards for electric and communications crossings; Town of Paradise and published topographic references for Paradise elevation data.
47 Respectfully,
Clifford L. Jacobson, Sr.

Paradise resident; 47 years in specialty water and wastewater chemistry cc: Jennifer Macarthy, Town Manager, Town of Paradise
48 FINAL PROJECT MEMORANDUM
FINAL

ATTACHMENT C CAROLLO RESPONSE TO COMMUNITY

INPUT LETTERS
49 2795 Mitchell Drive
Walnut Creek, California 94598
P 925-932-1710
carollo.com
204890 / Cover Letter to Town
June 26, 2026
Marc Mattox, Public Works Director
Town of Paradise
5555 Skyway Road
Paradise, CA 95969
Subject: Technical Responses to Community Input Letters Dear Marc Mattox:

The Town of Paradise (Town) requested that Carollo Engineers, Inc. (Carollo) review and provide responses to two community input letters regarding the Paradise Sewer Project (Project). The enclosed responses provide Carollo’s technical evaluation of the comments and concerns presented in the following letters addressed to the Town:
▪ Information for the Paradise Town Council – on the wastewater collection and treatment decision – for the Tuesday Council Meeting, Dated June 2026
▪ Technical Memorandum – Suitability of STEP/ Low-Pressure Effluent Collection in Steep Terrain – response to the concern that low-pressure effluent pumps cannot operate against elevation-induced head, Dated June 2026
Carollo reviewed the information presented in each letter and prepared responses based on the status of design, available project information, applicable engineering standards, and professional engineering judgment. The attached responses address each comment individually and summarize the technical basis for the response.

Carollo does not recommend moving forward with a full STEP system throughout Town due to the fatal flaw of high system pressure. It is technically feasible to construct a STEP system for a portion of the downtown only with a WWTF constructed within the same service area boundaries. However, Carollo does not recommend moving forward with this alternative because the Town’s stated goals are to implement a project that is affordable, scalable, and permittable. Implementing a STEP collection system and WWTF in the downtown only is not scalable in the future and is challenging to permit.

We appreciate the opportunity to support the Town with this effort. Please let us know if you have any questions regarding the attached responses or if additional technical information would be helpful.

Sincerely,
CAROLLO ENGINEERS, INC.

Darren Baune, P.E. Stephen Caswell, P.E.

Senior Vice President Project Manager
Collection System Project Manager Wastewater Treatment Facility Project Manager Enclosures:
50 Marc Mattox
Town of Paradise
June 26, 2026

▪ Attachment 1 – Technical Responses to Information for the Paradise Town Council – on the wastewater collection and treatment decision – for the Tuesday Council Meeting, Dated June 2026; ▪ Attachment 2 – Technical Responses to Technical Memorandum – Suitability of STEP/ Low-Pressure Effluent Collection in Steep Terrain – response to the concern that low-pressure effluent pumps cannot operate against elevation-induced head, Dated June 2026
cc: Colin Nelson, Allison McReynolds, Brandon Hale
51 2795 MITCHELL DRIVE ▪ WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94598 ▪ P 925-932-1710 FINAL / 1

TOWN OF PARADISE
Sewer Project
Subject: Attachment 1 – Technical Responses to Information for the Paradise Town Council – on the wastewater collection and treatment decision – for the Tuesday Council Meeting, Dated June 2026

ITEM 1: STEP works in Paradise’s Terrain It was suggested that low-pressure STEP pumps cannot pump against the pressure created upstream in Paradise's topography. Respectfully, that is not how these systems work. STEP is a type of pressure sewer, and pressure sewers are the recommended solution precisely for hilly, rocky terrain — they follow the land's natural contours and avoid deep gravity trenching. Each home or business has a pump sized to overcome the system's pressure and elevation (its “total dynamic head”); these systems routinely serve networks of hundreds or thousands of connections across rolling ground. A pump that cannot meet the head simply means the pump was not sized for it — not that STEP cannot work here. (U.S. EPA, Pressure Sewers Technology Fact Sheet.)
Carollo Response:

We agree that pressure sewers are used to pump sewage uphill in hilly/rocky terrain as described above.

Carollo interviewed several agencies with STEP systems that utilize STEP systems in this way.

However, there is a unique technical issue with implementing a full low-pressure sewer system in the Town of Paradise. STEP pumps and pressurized sewers are typically used to pump uphill. The Town of Paradise’s potential WWTF locations are all located downhill from the users/connections, which creates a unique and complex hydraulic system to control and manage pressure.

The difference in elevation between the high point in the system and the low point at the WWTF creates high system pressure in the lower portions of the system that are well beyond the maximum pressure rating of typical pipelines and equipment used in wastewater collection systems. For example, in the conceptual Phase 1 sewer service area, there is 635-feet of elevation change from high point in system (near Almond and Elliot) to WWTF (assumed Skyway South for this analysis). This elevation change creates a pressure of 275 psi at the assumed WWTF. At full collection system buildout, there is 1205-feet of elevation change from high point in system (along Skyway between Clark Road and Pentz Road) to WWTF (assumed Skyway South for this analysis). This elevation difference creates approximately 522 psi of static pressure at the WWTF. For reference, most STEP systems operate between 20-80 psi.

Carollo is not aware of any similar wastewater collection systems with similar high pressures (275 psi or up to 522 psi). Carollo also requested case studies of similar collection systems from the manufacturers of the low pressure systems and they were not able to provide case studies of similar systems.

ITEM 2: A gravity system will not self-clean at 85 occupied parcels — which is why it needs STEP flow. Gravity sewers must maintain a minimum “self-cleaning” velocity, commonly 2 feet per second, to keep solids moving; design standards specifically warn that pipes shall not be oversized and require checking the velocity at low flow. With roughly 85 of 225 parcels occupied, a gravity main would run far below that 52 FINAL / 2
velocity for years — causing solids to settle, along with hydrogen-sulfide odor, corrosion, and a need for routine flushing. This is the very reason the proposed hybrid relies on STEP effluent to provide the flow that carries the gravity system's solids. If STEP flow is what makes the system work, the fair question is why build and maintain the costlier gravity legs at all. (Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities “Ten States Standards”; state minimum-velocity design criteria.)
Carollo Response:

We agree the pipeline velocities will likely be low at start up due to the limited currently occupied parcels and the pipeline will require an accelerated cleaning schedule. The Town is planning to encourage as many connections to the system as possible.

The statement of “This is the very reason the proposed hybrid relies on STEP effluent to provide the flow that carries the gravity system's solids” is not accurate. The hybrid gravity/low-pressure system is not reliant on STEP effluent. A STEP system is one method for conveying wastewater from a low-elevation area that can also be achieved with grinder pumps or lift stations. STEP systems have O&M challenges as well and require annual tank and equipment inspections, float replacement, valve exercising, maintenance and replacement of pumps, and eventually replacement of STEP tanks.

ITEM 3: The cost of an MBR depends heavily on what is piped to it. This is the biggest single driver of treatment cost — and it is decided by the collection system. A gravity sewer delivers raw, whole sewage (grit, grease, rags, full solids) to the plant, so to protect the membranes a raw-sewage MBR must be preceded by a headworks and sludge train that a STEP-fed plant largely does not need:
• Coarse screening, then fine screening to 2 mm or smaller, often in multiple stages — membranes foul quickly on hair and fibers;
• Grit removal, washing, and disposal, to stop abrasion of pumps and membranes; • Fats-oils-grease (FOG) removal, to keep grease from blinding the screens and fouling the membranes; • Larger biological tanks and more aeration for the full raw organic load — aeration is the dominant energy cost;
• Substantially more sludge handling — thickening, dewatering, and hauling — plus screenings and grit disposal;
• Odor control at the headworks, and influent pumping and equalization sized for the infiltration and inflow a gravity system admits.

Each of these is both a capital item and an ongoing operating and replacement cost — energy, chemicals, screenings, grit and sludge hauling, more frequent membrane cleaning and earlier membrane replacement, and a higher-grade operator to run more processes. A STEP system removes most of this at the source: each parcel's interceptor tank settles the solids and grit, traps the grease, screens the effluent, and partly digests it, so the plant receives pre-treated, lower-strength, infiltration-free liquid. The MBR can then be smaller, foul more slowly, produce far less sludge, and cost markedly less to run. We ask that the Town's MBR cost be developed on STEP-effluent loading and compared, on a full lifecycle basis, against both a raw-sewage MBR and the evaporation/percolation-pond approach.
53 FINAL / 3
Carollo Response:

We would like to reiterate that a full STEP system is not feasible considering the technical fatal flaw of high system pressure as described in our response to Item 1. The response below is only “hypothetical” since a gravity hybrid system is required in the collection system. • Design considerations for an MBR fed by a full STEP system versus a gravity or hybrid sewer system would include the following:
o The STEP system would have lower organic loading leading to lower aeration demand, and therefore lower electrical power demand
o The STEP system would need additional carbon chemical dosing to achieve denitrification, which is an additional O&M cost that would likely not be needed with a gravity system. o If a septage receiving station is included in the WWTF, the design for a STEP effluent system must accommodate much higher loading variation due to the slug loads of solids from STEP tanks.
o Organic loading and hydraulic capacity must be balanced in sizing the units. While STEPeffluent has lower organic loading, the hydraulic capacity of both types would be the same, which would require the same size units.
o Screening, grit removal, and FOG management are recommended for an MBR facility treating STEP effluent only or municipal wastewater to protect the integrity of the membranes. Membrane manufacturers require these systems upstream of the MBR to provide guarantees for membrane integrity. Since these facilities are often driven by hydraulic capacity and not organic loading capacity, sizing between the two types would be similar.
o Odor control measures for the facility will be considered in the design of the WWTF.

ITEM 4: Putting the recycled water to use — and the trench question. Because the plan is now to produce Title 22 recycled-quality water in order to surface-discharge it, that same water could instead be put to beneficial use through a recycled-water (“purple-pipe”) system — for landscape and revegetation irrigation, construction water, and dedicated wildfire-suppression storage — turning a discharge into a community asset. On the question of whether purple pipe may share a trench: the governing separation rule (California Code of Regulations, Title 22, §64572) is written to protect the potable water main, and does not on its face prohibit a recycled-water line from sharing a trench with a sewer or STEP main. Where site conditions prevent standard separations, the State Water Board's Division of Drinking Water provides a formal Main Separation Alternative approval process. We respectfully request the specific written basis for any determination that co-trenching is not allowed, and that the Town pursue the alternative-approval pathway rather than treat it as a flat prohibition.

Carollo Response:

Per letter written to the Town of Paradise by the California Department of Drinking Water on May 14, 2026, the minimum horizontal separation between recycled water pipelines and sewer pipelines is 6 feet (although 10 feet is preferred) and a minimum of 1-foot of vertical separation. Therefore, assuming that there will be cost savings of sharing a trench with recycled water pipelines is invalid. 54 FINAL / 4
ITEM 5a: On maintenance over time. Staff also raised long-term maintenance — STEP versus gravity, ten years out. The honest answer is that neither is maintenance-free; the real question is which costs less over its life, which is exactly what a side-by-side should settle. Two facts deserve the Council's attention. First, the hybrid design already includes lift stations — the same kind of mechanical equipment attributed to STEP, only concentrated into a few large stations whose failure can back up an entire basin, rather than small distributed pumps where a failure affects a single connection. Gravity systems also carry costs their “no moving parts” reputation hides: infiltration and inflow through joints and manholes (which overwhelm treatment, and to which sealed STEP mains are immune), grease and root blockages, hydrogen-sulfide corrosion, and the low-flow solids deposition noted earlier — all of it expensive to reach in Paradise's lavacap ground.

Carollo Response:

As described above, the technical fatal flaw of high system pressure makes a full STEP system in Paradise not feasible.

Based on our interviews with nine agencies that operate low pressure collections systems, low pressure systems have operations and maintenance challenges. The following highlights a few of the challenges that multiple agencies shared during our agency outreach. • The STEP tank and grinder pump stations require maintenance by the operating utility. The typical operations and maintenance activities include facility inspections, pumping out solids from STEP tanks, site visits to inspect facilities after alarms, and repair of pumps, floats and other mechanical devices.
• The corrosion of appurtenances (e.g., valves, ARVs) is a major challenge for operations and maintenance of low pressure systems. One agency removed all valving because of frequent corrosion and valve failure. This was a common complaint among most agencies. • Fats, Oils and Grease (FOG) control was also mentioned by several agencies to be an operations and maintenance challenge. FOG can create a mat in the STEP tank that reduces biological process until maintenance staff removes the layer. With the smaller effluent pipe sizes (1 1/4" to 4"), if grease builds up in the STEP tank and enters the effluent main, the risk of blocking the line is much higher than with a larger gravity pipeline.

ITEM 5b: On maintenance over time. Second, where a community has actually tracked both over time, the numbers favor STEP: a hybrid system in Lacey, Washington recorded nearly twenty years of O&M and found its effluent-sewer (STEP) operating costs virtually the same as gravity's, with lower capital and replacement costs making its lifecycle cost clearly lower. Coburg, Oregon's municipally-owned STEP system has run more than a decade at roughly $90 per connection per month. We ask only that maintenance be compared on a documented lifecycle basis, not asserted as a one-line concern.

Carollo Response:

Carollo interviewed the City of Lacey, Washington’s wastewater supervisor in May 2026. The wastewater supervisor said the City’s operations and maintenance staff prefer the conventional gravity system over their STEP system due to the increased O&M requirements of the STEP system. Please refer to our 55 FINAL / 5
response to Item 5a for a summary of operations and maintenance challenges that multiple agencies shared during our outreach.

As discussed above, a full STEP system is not feasible considering the technical fatal flaw of high system pressure. However, Carollo is evaluating the potential for implementing a low-pressure system or other hydraulic structures in low lying areas of the Town and discharging to a gravity main (i.e. not pressurized) that conveys wastewater to the WWTF.
56 2795 MITCHELL DRIVE ▪ WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94598 ▪ P 925-932-1710 FINAL / 1

TOWN OF PARADISE
Sewer Project
Subject: Attachment 2 – Technical Responses to Technical Memorandum – Suitability of STEP/ LowPressure Effluent Collection in Steep Terrain – response to the concern that low-pressure effluent pumps cannot operate against elevation-induced head, Dated June 2026

ITEM 1: How elevation head is actually handled.

A STEP system is a form of pressure sewer. Each connection's pump discharges through a small-diameter lateral into a common pressurized main, and each pump is selected for the total dynamic head (TDH) it must develop at its location — the static lift from its elevation to the system's high point, plus the main's operating pressure and friction. The pumps that do this are small: STEP service uses fractional-horsepower effluent pumps that run only intermittently, in brief dosing cycles, so both their electrical draw and their energy use are low. Multiple pumps discharging into a shared pressurized main is normal operation, not a conflict: a check valve at each unit prevents backflow, and the network is designed around its operating pressure. A pump that cannot meet the head at a given location indicates a pump that was not specified for that location — a sizing decision, not an inherent limitation of STEP. These small effluent pumps have steep pump curves that develop ample head for the modest lifts a system like Paradise's requires; the same product lines offer higher-head models for genuinely steep applications, but those are a reserve for possible future zones, not anything the Phase 1 corridor needs. Where an unusually large elevation does arise, the standard approach is simply to divide the area into lower-pressure sub-systems feeding intermediate booster points, so no single pump lifts the full elevation.

Carollo Response:

STEP systems are typically used in low elevation areas of a Town or neighborhood to pump wastewater either directly to a wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) or to a pipeline that flows by gravity under open channel hydraulic conditions (i.e. not pressurized) and conveys wastewater to the WWTF.

The following provides a response to the statements highlighted in yellow. • The description above of how a STEP system would overcome an “unusually large elevation difference” would be accurate if the flow were being pumped uphill to the WWTF or a location where flow discharges to atmospheric pressure. However, the Town of Paradise’s potential WWTF locations are all located downhill from the users/connections, which creates a unique and complex hydraulic system to control and manage pressure. The difference in elevation between the high point in the system and the low point at the WWTF creates high system pressure in the lower portions of the system that are well beyond the maximum pressure rating of typical pipelines and equipment used in wastewater collection systems.

ITEM 2: Large elevation changes are a design input, not a disqualifier. Elevation change is a standard design parameter for pressure sewers, managed with well-established tools: dividing the network into 57 FINAL / 2
pressure zones and, where warranted, using intermediate booster points or separate discharge points so no single pump must lift the entire elevation; air- and vacuum-release valves at high points to prevent air binding and damp surges (wastewater-rated valves are made for exactly this service); and pressure-control valves to protect low-elevation pipe from the static pressure that accumulates at the bottom of a steep run — pressure rises roughly 0.43 psi per foot of fall. These are routine appurtenances, not exotic measures.

Carollo Response:

The statement above that, “Elevation change is a standard design parameter for pressure sewer, managed with well-established tools: dividing the network into pressure zones” seems to assume that flow is being pumped uphill to a WWTF.

The Town of Paradise’s potential WWTF locations are all located downhill from the users/connections, which creates a unique and complex hydraulic system to control and manage pressure. The difference in elevation between the high point in the system and the low point at the WWTF creates high system pressure in the lower portions of the system that are well beyond the maximum pressure rating of typical pipelines and equipment used in wastewater collection systems. For example, the conceptual Phase 1 sewer service area has a 635-foot elevation change from high point in system (near Almond and Elliot) to WWTF (assumed Skyway South for this analysis). This is approximately 275 psi at the WWTF. At full sewer collection system buildout, there is 1205-foot elevation change from the high point in the system (along Skyway between Clark Road and Pentz Road) to WWTF (assumed Skyway South for this analysis). This elevation difference creates approximately 522 psi of static pressure at the WWTF.

The highlighted statement above is not accurate.
• Pressure control valves in wastewater systems are not routine appurtenances. Pressure reduction valves in wastewater systems are highly specialized equipment and require control systems that are not typically used in the wastewater industry. We agree that air relief valves are routine appurtenances but not pressure reducing valves.
• Carollo has reached out to multiple low-pressure system manufacturers requesting information on similar collection systems with similar elevation differences. The manufacturers have not provided a case study of a similar system.

ITEM 3A: Applied to Paradise: an all-STEP Phase 1, zoned as it expands. It is worth testing Paradise's own topography against these principles — and the Phase 1 service area makes the point most directly.

Phase 1 is the downtown business corridor bounded by Skyway, Pearson Road, Black Olive Drive, and Elliott Road. Published figures place it between roughly 1,700 feet at its lower, southern end (near Pearson Road) and about 1,930 feet at its upper, northern end (near Elliott Road) — a drop of only about 230 feet over roughly a mile. These spot elevations should be confirmed from the Town's GIS or a USGS topographic map before being used as design values, but they are consistent with the published town-center reference elevation of about 1,778 feet.

Carollo Response:

The elevations listed above do not take into consideration the potential locations of the WWTF or the high point of the full collection system at buildout. The calculation of static system pressure must consider 58 FINAL / 3
the elevation change from the high point in the system to the WWTF during Phase 1 and at buildout of the sewer collection system.

In the conceptual Phase 1 sewer service area, there is 635-feet of elevation change from high point in system (near Almond and Elliot) to WWTF (assumed Skyway South for this analysis). This elevation difference creates approximately 275 psi of static pressure at the WWTF. At full sewer collection system buildout, there is 1205-feet of elevation change from high point in system (along Skyway between Clark Road and Pentz Road) to WWTF (assumed Skyway South for this analysis). This elevation difference creates approximately 522 psi of static pressure at the WWTF. The elevations considered in the calculation above are based on the PG&E lidar survey and recent topographic survey of the Town.

ITEM 3B: Applied to Paradise: an all-STEP Phase 1, zoned as it expands. That settles the head question for the project actually under design. Across the corridor's roughly 230 feet of total fall, any individual connection develops only a modest head — well within the small, low-draw effluent pumps that are standard to STEP. Phase 1 can therefore be served entirely by STEP as a single pressure regime, with no elevation zoning and no oversized, high-amperage pumps required at all. As the system is later expanded beyond the corridor — up or down the ridge, where the relief grows — it is simply zoned to suit: additional pressure zones with intermediate booster points are added for each new service area as it comes online. The design starts as simply as the Phase 1 corridor allows and adds zoning only where, and only when, future expansion actually calls for it — which is exactly how pressure-sewer networks are meant to grow, and it matches the Town's own phased approach to building the system.

Carollo Response:

Please refer to our response to item 3A above for additional information regarding the elevation of the collection system during Phase 1 and at buildout and design considerations.

ITEM 4a: Pressure sewers are the technology recommended for this terrain. Far from being unsuited to hilly ground, pressure sewers are specifically recommended for it. U.S. EPA guidance notes that gravity collection's slope requirements “may require deep excavations in hilly or flat terrain, as well as the addition of sewage pump stations,” driving up cost — the very problem pressure sewers solve by following the land's natural contours in shallow, small-diameter trenches.

Carollo Response:

Please refer to our response to item 3A above for additional information regarding the elevation of the collection system during Phase 1 and at buildout and design considerations.

ITEM 4b: Pressure sewers are the technology recommended for this terrain. Industry design references describe pressure sewers as “especially cost-effective in challenging topographical areas where the soil is wet, rocky, or hilly,” and capable of serving anything from a single building to a network of thousands of sources.

The same shallow, contour-following installation is what makes pressure collection well suited to nearsurface rock like Paradise's lava cap, where a deep gravity system would instead require rock excavation.

None of this rests on analogy to any particular community — it follows directly from the pump curves and the published design guidance.
59 FINAL / 4
It has also been suggested that, because a STEP main must still be buried — and must pass beneath existing water lines — it requires the same trenching as gravity. It does not, and the reason is that the two are governed by different things. A gravity sewer's depth is set by slope: it must descend continuously at a minimum grade, so it grows progressively deeper along its run and may require significant excavation depths, or even tunneling, to hold an acceptable gradient toward the outfall, with deep manholes throughout. A STEP main needs no slope and no minimum flow; it follows the ground contour at a shallow, roughly constant depth — published references put effluent-sewer mains at only a metre or two of cover — dipping locally only where it must pass under a crossing utility, then returning to shallow depth. The separation requirement at issue (a sewer passing below a potable water main, with vertical clearance, to protect the drinking-water supply) is real, but it applies equally to a gravity sewer, and it is met by a local crossing detail, not by burying the whole line deep. The net excavation is therefore far smaller for STEP: a small-diameter pressure pipe in a shallow, constant-depth trench, versus a large-diameter gravity pipe in a deep, ever-deepening trench with manholes — a difference that is especially large, and specially costly, in Paradise's near-surface lava cap, where depth means rock.

Carollo Response:

Carollo is evaluating the potential for implementing a low-pressure system or other hydraulic structures in low-lying areas of the Town and discharging to a gravity main (i.e. not pressurized pipeline) that conveys wastewater to the WWTF. This is referred to as a hybrid gravity/low-pressure system. As described above, the technical fatal flaw of high system pressure makes a full STEP system in Paradise not feasible.

The following provides a response to the text highlighted in yellow above. • It is general industry practice to design pressure sewer pipelines to minimize the number of high points in the pipeline. We do not recommend going under and over utilities constantly because this creates localized high points which require installation of an air release valve at each high point. Air release valves can be a source of odors and require operations and maintenance staff to maintain the equipment.
• Assuming the sewer pressure main is shallow, the sewer laterals will still need to cross 1-ft below the water main and laterals per DDW regulations.
• Based on the topographic survey of the Town, there are several locations where achieving 10-ft of horizontal separation is not possible due to existing utilities. Per DDW, when there is less than 10- ft of separation, the parallel low-pressure line must maintain at least 1-ft of clearance below the water pipeline.
• The City of Oakland indicated the minimum depth of low-pressure lines is 6 feet to avoid utility conflicts and to allow other utilities to be installed in the future. • The statement above cites, “A metre or two of cover”. It should be noted that 2 meters is 6.56 feet of cover.

ITEM 4c: Pressure sewers are the technology recommended for this terrain. And only the potable water main dictates that the sewer sit beneath it. Dry utilities do not: under California's General Order 128, electric lines require only about 12 inches of clearance from other pipe systems when paralleling and 6 inches when crossing, with communications and fiber treated the same way — a small clearance at the 60 FINAL / 5
crossing, with lines offset rather than stacked. The STEP main may pass either above or below an electric or fiber conduit, whichever the crossing geometry favors, so long as that clearance is held and the crossing is supported; and since electric is itself typically buried only about thirty to forty-two inches, the pressure main shares that same shallow band. So the premise that “we have to trench deep anyway, so we might as well build gravity” does not hold. STEP does not trench deep: the water crossings are local duck-unders, the electric and fiber crossings are inches of clearance at the point of crossing, and between those points the main runs shallow along the contour. The deep, continuously deepening trench — and its cost in the lava cap — belongs to the gravity option alone; it is not a shared burden that cancels STEP's advantage. If anything, the burden runs the other way: a gravity main is driven deep by its slope, while electric sits only about thirty to forty-two inches down and cable shallower still, so a gravity line will almost certainly run beneath those utilities along its route — and, locked to a continuous grade, it cannot rise to weave over an obstruction the way a shallow pressure main can; it must hold its slope and pass under, deepening further into the rock to do so. It is the gravity sewer, not STEP, that must.

Carollo Response:

Carollo is evaluating the potential for implementing a low-pressure system or other hydraulic structures in low lying areas of the Town and discharging to a gravity main (i.e. not pressurized) that conveys wastewater to the WWTF. As described above, the technical fatal flaw of high system pressure makes a full STEP system in Paradise not feasible.

The following provides a response to the text highlighted in yellow above. • The Department of Drinking Water Code requires that sewers cross under water lines and water services with 1 foot of clearance minimum. The agencies Carollo interviewed generally had installed STEP pipelines with 6 to 8 feet of cover because of this requirement.

ITEM 5: Clean effluent makes the head-management hardware more reliable, not less. Since the reliability of pumps and valves in a pressure network is a fair concern, it is worth noting that STEP conveys screened, settled septic-tank effluent — not raw sewage. Each interceptor tank removes grit, grease, and settleable solids and screens the effluent before it is pumped. That clean effluent makes the pumps, check valves, air-release valves, and any pressure-control valves markedly more reliable and lower-maintenance than the same hardware on a raw-sewage or grinder main. The very components that manage elevation head are therefore more dependable in a STEP system, not less Carollo Response:

Based on our interviews with nine agencies that operate low pressure collections systems, low pressure systems have operations and maintenance challenges. The following highlights a few of the challenges that multiple agencies shared during our agency outreach. • The STEP tank and grinder pump stations require maintenance by the operating utility. The typical operations and maintenance activities include facility inspections, pumping out solids from STEP tanks, site visits to inspect facilities after alarms, and repair of pumps, floats and other mechanical devices.
61 FINAL / 6
• The corrosion of appurtenances (e.g., valves, ARVs) is a major challenge for operations and maintenance of low pressure systems. One agency removed all valving because of frequent corrosion and valve failure. This was a common complaint among most agencies. • Fats, Oils and Grease (FOG) control was also mentioned by several agencies to be an operations and maintenance challenge. FOG can create a mat in the STEP tank that reduces biological process until maintenance staff removes the layer. With the smaller effluent pipe sizes (1 1/4" to 4"), if grease builds up in the STEP tank and enters the effluent main, the risk of blocking the line is much higher than with a larger gravity pipeline.

ITEM 6: Request. None of this asserts that STEP is automatically the right choice — that is what a side-byside evaluation should determine. But the categorical conclusion that STEP “won't work” in Paradise's hilly terrain is not consistent with the design literature, the published standards, or the pump hydraulics. I respectfully ask that STEP be evaluated on a properly sized hydraulic design to Paradise's actual elevation profile — pumps selected for the real total dynamic head, the network zoned to the terrain — rather than set aside on the premise that elevation head is disqualifying. I am glad to provide the pump-head data, the design references, and a STEP hydraulic design basis at your convenience.

Carollo Response:

Carollo is evaluating the potential for implementing a low-pressure system or other hydraulic structures in low lying areas of the Town and discharging to a gravity main (i.e. not pressurized) that conveys wastewater to the WWTF. This is referred to as a hybrid gravity/low-pressure system. As described above, the technical fatal flaw of high system pressure makes a full STEP system in Paradise not feasible.

Based on interviews with nine agencies that operate low pressure systems, the operations and maintenance of a low-pressure system (STEP or grinder pump station) is challenging. These systems require a small pump station at every home/commercial business that must be serviced and maintained.

In the conceptual Phase 1 sewer service area, there is 635-feet of elevation change from high point in system (near Almond and Elliot) to WWTF (assumed Skyway South for this analysis). This elevation difference creates approximately 275 psi of static pressure at the WWTF. At full sewer collection system buildout, there is 1205-feet of elevation change from high point in system (along Skyway between Clark Road and Pentz Road) to WWTF (assumed Skyway South for this analysis). This elevation difference creates approximately 522 psi of static pressure at the WWTF. This static elevation difference is a fatal flaw for installing a full low-pressure system (STEP or grinder pump stations) throughout Town. 62 FINAL PROJECT MEMORANDUM
FINAL

ATTACHMENT D CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES

CONTROL BOARD, DIVISION OF DRINKING

WATER LETTER TO TOWN OF PARADISE,
MAY 14, 2026
63 State Water Resources Control Board
Division of Drinking Water
May 14, 2026
Marc Mattox (via email: [email protected])
Assistant Town Manager
Public Works Director/Town Engineer
Town of Paradise
DIVISION OF DRINKING WATER’S UPDATED RESPONE COMMENTS, PIPELINE

SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS, TOWN OF PARADISE
Dear Mr. Mattox,
This letter transmits the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water’s (DDW) response to the questions Town of Paradise has on the regulatory requirements governing the separation between domestic water pipelines, recycled water and wastewater collection pipelines and the alternative to the pipeline separation standards.

The California Waterworks Standards (CA WW Standards), California Code of Regulations Title 22 (CCR T22), Chapter 16, Section 64572 governs the criteria for the separation of water mains from non-potable pipelines (wastewater collection and recycled water distribution pipelines).

DDW via its District Offices in coordination with the Recycled Water Unit reviews compliance with the pipeline separation requirements that are regulated by DDW’s Domestic Water Supply Permit Amendment and by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). DDW’s Title 22 Engineering Report’s conditional acceptance recommendations are included in RWQCB’s Waste Discharge and Water Reclamation Requirements Permit conditions.

The separation criteria pursuant to the CA WW Standards, CCR T22, Section 64572 requires domestic water pipeline installation shall not be installed in the same trench and shall be at least 10 feet horizontally from a parallel pipeline conveying the following non potable water:

Untreated sewage (sewer collection pipeline),
Primary or secondary treated sewage,
Disinfected secondary 2.2 and Disinfected secondary 23 recycled water.

Domestic water pipeline installation shall be at least 4 feet horizontally from and, one foot vertically above, any parallel pipeline conveying the following non potable water:

Disinfected tertiary recycled water
Storm drainage
64 Pipeline Separation Requirements May 14, 2026
- 2 -
Alternative to the CA WW Standards, Chapter 16 pipeline separation requirements can be considered subject to demonstrating the proposed use of the alternative would provide at least the same level of protection to public health. The circumstances under which the deviations from the separation requirements are typically evaluated are when new water mains, new sanitary sewer mains or other non-potable fluid carrying pipelines are installed in existing areas and the local conditions are restricting (e.g., available space, limited slope, existing structures) the installation of pipelines as per the CA WW standards separation criteria. Excessive costs in meeting the pipeline separation requirements may be considered as part of the rationale for seeking an alternative to the regulatory requirements, however, DDW will prioritize public health protection above the construction costs in determining an acceptable alternative.

DDW’s position is for the potable water pipelines and non-potable pipelines conveying sewage or similar fluids shall not be installed within the same trench. Potable water pipelines are vulnerable to contamination that can pose a risk of waterborne disease outbreaks. Non potable pipelines such as sewer pipelines frequently leak and saturate the surrounding soil with sewage due to structural failure and when this happens at a nearby water main that is depressurized or if it is broken during installation, it will be a cause for public health hazard. Further, failure of domestic water pipeline in close proximity to other pipelines may disturb their bedding and cause them to fail. Also, earthquakes, landslides and other major soil disturbances can cause simultaneous failure of multiple adjacent pipelines.

DDW’s interpretation regarding the separation requirements is consistent with the CA WW standards separation requirements, i.e., installation of septic tank effluent or domestic wastewater infrastructure (gravity or force main) and domestic water pipelines shall not be in the same trench, and the horizontal separation of 10-feet shall be maintained between the pipelines. This type of installation mitigates public health hazards including that associated with gravity or pressurized flow of the domestic wastewater or septic tank effluent. For deviation proposed from the separation requirements, DDW will evaluate the changes based on the hazard posed by the deviation. The alternative construction will be assessed for its reliability in mitigating the identified hazards and failures and whether it is providing the same level of public health protection.

For pipeline separation in crossing and parallel installation the following shall be noted.

Domestic water pipeline crossing installation with respect to the following fluids pipeline shall be constructed no less than 45 degrees to and at least one foot above that pipeline. No connection joints shall be made in the domestic water pipeline within eight horizontal feet of the fluid pipeline.

Untreated sewage (sewer collection pipeline),
Primary or secondary treated sewage,
Disinfected secondary 2.2, disinfected secondary 23).

Type of recycled water (disinfected tertiary)
Storm drainage
Domestic water pipeline parallel installation requires 1-foot vertical separation above the pipeline conveying disinfected tertiary recycled water and storm drainage water as the minimum horizontal separation requirement is less than 10 feet.

The level of recycled water treatment affects the separation requirements from the domestic water pipeline. The domestic water pipeline is required to be installed at least 4 feet horizontally and one foot vertically above the disinfected tertiary recycled water pipeline. All other lower 65 Pipeline Separation Requirements May 14, 2026
- 3 -
levels of treated recycled water (disinfected 2.2, disinfected 23) pipelines are required to be installed in a separate trench, at a minimum horizontal distance of 10 feet from the domestic water pipeline.

The installation wastewater pipeline above the domestic potable water pipeline can be considered by submitting a request to DDW for review and approval of an alternative to the CA WW Standards. The proposed alternative shall provide the same level of protection for public health as the requirements set forth in Section 64572, CCR T22. The alternative proposal shall include adequate information for DDW to evaluate the proposed alternative. The information shall entail the following information and not be limited to: intended use of pipelines, fluid conveyed, pipe sizes, operating pressure or gravity flow, pipe material and AWWA material designation code, pressure class, thickness, coating, pipe joint type, pipe length, depth of cover, number of crossings, angle of crossing and description of crossing pipelines, and separation between pipelines (for parallel installation above water main) and description of additional protective measures.

For instances of separation of recycled water lines and sewer lines, DDW applies pipeline separation requirements similar to those for potable water lines and pipelines conveying sewage. For horizontal separation between recycled water lines and sewer lines, a minimum separation of 6 feet should be maintained, though a 10-foot separation is preferred. In addition, a minimum vertical separation of 1 foot should be maintained between recycled water lines and sewer lines; with the exception for gravity sewers where a 6-inch vertical separation may be maintained - though the 1-foot vertical distance is preferred.

If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Ginachi Amah at (818) 551-2046 or via email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Dr. Ginachi Amah P.E.

Recycled Water Unit Supervisor
Division of Drinking Water
State Water Resources Control Board
500 North Central Ave., Suite 500
Glendale, CA 91203
Cc:Via Email
Ginachi Amah, Recycled Water Unit, State Water Resources Control Board - Division of Drinking Water
Randy Barnard, Chief Technical Operation Sections, Division of Drinking Water Clint Synder, Assistant Executive Officer, Regional Water Quality Control Board (Region 5) 66 FINAL PROJECT MEMORANDUM
FINAL

ATTACHMENT E AGENCY INTERVIEW MEETING MINUTES
67 STEP System – Agency Interview Form

1. Agency Overview
Agency Name: City of Camas, WA
Contact Name: Rob Charles, PE - Utility Manager
Location: Teams Meeting
Date: 04/24/2026

2. System Overview
Question Response
Type of system (Full STEP / Hybrid) Majority is STEP south of the lake transitioning to gravity north of lake
Year installed
early 1980s
Approx. number of connections
About 7,000 properties connected to STEP
Service area characteristics (hilly terrain,
coast, high groundwater, etc) bedrock, elevation challenges, hilly Why was this system selected originally
over other alternatives?
No alternatives
Are you using Orenco Prelos system, or
other?
Roth systems (STEP) with franklin electric
½ hp pump
Does the system have different pressure
zones?
All in one zone – up to one elevation, and
then becomes like gravity; north side
section that is industry and residents, two
different basins that collect step system.

Come together and go right to the
treatment plant
What is the minimum pipe size and
material for the low pressure system?
N/A
68 3. Ownership & Responsibilities
Question Response
Who owns on-lot equipment (tank, pump
controls)?
According to DOE, city maintains all the
private systems (commercial takes care of
their own)
City owns lines from tank to main
(landscaping is an issue)… mostly lids are
damaged. Poly tanks are pretty bulletproof.

Not much I&I from those lids.

Who maintains on-lot equipment? City
Who performs septic tank pump-outs? Commercial/ industry by themselves. City does it for the residential
Who pays electrical costs? Electrical is paid for by homeowner. Older homes don’t have separate breakers so if
we have to shut off, it shuts off all power
Access/easement challenges – Do you have
easements for access to private property?
How do you handle access for
maintenance?
No easements (but implied by municipal
code). City sends flyers out ahead of
maintenance
Any challenges with restoration of private
property after installation of tank/pressure
connection?
N/A
Were there any challenges connecting to
existing home electrical system or did you
install a separate service?
Part of development
How were pressure laterals connected to
the gravity system? (If applicable)
N/A

4. Operation & Maintenance
Question Response
What are your standard O&M activities? City calls homeowner every time they go out so the homeowner is aware.

Check electrical connections, clean out
filter, check condition of tank and lid. Older
systems did direct bury on wire instead of
conduit (from panel to breaker)
Maintenance frequency 8 year rotation for septic tank pump out 69 Certain homes they go out sooner than 8
years. Now have preset maintenance
program of 8 years. Some tanks 4 years.

Started contracting recently. Pump trucks
wear out a lot. Located in easements & off
road, so focusing on ARV maintenance.

Tanks under decks; landscape over them.

Number of staff supporting the system? Inhouse vs Contractor support? Recently been contracting to outside contractor. Used to have city crews do it,
but pump trucks wear out a lot
When City did maintenance, they had 3 full
time dedicated staff for year round
pumping
Do you use telemetry/ SCADA? No SCADA, everything is separate ($10- $12k per installation.)
Homeowner receives alarm and then
notifies the City
Average number of service calls per year? Every other night they do emergency calls; Most common issues/ failure modes?
(pumps, controls, clogging/blockages)
Homes have had problems with oil &
grease. Pumps get bound with wipes.
electrical components failing, concrete
tanks are bad… filter needs to O&M.

Typical response time N/A
Overall System Reliability When treated right, they’ll be functional until failure

5. Costs
Question Response
Capital costs per connection? Do you have a
bid tab for the STEP system?
N/A
Annual O&M cost and breakdown (if
available of cost)
$150k on community tanks
$120k on residential STEP tanks (1/8 of
system)… do pumping twice a year
70 Typical pump lifespan Should get about 20 years out of equipment… old panels didn’t have right
panels
Some panels have lasted longer; $5-6k to
rehab the panel… septage receiving at
treatment plant.

Costs keep going up
Replacement cost Need to replace 7,000 tanks but are looking at $50M+ for replacement.

6. Collection System (Low-Pressure System Only)
Question Response
Do you experience clogging issues? Need
for flushing/ pigging? Any air/ vacuum
issues?
Issues with oil and grease. Issues with
flushable wipes. Need to go out and
educate homeowners
Mainline maintenance frequency No cleanouts so no maintenance on mains Odor/ sulfide issues? They have issues with odor at receiving manholes (where step joins gravity). City
puts in carbon filters and has to replace
every 6 months…
Also run bioxide in the system and do year
round dosing. Dose upstream of manhole
into the force main
ARVs don’t have as many issues

7. Treatment Impacts
Question Response
Impacts to treatment plant Starved for solids at WWTF

8. Customer Experience
Question Response
71 Frequency of complaints N/A
Typical complaints (alarms, odors,
maintenance disruptions, others?)
Alarms and odors
How did you handle homeowner education
and coordination?
Need to educate owners on what can and
cannot be flushed (i.e. flushable wipes)

9. Lessons Learned
Question Response
What would you do differently? Add coatings to manholes, pigging ports, and breakers on electrical.

Would you select same system again? No, if City can get away with grinder systems they would do that
Biggest advantages N/A
Biggest challenges No cleanouts. Can’t pig. New step main replacement will add in cleanouts &
pigging port.

Starved for solids at WWTF – H2S is so
damaging where it ties in. Damage
downstream to MHs and gravity pipes.

They arte moving to grinder tanks for new areas. But
Issues with too many houses kicking on at the same time? No have not run into that issue 72 STEP System – Agency Interview Form

1. Agency Overview
Agency Name: Marin County – Marshall Beach (lake canyon community services also has step)
Contact Name: Arti Kundu;
Location: Microsoft Teams
Date: 5/4/2026

2. System Overview
Question Response
Type of system (Full STEP / Hybrid) Full STEP in Marshall Beach Year installed 2008 (40 houses), and in 2015 added the
rest to get 50 connections
Approx. number of connections 50 houses on system
Service area characteristics (hilly terrain,
coast, high groundwater, etc)
Flat area (right adjacent to Tomales bay)
Sewer system are located in railroad fill,
oyster shells, etc. Not ideal leeching and
treating conditions
Why was this system selected originally
over other alternatives?
STEP – a lot of resiliency (if pump goes out,
enough storage); Much less power used
with the ½ hp pumps
Grinder has a smaller unit, so evacuate it
more quickly, higher motors; no storage if
power goes out.

Conversion from existing septic, so were
able to salvage some of the septic tanks.

Septage tank reuse: inspected and tested
the tanks to meet the criteria. Where
people could save money on keeping tank,
that was a positive to bring people to
support system. Access agreement for each
property, and Matt inspected every tank
Kept both concrete and fiberglass tanks
depending on condition.
73 If homeowners couldn’t reuse the tank,
they would replace it, as part of project cost
(homeowner wouldn’t need to pay for it)
Septic tank (state fund granting) are part of
the treatment plant whereas grinder
pumps are not, so funding played a part in
it
All new tanks that went in were 1,200
gallons (more storage in the new ones)
Added a 500 gallon pump chamber to add
additional capacity to the septic tanks
Placed pump in the effluent side of the
septic tank. Effluent side received a
biotube; can either place on the bottom of
the tank or hang from the top of the tank
Are you using Orenco Prelos system, or
other?
Yes, Orenco
Does the system have different pressure
zones?
N/A
What is the minimum pipe size and
material for the low pressure system?
N/A

3. Ownership & Responsibilities
Question Response
Who owns on-lot equipment (tank, pump
controls)?
County
Who maintains on-lot equipment? Expectation: if something deteriorates or is damaged (because of owner), it is the
responsibility of the owner
However, if it’s the end of the useful life,
then County would replace the equipment
Who performs septic tank pump-outs? Homeowner pays for the pump outs. The County has a list of approved contractors
Who pays electrical costs? Homeowner. Tap into the PG&E line ahead of the house, (after meter, before house
74 panel and pull off a separate panel). That
way you don’t redo an old panel
Most of the control panels are on the
building (had to consider access, wind, sun,
etc.)
Access/easement challenges – Do you have
easements for access to private property?
How do you handle access for
maintenance?
Originally going after easement, but ended
up with going after an access agreement
(just identified approximate route, no
survey or easement description)
Homeowner provides water used to flush
and clean out the biofilters – part of
agreement with homeowner
Any challenges with restoration of private
property after installation of tank/pressure
connection?
Worked with every individual (get to know
every homeowner) and figured out
restoration for each property
How did you handle bidding of landscape
restoration? Hired a local contractor, and
walked each parcel to figure out
restoration (not elaborate landscaping
areas)
Were there any challenges connecting to
existing home electrical system or did you
install a separate service?
Built a separate panel.

How were pressure laterals connected to
the gravity system? (If applicable)
N/A

4. Operation & Maintenance
Question Response
What are your standard O&M activities? Annual inspection – solids accumulation, clear zone is 70-75%; making sure floats
are working correctly. Look for evidence of
flooding because floats aren’t working;
access riser adherence meets code with
tank.

Looking that lids are tightly sealed, exercise
lateral valves, etc.

Maintenance frequency Annually
Number of staff supporting the system? Inhouse vs Contractor support? N/A 75 Do you use telemetry/ SCADA? No
Average number of service calls per year? N/A
Most common issues/ failure modes?
(pumps, controls, clogging/blockages)
Pumps and floats don’t work. (very few
pumps fail)
Filters in STEP don’t usually clog because
they wash it every year
If house has high grease, it can create
issues (grease builds up on floats, which
weighs float down and creates issues for
biotube and floats)
Identify problem areas and educate
homeowners
Typical response time N/A; County has generator plug at each STEP system
Capacity is about 24hours (but the volume
they provided is twice the amount of actual
flows so have more like 48 hours)
Overall System Reliability N/A

5. Costs
Question Response
Capital costs per connection? Do you have a
bid tab for the STEP system?
N/A
Annual O&M cost and breakdown (if
available of cost)
N/A
Typical pump lifespan Depends on user.

Replacement cost N/A

6. Collection System (Low-Pressure System Only)
Question Response
76 Do you experience clogging issues? Need
for flushing/ pigging? Any air/ vacuum
issues?
Once had grease clog system
Mainline maintenance frequency Flushed out system with high pressure fresh water from a terminal flush port at
the end of system. Pushed it right into
dosing tank .

Otherwise, hasn’t been maintenance. They
don’t find the need for cleaning the mains
since they don’t grow material or back up
Most issues in main line – ARV box can
corrode due to H2S; A good amount of air
valves in the system due to going above
and under utilities, etc.

Odor/ sulfide issues? Arv’s in remote areas so no complaints

7. Treatment Impacts
Question Response
Impacts to treatment plant N/A

8. Customer Experience
Question Response
Frequency of complaints Quite a lot of emergency calls (6 calls per week); They have their own maintenance
contractor outside of business hours
Not too many electrical issues, but mostly
pump and control issues
Typical complaints (alarms, odors,
maintenance disruptions, others?)
Alarms
How did you handle homeowner education
and coordination?
Annual newsletters
77 9. Lessons Learned
Question Response
What would you do differently? Define ownership early
Commercial (restaurants) – have a strong
FOG program and limits in place;
Environmental health has own permitting
program and different revisions that may
come to food program – recommend
placing an MOU with restaurants to require
them to notify each department for any
changes (seating capacity equipment, or
other)
Set up budgeting in place (budget for
emergencies, environmental sensitive
areas)
Should have an aggressive public outreach/
education: Community members are
educated – but give a once a year
newsletter to give them reminders on do’s
and don’t’s
STEP sizing – had to have some commercial
promise not to expand, but promises
weren’t held. So, keep in mind what can
happen in future (Marhsall treatment
system is very sensitive to fluctuations in
restaurants flows)
Have isolation valves at creek crossings
and culverts
Would you select same system again? N/A
Biggest advantages Allowed them to install shallow pipe in areas that would not have worked with
gravity.

Biggest challenges Challenge was the commercial – fats, oils, and grease was a big component.
78 STEP System – Agency Interview Form

1. Agency Overview
Agency Name: Nevada County
Contact Name: Brad Torres
Location: Teams
Date: 4/27/2026

2. System Overview
Question Response
Type of system (Full STEP /
Hybrid)
Lake of the pines (Darkhorse) is a grinder system
Low pressure system pumps to a singular pump
station. Small pipe to lift station before being pumped to WWTP
In darkhorse, they own the lateral from easement to
mainline. Inspect and commission pumps, but
homeowner owns everything
Biggest thing is issues scouring at the end of the
system for grinder pump due to the hydraulic grade
All residential, no commercial.

Lake wildwood (penn valley) is a STEP system
County owns everything, this may be because this was
built back in the 8190s. Also in the floodplain, so Brad thinks they have a lot of I&I. Penn valley uses Orenco..

No manholes in the penn valley system.

No pigging ports, but they have blow-offs. Decent
amount of scour, and not much blockage
Mountain states estates is another step system
Grinder vs step system: grinder is easier because the
Town doesn’t own it. STEP , run into issues pretty
regular
Year installed 1980’s for step system (1987); Grinder is from 2007 to 2008
Approx. number of connections Penn valley – 380 connections; dark horse ~100 connections
79 Issues with multiple houses running at the same time? Before when they were at higher pressure but not as
much now. Force main downstream – issues during
wet weather flow because I&I would add flow and they
would compete.

Service area characteristics
(hilly terrain, coast, high
groundwater, etc)
Penn Valley: Terrain is pretty flat; very high
groundwater table
Darkhorse: they don’t have groundwater issues
Why was this system selected
originally over other
alternatives?
N/A
Are you using Orenco Prelos
system, or other?
Penn valley uses Orenco
Does the system have different
pressure zones?
Single system with a series of valves they can isolate.

Had issues before the pressure reduction, but not as
much. In Penn Valley step system, a lot of corrosion at the ARV.

What is the minimum pipe size
and material for the low
pressure system?
Penn valley system is PVC. Seeing some I&I from the
septic tank, not much elsewhere. Reduced system
pressure from 80 psi to 13 psi when changed discharge
to WWTF, Improved reliability of system.

3. Ownership & Responsibilities
Question Response
Who owns on-lot equipment (tank, pump
controls)?
Penn Valley: County
Dark Horse: Owner
Who maintains on-lot equipment? Penn Valley: County
Dark Horse: Owner
Who performs septic tank pump-outs? County
Who pays electrical costs? Homeowners pays tank including electrical.

Multiple homes going to a single tank (can
be problematic) . If a single home owns the
power, then if they leave, they turn if off.

Recommends all individual connections to
the power.

Access/easement challenges – Do you have
easements for access to private property?
No easements for the grinder; just for the
STEP system. Easements are ten feet wide
from tank to ROW (just a maintenance
80 How do you handle access for
maintenance?
easement)
Any challenges with restoration of private
property after installation of tank/pressure
connection?
N/A
Were there any challenges connecting to
existing home electrical system or did you
install a separate service?
N/A
How were pressure laterals connected to
the gravity system? (If applicable)
N/A

4. Operation & Maintenance
Question Response
What are your standard O&M activities? Maintenance inspection program..

Annually, going out to check solids level
(max 5 year program) others require more
pump outs; look at integrity of tanks while
out there. (Concrete tanks).

County does not call property owners
before going out there.

Clean out effluent filters when they do
pump outs
Maintenance frequency At least yearly.

Number of staff supporting the system? Inhouse vs Contractor support? 8 collection workers responsible for 100% of district. Could get away with three
workers for the STEP system.

Any outside service contracts? County does
99% of the work themselves
County has an electrician on the team.

Do you use telemetry/ SCADA? N/A
Average number of service calls per year? They need to have someone on call 24 hours per day for alarms. Some calls but
not a lot since the pressure has dropped
no pressure gauge on the force main in case
81 something happens
Most common issues/ failure modes?
(pumps, controls, clogging/blockages)
Not any backups at the tank because
homeowners get annoying alarms. Most
issues they have is in the force main (ARV,
or break in the line)
Have had issues with some grease blocking
the main, but not too many. Homeowners
do not have grease traps – Pine valley STEP
has some commercial properties that have
grease interceptors.

Faulty floats with panels, no alarm
component with the panels.

Typical response time Response time within an hour
Overall System Reliability N/A

5. Costs
Question Response
Capital costs per connection? Do you have a
bid tab for the STEP system?
N/A
Annual O&M cost and breakdown (if
available of cost)
N/A
Typical pump lifespan In 2019 did regionalization. Liquid end section of pumps; ½, ¾, 1 hp in system.

Commerical high HP
Replacement cost N/A

6. Collection System (Low-Pressure System Only)
Question Response
Do you experience clogging issues? Need
for flushing/ pigging? Any air/ vacuum
issues?
Main issues are at ARV’s or breaks in line.

Not enough access to lines. Hard to isolate
line in areas due to not enough valves.
82 Mainline maintenance frequency Valve exercising is very important because if an isolation valve doesn’t work, then you
have 400+ pumps that can’t be controlled.

Odor/ sulfide issues? Issues with odor, from communal force main.. periodic odor issues at the ARV’s.

Bohn odor control (essentially a diffuser)..

Carbon filter would’ve been ineffective.

7. Treatment Impacts
Question Response
Impacts to treatment plant N/A

8. Customer Experience
Question Response
Frequency of complaints Sometimes get calls at night
Typical complaints (alarms, odors,
maintenance disruptions, others?)
Alarms and floats
How did you handle homeowner education
and coordination?
N/A

9. Lessons Learned
Question Response
What would you do differently? Penn Valley: Change tank material. Better access to isolate and clean out lines. Other
problematic thing, is that not many valves
and a lot of septic tanks hooked up, so you
have to notify 100+ people for
maintenance.

Dark horse: pretty issue-free, not much he
feels like they could’ve done differently
83 Would you select same system again? N/A
Biggest advantages N/A
Biggest challenges Not enough isolation valves.
84 STEP System – Agency Interview Form

1. Agency Overview
Agency Name: Placer County
Contact Name: Evan Cloutman & Thomas Young
Location: Teams
Date: 4/28; Why did county take over? Orenco prelos?

2. System Overview
Question Response
Type of system (Full STEP / Hybrid) STEP (mostly in Auburn) Community in north auburn (County did not
maintain it originally, but then started to
maintain it due to issues)
They have same grinder pumps that are
completely owned by the owners, they will pump
to a septic tank where it gets re-pumped
Year installed Late 1980’s
Approx. number of connections 700 spread out
Service area characteristics (hilly
terrain, coast, high groundwater, etc)
Most topographically challenged areas (very
flat)… Eventually all flows to a gravity system
Why was this system selected
originally over other alternatives?
Was originally installed by developer/ owner,
but overseen by County. Requires contractor to
provide 1-year warranty
Original low pressure system was designed for
all parcels (even empty)
Are you using Orenco Prelos system,
or other?
Orenco pumps
Use concrete tanks - 1,500 gallon is standard for
residential
Largest residential is 2,000 gallons
Commerical tanks are completely unique
(require own design)
85 Does the system have different
pressure zones?
Just one low pressure line -> all houses in that
community tie into it.

Some sites have a single site/ pump station that
it pumps to, and then a larger pump station that
pumps everything out
What is the minimum pipe size and
material for the low pressure system?
One low pressure line (2”) all houses tie into it.

3. Ownership & Responsibilities
Question Response
Who owns on-lot equipment (tank,
pump controls)?
County.

Who maintains on-lot equipment? Maintains system once it enters tank (everything from house to tank is homeowner’s
responsibility)
Who performs septic tank pumpouts?County
Who pays electrical costs? Homeowner pays for power to pump. Contractor that did installation did the electrical service.

Homeowner responsible for providing power to
panel, but County maintains panel
Access/easement challenges – Do you
have easements for access to private
property? How do you handle access
for maintenance?
Originally not (they have a county code to grant
access), but recently they have been starting to
get easements for the equipment
Any challenges with restoration of
private property after installation of
tank/pressure connection?
Tell homeowners not to plant anything near to
the septic tank, if not send notices to clear. Panel
must be on pedestal with water spigot & GFCI.

For hosing down or if basket get clogged back
into tank. If pull out pump, wash into tank. GFCI
is good for equipment – jackhammer.

Were there any challenges
connecting to existing home electrical
system or did you install a separate
service?
N/A; Contractor that did installation & wiring,
power to control panel. County maintains
equipment & control panel, float switches.

How were pressure laterals
connected to the gravity system? (If
applicable)
N/A
86 4. Operation & Maintenance
Question Response
What are your standard O&M
activities?
Pump outs depends on user.

Some pumps last 20 years, and other last 5 years
Float switch responsible for about 90% of
responses (now mechanical, but previously they
were mercury switches which were more
reliable)
Maintenance frequency 4 year rotation – every four years the tank is inspected for solids, condition, alarms, floats, and
pump outs (if necessary)
Have some commercial systems. Bigger more
flow, need bigger tank, more monitoring to make
sure not exceeding allowable flow. Much more
expensive when break and inspected more often.

Inspect 1/week. (Duplex systems – California
conservation, school, church, car wash)
Number of staff supporting the
system? In-house vs Contractor
support?
Minimum 2 workers.

Do you use telemetry/ SCADA? No SCADA, someone will call in case there’s an issue
Average number of service calls per
year?
3-4 callouts per week for STEP
1-2 for gravity
Most common issues/ failure modes?
(pumps, controls,
clogging/blockages)
Orenco stackable pumps can only pass 1/8”
solids, so they clog ore
Highest head pressure is at 175’ TDH (lowest
ones are 20’ TDH)
Most issues seen in the higher head areas, clean
out caps/ check valves breaking (things
attributed with higher pressures)
I&I – don’t deal with poly tanks from Orenco –
I&I is an issue attributed mainly to root
intrusion. Lids have two be 2” above finished
grade which helps I&I
Typical response time 30-minute to 1-hour response time (2 employees and a supervisor always on-call 24 hours per
day)
87 Overall System Reliability Used to have issues with multiple houses running at the same time, but now having pumps
run at 10hp at all times
Require Orenco PF Series. 60-70% of pumps are
a certain orenco model which is 240V

5. Costs
Question Response
Capital costs per connection? Do you
have a bid tab for the STEP system?
N/A
Annual O&M cost and breakdown (if
available of cost)
County is currently auditing themselves on
budget for O&M. Previously it was going into just
one larger basket.

STEP require separate fee/ tax
Gravity vs STEP – gravity systems are more labor
intensive to maintain entire infrastructure. STEP
is more preventative to get there since there are
so many. STEP callouts are larger than gravity
Typical pump lifespan Anywhere from 5 to 20 years depending on user.

Replacement cost N/A

6. Collection System (Low-Pressure System Only)
Question Response
Do you experience clogging issues?
Need for flushing/ pigging? Any air/
vacuum issues?
ARVs are the most troublesome, get clogged they
get dirty and break
2” lines (PVC) occasionally break. Don’t pigging
on low pressure line unless blocked.

Ball valve & check valve at every parcel. Check
valves break open and whole system backs up
into tank. Have valves on lines.

Mainline maintenance frequency Maintenance on low pressure lines – only when problem.
88 Odor/ sulfide issues? Odor control at carbon filters at ARV. Used to do standpipe with filter. Use Wagner – green box
with 50 lb basket for problem area . Change
when someone complains 12/year.

7. Treatment Impacts
Question Response
Impacts to treatment plant N/A

8. Customer Experience
Question Response
Frequency of complaints Many calls right after power outages (water is still running…)
Most complaints from odor and alarms. Biggest
complaint is the eyesore of equipment
Typical complaints (alarms, odors,
maintenance disruptions, others?)
Some issues with fats and grease, but not nearly
as bad as they do at lift stations
Low pressure effluent pipes discharge to both
gravity mains and lift stations
How did you handle homeowner
education and coordination?
Leave flyers at homes when they’re about to go
out for maintenance.

They have an outreach system that are given to
the realtors or HOA.

9. Lessons Learned
Question Response
What would you do differently? Would rather have more lift stations rather than having more STEP system connections. During
COVID, ran into supply issues so with STEP they
are at the mercy of manufacturer.

Would you select same system again? Would rather have lift stations. Lift stations are more in their control (backup power, scada, etc.)
more oversight.
89 STEP has risk of liability on private property. No
redundancy on low pressure systems.

ROI not as much for STEP – time consuming, lots
of maintenance, and require several on staff to be
dedicated to them
Biggest advantages County has not had to start replacing tanks yet, but they think it will happen soon
Biggest challenges Number of emergency calls means that operators lag on maintenance for the rest of the system.
90 Grinder System – Agency Interview
Form

1. Agency Overview
Agency Name: Port Hadlock (3 years to do construction + WWTP) Contact Name: Sam Harper
Location: Teams
Date: 04/24/2026

2. System Overview
Question Response
Type of system (Full STEP / Hybrid/
Grinder Pump Stations)
Low pressure sewer system using Eone
grinder pumps; Entire system is low
pressure.

Installed new E/one grinder stations – did
not place the grinder stations inside the
existing septic tanks
Year installed Online since September 2025
Approx. number of connections Built 5 miles of pipe and 60 people hooked on right now. (designed for 74,000 gpd).

Construction costs so far are $34M; $10-
12M for WWTF, $5M for collection system
Had to bring 24,000 gpd to plant online –
which is why they used (treatment plant,
collection system, grinder pump, and MBR
bioreactor)
Service area characteristics (hilly terrain,
coast, high groundwater, etc)
Town is very hilly (min 200’) elevation
difference at one point
Why was this system selected originally
over other alternatives?
They looked at STEP but unsure why it
wasn’t selected.

Originally, everyone wanted gravity but
they decided to go to Eone for cost savings
(implementing gravity in a fully built out
91 Town was going to be challenging for
them)
Are you using Orenco Prelos system, or
other?
This was an open bid for grinder pumps.

Ultimately Eone had the lowest bid, and
they were one of the few manufacturers
who could provide everything the Town
wanted (SCADA, control panel, pumps, wet
well, etc)
Very happy with Eone so far.

Does the system have different pressure
zones?
No, one pressure zone.

What is the minimum pipe size and
material for the low pressure system?
2” was the smallest and 6” was the largest…
design was originally going to be 8” & 10”
but flow was too small so installed small
pipes and added a parallel pipe for future
flow. All pipes are fused HDPE.

All cleanouts are 2” camlock even if there
were different sized cleanouts just to have
one adapter
City of Bremerton also has this system.

Porthadlock has not flushed and
Bremerton has not flushed either.

3. Ownership & Responsibilities
Question Response
Who owns on-lot equipment (tank, pump
controls)?
County owns everything, control panel,
pumps, etc.

Who maintains on-lot equipment? County maintains everything.

Who performs septic tank pump-outs? N/A
Who pays electrical costs? Homeowner. When everyone pays their own power, they estimated it would be
about $1 more per month
Access/easement challenges – Do you have
easements for access to private property?
How do you handle access for
maintenance?
Easements on every lot; each pump is a
part of the collection system so used grant
to pay for the pumps
92 Any challenges with restoration of private
property after installation of tank/pressure
connection?
Hand seed everywhere unless they have a
gravel surface.. if someone had a problem
they would text them…
Were there any challenges connecting to
existing home electrical system or did you
install a separate service?
Gave $2,500 rebate to each resident to hire
individual electrician to buy disconnects
and install disconnects for homes..

How were pressure laterals connected to
the gravity system? (If applicable)
N/A

4. Operation & Maintenance
Question Response
What are your standard O&M activities? Due to the newness of the system, no O&M activities have been required.

Maintenance frequency N/A
Number of staff supporting the system? Inhouse vs Contractor support? Had to hire treatment plant operator; WWTP level 3
They want somebody who knows how to
operate treatment plants. Bought lab
equipment, etc. Highly recommend
Do you use telemetry/ SCADA? Treatment uses ignition for SCADA, MBR uses different SCADA, and they’re hoping
one of the platforms can talk to the Eone
SCADA
Century SCADA (Eone’s system) – alarms,
site map of grinder pumps, shows alarms,
run times for pumps (no call out)
Average number of service calls per year? Have gotten a number of calls, but seems more related to construction issues vs
maintenance of the pumps (i.e missed a
couple of connections at septic, Some
pumps have failed for now, but not too
many)
PUD handles the calls now but County
hasn’t heard any news on a lot of calls
being missed
Most common issues/ failure modes?
(pumps, controls, clogging/blockages)
System is new so not many failures.

Typical response time N/A
93 Overall System Reliability County is very happy with system. Too early to tell reliability

5. Costs
Question Response
Capital costs per connection? Do you have a
bid tab for the STEP system?
$35.5M to install entire project, and used
about $30M right now.

Collection system about $5M, $10M for
treatment plant,
Annual O&M cost and breakdown (if
available of cost)
N/A
Typical pump lifespan N/A
Replacement cost N/A

6. Collection System (Low-Pressure System Only)
Question Response
Do you experience clogging issues? Need
for flushing/ pigging? Any air/ vacuum
issues?
No issues so far
Mainline maintenance frequency N/A
Odor/ sulfide issues? Odor control - proprietary gravel layers at WWTF. On collection system, above round
charcoal (Wagner) install only at ARVs.

7. Treatment Impacts
Question Response
Impacts to treatment plant They use Ovivo MBR and then have a tertiary plant for class A water. Jockey
pumps were installed at plant since pups at
MBR are too large.
94 Had to hire a WWTP operator that was
Level 3.

8. Customer Experience
Question Response
Frequency of complaints N/A
Typical complaints (alarms, odors,
maintenance disruptions, others?)
N/A
How did you handle homeowner education
and coordination?
N/A

9. Lessons Learned
Question Response
What would you do differently? County paid for sewer interceptors for everyone but would not do that again.

Eone did the design, but they hired another
Consultant to check Eone’s design.

Would you select same system again? Yes – gave County flexibility on main alignment.

Biggest advantages Could install shallow pipes across County.

Biggest challenges Decommissioning of septic tanks (see below).

Additional Notes:
• Since the system came online in 2025, a lot of the discussion was geared towards lessons learned during design and construction. The system has been online for less than a year, so not as much discussion was had on the maintenance of the system. • Design Lessons/Notes:
o Rather than increasing the basin size of the E-One unit, decided to add generator plug (Appleton plug). This way, County could come to plug their 95 generator in and pump out sewage in case of emergencies vs needing to upsize the wet well for additional storage time. All residences have simplex units (101s). Commercial parcels use 230, and larger parcels use 480 units. o Used concrete manholes for drivable surfaces and Raven coated the interior of the manholes.
o Trying to keep things simple so they spec’ed the same materials o Grinder unit had a valve and cleanout, and another valve and clean out at connection to pressurized main.
o Two unions with quick disconnect.. HDPE welded cleanout mostly HDPE to that vault… will move to all stainless steel for the unions o Sewer flow had to stay live until WWTP could go live, so location of pump dependent on what could work to make flow stay live
• Construction Lessons/Notes:
o Most residents wanted a collection system (since it was free), so everybody was easy to work with.
o Tank decommissioning: decommissioned all septic tanks for residents, and had to bring trucks to pump out all the properties, had to drive to dump solids.
▪ Had to dewater and deal with solids. Pumped out 200,000 gallons out of system.
▪ Some tanks easy to pump out; cut the top and pump it out ▪ Some tanks had additional equipment at septic tanks so they had to separate out all the metal, took everything to the dump… if septic had control panels or something, they left them as is because didn’t know how they were wired. Called the dump company, and set up dumpsters. Have contractor call Town once the dumpsters are full ▪ For large onsite septic, had to do decommissioning with the State.

Filled out on all the applications and signed off on all things for the residents.
▪ Some people had some treatment units that were like wiffle balls so they had to take everything out
▪ In general, all parcels had individual septic tanks, but varies. Had to rely on record drawings for each property.
o A lot of homeowner coordination was required to make this project be successful. Schedule each individual lot ; give them a heads up they were going around this time but may be there earlier depending on contractor. 96 STEP System – Agency Interview Form

1. Agency Overview
Agency Name: Snyderville Basin Water Reclamation District (SBWRD), Utah Contact Name: Dan Olson, Kevin Berkley, Scott McPhie, Cory Shorkey Location: Teams
Date: 5/6/2026

2. System Overview
Question Response
Type of system (Full STEP / Hybrid) Hybrid system with areas of low pressure system that are pumped with grinder
pumps
This is a resort Town so a lot of grinder
pumps are installed in part time residences
(residents leave them sitting for few
months at a time). Grinder pumps have a
small tank in the front yard
Year installed 25 years ago
Approx. number of connections N/A
Service area characteristics (hilly terrain,
coast, high groundwater, etc)
Hilly, ski resort town (near Park City)
Why was this system selected originally
over other alternatives?
Grinder pumps were selected and installed
by developer
Are you using Orenco Prelos system, or
other?
E-One grinder pumps; progressive cavity
pumps
Does the system have different pressure
zones?
No different pressure zones, because all
pumps just max out at 85 psi. Does not
allow mixing of any other manufacturer
(any E/One pump will have the same
pressure limitations). Pressure graph is flat
97 so pressure will stay similar for the
different flow rates (8-12 gpm)
What is the minimum pipe size and
material for the low pressure system?
HDPE-fused; manholes at junctions or at
dead end of system (flushing manholes)
just use standard concrete manholes
Isolation valves in front of each unit where
it goes to LPSS.

Grinder pumps pump sewage to a low
pressure main that is up to 4-inches. The
flow is then sent to their gravity system.

3. Ownership & Responsibilities
Question Response
Who owns on-lot equipment (tank, pump
controls)?
Homeowner owns everything outside of
the roadway. This was picked because
Developr installed grinder pumps and sold
homes with that condition
Who maintains on-lot equipment? Homeowner
Who performs septic tank pump-outs? N/A – new homes
Who pays electrical costs? Homeowner
Access/easement challenges – Do you have
easements for access to private property?
How do you handle access for
maintenance?
N/A
Phone number for local vendor is in control
panel. If issues pop up, homeowner calls
vendor and pays them to come out. District
does not do anything
Any challenges with restoration of private
property after installation of tank/pressure
connection?
No issues with I/I or lids breaking
Were there any challenges connecting to
existing home electrical system or did you
install a separate service?
N/A
How were pressure laterals connected to
the gravity system? (If applicable)
N/A
98 4. Operation & Maintenance
Question Response
What are your standard O&M activities? Maintenance crew knows how to do HDPE butt fusion. All ARVs are inside manhole, so
they have odor controls inside the
manholes.

Clean mains annually (started off
annually)… District started out flushing the
force mains every year – now that flow has
picked up, flushing is done every 5 years.
(discharge is the first line downstream of
manhole)
Start at bottom, add a little dye, and flush
with high pressure nozzle. Flush out some
sediment historically.

Maintenance frequency District doesn’t do grinder pump
maintenance, use vendors to do the service
calls (delco western);
individual pays for each call out
Number of staff supporting the system? Inhouse vs Contractor support? Use the vendor, with their phone number.

Homeowner pays for Delco Western (for
maintenance)
Do you use telemetry/ SCADA? N/A
Average number of service calls per year? N/A
Most common issues/ failure modes?
(pumps, controls, clogging/blockages)
Have not had issues with grease in the
system… Most of these are in resort
communities, so do not have a lot of
restaurants in the area. Do not have a lot of
those connected to these.

Typical response time N/A
Overall System Reliability Very reliable system. Discharge location has to be at the high point of the E/One
system
99 5. Costs
Question Response
Capital costs per connection? Do you have a
bid tab for the STEP system?
N/A
Annual O&M cost and breakdown (if
available of cost)
N/A
Typical pump lifespan N/A
Replacement cost N/A

6. Collection System (Low-Pressure System Only)
Question Response
Do you experience clogging issues? Need
for flushing/ pigging? Any air/ vacuum
issues?
More odors when first starting, and it got
better, but still some odor issues.

ARVs at flushing manholes and high points.

Recently switched most of the ARVs out
(replaced because they were 25 years old
and end of useful life). Went to all plastic,
HDPE.

Low pressure line main valve – took out the
main line valves.

Spending a lot more money exercising
valves, and replacing valves. Were never
needing those valve, so they took the valves
out. If they need to isolate, then they use a
pinch tool to close the HDPE pipe. now they
just pinch the HDPE pipe (require 1.5’
below any utility to avoid any issues).

Mainline maintenance frequency Annual flushing due to variable seasonal flow (resort town, so many homes are
empty for months out of the year)
Check odor control baskets every 6
months. Need to replace once a year in high
concentration systems, others go 2-3 years
100
before replacing
Odor/ sulfide issues? Pretty big odor issues and corrosion issues:

Since solids are accumulated, there are
odors, and corrosion in the discharge
manholes
Odor baskets inside manholes, activated
charcoal
Discharge manholes are polymer manholes
(rest of system is standard concrete);
Manholes with greater than 18” pipe
diameter, and within 500’ of loss or force
main need polymers (District wants to
increase to 1,000 feet)

7. Treatment Impacts
Question Response
Impacts to treatment plant N/A

8. Customer Experience
Question Response
Frequency of complaints N/A
Typical complaints (alarms, odors,
maintenance disruptions, others?)
N/A
How did you handle homeowner education
and coordination?
Constantly message rate-payers for
homeowner education. Engaged developer
to have them do some messaging and Delco
Western.

Specific example: If a homeowner is going
to be gone for a while, let them know they
need to flush. (6,000 sq ft homes on
average… When they leave for season, fill
bath tub or two of water and pull drain).

Need to tell them not to leave stuff in
there…
101
Flip side is that houses have cleaning crew
that comes in and flushes toilets, etc.

9. Lessons Learned
Question Response
What would you do differently? Early on had to replace a lot of valves.

Generally simplified everything (taking out
valves). Recommended Carollo read
through the Snyderville specs to know
which valves they recommend based on
experience (use Asahi valves)
Some odor control baskets need to be
customized so they also have (frost free
frame and manhole have an inner ring
where carbon sits on.. better than having it
sit on the lid so they don’t fall in as much)
Moving forward, District would simplify
system (no valves)
Would you select same system again? Yes
Biggest advantages Overall, LPSS is reliable and District has only had one occurrence of the main
getting hit. Minimal I/I, and the District
does not have to deal with the individual
grinder pumps, so not a ton of
maintenance.

Biggest challenges Most junction manholes/ flushing
manholes have solid bottoms. When it
rains, those manholes fill with water.

Need to pump out 3’+ of water from those
manholes which he thinks led to the
corrosion of the valves. If we have metals,
recommend 316 sst so they don’t rust.

Maybe do a gravel bottom?
Other: Developers need to approach E/One as part of submittal package -> E/One needs to get involved in design process to confirm developers approach works. E/One tell developer which pump works for their house (based on anticipated flow/ bedrooms) 102
STEP System – Agency Interview Form

1. Agency Overview
Agency Name: City of Lacey, WA
Contact Name: Roger Dickinson (Wastewater Supervisor) & Tom Faye Location: Teams
Date: 5/26/2026

2. System Overview
Question Response
Type of system (Full STEP / Hybrid) Hybrid-gravity/ STEP/ Grinder Year installed 1992
Approx. number of connections 4,200 STEP Systems, 300 grinder pumps, and the rest is gravity (population of Lacey
is 75,000). System sends flow to a regional
wastewater plant.

Service area characteristics (hilly terrain,
coast, high groundwater, etc)
Generally flat.

Why was this system selected originally
over other alternatives?
Developer driven and cheaper than gravity.

STEP has its place and uses, but also has its
cost. Ongoing costs for the life of the
system.

Are you using Orenco Prelos system, or
other?
All STEP systems have been Orenco.

Grinders are Eone or Liberty. Grinders
have more maintenance.

For STEP, City has found that Prelos tank
lasts about five years, and Roth tanks
usually last the full 8 years.

Does the system have different pressure
zones?
No. Their pressure is between 15-30psi
operating pressure. All interconnected into
major trunk lines. One place has a spot with
50-60 psi pressure. But the rest of the
system is at low pressure.
103
What is the minimum pipe size and
material for the low pressure system?
2” to 18” force mains. 15 to 30 psi. Have
bell & spigot PVC throughout system. All
STEP areas ae interconnected.

Pressure lines have an average bury depth
of 68”.

3. Ownership & Responsibilities
Question Response
Who owns on-lot equipment (tank, pump
controls)?
City of Lacey owns and maintains
everything.

Who maintains on-lot equipment? City of Lacey
Who performs septic tank pump-outs? City of Lacey
Who pays electrical costs? Owner. Just starting an electrical maintenance program.

Access/easement challenges – Do you have
easements for access to private property?
How do you handle access for
maintenance?
See development guidelines. Access
granted to City as part of owner joining
system.

Any challenges with restoration of private
property after installation of tank/pressure
connection?
N/A – done by developer
Were there any challenges connecting to
existing home electrical system or did you
install a separate service?
N/A – done by developer
How were pressure laterals connected to
the gravity system? (If applicable)
N/A

4. Operation & Maintenance
Question Response
What are your standard O&M activities? Every 8 years, check pumps, floats, no major leaks. Then, fully vac both sides
liquid and solids, and make sure it’s good
for the next 8 years.

They have two dumpsites that will take
care of the solids.
104
Maintenance frequency No annual inspection. For the most part, City inspects equipment every 8 years but
it also depends on the discharger. Some
tank require additional maintenance than
others.

More maintenance in grinders than STEP
tanks and City has found they cost more to
operate and maintain over STEP tanks.

For commercial – the RWWTF staff put
commercial parcels on schedule & checks
equipment/use – sets pump out schedule.

Number of staff supporting the system? Inhouse vs Contractor support? N/A Do you use telemetry/ SCADA? No
Average number of service calls per year? About 100 calls so far this year (January to May)… Varies a lot; Usually will have more
than one call per week or sometimes can
get 3 calls in the same day. Both
commercial and residential.

Most common issues/ failure modes?
(pumps, controls, clogging/blockages)
Variety of things fail – from early 90s to
1998 – 40% failure rate, now at 3% failure
rate. City uses PVC ball valve & flapper
check. Ball valve can freeze and split.

Typical response time Grinder (238 gal) – technicians need to get there quick. Residential has more calls.

Overall System Reliability STEP systems are more reliable than grinders. Dilemma with grinder systems is
that tanks only provide 238 gallons with
Eone (since tanks are small, not much time
for technicians to respond to emergencies).

5. Costs
Question Response
Capital costs per connection? Do you have a
bid tab for the STEP system?
N/A
Annual O&M cost and breakdown (if
available of cost)
Grinder and STEP tank maintenance costs
to be provided to Carollo.
105
Typical pump lifespan N/A – depends on user.

Replacement cost N/A

6. Collection System (Low-Pressure System Only)
Question Response
Do you experience clogging issues? Need
for flushing/ pigging? Any air/ vacuum
issues?
ARV’s are available through system – City
recommended Town install ARI25 for
ARV’s.

Pigging is done where needed. Have pig
launchers & catchers.

City has line valves, but they don’t like
operating valves because they break open
or close a lot so City has stopped exercising
valves.

Mainline maintenance frequency As needed.

Odor/ sulfide issues? Inject chemical for odor control at key points based on contact time.)

7. Treatment Impacts
Question Response
Impacts to treatment plant N/A

8. Customer Experience
Question Response
Frequency of complaints About a 100 calls this year.

Typical complaints (alarms, odors,
maintenance disruptions, others?)
Variety of things, but mostly alarms go off.

How did you handle homeowner education
and coordination?
Generic plamphets that each homeowner
receives.

Commercial has FOG requirements checked
by someone else.
106

9. Lessons Learned
Question Response
What would you do differently? Grinder is the very last choice, but still allow STEP. 1 – gravity, 2-step, 3-grinder. Grinders
are costly to maintain, require 2 people to
pull pump, fand the failure rate and time to
respond is higher.

City recommends coating 2-3 manholes
downstream of discharge point for
anticorrosion prevention.

Would you select same system again? Try to use more conventional sewer with lift stations if possible. O&M is expensive for all
these step parcels
Biggest advantages N/A
Biggest challenges The number of calls received and the fact that the City has to treat each call as an
emergency – need to be out there as quick
as possible.
107
STEP System – Agency Interview Form

1. Agency Overview
Agency Name: City of Yelm
Contact Name: Cody Colt
Location: Teams
Date: 5/26/2026

2. System Overview
Question Response
Type of system (Full STEP / Hybrid) Full STEP, but City is planning to start allowing grinder systems and has a couple
of grinder pumps in City owned facility.

Year installed Early 2000s (oldest tank is 1999).

Approx. number of connections 4,500 connections.

Service area characteristics (hilly terrain,
coast, high groundwater, etc)
Yelm is extremely flat which is why they
went to STEP (didn’t have headworks
previously at plant).

Why was this system selected originally
over other alternatives?
All of these were installed as part of a new
development
Are you using Orenco Prelos system, or
other?
Used Orenco’s Prelos tanks but did not work
like they hoped. Now City uses prefab
(fiberglass) or concrete tanks. For concrete,
they use both precast and cast-in-place.

Prelos tanks are good with good users, but
most people aren’t good users.

Still use Orenco pump package and
everything else (just not tanks). Lids of
Prelos tanks are warping for whatever
reason.

Does the system have different pressure
zones?
Do not have different pressure zones
throughout City. No PRVs or anything like
that.
108
Lowest pressure is 20 to 50 psi, but system
goes up to 100 psi.

What is the minimum pipe size and
material for the low pressure system?
All the way from 2” to 12” mains. PVC is the
new material. Older pipes are HDPE, and
some are AC pipe. Bell and spigot PVC is the
standard now
PVC is easier to maintain, and they already
have a lot of PVC material so they can
maintain it themselves.

3. Ownership & Responsibilities
Question Response
Who owns on-lot equipment (tank, pump
controls)?
City owns and maintains STEP tanks.

Who maintains on-lot equipment? City.

Who performs septic tank pump-outs? City does the septic tank pump outs now and bought their own truck. Used to use
3rd party to haul solids to Chehalis. Now
they have a biodryer and septage receiving
tank due to new upgrades at the plant.

Recommend building a receiver station at
the Town so less hauling.

Who pays electrical costs? Owner.

Access/easement challenges – Do you have
easements for access to private property?
How do you handle access for
maintenance?
Developer has to do a bill of sale for the
sewer tank which gives them access to
tanks.

Now requires that all new tanks be
installed in the front yards because new
fences will be built.

Usually try to notify resident first, if no
answer, just go to back yard to access tank.

Any challenges with restoration of private
property after installation of tank/pressure
connection?
Some issues with people placing things
over the lids (planter boxes, etc.). Usually
addressed with homeowner education.

Burying of lids is also an issue.
109
Were there any challenges connecting to
existing home electrical system or did you
install a separate service?
N/A
How were pressure laterals connected to
the gravity system? (If applicable)
N/A

4. Operation & Maintenance
Question Response
What are your standard O&M activities? Every three years City checks tank, inspects blanket, sludge levels, and during
inspection, they decide whether they need
to pump out or not. 40-60% of tanks need
to be pumped out every 3 years. Some
tanks need more pump outs than others.

Maintenance frequency Inspections every three years
Number of staff supporting the system? Inhouse vs Contractor support? Two-man crew that inspects STEP tanks full time, and City is looking to increase to a
4-person crew. STEP is really hard to scale
because the City owns all the tanks and
growth would require a crew of 8.

Do you use telemetry/ SCADA? No.

Average number of service calls per year? About 2x per night. Have a call center where homeowners leave a voicemail with
issue. They tell homeowner to curtail
usage, and operator will be out in the
morning.

Most common issues/ failure modes?
(pumps, controls, clogging/blockages)
Floats getting stuck happens a lot, pump
goes out, plugging due to wipes and
diapers. Float related or electrical problem
with the pump.

Typical response time Operator goes out the next morning.

Overall System Reliability N/A
110

5. Costs
Question Response
Capital costs per connection? Do you have a
bid tab for the STEP system?
N/A
Annual O&M cost and breakdown (if
available of cost)
N/A
Typical pump lifespan 10 years. Will do replacement themselves and electrical upgrades.

Replacement cost N/A

6. Collection System (Low-Pressure System Only)
Question Response
Do you experience clogging issues? Need
for flushing/ pigging? Any air/ vacuum
issues?
The City has some FOG issues. The City has
a few pig ports and wished they had more
when originally installed. Have not had to
use pigging ports so far.

Mainline maintenance frequency N/A
Odor/ sulfide issues? The City has line valves and ARVs. No odor control issues at ARV.

Recently replaced all ARVs inside City with
new ones due to pressure issues.

7. Treatment Impacts
Question Response
Impacts to treatment plant City did not have headworks until this year.

Town will have high ammonia & low BOD
issues with STEP system. City now pumps
out STEP tanks more often with new
headworks.

City uses the reclaimed water to pump back
into aquifer.
111

8. Customer Experience
Question Response
Frequency of complaints N/A
Typical complaints (alarms, odors,
maintenance disruptions, others?)
Alarms go off and resident calls City to
inspect. About 2x calls per night
How did you handle homeowner education
and coordination?
Big education push a couple of years ago.

FOG is a big issue throughout the city.

Inspect businesses every year, if >300 mg,
fine for pumping. Biggest violators were
barbershops and grocery stores (Safeway
dumping milk and salad dressing down
drain). Once they were fined, they learned
and stopped. Diner opened in a retail spot
& didn’t have a grease trap. Strip malls
often have a combined tank.

9. Lessons Learned
Question Response
What would you do differently? Require step tanks in front of house. By law in WA, agencies are required to own and
maintain STEP tanks since it’s the first step
in the treatment system.

Operators do not like STEP tanks & want
grinder pumps as they are not required to
maintain them.

City experienced a really bad power outage
about 2 years ago where power was out for
2 days. All pumps have gen switches now,
and for bigger customers (Safeway, etc.)
they will go out and hook the generator.

Ended up with overflow and had to go into
storm mode at plant.

Don’t ever do shared meters (in case one
house doesn’t pay their electric bill). They
have a couple of community tanks
(duplexes with one tank). If duplex, you
have to install a city owned meter. Need a
way to make sure power still goes to
system.
112
Would you select same system again? City would use grinder systems since they can turn over to residents and City
wouldn’t be responsible for maintenance.

Biggest advantages Low I/I.

Biggest challenges City is required to maintain and respond to every call.
113
STEP System – Agency Interview Form

1. Agency Overview
Agency Name: Grizzly Ranch Community Services District
Contact Name: Larry Smith (general manager), Travis Russell (chief operator) Location: Teams
Date: 5/13/2026

2. System Overview
Question Response
Type of system (Full STEP / Hybrid) Converting from a full grinder system to a full STEP system. Transition to STEP
started in May 2019.

Implemented standard STEP for new
construction
CSD is purchasing the STEP and using them
as assets. CSD is converting 3 grinder
pumps to STEP tanks per year.

Year installed STEP since May 2019
Approx. number of connections 62 STEP connections right now (10 commercial and 52 residential)– build out
is 299. Current flow is 30,000 gpd.

Service area characteristics (hilly terrain,
coast, high groundwater, etc)
Rural
Why was this system selected originally
over other alternatives?
E/One Grinder is what was originally
installed. Transitioning to STEP as it allows
them to expand system by increasing
capacity.

Are you using Orenco Prelos system, or
other?
1,000 gallon Roth septic tank, 500-gallon
effluent pump tank with Orenco Pumps
Does the system have different pressure
zones?
All one pressure zone which pumps up/
down to AxMax treatment. (14-20 psi)
114
What is the minimum pipe size and
material for the low pressure system?
HDPE pipe in system (1.75” diameter
pipeline – lateral; main is 4” -> a few areas
with a 6”)
8-feet is the deepest pipe bury depth

3. Ownership & Responsibilities
Question Response
Who owns on-lot equipment (tank, pump
controls)?
District ends up owning and maintaining
everything (20 year depreciation
schedule). Residents have not had issues
with changing to STEP since CSD takes care
of inspections and pump outs.

Who maintains on-lot equipment? District; Ax-Max has pretty easy maintenance. Stated that STEP systems
have less moving parts than grinder
pumps.

Who performs septic tank pump-outs? District does.

Who pays electrical costs? $9,000 per year for electrical costs on AxMax system For private, tie into homeowner (same
voltage as grinder) electrical panel.

Access/easement challenges – Do you have
easements for access to private property?
How do you handle access for
maintenance?
No easements – have an MOU that they can
go onto residence property if they need
maintenance
Any challenges with restoration of private
property after installation of tank/pressure
connection?
Place STEP in same general area as grinder.

Remove grinder tank completely.

Have had to purchase miscellaneous
landscaping materials to restore
landscaping to match before
Were there any challenges connecting to
existing home electrical system or did you
install a separate service?
No challenges. Tie-into home owner
electrical panel. May have to go in and turn
off breaker. If work is an upgrade – CSD
will take care of it.

How were pressure laterals connected to
the gravity system? (If applicable)
N/A
115

4. Operation & Maintenance
Question Response
What are your standard O&M activities? CSD has numerous cleanouts and valves throughout roads.

Issues with replacing valves? Two have
been found frozen, but not had to replace
any just yet.

CSD uses Plumas Sanitation to perform
septic tank pump outs. Sludge is taken to
their treatment plant and eventually ends
up in NV.

Seasonally see bugs die off when season
changes and need to clean out mats.

Maintenance frequency N/A
Number of staff supporting the system? Inhouse vs Contractor support? CSD has two staff in field.

Do you use telemetry/ SCADA? No. CSD has a 24-hour phone number that owners can call displayed at all control
panels.

Average number of service calls per year? Mostly for grinder pumps (about 3-4 calls per year)
Most common issues/ failure modes?
(pumps, controls, clogging/blockages)
Grinders were plastic tanks (maybe ~250
gallons). Have had to deal with overflows
(rotors in grinder pumps will stick or fail),
then get high level alarm. They pull out
grinders & replace. Used to keep spare
grinders on shelf.

Make sure have a shutoff at each house.

Also have cleanouts & shutoff in street.

Typical response time N/A
Overall System Reliability System is reliable. Not much I/I seen throughout system.

Sewer lines have not been damaged or
broken for at least the last seven years.

Staff recommended inspecting septic tanks
regularly.
116

5. Costs
Question Response
Capital costs per connection? Do you have a
bid tab for the STEP system?
$40,000 for labor and installation of STEP
(Pace is only supplier); $23,000 for vault.

Inventory was higher for grinders than
Orenco
Annual O&M cost and breakdown (if
available of cost)
N/A
Typical pump lifespan N/A
Replacement cost $3,500 for grinder pump. Have not
replaced STEP pump yet.

6. Collection System (Low-Pressure System Only)
Question Response
Do you experience clogging issues? Need
for flushing/ pigging? Any air/ vacuum
issues?
Have issues with fats, oils, and bleach
Lot of people would dump bleach down
drain which would kill bugs at septic tank
FOGs – have not seen fog issues in step
tank, just at plant (not big issue)
NTU seems to increase a bit near shoulder
season (Under 1 NTU most of the time - up
to 2 in shoulder).

Mainline maintenance frequency N/A
Odor/ sulfide issues? Lift station has some odor issues and plant, but no odor issues outside of plant. Have
heavy rubber mats over lift station to keep
odor down
15-20 ARVs are located throughout the
system. ARVs were installed horizontally.
117

7. Treatment Impacts
Question Response
Impacts to treatment plant The switch has allowed them to expand system more easily since they use Orenco
AxMax.

Located on golf course, so discharge to
large storage pond for off season. May to
Oct is irrigation season.

8. Customer Experience
Question Response
Frequency of complaints 3-4 calls per year.

Typical complaints (alarms, odors,
maintenance disruptions, others?)
N/A
How did you handle homeowner education
and coordination?
Have had to educate users to not dump
bleach down drain.

9. Lessons Learned
Question Response
What would you do differently? Review loans and money to pay for financing.

Have someone knowledgeable to manage
construction.

Operationally, it works great!
Would you select same system again? N/A
Biggest advantages Moving to STEP allows CSD to more easily expand system since they can use an
AxMax treatment system and current
treatment system was getting too
expensive and hard to expand.

Change was more due to capacity than cost.

CSD is re-using the existing laterals where
the grinder tank is for the new STEP tanks
118
CSD has not seen any hydraulic issues as a
result of changing from grinder to STEP.

It was noted that Grizzly Ranch is on a golf
course, so wastewater will be treated to
reclaimed water which will be re-used on
the golf course.

Biggest challenges E/One grinder pumps work great as long as they are being used year-round. Staff
noticed grinder pumps seized up when
users were gone for months at a time.
119

MINUTES

PARADISE TOWN COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING – 4:45 PM – July 14, 2026

1. OPENING
The Special meeting of the Paradise Town Council was called to order by Mayor Crowder at 4:45 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at 5555 Skyway, Paradise, California who led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America.

COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Greg Bolin, Steve “Woody” Culleton, Heidi Lange, Ronald Lassonde, and Steve Crowder, Mayor.

COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Town Manager Jennifer Macarthy, Town Attorney Scott E. Huber, Town Clerk/Elections Official Melanie Elvis, Assistant Town Manager Marc Mattox and Information Technology Director Luis Marquez.

At 4:45 p.m. Mayor Crowder announced that the Town Council would adjourn to Closed Session for the following items:

2. CLOSED SESSION
2a. Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(a), the Council will meet with the Town Manager, and the Town Attorney relating to existing condition: Town of Paradise v. Ernst & Young, LLP, United States District Court – Eastern District of California Case No. 2:26-cv-00410. 2b. Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.8, the Council will meet with Real Property Negotiators, Town Manager and Town Attorney, regarding the following properties: APN: 053-272-045, 053-260-104, 053-250-009, 053-260-099, 053-272-095, 053-250-008, 053-272-059, 053-260-081, 053- 250-007, 050-082-023, 050-013-059, 053-250-092, 050-082-112, 053-260- 097, 054-220-044, 054-210-069, 054-220-004. The negotiators for the property owner(s) are unknown at this time and TBD.
2c. Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(2), the Town Council will meet with the Town Manager and Town Attorney regarding potential exposure to litigation - one (1) case.
120
2d. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957(b)(1), the Town Council will hold a closed session discussion to consider the evaluation of a public office relating to the following position: Town Attorney.

After reconvening from Closed Session at 6:00 p.m. Mayor Crowder announced that direction was given; no reportable action was taken.

3. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Crowder adjourned the Council meeting at 6:01 p.m.

Date approved:

By: Attest:
___________________________ ________________________
Steve Crowder, Mayor Melanie Elvis, Town Clerk
121

TOWN COUNCIL
Meeting Minutes
6:00 PM – July 14, 2026

1. OPENING
The Regular meeting of the Paradise Town Council was called to order by Mayor Crowder at 6:02 p.m. in the Town Council Chamber located at 5555 Skyway, Paradise, California who led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America. An invocation was offered by Council Member Lassonde.

COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Greg Bolin, Steve “Woody” Culleton, Heidi Lange, Ronald Lassonde and Steve Crowder, Mayor
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Town Manager Jennifer Macarthy, Town Attorney Scott E. Huber, Town Clerk/Elections Official Melanie Elvis, Community Development Director Susan Hartman, Community Development Director Tony Lindsey, Assistant Town Manager Marc Mattox, Recovery and Economic Development Director Colette Curtis, Human Resources & Risk Management Director Crystal Peters, Police Chief Eric Reinbold, Finance Director Aimee Beleu, Fire Chief Jason Finney, and Information Technology Director, Luis Marquez.
1e. Mayor Crowder presented a proclamation celebrating the United States of America's 250th Anniversary. (180-40-027)
1f. The Paradise Ridge Chamber of Commerce, Paradise Performing Arts Center, Theater on the Ridge, Paradise Art Center, and Paradise Symphony presented an expenditure overview summarizing how their allocation of the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Reinvestment Program monies was spent over the last year. The Gold Nugget Museum asked for an extension to follow the findings of a financial audit. (510-20-415) 1g. Lisa Rhodes and Jake Trumbull provided an update on the phased approach to Pioneer Energy’s integration. (430-20-007)
1h. Camp Fire Recovery Updates. Written reports were included in the agenda:

Colette Curtis, Recovery and Economic Development Director - recovery projects, advocacy, economic recovery and development, communications, emergency operations and Housing updates. Marc Mattox, Assistant Town Manager -infrastructure and sewer updates. (110-60-062) 1i. Assistant Town Manager Marc Mattox provided an update on the Paradise Sewer Project. (960-70-009)
122

1. Al McGreehan provided information of sewer project collection alternatives.

2. Melissa Schuster spoke in favor of an alternative collection system.

3. Clifford Jacobson commented that he thought that the fatal flaw was not in the step system but in the analysis and presentation. 1j. Assistant Town Manager Marc Mattox presented the criteria needed to submit a notice of completion and acceptance of work performed for a typical capital improvement project. (110-10-042, 950-40-009)

2. CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION by Bolin, seconded by Lassonde, approved consent calendar items 2a through 2j with item 2i removed from the consent calendar. Roll call vote was unanimous. 2a. Approved minutes of the June 9, 2026 Special and Regular Town Council meetings and the June 24, 2026 Special Town Council meeting. 2b. Approved June 2026 Cash Disbursements in the amount of $6,390,801.84. (310-10-035)
2c. Adopted Resolution No. 2026-39, “A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Paradise Rescinding Resolution No. 2025-14 and Re-Adopting the Conflict-of-Interest Code for the Agencies and Departments of the Town of Paradise Which Incorporate by Reference the Fair Political Practices Commission's Standard Model Conflict of Interest.” (540-20-033) 2d. Adopted Resolution No. 2026-40, “A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Paradise Repealing Resolution No. 2024-09, and Amending and Restating Procedures Relating to the Conduct of Town Council Meetings.” (580-40-025)
2e. Adopted Resolution No. 2026-41, “A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Paradise to Enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Paradise Unified School District for the Purpose of the Police Department Staffing a School Resource Officer Position within the District”. (480-60-014, 510-20-369)
2f. Ratified the Professional Services Agreement with Regional Government Services (RGS), executed by the Town Manager under existing purchasing authority, in an amount not to exceed $99,000. (510-20-495) 2g. 1. Adopted Resolution No. 2026-42, "A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Paradise Accepting the Work Performed Under Contract No. 9436.CON for the Fleet Shop Renovation Project Performed by Synergy Builders of Oroville, California” and, 2. Authorized the Town Manager to execute and record the Notice of Completion. (280-20-005, 510-20-453) 123
2h. Concurred with the staff recommendation to file a Notice of Exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Skyway Roadway Maintenance Project. (950-40-080)
2i. ITEM REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA – TABLED UNTIL JULY 29TH SPECIAL MEETING.
2j. Approved the Amendment to Investment Management Agreement. (510-20- 275)

3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR – None

4. PUBLIC COMMUNICATION

1. Autumn Field commented on the 2026 Butte County Grand Jury Report.

2. Leslie Sawyer shared gratitude for the business roundtable and provided an update on AB 2700.

5. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None

6. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
6a. Community Development Director Susan Hartman and PlaceWorks consultant Tanya Sundberg provided an overview of the proposed vision and guiding principles for the 2045 General Plan.

1. Carrie Max asked how to participate in the General Plan surveys.

MOTION by Bolin, seconded by Lassonde 1. Concurred with the project “CEQA determination” finding presented and considered by the Planning Commission on June 16, 2026, and embodied within Planning Commission Resolution No 2026-01; and, 2. Adopted Town Resolution No. 2026-43, “A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Paradise Approving the Vision and Guiding Principles for the Paradise 2045 General Plan Update”.

Roll call vote was unanimous. (760-40-064)
6b. Assistant Town Manager Marc Mattox provided an overview of the proposed Addendum to the Hope Plaza License Agreement.

1. Melissa Schuster spoke in favor of this item.

MOTION by Lassonde, seconded by Culleton 1. Approved the Rebuild Paradise Foundation’s request for approval of Addendum No. 1 to the Hope Plaza License Agreement between the Town of Paradise and Rebuild Paradise Foundation; and, 2. Authorized the Town Manager to execute the Addendum and any documents necessary to implement its provisions. Roll call vote was unanimous. (510-20-313)
6c. Finance Director Aimee Beleu provided an overview of the proposed resolutions related to the 2026/2027 Fiscal Year Budget. 124
MOTION by Culleton, seconded by Bolin adopted the following resolutions:

1. Resolution No. 2026-44 “A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Paradise Adopting the Final Budget, Annual Appropriations, and Operating Transfers for the Town of Paradise for Fiscal Year 2026-2027 ending June 30, 2027.” (340-40-017)

2. Resolution No. 2026-45, “A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Paradise Approving and Adopting the Annual Appropriation Limit for Fiscal Year 2026-2027.” (340-40-017)

3. Resolution No. 2026-46, “A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Paradise Amending the General Fund Reserves for Fiscal Year 2026- 2027.” (340-40-017)

4. Resolution No. 2026-47, “A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Paradise approving and Adopting the Town of Paradise Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and Disaster Recovery Plan for the 2026-2027 Fiscal Year.” (340-40-017, 950-40-034)

5. Resolution No. 2026-48, “A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Paradise Approving the New Job Classification Descriptions.” (340-40-017, 610-10-015, 610-10-020)

6. Resolution No. 2026-49, “A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Paradise, California adopting the amended Salary Pay Plan for Town of Paradise Employees for the Fiscal Year 2026-2027.” Roll call vote was unanimous. (340-40-017, 610-10-015, 610-10-020)
6d. Recovery & Economic Development Director Colette Curtis provided an overview of the Federal Opportunity Zones 2.0 program.

MOTION by Bolin, seconded by Lassonde adopted Resolution No. 2026- 50, “A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Paradise Authorizing the Town of Paradise to submit Applications for Three Eligible Census Tracts Under the Proposed Federal Opportunity Zones 2.0 program.” Roll call vote was unanimous. (710-60-001)
6e. Recovery & Economic Development Director Colette Curtis provided an overview of the State Advocacy Platform.

MOTION by Bolin, seconded by Culleton reviewed and approved the updated State Advocacy Platform. Roll call vote was unanimous. (550-40-053) 6f. Town Clerk Melanie Elvis provided an overview of the Continuum of Care Council representative vacancy and provided options on how Council might consider filling the seat.
125
MOTION by Bolin, seconded by Lange appointed Housing Program Coordinator, Sarah Richter, as the Town of Paradise representative to the Continuum of Care Committee. Roll call vote was unanimous. (120-10-010)

7. COUNCIL INITIATED ITEMS AND REPORTS
7a. Council initiated agenda items:
7a. Council directed staff to develop options for verifying the current population of the Town of Paradise. All Council concurred.
7b. Council Members’ written reports on committee standing, external and ad hoc committee representation were included in the agenda packet. (120-10- 010)
7c. Future Agenda Items:

1. Discuss options to enhance the aesthetics of Paradise's gateways. (LANGE)

8. STAFF COMMUNICATION
8a. Town Manager, Jennifer Macarthy provided an update on the upcoming General Plan community meeting; the change to the Town’s email addresses; and the Special Town Council meeting for scheduled for July 29th to discuss the response to the Grand Jury Report.

9. CLOSED SESSION - None

10. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Crowder closed the meeting at 8:21 p.m.

Date approved:

By: Attest:
__________________________ __________________________
Steve Crowder, Mayor Melanie Elvis, Town Clerk
126

TOWN COUNCIL
Meeting Minutes
3:00 PM – July 29, 2026

1. OPENING
The Special meeting of the Paradise Town Council was called to order by Mayor Crowder at 3:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at 5555 Skyway, Paradise, California who led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America.

COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Greg Bolin, Steve “Woody” Culleton, Heidi Lange, Ronald Lassonde, and Steve Crowder, Mayor.

COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Town Manager Jennifer Macarthy, Town Attorney Scott E. Huber, Town Clerk/Elections Official Melanie Elvis, Assistant Town Manager Marc Mattox, Human Resources and Risk Management Director Crystal Peters, Information Technology Director Luis Marquez, and Senior Accountant Jack Gates.

At 3:01 p.m. Mayor Crowder announced that the Town Council would adjourn to Closed Session for the following items:

2. CLOSED SESSION
2a. Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.8, the Council will meet with Real Property Negotiators, Town Manager and Town Attorney, regarding the following properties: APN: 050-090-047, 050-090-035, 050-090-024, 050-090-044, 050-090-056, 050-090-045, 050-100-138, 050-100-147, 050- 100-003, 050-100-105, 050-100-094, 050-100-057, 050-100-141, 050-100- 140, 050-100-080, 050-100-082, 050-100-081, 050-110-022, 050-110-039, 050-110-038, 050-110-019, 050-110-020, 050-110-043, 050-430-001, 050- 120-169, 050-120-053, 050-120-168, 050-120-061, 050-120-143, 050-120- 146, 050-220-019, 050-220-134, 050-220-135, 050-220-136, 050-220-137, 050-230-060, 050-230-082, 050-230-059, 050-230-058, 050-240-002, 050- 240-003, 050-240-004, 050-240-005, 050-240-006, 050-240-081, 050-240- 089, 050-250-091, 050-250-089, 050-250-036, 050-250-035, 050-250-058, 050-250-045, 053-240-083, 053-240-065, 053-240-066, 053-240-071, 053- 240-055, 053-240-070, 053-240-056, 053-240-024, 053-240-067, 053-240- 068, 053-250-097, 053-250-096, 053-250-117, 053-250-116, 053-250-087, 053-250-049, 053-250-126, 053-250-029, 053-310-023, 053-260-060, 053- 260-061, 053-260-043, 053-260-106, 053-260-082, 053-260-056, 053-271- 015, 053-271-003, 053-390-017, 054-210-119, 054-210-047, 054-210-067, 054-210-038, 054-210-039, 054-210-124, 054-210-123, 054-210-075, 054- 127
220-072, 054-220-016, 054-220-064, 054-220-065, 054-220-014, 054-220- 13, 054-220-078, 054-220-069, 054-220-068, 054-220-022, 054-220-034, 054-220-075, 054-220-076, 054-230-130, 054-230-043, 054-230-094. The negotiators for the property owner(s) are unknown at this time and TBD. 2b. Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.8, the Council will meet with Real Property Negotiators, Town Manager and Town Attorney, regarding the following properties: APN: 051-250-142, 051-250-076, 051-250-077, 051-250-070, 051-250-068, 051-250-071, 051-250-107, 051-250-108, 051- 250-004, 051-250-005, 051-250-006, 051-250-089, 051-250-090, 051-250- 039, 051-250-064, 051-250-045, 051-250-046, 051-250-045, 051-250-046, 051-250-010, 051-250-012, 051-250-109, 051-250-136, 051-250-137, 051- 250-138. The negotiators for the property owner(s) are unknown at this time and TBD.

After reconvening from Closed Session at 3:06 p.m. Mayor Crowder announced that direction was given; no reportable action was taken.

3. CONSENT
MOTION by Culleton, seconded by Lassonde, approved consent calendar item 3a. 3a. 1. Adopted Resolution No. 2026-51, “A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Paradise certifying to the County of Butte the validity of the legal process used to place direct charges (special assessments) on the secured tax roll”; and, 2. Authorized the Town Manager and Finance Director to approve direct charge (special assessment) changes; and, 3.

Authorized the Town Manager and Finance Director to execute the governing authority certification related to the direct assessments on the property tax roll. Roll call vote was unanimous. (550-40-051, 510-20-107, 540-10- 020)

4. CONSIDERATION
4a. Town Manager Jennifer Macarthy provided an overview of the Grand Jury Ad Hoc Committee process and presented three draft responses to the 2025–2026 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report addressing: (1) Building Inspection; (2) Permitting & Plan Development; and (3) Administration.

The Town Council reviewed and discussed the draft response related to Building Inspection. Council reached consensus on the proposed responses for Findings and Recommendations F2, F5, F6, R1, R2, R3, and R5. Council also reached consensus on the following response options: F1 – Option A; F3 – Option A; F4 – Option A; R4 – Option A, with additional language to be included stating, " In the event the current proposal in implementing the Corrective Action Plan is not functioning in the intended manner, a future reconsideration would take place"; and R6 – Option A. 128
Council also reviewed and reached consensus on the draft responses for the Permitting & Plan Development and Administration reports as submitted.

1. Serra Blaine spoke in favor of releasing the full building division audit report.

2. Monica Huchro spoke in favor of releasing the full building division audit report.

3. Mike Pollak spoke about parking being taken from his street and citations for an unpermitted modular.

4. Elizabeth Aceuedo spoke on her substandard house and the contractors who built it.

5. Alexandra Bern spoke in favor of releasing the full building division audit report.

6. Autumn Field spoke in favor of releasing the full building division audit report.

MOTION by Culleton, seconded by Lassonde, approved the Town’s responses to the three separate 2025-2026 Butte County Grand Jury Final Reports with the selected options as noted above, and, authorized the Mayor to sign the responses on behalf of the Town Council. AYES: Greg Bolin, Steve “Woody” Culleton, Ronald Lassonde and Steve Crowder, Mayor; NOES: Heidi Lange; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None. Motion Carries. (550-20-024)

5. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Crowder closed the meeting at 4:36 p.m.

Date approved:

By: Attest:
__________________________ __________________________
Steve Crowder, Mayor Melanie Elvis, Town Clerk
129

TOWN OF PARADISE

CASH DISBURSEMENTS REPORT

FOR THE PERIOD OF
July 1, 2026 - July 31, 2026
130

CASH DISBURSEMENTS REPORT
July 1, 2026 - July 31, 2026
Check Date Pay Period End Description Amount Total
7/3/2026 6/28/2026 Net Payroll - Direct Deposits and Checks $ 301,406.33 7/17/2026 7/12/2026 Net Payroll - Direct Deposits and Checks $ 292,982.85 7/31/2026 7/26/2026 Net Payroll - Direct Deposits and Checks $ 292,537.27 $ 886,926.45
Accounts Payable
Payroll Vendors: Taxes, PERS, Dues, Insurance, Etc. $ 3,691,075.92 Operations Vendors: Supplies, Contracts, Utilities, Etc. $6,661,714.14 TOTAL CASH DISBURSEMENTS ACCOUNTS PAYABLE $ 10,352,790.06 GRAND TOTAL CASH DISBURSEMENTS $ 11,239,716.51
APPROVED BY:

Aimee Beleu - Finance Director/Town Treasurer
APPROVED BY:

Jennifer Macarthy - Town Manager
131
Number Date Status Void Reason
Reconciled/
Voided Date Source Payee Name
Transaction
Amount
Reconciled
Amount Difference
AP TCB - General Checking
Check
91862 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/14/2026 Accounts Payable ABILITY USA $552.00 $552.00 $0.00 91863 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/17/2026 Accounts Payable Adams Ashby Group, Inc. $4,055.00 $4,055.00 $0.00 91864 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/17/2026 Accounts Payable Adams Ashby Group, Inc. $6,966.25 $6,966.25 $0.00 91865 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/14/2026 Accounts Payable ADVANCED DOCUMENT

CONCEPTS
$300.00 $300.00 $0.00
91866 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/14/2026 Accounts Payable ALLIANT INSURANCE $48,879.00 $48,879.00 $0.00 91867 07/08/2026 Open Accounts Payable Alternative Energy Systems, INC $2,386.62 91868 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/15/2026 Accounts Payable AT&T & CALNET3 - CIRCUIT LINES $273.59 $273.59 $0.00 91869 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/15/2026 Accounts Payable AT&T & CALNET3 - CIRCUIT LINES $136.80 $136.80 $0.00 91870 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/13/2026 Accounts Payable Bear Electrical Systems, Inc $1,520.00 $1,520.00 $0.00 91871 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/17/2026 Accounts Payable Biometrics4ALL, Inc $90.75 $90.75 $0.00 91872 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/17/2026 Accounts Payable BLUE VOICE INC $7,000.00 $7,000.00 $0.00 91873 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/15/2026 Accounts Payable Broad & Gusman $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $0.00 91874 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/21/2026 Accounts Payable BUTTE CO RECORDER $265.00 $265.00 $0.00 91875 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/23/2026 Accounts Payable CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS

ASSOCIATION
$185.00 $185.00 $0.00
91876 07/08/2026 Open Accounts Payable Carollo Engineers, Inc. $148,248.99 91877 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/17/2026 Accounts Payable CivicPlus, LLC $4,987.27 $4,987.27 $0.00 91878 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/15/2026 Accounts Payable Coastland $11,844.00 $11,844.00 $0.00 91879 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/14/2026 Accounts Payable Cole Huber LLP $676.00 $676.00 $0.00 91880 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/20/2026 Accounts Payable CONTINENTAL BATTERY

COMPANY
$479.57 $479.57 $0.00
91881 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/09/2026 Accounts Payable DBA Silverado Construction, Roy F, Strop Jr
$62,012.29 $62,012.29 $0.00
91882 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/15/2026 Accounts Payable Derek Wainwright $2,800.00 $2,800.00 $0.00 91883 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/13/2026 Accounts Payable Desilva Gates Construction LLC $592,898.56 $592,898.56 $0.00 91884 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/15/2026 Accounts Payable Down Range Indoor Training Center $539.61 $539.61 $0.00 91885 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/13/2026 Accounts Payable Elam IT, Jon, Elam $2,027.91 $2,027.91 $0.00 91886 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/21/2026 Accounts Payable EXPERTS IN YOUR HOME $66,533.75 $66,533.75 $0.00 91887 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/14/2026 Accounts Payable FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE

COMPANY - CHICO
$100,000.00 $100,000.00 $0.00
91888 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/17/2026 Accounts Payable FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE

COMPANY - CHICO
$100,000.00 $100,000.00 $0.00
91889 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/14/2026 Accounts Payable FOOTHILL MILL & LUMBER $30.96 $30.96 $0.00 91890 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/16/2026 Accounts Payable FP/FRANCOTYP-POSTALIA

MAILING SOLUTIONS
$145.80 $145.80 $0.00
91891 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/14/2026 Accounts Payable Gates, Matthew $3,504.09 $3,504.09 $0.00 91892 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/13/2026 Accounts Payable Golden State Fire Apparatus, Inc $603.53 $603.53 $0.00 91893 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/14/2026 Accounts Payable GREAT AMERICA LEASING CORP. $146.82 $146.82 $0.00 91894 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/13/2026 Accounts Payable GREEN RIDGE LANDSCAPING $7,215.00 $7,215.00 $0.00 91895 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/21/2026 Accounts Payable Hawkins Delafield & Wood LLP $4,125.00 $4,125.00 $0.00 91896 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/15/2026 Accounts Payable HDR Engineering, Inc $71,078.99 $71,078.99 $0.00 91897 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/17/2026 Accounts Payable HLP, INC / CHAMELEON

SOFTWARE PRODUCTS
$3.15 $3.15 $0.00
91898 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/14/2026 Accounts Payable INTERSTATE OIL COMPANY $359.66 $359.66 $0.00 91899 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/14/2026 Accounts Payable Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. $61,484.92 $61,484.92 $0.00 91900 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/13/2026 Accounts Payable Kazemi Construction LLC $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $0.00 91901 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/09/2026 Accounts Payable Kozak, Ginny $380.00 $380.00 $0.00 91902 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/14/2026 Accounts Payable L.N. CURTIS & SONS $1,445.70 $1,445.70 $0.00 91903 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/14/2026 Accounts Payable LEAF Capital Funding LLC $143.55 $143.55 $0.00 user: Aimee Beleu Pages: 1 of 7 Friday, July 31, 2026
Payment Register

TOWN OF PARADISE
From Payment Date: 7/1/2026 - To Payment Date: 7/31/2026 132
Number Date Status Void Reason
Reconciled/
Voided Date Source Payee Name
Transaction
Amount
Reconciled
Amount Difference
91904 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/16/2026 Accounts Payable Meyers Police K-9 Training, LLC $1,660.00 $1,660.00 $0.00 91905 07/08/2026 Open Accounts Payable MID VALLEY TITLE & ESCROW $100,000.00 91906 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/13/2026 Accounts Payable MID VALLEY TITLE & ESCROW $113.10 $113.10 $0.00 91907 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/14/2026 Accounts Payable MID VALLEY TITLE & ESCROW $250.00 $250.00 $0.00 91908 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/09/2026 Accounts Payable MID VALLEY TITLE & ESCROW $8,926.00 $8,926.00 $0.00 91909 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/15/2026 Accounts Payable MID VALLEY TITLE & ESCROW $100,000.00 $100,000.00 $0.00 91910 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/13/2026 Accounts Payable MID VALLEY TITLE & ESCROW $113.10 $113.10 $0.00 91911 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/15/2026 Accounts Payable Mooretown Rancheria Forestry Contract Services
$1,904.18 $1,904.18 $0.00
91912 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/13/2026 Accounts Payable MUNIMETRIX SYSTEMS CORP $79.98 $79.98 $0.00 91913 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/17/2026 Accounts Payable NAPA Auto Parts $161.52 $161.52 $0.00 91914 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/14/2026 Accounts Payable NetFile, Inc. $3,750.00 $3,750.00 $0.00 91915 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/14/2026 Accounts Payable NORTHERN RECYCLING & WASTE SERVICES, INC.
$2,609.60 $2,609.60 $0.00
91916 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/15/2026 Accounts Payable O'REILLY AUTO PARTS $214.70 $214.70 $0.00 91917 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/16/2026 Accounts Payable OFFICE DEPOT ACCT#36233169 $73.43 $73.43 $0.00 91918 07/08/2026 Open Accounts Payable Oroville Tow & Salvage $900.00 91919 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/22/2026 Accounts Payable PageFreezer Software Inc $6,993.74 $6,993.74 $0.00 91920 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/09/2026 Accounts Payable PARADISE IRRIGATION DIST $2,094.03 $2,094.03 $0.00 91921 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/15/2026 Accounts Payable PARADISE POST $106.85 $106.85 $0.00 91922 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/17/2026 Accounts Payable Primo Brands $114.95 $114.95 $0.00 91923 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/14/2026 Accounts Payable RENTAL GUYS - CHICO $1,434.07 $1,434.07 $0.00 91924 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/09/2026 Accounts Payable Ridge Builders LLC $69,616.98 $69,616.98 $0.00 91925 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/29/2026 Accounts Payable Solecki, Brian $96.07 $96.07 $0.00 91926 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/14/2026 Accounts Payable Speedo Check $1,408.00 $1,408.00 $0.00 91927 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/13/2026 Accounts Payable Spherion Staffing $6,910.56 $6,910.56 $0.00 91928 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/15/2026 Accounts Payable T and S DVBE Inc. $758.60 $758.60 $0.00 91929 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/13/2026 Accounts Payable Tahoe Pure Water Co. $214.05 $214.05 $0.00 91930 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/20/2026 Accounts Payable The Ferguson Group $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 91931 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/15/2026 Accounts Payable The Pape' Group INC $175.50 $175.50 $0.00 91932 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/14/2026 Accounts Payable THOMAS ACE HARDWARE $402.99 $402.99 $0.00 91933 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/14/2026 Accounts Payable THOMAS ACE HARDWARE - ENG.

DEPT.
$289.80 $289.80 $0.00
91934 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/14/2026 Accounts Payable THOMAS ACE HARDWARE - FIRE DEPT.
$52.36 $52.36 $0.00
91935 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/14/2026 Accounts Payable THOMAS ACE HARDWARE -

MOTORPOOL
$16.41 $16.41 $0.00
91936 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/16/2026 Accounts Payable Top Notch Commercial Cleaning Inc. $1,800.00 $1,800.00 $0.00 91937 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/14/2026 Accounts Payable TransUnion Risk and Alternative Data Solutions Inc
$345.00 $345.00 $0.00
91938 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/15/2026 Accounts Payable Tri Flame Propane $178.68 $178.68 $0.00 91939 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/15/2026 Accounts Payable UNICO Engineering, Inc. $87,686.56 $87,686.56 $0.00 91940 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/15/2026 Accounts Payable Urban Design Associates. LTD $42,060.08 $42,060.08 $0.00 91941 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/17/2026 Accounts Payable Utility Associates, Inc. $33.00 $33.00 $0.00 91942 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/17/2026 Accounts Payable VALLEY OAK VETERINARY CENTER
$1,200.00 $1,200.00 $0.00
91943 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/15/2026 Accounts Payable Worthington, Brooke $380.00 $380.00 $0.00 91944 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/29/2026 Accounts Payable Anderson, David $2,208.15 $2,208.15 $0.00 91945 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/21/2026 Accounts Payable Nelson, Amy $46.00 $46.00 $0.00 91946 07/08/2026 Open Accounts Payable Rybvhenko, Pavel $298.67 91947 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/15/2026 Accounts Payable BUTTE CO NEAL ROAD LANDFILL $305.40 $305.40 $0.00 user: Aimee Beleu Pages: 2 of 7 Friday, July 31, 2026
Payment Register

TOWN OF PARADISE
From Payment Date: 7/1/2026 - To Payment Date: 7/31/2026 133
Number Date Status Void Reason
Reconciled/
Voided Date Source Payee Name
Transaction
Amount
Reconciled
Amount Difference
91948 07/09/2026 Reconciled 07/22/2026 Accounts Payable ICMA 457 - MissionSquare $4,577.47 $4,577.47 $0.00 91949 07/09/2026 Reconciled 07/20/2026 Accounts Payable Oregon Department of Revenue $455.00 $455.00 $0.00 91950 07/09/2026 Reconciled 07/21/2026 Accounts Payable STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT $194.76 $194.76 $0.00 91951 07/09/2026 Reconciled 07/24/2026 Accounts Payable Aflac $57.98 $57.98 $0.00 91952 07/09/2026 Reconciled 07/23/2026 Accounts Payable Met Life $14,296.60 $14,296.60 $0.00 91953 07/09/2026 Reconciled 07/28/2026 Accounts Payable OPERATING ENGINEERS $1,440.00 $1,440.00 $0.00 91954 07/09/2026 Reconciled 07/21/2026 Accounts Payable PARADISE POLICE OFFICERS

ASSOCIATION
$2,432.96 $2,432.96 $0.00
91955 07/09/2026 Reconciled 07/23/2026 Accounts Payable SUN LIFE INSURANCE $8,749.57 $8,749.57 $0.00 91956 07/09/2026 Reconciled 07/22/2026 Accounts Payable SUPERIOR VISION SVC INC $917.48 $917.48 $0.00 91957 07/09/2026 Open Accounts Payable TOP CONFIDENTIAL MID MGMT

ASSOCIATION
$110.00
91958 07/20/2026 Open Accounts Payable ICMA 457 - MissionSquare $4,627.72 91959 07/20/2026 Open Accounts Payable Oregon Department of Revenue $478.00 91960 07/20/2026 Open Accounts Payable STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT $194.76 91961 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable ACCESS INFORMATION

PROTECTED
$626.46
91962 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable ACI ENTERPRISES, INC. $2,631.72 91963 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable Adams Ashby Group, Inc. $9,150.00 91964 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable ADVANCED DOCUMENT

CONCEPTS
$6.21
91965 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable ALLDATA $1,500.00 91966 07/22/2026 Voided Incorrect Vendor 07/23/2026 Accounts Payable Alternative Energy Systems, INC $17,168.86 91967 07/22/2026 Reconciled 07/27/2026 Accounts Payable Arbor Pros, LLC $160,748.19 $160,748.19 $0.00 91968 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable Baker Tilly US, LLP $15,750.00 91969 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable Bannister, Stuart $1,000.00 91970 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable BINTF $15,000.00 91971 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable Blue Flamingo Marketing Advocates $300.00 91972 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable Bob I Becker Contracting $500.00 91973 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable Bug Smart $116.00 91974 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable California Concrete LLC $1,092.50 91975 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT

OF JUSTICE
$1,071.00
91976 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable Carol J Surowy $1,150.00 91977 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable Charles J Hurt $600.00 91978 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable CivicPlus, LLC $4,800.00 91979 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable Coastland $666.93 91980 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable Cole Huber LLP $30,518.74 91981 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable CONTINENTAL BATTERY COMPANY $104.36 91982 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable Cooper, Andrew $220.00 91983 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable De Lage Landen Public Finance LLC $781.25 91984 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable DELL SMALL BUSINESS $18,894.30 91985 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY &

FIRE PROTECTION
$40,630.64
91986 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable Dokken Engineering, Inc. $360,763.29 91987 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable ENTENMANN-ROVIN COMPANY $135.75 91988 07/22/2026 Reconciled 07/29/2026 Accounts Payable FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE

COMPANY - CHICO
$100,000.00 $100,000.00 $0.00
91989 07/22/2026 Voided Incorrect Vendor 07/22/2026 Accounts Payable FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE

COMPANY - CHICO
$100,000.00
91990 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable Flud, Michael $200.00 user: Aimee Beleu Pages: 3 of 7 Friday, July 31, 2026
Payment Register

TOWN OF PARADISE
From Payment Date: 7/1/2026 - To Payment Date: 7/31/2026 134
Number Date Status Void Reason
Reconciled/
Voided Date Source Payee Name
Transaction
Amount
Reconciled
Amount Difference
91991 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable Free Style Embroidery $170.43 91992 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable Golden State Emergency Vehicle Service, Inc.
$3,959.70
91993 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable Golden State Fire Apparatus, Inc $9,618.42 91994 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable GREEN RIDGE LANDSCAPING $1,120.06 91995 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable Higashi, Joshua $97.69 91996 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable Interwest Consulting Group, Inc. $7,700.00 91997 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable J&J Tree Service LLC $1,200.00 91998 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. $145,516.64 91999 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable Jennifer Arbuckle $2,500.00 92000 07/22/2026 Reconciled 07/24/2026 Accounts Payable Kazemi Construction LLC $23,600.00 $23,600.00 $0.00 92001 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable KNIFE RIVER CONSTRUCTION $901,943.78 92002 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable KOEFRAN INDUSTRIES $1,200.00 92003 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable L.N. CURTIS & SONS $1,708.08 92004 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable LACO Associates $25,606.50 92005 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable Law Office of Gregory P. Einhorn $2,120.00 92006 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable LEAF Capital Funding LLC $274.05 92007 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable Levering, Charlene $900.00 92008 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE $4,935.00 92009 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable LIFE ASSIST INC $1,054.60 92010 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable Meyers Police K-9 Training, LLC $900.00 92011 07/22/2026 Reconciled 07/24/2026 Accounts Payable Morgan Ridge Construction, Inc. $31,699.50 $31,699.50 $0.00 92012 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable MUNIMETRIX SYSTEMS CORP $79.98 92013 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable NAPA Auto Parts $20.53 92014 07/22/2026 Reconciled 07/24/2026 Accounts Payable NICOLETTI, CHRISTOPHER $200.00 $200.00 $0.00 92015 07/22/2026 Reconciled 07/24/2026 Accounts Payable NorCal Construction $62,917.50 $62,917.50 $0.00 92016 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable North State Tire Co. Inc. $727.23 92017 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable NORTHERN RECYCLING & WASTE SERVICES, INC.
$2,609.60
92018 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable NORTHGATE PETROLEUM CO $10,259.19 92019 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable NORTHSTATE AGGREGATE, INC. $1,223.44 92020 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable O'REILLY AUTO PARTS $2,219.22 92021 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable OFFICE DEPOT ACCT#36233169 $207.49 92022 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable OROVILLE FORD $197.84 92023 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable PARADISE POST $88.15 92024 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable PARADISE RECREATION & PARK

DISTRICT
$17,607.16
92025 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable PlaceWorks Inc $36,329.44 92026 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable Protek Concreate Coatings, Inc. $10,239.27 92027 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable RENTAL GUYS - CHICO $363.76 92028 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable Richardson & Company, LLP $1,715.00 92029 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable Selman & Company LLC $72.80 92030 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable Shelby's Pest Control, Inc. $110.00 92031 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable Stratti $4,631.25 92032 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable SUTTER BUTTES
COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
$32,660.14
92033 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable Tahoe Pure Water Co. $46.40 92034 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable The Ferguson Group $5,000.00 92035 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable The Lamar Companies $975.00 92036 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable The Pape' Group INC $159.27 user: Aimee Beleu Pages: 4 of 7 Friday, July 31, 2026
Payment Register

TOWN OF PARADISE
From Payment Date: 7/1/2026 - To Payment Date: 7/31/2026 135
Number Date Status Void Reason
Reconciled/
Voided Date Source Payee Name
Transaction
Amount
Reconciled
Amount Difference
92037 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable THOMAS ACE HARDWARE $8.65 92038 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable THOMAS ACE HARDWARE - ENG.

DEPT.
$576.56
92039 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable THOMAS ACE HARDWARE - FIRE DEPT.
$181.55
92040 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable THOMAS ACE HARDWARE -

MOTORPOOL
$24.02
92041 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable THOMAS ACE HARDWARE - POLICE DEPT.
$21.23
92042 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable THOMAS HYDRAULIC & HARDWARE SUPPLY, INC.
$264.66
92043 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable THRIFTY ROOTER $834.10 92044 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable Top Notch Commercial Cleaning Inc. $6,600.00 92045 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable Urban Design Associates. LTD $17,808.60 92046 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable Wallace, Kim $550.00 92047 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable Welbourn, Susan $75.00 92048 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable WITTMEIER AUTO CENTER $139.80 92049 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable Bone , Sue $14.39 92050 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable Mako Construction $298.67 92051 07/22/2026 Open Accounts Payable Munro, Donald $102.84 92052 07/22/2026 Reconciled 07/29/2026 Accounts Payable MID VALLEY TITLE & ESCROW $100,000.00 $100,000.00 $0.00 92053 07/23/2026 Open Accounts Payable Gates, Matthew $3,504.09 92054 07/23/2026 Open Accounts Payable LeGros, Ernest $2,257.50 92055 07/28/2026 Open Accounts Payable FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE

COMPANY - CHICO
$100,000.00
92056 07/28/2026 Open Accounts Payable GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF

EMERGENCY SERVICES
$285,201.63
92057 07/28/2026 Open Accounts Payable NCCSIF TREASURER $639,244.00 92058 07/28/2026 Open Accounts Payable NCCSIF TREASURER $82,341.25 92059 07/28/2026 Open Accounts Payable Urban Design Solar $17,168.86 92060 07/31/2026 Open Accounts Payable ICMA 457 - MissionSquare $2,494.64 92061 07/31/2026 Open Accounts Payable Oregon Department of Revenue $199.00 92062 07/31/2026 Open Accounts Payable STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT $194.76 Type Check Totals: 201 Transactions $5,317,555.65 $2,034,759.97 $0.00 EFT
579 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/10/2026 Accounts Payable Amazon Capital Services $1,937.39 $1,937.39 $0.00 580 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/29/2026 Accounts Payable CALPERS - RETIREMENT $2,998,493.40 $2,998,493.40 $0.00 581 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/14/2026 Accounts Payable COMCAST CABLE $17.17 $17.17 $0.00 582 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/14/2026 Accounts Payable COMCAST CABLE $184.30 $184.30 $0.00 583 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/14/2026 Accounts Payable COMCAST CABLE $429.25 $429.25 $0.00 584 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/24/2026 Accounts Payable Computershare $1,320,951.76 $1,320,951.76 $0.00 585 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/14/2026 Accounts Payable PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC $1.23 $1.23 $0.00 586 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/14/2026 Accounts Payable PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC $125.18 $125.18 $0.00 587 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/14/2026 Accounts Payable PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC $320.54 $320.54 $0.00 588 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/14/2026 Accounts Payable PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC $468.07 $468.07 $0.00 589 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/14/2026 Accounts Payable PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC $8.99 $8.99 $0.00 590 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/14/2026 Accounts Payable PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC $24.49 $24.49 $0.00 591 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/15/2026 Accounts Payable T MOBILE USA, INC. $2,120.94 $2,120.94 $0.00 592 07/08/2026 Reconciled 07/10/2026 Accounts Payable Tri Counties Bank $16,317.82 $16,317.82 $0.00 593 07/03/2026 Reconciled 07/06/2026 Accounts Payable CALPERS - RETIREMENT $70,508.03 $70,508.03 $0.00 user: Aimee Beleu Pages: 5 of 7 Friday, July 31, 2026
Payment Register

TOWN OF PARADISE
From Payment Date: 7/1/2026 - To Payment Date: 7/31/2026 136
Number Date Status Void Reason
Reconciled/
Voided Date Source Payee Name
Transaction
Amount
Reconciled
Amount Difference
594 07/03/2026 Reconciled 07/06/2026 Accounts Payable EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT

DEPARTMENT
$18,047.92 $18,047.92 $0.00
595 07/03/2026 Reconciled 07/07/2026 Accounts Payable ING LIFE INS & ANNUITY COMPANY $8,510.02 $8,510.02 $0.00 596 07/03/2026 Reconciled 07/06/2026 Accounts Payable INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE $57,823.80 $57,823.80 $0.00 597 07/09/2026 Reconciled 07/10/2026 Accounts Payable CALPERS $195,156.38 $195,156.38 $0.00 598 07/17/2026 Reconciled 07/20/2026 Accounts Payable EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT

DEPARTMENT
$16,310.96 $16,310.96 $0.00
599 07/17/2026 Reconciled 07/20/2026 Accounts Payable INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE $53,621.09 $53,621.09 $0.00 600 07/20/2026 Reconciled 07/22/2026 Accounts Payable CALPERS - RETIREMENT $72,535.12 $72,535.12 $0.00 601 07/20/2026 Reconciled 07/22/2026 Accounts Payable ING LIFE INS & ANNUITY COMPANY $8,595.76 $8,595.76 $0.00 602 07/22/2026 Reconciled 07/23/2026 Accounts Payable Amazon Capital Services $6,816.47 $6,816.47 $0.00 603 07/22/2026 Reconciled 07/27/2026 Accounts Payable AT&T MOBILITY $143.70 $143.70 $0.00 604 07/22/2026 Reconciled 07/27/2026 Accounts Payable AT&T MOBILITY $107.00 $107.00 $0.00 605 07/22/2026 Reconciled 07/27/2026 Accounts Payable COMCAST CABLE $219.25 $219.25 $0.00 606 07/22/2026 Reconciled 07/27/2026 Accounts Payable COMCAST CABLE $444.25 $444.25 $0.00 607 07/22/2026 Reconciled 07/27/2026 Accounts Payable COMCAST CABLE $434.25 $434.25 $0.00 608 07/22/2026 Reconciled 07/27/2026 Accounts Payable COMCAST CABLE $444.25 $444.25 $0.00 609 07/22/2026 Reconciled 07/27/2026 Accounts Payable PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC $15,286.78 $15,286.78 $0.00 610 07/22/2026 Reconciled 07/27/2026 Accounts Payable PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC $150.99 $150.99 $0.00 611 07/22/2026 Reconciled 07/27/2026 Accounts Payable PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC $1,395.12 $1,395.12 $0.00 612 07/22/2026 Reconciled 07/23/2026 Accounts Payable Tri Counties Bank $14,111.86 $14,111.86 $0.00 613 07/22/2026 Reconciled 07/27/2026 Accounts Payable VERIZON WIRELESS $304.08 $304.08 $0.00 614 07/22/2026 Reconciled 07/27/2026 Accounts Payable VERIZON WIRELESS $282.41 $282.41 $0.00 615 07/22/2026 Reconciled 07/27/2026 Accounts Payable VERIZON WIRELESS $1,399.65 $1,399.65 $0.00 616 07/31/2026 Open Accounts Payable CALPERS - RETIREMENT $73,369.05 617 07/31/2026 Open Accounts Payable EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT

DEPARTMENT
$16,361.94
618 07/31/2026 Open Accounts Payable ING LIFE INS & ANNUITY COMPANY $8,949.75 619 07/31/2026 Open Accounts Payable INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE $52,504.00 Type EFT Totals: 41 Transactions $5,035,234.41 $4,884,049.67 $0.00 AP TCB - General Checking Totals
user: Aimee Beleu Pages: 6 of 7 Friday, July 31, 2026
Payment Register

TOWN OF PARADISE
From Payment Date: 7/1/2026 - To Payment Date: 7/31/2026 137
Number Date Status Void Reason
Reconciled/
Voided Date Source Payee Name
Transaction
Amount
Reconciled
Amount Difference
Checks Status Count Transaction Amount Reconciled Amount Open 102 $3,165,626.82 $0.00
Reconciled 97 $2,034,759.97 $2,034,759.97
Voided 2 $117,168.86 $0.00
Stopped 0 $0.00 $0.00
Total 201 $5,317,555.65 $2,034,759.97
EFTs Status Count Transaction Amount Reconciled Amount
Open 4 $151,184.74 $0.00
Reconciled 37 $4,884,049.67 $4,884,049.67
Voided 0 $0.00 $0.00
Total 41 $5,035,234.41 $4,884,049.67
All Status Count Transaction Amount Reconciled Amount
Open 106 $3,316,811.56 $0.00
Reconciled 134 $6,918,809.64 $6,918,809.64
Voided 2 $117,168.86 $0.00
Stopped 0 $0.00 $0.00
Total 242 $10,352,790.06 $6,918,809.64
Grand Totals:

Checks Status Count Transaction Amount Reconciled Amount Open 102 $3,165,626.82 $0.00
Reconciled 97 $2,034,759.97 $2,034,759.97
Voided 2 $117,168.86 $0.00
Stopped 0 $0.00 $0.00
Total 201 $5,317,555.65 $2,034,759.97
EFTs Status Count Transaction Amount Reconciled Amount
Open 4 $151,184.74 $0.00
Reconciled 37 $4,884,049.67 $4,884,049.67
Voided 0 $0.00 $0.00
Total 41 $5,035,234.41 $4,884,049.67
All Status Count Transaction Amount Reconciled Amount
Open 106 $3,316,811.56 $0.00
Reconciled 134 $6,918,809.64 $6,918,809.64
Voided 2 $117,168.86 $0.00
Stopped 0 $0.00 $0.00
Total 242 $10,352,790.06 $6,918,809.64
user: Aimee Beleu Pages: 7 of 7 Friday, July 31, 2026
Payment Register

TOWN OF PARADISE
From Payment Date: 7/1/2026 - To Payment Date: 7/31/2026 138

Town of Paradise
Council Agenda Summary
Date: August 11, 2026
Agenda Item: 2(c)
ORIGINATED BY: Marc Mattox, Director of Public Works/Town Engineer
REVIEWED BY: Jennifer Macarthy, Town Manager
SUBJECT: CDBG MIT-RIP Application Authorizing Resolution

LONG TERM
RECOVERY PLAN:

Yes
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 2026-_____ , “A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Paradise approving an application for funding and the execution of a grant agreement and any amendments thereto from the 2023-2024 funding year of the State CDBG Mitigation Resilience Infrastructure (MIT-RIP) program.” Background:

The Town has secured $18,941,310.31 in Community Development Block Grant Mitigation (CDBG MIT) Resilient Infrastructure Program (RIP) funding to assist with delivering infrastructure projects that address identified unmet 2018 disaster recovery needs and increase the resilience of cities and counties. The Storm Drain Resiliency Project Phase 1 was awarded $9,309,270.81 and the Private Road Identification Safety Project was awarded $963,953 in CDBG MIT-RIP funds.

At the March 12, 2024 Town Council Meeting, council approved an application for funding and the execution of a grant agreement and any amendments thereto from the 2023-2024 funding year of the State CDBG Mitigation Resilience Infrastructure (MIT-RIP) program which included the Storm Drain Resiliency Project Phase 1 and the Private Road Identification Safety Project.

On November 10, 2025 the Town of Paradise was given a preliminary award announcement for the Storm Drain Resiliency Project Phase 2 stating that it has been awarded $8,668,086.50 from the 2018 CDBG MIT-RIP program.

Analysis:

As a component of the application process for MIT-RIP, an authorizing resolution designating authority to submit applications and sign agreements is required, similar to the Town’s efforts through CDBG-DR infrastructure programs in 2022.

Engineering staff have prepared an application under the MIT-RIP program, including:

1. Storm Drain Resiliency Project Phase 1 and 2 - This grouping of projects includes the implementation of recommendations from the Town’s 2022 Storm Drain Master Plan. 139
Projects include new storm drain systems and upsizing of existing storm drain infrastructure to meet the new demands and increased flows observed.

2. Private Road Identification Safety Project – The installation of public and private road street name signs across the Town of Paradise that aims to standardize and inventory street name signs and also designate between no outlet and through roads.

For CDBG MIT-RIP, an authorizing resolution is required to be adopted by Paradise Town Council. The resolution is attached to this Agenda Summary for consideration.

This authorizing resolution for the CDBG MIT-RIP application was previously passed and adopted by Town Council on March 12, 2024. Recently Housing and Community Development (HCD) requested that the Town pass and adopt an updated authorizing resolution due to the disencumbrance of the Evacuation Route Permanent Changeable Message Sign Project and the following reallocation of funds to the Storm Drain Resiliency Project Phase 1 as well as the award of funding to the Storm Drain Resiliency Project Phase 2. This is purely an administrative step that the Town is making to maintain compliance with HCD policies and regulations.

Financial Impact:

There are no new financial impacts associated with this action item. These grant programs fund projects at 100% including project development costs.

Attachments:

A. Resolution
140
1 TOWN OF PARADISE
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-____

A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF PARADISE

APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR FUNDING AND THE EXECUTION OF A GRANT AGREEMENT AND ANY AMENDMENTS THERETO FROM THE 2023- 2024 FUNDING YEAR OF THE STATE CDBG MITIGATION RESILIENCE INFRASTRUCTURE (MIT-RIP) PROGRAM.

WHEREAS, The Town of Paradise has significant infrastructure capital projects that need attention; and,
WHEREAS, The Town of Paradise would like to apply for various grants to obtain funding for some of those infrastructure projects.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Paradise as follows:

SECTION 1: The Town Council has reviewed and hereby approves the submission to the State of California of one or more application(s) in the aggregate amount, not to exceed, of $18,941,310.31 for the following CDBG-MIT activities, pursuant to the 2017/2018 CDBG MIT-PPS, and MIT-RIP NOFA:

Activity (Infrastructure Project) Dollar Amount Being Requested for the Activity
Private Road Identification Safety Project $963,953.00
Storm Drain Resiliency Project Phase 1 $9,309,270.81
Storm Drain Resiliency Project Phase 2 $8,668,086.50
SECTION 2: The Town Council acknowledges compliance with all state and federal public participation requirements in the development of its application(s).

SECTION 3: The Town Council hereby authorizes and directs the Town Manager or designee Public Works Director/Town Engineer, is authorized to enter into, execute and deliver the grant agreement (i.e., Standard Agreement) and any and all subsequent amendments thereto with the State of California for the purposes 141
2 of the grant.

SECTION 4: If an application is approved, Town Manager or designee Public Works Director/Town Engineer, to execute and deliver all applications and act on its behalf in all matters pertaining to all such applications.

SECTION 5: If an application is approved, Town Manager or designee public Works Director/Town Engineer, is authorized to sign and submit Funds Requests and all required reporting forms and other documentation as may be required by the State of California from time to time in connection with the grant.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Paradise on this 11th day of August 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

By:

Steve Crowder, Mayor
ATTEST:

Melanie Elvis, CMC, Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Scott E. Huber, Town Attorney
142

Town of Paradise
Council Agenda Summary
Date: August 11, 2026
Agenda Item: 2(d)
ORIGINATED BY: Aimee Beleu, Finance Director/Town Treasurer REVIEWED BY: Jennifer Macarthy, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Quarterly Investment Report

LONG TERM
RECOVERY PLAN:

No.

COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:

1. Review and file the 4th Quarter Investment Report for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2026.

Background:

Attached is the report on the Town’s cash and investments for the quarter ending June 30, 2026.

A Tri-Counties checking account is currently being used for payroll, accounts payable and other operating purposes. Most accounts payable disbursements are drawn through checks, and most payroll disbursements are processed through direct deposit.

The Town utilizes the State of California managed Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) for investment of General Fund cash in excess of immediately needed operating capital. LAIF provides for same day liquidity as funds can be transferred electronically through computer authorization between LAIF and the Town checking account. LAIF has also provided historically competitive yields, with a return of 3.92% for the period ending June 30, 2026.

California CLASS is a joint exercise of powers entity authorized under Section 6509.7, California Government Code. California CLASS is a pooled investment option that was created via a joint exercise of powers agreement (JPA Agreement) by and among California public agencies.

California CLASS provides the Town with a convenient method for investing in high-quality, shortto medium-term securities carefully selected to optimize interest earnings while maximizing safety and liquidity. The California CLASS Prime fund has provided the Town with an opportunity to strengthen and diversify its cash management programs in accordance with the safety, liquidity, and yield hierarchy that governs the investment of public funds. CLASS has provided a very competitive yield, with a return of 3.72% for the quarter ending June 30, 2026.

The newest addition to Town’s investment portfolio is Tri-Counties Bank Money Market Account.

The Town also utilizes Tri-Counties Money Market Account for cash in excess of immediately needed operating capital. Tri-Counties provides for same day liquidity as funds can be transferred electronically through computer authorization between the Town’s checking accounts. TriCounties Bank is providing competitive yields, with a return of 3.71% for the period ending June 30, 2026.
143
In July 2020, the Town received a net settlement from PG&E related to the 2018 Camp Fire in the amount of $219,187,262. Since that time, the Town continues to utilize four investment vehicles to manage these funds. Securities purchases are held in a custodial account with US Bank. The Town has contracted with Meeder Investments to assist with management of these funds. Excess funds that are not invested in specific securities are held in the State of California managed Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), California CLASS and Tri-Counties Bank Money Market Account. Future use of these funds continues to be evaluated through a long-term fiscal sustainability model. Based on current rebuild rates and revenue growth trends, at this time it is expected that at least 80% of the total fund balance will be required to be utilized for long-term revenue backfill to ensure continued fiscal sustainability. US Bank Custodial has provided yields of 4.08% for the quarter ending June 30, 2026.

In June of 2011, the Town established an irrevocable trust to begin funding the future obligations associated with retiree health as required by GASB 45. The funds are being managed by SelfInsured Schools of California (SISC) and can only be used for the payment of retiree health benefits. SISC has provided yields of .64% for the quarter ending March 31, 2026.

Financial Impact:

Total investment earnings for the quarter ending June 30, 2026 are $1,400,072. 144
Investment
Report
Town of Paradise
As of June 30, 2026
145
2 OBSERVATIONS AND EXPECTATIONS
• The Fed delivers a hawkish tone at the June FOMC meeting • Headline CPI is at the highest level since 2023 primarily due to energy price increases
• U.S. economic growth looks strong for the second quarter of 2026 • Shorter-term interest rates increased in June with a Fed hike projected later this year
• At the end of February (prior to
the Iran conflict), the futures
market was pricing in
approximately 2.5 quarter point
cuts by December 2026.
• At the end of June, futures market
data were projecting the Fed to
hike later this year.
2 SOURCE: BLOOMBERG
-3
-2
-1
0 1
2 3
$50
$60
$70
$80
$90
$100
$110
$120
$130
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Fed .25% Hikes/Cuts
Oil Per Barrel
Oil/Barrel Fed Cuts/Hikes
Price of Oil vs. Number of Fed Hike/Cuts Over the Next 12 Months 146
3 • Q1 2026’s GDP was recently revised up
from 1.6% to 2.1%.
• This growth surge was primarily driven
by lower imports and stronger business
investment, even though underlying
consumer spending was weak.
• Q2 2026 GDP is projected by
Bloomberg surveyed economists to be

2.5%.
• U.S. inflation data released in May,
accelerated to the fastest pace since 2023.
• A surge in energy prices accounted for most
of the recent advance.
• However, the recent decline in oil prices
should push inflation’s rate of change lower
for June.

SOURCE: BLOOMBERG,
SOURCE: BLOOMBERG
3 5.7%

7.0%

3.3%

7.0%
-1.0%

0.6%

2.9%

2.8%

2.9%

2.5%

4.7%

3.4%

0.8%

3.6%

3.3%

1.9%
-0.6%

3.8%

4.4%

0.5%

2.1%

2.5%

1.9%

2.0%
-3%
-2%
-1%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
Q1 21
Q2 21
Q3 21
Q4 21
Q1 22
Q2 22
Q3 22
Q4 22
Q1 23
Q2 23
Q3 23
Q4 23
Q1 24
Q2 24
Q3 24
Q4 24
Q1 25
Q2 25
Q3 25
Q4 25
Q1 26
Q2 26
Q3 26
Q4 26
Real GDP QoQ
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
U.S. Consumer Price Index
CPI YoY
147
4 SOURCES: BLOOMBERG
4 3.40

3.60 3.80

4.00 4.20

4.40 4.60

4.80 5.00

5.20 3M 6M 1Y 2Y 3Yr 5Y 7Y 10Y 20Y 30Y
Percent
U.S. Treasury Yield Curve Change
6/30/26 5/29/26
14 22
18 12
8 3
0 (3)
(7) (8) -15
-10
-505
10 15
20 25
30 3M 6M 1Y 2Y 3Yr 5Y 7Y 10Y 20Y 30Y
Basis Points
Basis Point Change
148
TOWN OF PARADISE | JUNE 30, 2026
5 Portfolio Summary 6
Position Statement 7
Transaction Statement 13
Income/Dividend Received 15
Contribution/Withdrawals and Expenses 18
Projected Income 19
Contents
149
6 Portfolio Summary

CURRENT
MONTH
Beginning 166,229,340.57
Contributions/Withdrawals 0.00
Management Fees (16,500.00)
Custodian Fees (2,842.28)
Realized Gains Losses 43,220.69
Purchased Interest (26,332.05)
Interest Received 1,288,373.71
ENDING 167,515,058.19

4.08 Weighted Average Yield to Maturity

2.53 Weighted Average Maturity (Years)

2.22 Portfolio Effective Duration (Years)

2.41 Weighted Average Life (Years)
AAAverage Credit Rating
Custodial Reconciliation
Sector Allocation
• 1 U.S. Treasuries 28.24%
• 1 Corporate Bonds 26.63%
• 1 MBS 16.88%
• 1 Commercial Paper 6.96%
• 1 U.S. Agencies 6.93%
• 1 Asset-Backed Securities 5.94%
• 1 Municipal Bonds 4.60%
• 1 Supranational 1.96%
• 1 Money Market Funds 0.83%
• 1 Commercial MBS 0.74%
• 1 Negotiable CD's 0.29%
Maturity Distribution
Projected Monthly Income Schedule

TOWN OF PARADISE
JUNE 30, 2026
150
TOWN OF PARADISE | JUNE 30, 2026
7 CUSIP DESCRIPTION

TRADE DATE

SETTLE DATE PAR VALUE

PRINCIPAL COST

PURCHASED

INTEREST TOTAL COST

YIELD TO

MATURITY

MATURITY
DATE

DAYS TO

MATURITY

MARKET PRICE

MARKET VALUE

UNREALIZED

GAIN/LOSS BOOK
VALUE
% OF
MV

MOODY'S
S&P
RATING

TOWN OF

PARADISE

BANK DEPOSITS
00378CASH Tri Counties Bank Money
Market Account x4138
06/30/2026
06/30/2026 7,184,598.51 7,184,598.510.00 7,184,598.51 3.71 1 1.007,184,598.51

0.00 7,184,598.51 4.06 NANA

BANK DEPOSITS
TOTAL 7,184,598.51 7,184,598.510.00 7,184,598.51 3.71 1 1.007,184,598.51

0.00 7,184,598.51 4.06 NA
LGIP
00266CASH LAIF-PGE 06/30/2026
06/30/2026 53,745.72 53,745.720.00 53,745.72 3.81 1 1.0053,745.72

0.00 53,745.72 0.03 NA
CACLASS CALIFORNIA CLASS 06/30/2026
06/30/2026 127,562.17 127,562.170.00 127,562.17 3.72 1 1.00127,562.17

0.00 127,562.17 0.07 NA
00365CASH LAIF-GENERAL 06/30/2026
06/30/2026 1,171,499.48 1,171,499.480.00 1,171,499.48 3.81 1 1.001,171,499.48

0.00 1,171,499.48 0.66 NA
LGIP TOTAL 1,352,807.37 1,352,807.37

0.00 1,352,807.37 3.80 1 1.001,352,807.37

0.00 1,352,807.37 0.76 NA

MONEY MARKET
FUNDS
58510R580 MEEDER:GOVERNMENT
MM;Y
06/30/2026
06/30/2026 1,395,216.63 1,395,216.630.00 1,395,216.63 3.54 1 1.001,395,216.63

0.00 1,395,216.63 0.79 AAAAAA

MONEY MARKET
FUNDS TOTAL 1,395,216.63 1,395,216.630.00 1,395,216.63 3.54 1 1.001,395,216.63

0.00 1,395,216.63 0.79 AAA

COMMERCIAL
PAPER
63873KGP6 NATIXIS NY 07/23/26 11/25/2025
11/25/2025 2,500,000.00 2,436,333.330.00 2,436,333.33 3.92 07/23/2026 23 99.772,494,163.89 57,830.56
2,436,333.33 1.41 P-1A-1
09659CJW9 BNP PARIBAS NY
09/30/26
02/04/2026
02/05/2026 2,980,000.00 2,908,000.720.00 2,908,000.72 3.76 09/30/2026 92 99.072,952,354.71 44,353.99
2,908,000.72 1.67 P-1A-1
53948BL31 LLOYDS BK NY BR
11/03/26
02/06/2026
02/09/2026 3,000,000.00 2,919,232.500.00 2,919,232.50 3.73 11/03/2026 126 98.742,962,187.50 42,955.00
2,919,232.50 1.67 P-1A-1
09659CLA4 BNP PARIBAS NY 11/10/26 02/13/2026
02/17/2026 3,370,000.00 3,279,610.970.00 3,279,610.97 3.73 11/10/2026 133 98.673,325,145.29 45,534.32
3,279,610.97 1.88 P-1A-1

COMMERCIAL
PAPER TOTAL 11,850,000.00 11,543,177.520.00 11,543,177.52 3.78 98 99.0211,733,851.39 190,673.87
11,543,177.52 6.63 A-1
U.S. TREASURIES
91282CCW9 US TREASURY 0.750
08/31/26
09/23/2021
09/24/2021 2,500,000.00 2,481,054.690.00 2,481,054.69 0.91 08/31/2026 62 99.502,487,500.00 6,445.31
2,481,054.69 1.40 Aa1AA+
912828X88 US TREASURY 2.375
05/15/27
11/10/2023
11/13/2023 2,900,000.00 2,679,214.840.00 2,679,214.84 4.76 05/15/2027 319 98.542,857,746.10 178,531.26
2,679,214.84 1.61 Aa1AA+
91282CEW7 US TREASURY 3.250
06/30/27
08/21/2023
08/22/2023 2,500,000.00 2,383,886.720.00 2,383,886.72 4.58 06/30/2027 365 99.162,478,906.25 95,019.53
2,383,886.72 1.40 Aa1AA+
91282CFH9 US TREASURY 3.125
08/31/27
11/22/2023
11/24/2023 2,300,000.00 2,187,785.160.00 2,187,785.16 4.55 08/31/2027 427 98.862,273,675.79 85,890.63
2,187,785.16 1.28 Aa1AA+
Position Statement
151
TOWN OF PARADISE | JUNE 30, 2026
8 CUSIP DESCRIPTION

TRADE DATE

SETTLE DATE PAR VALUE

PRINCIPAL COST

PURCHASED

INTEREST TOTAL COST

YIELD TO

MATURITY

MATURITY
DATE

DAYS TO

MATURITY

MARKET PRICE

MARKET VALUE

UNREALIZED

GAIN/LOSS BOOK
VALUE
% OF
MV

MOODY'S
S&P
RATING
91282CFM8 US TREASURY 4.125
09/30/27
03/03/2023
03/06/2023 950,000.00 941,835.940.00 941,835.94 4.33 09/30/2027 457 99.96949,628.91 7,792.97
941,835.94 0.54 Aa1AA+
91282CFZ9 US TREASURY 3.875
11/30/27
05/09/2024
05/10/2024 2,800,000.00 2,735,796.880.00 2,735,796.88 4.58 11/30/2027 518 99.612,788,953.13 53,156.25
2,735,796.88 1.58 Aa1AA+
91282CGP0 US TREASURY 4.000
02/29/28
08/21/2023
08/22/2023 1,050,000.00 1,028,548.830.00 1,028,548.83 4.50 02/29/2028 609 99.731,047,210.94 18,662.11
1,028,548.83 0.59 Aa1AA+
91282CGP0 US TREASURY 4.000
02/29/28
02/23/2023
03/01/2023 1,175,000.00 1,165,866.210.00 1,165,866.21 4.17 02/29/2028 609 99.731,171,878.91 6,012.70
1,165,866.21 0.66 Aa1AA+
91282CHK0 US TREASURY 4.000
06/30/28
08/21/2023
08/22/2023 2,500,000.00 2,448,242.190.00 2,448,242.19 4.48 06/30/2028 731 99.692,492,285.15 44,042.96
2,448,242.19 1.41 Aa1AA+
91282CHQ7 US TREASURY 4.125
07/31/28
08/21/2023
08/22/2023 2,500,000.00 2,463,964.840.00 2,463,964.84 4.45 07/31/2028 762 99.922,498,046.88 34,082.04
2,463,964.84 1.41 Aa1AA+
91282CHX2 US TREASURY 4.375
08/31/28
09/27/2023
09/28/2023 2,050,000.00 2,027,818.360.00 2,027,818.36 4.62 08/31/2028 793 100.422,058,648.44 30,830.08
2,027,818.36 1.16 Aa1AA+
91282CJA0 US TREASURY 4.625
09/30/28
04/18/2024
04/19/2024 2,525,000.00 2,519,377.930.00 2,519,377.93 4.68 09/30/2028 823 100.972,549,460.94 30,083.01
2,519,377.93 1.44 Aa1AA+
91282CKG5 US TREASURY 4.125
03/31/29
05/09/2024
05/10/2024 2,500,000.00 2,460,742.190.00 2,460,742.19 4.49 03/31/2029 1,005 99.892,497,265.63 36,523.44
2,460,742.19 1.41 Aa1AA+
91282CFL0 US TREASURY 3.875
09/30/29
04/08/2025
04/09/2025 900,000.00 900,210.940.00 900,210.94 3.87 09/30/2029 1,188 99.10891,914.07 (8,296.87)
900,210.94 0.50 Aa1AA+
91282CFL0 US TREASURY 3.875
09/30/29
12/19/2024
12/20/2024 800,000.00 782,468.750.00 782,468.75 4.39 09/30/2029 1,188 99.10792,812.50 10,343.75
782,468.75 0.45 Aa1AA+
91282CFL0 US TREASURY 3.875
09/30/29
10/18/2024
10/21/2024 1,700,000.00 1,695,417.970.00 1,695,417.97 3.94 09/30/2029 1,188 99.101,684,726.57 (10,691.40)
1,695,417.97 0.95 Aa1AA+
91282CMA6 US TREASURY 4.125
11/30/29
12/20/2024
12/23/2024 2,650,000.00 2,620,808.590.00 2,620,808.59 4.38 11/30/2029 1,249 99.842,645,859.38 25,050.79
2,620,808.59 1.49 Aa1AA+
91282CMU2 US TREASURY 4.000
03/31/30
05/07/2025
05/08/2025 3,100,000.00 3,119,132.810.00 3,119,132.81 3.86 03/31/2030 1,370 99.363,080,140.63 (38,992.19)
3,119,132.81 1.74 Aa1AA+
91282CMZ1 US TREASURY 3.875
04/30/30
05/19/2025
05/20/2025 3,500,000.00 3,465,410.160.00 3,465,410.16 4.10 04/30/2030 1,400 98.913,461,992.21 (3,417.96)
3,465,410.16 1.96 Aa1AA+
91282CPR6 US TREASURY 3.625
12/31/30
01/13/2026
01/14/2026 2,500,000.00 2,487,109.380.00 2,487,109.38 3.74 12/31/2030 1,645 97.652,441,210.95 (45,898.43)
2,487,109.38 1.38 Aa1AA+
91282CQG9 US TREASURY 3.875
03/31/31
03/26/2026
03/31/2026 3,000,000.00 2,977,617.190.00 2,977,617.19 4.04 03/31/2031 1,735 98.592,957,812.50 (19,804.69)
2,977,617.19 1.67 Aa1AA+
91282CQK0 US TREASURY 3.875
04/30/31
06/01/2026
06/02/2026 1,500,000.00 1,479,433.595,212.30 1,484,645.89 4.19 04/30/2031 1,765 98.571,478,554.70 (878.90)
1,479,433.59 0.84 Aa1AA+
U.S. TREASURIES
TOTAL 47,900,000.00 47,051,744.165,212.30 47,056,956.46 4.15 930 99.3547,586,230.54 534,486.38
47,051,744.16 26.88 AA+
U.S. AGENCIES
742651DZ2 PEFCO 3.900 10/15/27 06/14/2023
06/16/2023 1,700,000.00 1,680,883.500.00 1,680,883.50 4.19 10/15/2027 472 99.431,690,327.00 9,443.50
1,680,883.50 0.95 Aa1NA
3130ATUS4 FHLBANKS 4.250
12/10/27
12/20/2022
12/21/2022 700,000.00 710,829.000.00 710,829.00 3.90 12/10/2027 528 100.02700,154.00 (10,675.00)
710,829.00 0.40 Aa1AA+
3133EPNH4 FED FARM CR BNKS

3.875 06/21/28
06/15/2023
06/21/2023 1,100,000.00 1,095,105.000.00 1,095,105.00 3.97 06/21/2028 722 99.311,092,377.00 (2,728.00)
1,095,105.00 0.62 Aa1AA+
Position Statement
152
TOWN OF PARADISE | JUNE 30, 2026
9 CUSIP DESCRIPTION

TRADE DATE

SETTLE DATE PAR VALUE

PRINCIPAL COST

PURCHASED

INTEREST TOTAL COST

YIELD TO

MATURITY

MATURITY
DATE

DAYS TO

MATURITY

MARKET PRICE

MARKET VALUE

UNREALIZED

GAIN/LOSS BOOK
VALUE
% OF
MV

MOODY'S
S&P
RATING
3130AMWE8 FHLBANKS 2.000
06/30/28 '26
05/14/2024
05/15/2024 2,000,000.00 1,792,380.000.00 1,792,380.00 4.74 06/30/2028 731 96.281,925,680.00 133,300.00
1,792,380.00 1.09 Aa1AA+
742651DY5 PEFCO 1.400 07/15/28 09/08/2023
09/12/2023 2,925,000.00 2,532,336.300.00 2,532,336.30 4.52 07/15/2028 746 94.102,752,542.00 220,205.70
2,532,336.30 1.55 Aa1NA
3133EP4A0 FED FARM CR BNKS

4.250 02/28/29
02/28/2024
02/29/2024 1,000,000.00 996,480.000.00 996,480.00 4.31 02/28/2029 974 100.121,001,200.00 4,720.00
996,480.00 0.57 Aa1AA+
3133ERAK7 FED FARM CR BNKS

4.375 04/10/29
04/18/2024
04/19/2024 2,500,000.00 2,466,060.000.00 2,466,060.00 4.68 04/10/2029 1,015 100.362,509,025.00 42,965.00
2,466,060.00 1.42 Aa1AA+
U.S. AGENCIES
TOTAL 11,925,000.00 11,274,073.800.00 11,274,073.80 4.44 766 97.9411,671,305.00 397,231.20
11,274,073.80 6.59 AA+
MBS
3137FQK77 FH-KC07-A7 08/29/2024
09/04/2024 1,501,462.13 1,450,729.100.00 1,450,729.10 4.08 10/25/2026 117 99.411,492,620.77 41,891.67
1,450,729.10 0.84 Aa1AA+
3137FJEH8 FHMS K-081 A2 3.9
08/25/2028
07/01/2025
07/07/2025 1,025,000.00 1,018,914.060.00 1,018,914.06 4.01 08/25/2028 787 98.801,012,731.86 (6,182.20)
1,018,914.06 0.57 Aa1AA+
3140HUFK7 FN BL2869 12/19/2024
12/24/2024 3,000,000.00 2,760,000.000.00 2,760,000.00 4.69 07/01/2029 1,097 95.292,858,673.57 98,673.57
2,760,000.00 1.61 Aa1AA+
3132XFRD2 FH WN1383 09/09/2024
09/12/2024 2,450,000.00 2,486,462.890.00 2,486,462.89 3.86 07/01/2029 1,097 99.162,429,523.12 (56,939.77)
2,486,462.89 1.37 Aa1AA+
3137HFF59 FHMS K-527 A2 4.618
07/25/2029
08/13/2024
08/22/2024 3,000,000.00 3,052,422.000.00 3,052,422.00 4.16 07/25/2029 1,121 100.293,008,712.75 (43,709.25)
3,052,422.00 1.70 Aa1AA+
3132XKTY3 FH WN5066 03/07/2025
03/12/2025 3,000,000.00 2,959,453.130.00 2,959,453.13 4.47 08/01/2029 1,128 98.982,969,345.22 9,892.09
2,959,453.13 1.68 Aa1AA+
3137HLJA1 FHMS K-540 A2 4.513
02/25/2030
05/21/2025
05/29/2025 2,000,000.00 1,999,944.000.00 1,999,944.00 4.44 02/25/2030 1,336 100.022,000,362.72 418.72
1,999,944.00 1.13 Aa1AA+
US3137FUZW75 FH-K112-AM 04/30/2026
05/05/2026 2,250,000.00 1,982,460.940.00 1,982,460.94 4.16 05/28/2030 1,428 87.801,975,509.29 (6,951.65)
1,982,460.94 1.12 Aa1AA+
3140Q0AJ1 FN BZ4508 10/01/2025
10/06/2025 2,350,000.00 2,363,126.950.00 2,363,126.95 4.02 08/01/2030 1,493 98.682,319,086.60 (44,040.35)
2,363,126.95 1.31 Aa1AA+
3140Q1JZ4 FN BZ5679 11/24/2025
11/28/2025 2,675,000.00 2,662,042.970.00 2,662,042.97 4.00 11/01/2030 1,585 97.582,610,155.38 (51,887.59)
2,662,042.97 1.47 Aa1AA+
3140Q2C97 FN BZ6395 02/06/2026
02/18/2026 2,875,000.00 2,851,977.550.00 2,851,977.55 4.01 02/01/2031 1,677 97.392,800,063.24 (51,914.31)
2,851,977.55 1.58 Aa1AA+
35802GAA8 FRESB 2026-SB127 A5F

4.39 02/25/2031
05/27/2026
05/29/2026 2,999,628.37 2,979,708.970.00 2,979,708.97 4.48 02/25/2031 1,701 99.172,974,805.72 (4,903.24)
2,979,708.97 1.68 NANA
MBS TOTAL 29,126,090.49 28,567,242.56

0.00 28,567,242.56 4.22 1,277 97.7928,451,590.23
(115,652.32)
28,567,242.56 16.07 AA+

COMMERCIAL
MBS
3140LLEB3 FN BS9129 08/15/2023
08/18/2023 1,250,000.00 1,222,656.250.00 1,222,656.25 4.89 07/01/2028 732 99.781,247,298.44 24,642.19
1,222,656.25 0.70 Aa1AA+

COMMERCIAL
MBS TOTAL 1,250,000.00 1,222,656.250.00 1,222,656.25 4.89 732 99.781,247,298.44 24,642.19
1,222,656.25 0.70 AA+

NEGOTIABLE CD'S
Position Statement
153
TOWN OF PARADISE | JUNE 30, 2026
10 CUSIP DESCRIPTION

TRADE DATE

SETTLE DATE PAR VALUE

PRINCIPAL COST

PURCHASED

INTEREST TOTAL COST

YIELD TO

MATURITY

MATURITY
DATE

DAYS TO

MATURITY

MARKET PRICE

MARKET VALUE

UNREALIZED

GAIN/LOSS BOOK
VALUE
% OF
MV

MOODY'S
S&P
RATING
7954507A7 SALLIE MAE BNK 1.000
07/14/26
07/14/2021
07/16/2021 248,000.00 246,760.000.00 246,760.00 1.10 07/14/2026 14 99.89247,734.64 974.64
246,760.00 0.14 NANA
38149MZJ5 GOLDMAN BANK USA

1.050 09/08/26
08/31/2021
09/08/2021 249,000.00 247,879.500.00 247,879.50 1.14 09/08/2026 70 99.44247,610.58 (268.92)
247,879.50 0.14 NANA

NEGOTIABLE CD'S
TOTAL 497,000.00 494,639.500.00 494,639.50 1.12 42 99.67495,345.22 705.72
494,639.50 0.28 NA

MUNICIPAL
BONDS
696735QQ5 PALMDALE CALIF SCH
DIST 1.071 08/01/26
08/06/2021
09/02/2021 250,000.00 250,000.000.00 250,000.00 1.07 08/01/2026 32 99.76249,410.50 (589.50)
250,000.00 0.14 Aa3NA
20056XAC2

COMMERCE CALIF
PENSION OBLI 1.212
08/01/26
08/25/2021
08/31/2021 525,000.00 525,000.000.00 525,000.00 1.21 08/01/2026 32 99.77523,784.10 (1,215.90)
525,000.00 0.30 NAAA91412G2Y0 UNIVERSITY CALIF REVS

3.039 05/15/27
02/05/2026
02/06/2026 2,000,000.00 1,986,420.000.00 1,986,420.00 3.59 05/15/2027 319 99.031,980,604.00 (5,816.00)
1,986,420.00 1.12 Aa3AA918608UN8 VACAVILLE CALIF UNI
SCH DIS 1.457 08/01/27
02/05/2026
02/06/2026 350,000.00 339,311.0070.83 339,381.83 3.59 08/01/2027 397 97.17340,089.40 778.40
339,311.00 0.19 Aa2NA
13063DC48 CALIFORNIA STATE 1.700
02/01/28
01/25/2023
02/01/2023 900,000.00 805,545.000.00 805,545.00 4.04 02/01/2028 581 96.22866,016.00 60,471.00
805,545.00 0.49 Aa2AA157432MG7

CHAFFEY CMNTY
COLLEGE DIST 4.450
06/01/28
11/22/2024
12/17/2024 1,075,000.00 1,075,000.000.00 1,075,000.00 4.44 06/01/2028 702 100.301,078,236.83 3,236.83
1,075,000.00 0.61 Aa1AA
157432MH5

CHAFFEY CMNTY
COLLEGE DIST 4.530
06/01/29
11/22/2024
12/17/2024 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.000.00 1,000,000.00 4.52 06/01/2029 1,067 100.501,004,999.00 4,999.00
1,000,000.00 0.57 Aa1AA
13063EGT7 CALIFORNIA STATE

4.500 08/01/29
11/05/2024
11/06/2024 1,700,000.00 1,707,378.000.00 1,707,378.00 4.40 08/01/2029 1,128 100.471,708,071.60 693.60
1,707,378.00 0.96 Aa2AAMUNICIPAL
BONDS TOTAL 7,800,000.00 7,688,654.0070.83 7,688,724.83 3.81 652 99.397,751,211.43 62,557.43
7,688,654.00 4.38 AAASSET-BACKED

SECURITIES
344930AD4 FCAOT-23B-A3 10/16/2025
10/17/2025 1,021,794.68 1,029,059.020.00 1,029,059.02 4.76 05/15/2028 685 100.331,025,143.70 (3,915.32)
1,029,059.02 0.58 NAAAA
05522RDJ4 BACCT-241-A 05/20/2025
05/21/2025 1,500,000.00 1,517,812.500.00 1,517,812.50 4.30 05/15/2029 1,050 100.631,509,378.05 (8,434.46)
1,517,812.50 0.85 AaaAAA
44935JAD8 HART-25C-A3 10/10/2025
10/14/2025 4,250,000.00 4,251,826.170.00 4,251,826.17 3.87 04/15/2030 1,385 99.234,217,289.66 (34,536.51)
4,251,826.17 2.38 NAAAA
02582JKV1 AXCMT-254-A 07/08/2025
07/22/2025 1,277,000.00 1,276,815.980.00 1,276,815.98 4.30 07/15/2030 1,476 99.811,274,568.86 (2,247.12)
1,276,815.98 0.72 NAAAA
92970QAK1 WFCIT-261-A 04/21/2026
04/27/2026 2,000,000.00 1,999,719.600.00 1,999,719.60 4.08 04/15/2031 1,021 99.201,983,946.50 (15,773.10)
1,999,719.60 1.12 AaaNA

ASSET-BACKED

SECURITIES
TOTAL
10,048,794.68 10,075,233.27

0.00 10,075,233.27 4.12 1,202 99.6210,010,326.77
(64,906.50)
10,075,233.27 5.65 AAA

CORPORATE
BONDS
Position Statement
154
TOWN OF PARADISE | JUNE 30, 2026
11 CUSIP DESCRIPTION

TRADE DATE

SETTLE DATE PAR VALUE

PRINCIPAL COST

PURCHASED

INTEREST TOTAL COST

YIELD TO

MATURITY

MATURITY
DATE

DAYS TO

MATURITY

MARKET PRICE

MARKET VALUE

UNREALIZED

GAIN/LOSS BOOK
VALUE
% OF
MV

MOODY'S
S&P
RATING
14913R2Q9 CTRPLLR FIN SERV 1.150
09/14/26 MTN
09/17/2021
09/21/2021 2,500,000.00 2,506,275.000.00 2,506,275.00 1.10 09/14/2026 76 99.412,485,350.00 (20,925.00)
2,506,275.00 1.40 A1A
037833CJ7 APPLE 3.350 02/09/27
'26
08/23/2024
08/26/2024 1,500,000.00 1,476,285.000.00 1,476,285.00 4.03 02/09/2027 224 99.471,492,110.00 15,825.00
1,476,285.00 0.84 AaaAA+
24422EWD7 JOHN DEERE CAP 2.350
03/08/27 MTN
03/08/2022
03/10/2022 1,500,000.00 1,497,345.000.00 1,497,345.00 2.39 03/08/2027 251 98.721,480,755.00 (16,590.00)
1,497,345.00 0.84 A1A
89236TJZ9 TOYOTA MOTOR CRD

3.050 03/22/27 MTN
03/18/2022
03/22/2022 1,750,000.00 1,757,752.500.00 1,757,752.50 2.95 03/22/2027 265 99.161,735,317.50 (22,435.00)
1,757,752.50 0.98 A1A+
48128GU99 JP MORGAN 1.250
07/31/27 '26 MTN
10/02/2024
10/03/2024 2,500,000.00 2,288,500.000.00 2,288,500.00 4.47 07/31/2027 396 96.062,401,450.00 112,950.00
2,288,500.00 1.36 A1A
74432BBC1 PRUDENTIAL FINL 4.000
08/15/27 MTN
09/03/2025
09/04/2025 2,896,000.00 2,896,000.000.00 2,896,000.00 4.00 08/15/2027 411 99.422,879,087.36 (16,912.64)
2,896,000.00 1.63 A3A
742718FZ7 PROCTER GAMBLE

3.950 01/26/28
08/29/2024
08/30/2024 1,985,000.00 1,984,206.000.00 1,984,206.00 3.96 01/26/2028 575 99.651,978,092.20 (6,113.80)
1,984,206.00 1.12 Aa3AA478160DH4 JOHNSON&JOHNSON

4.550 03/01/28 '28
02/19/2025
02/20/2025 2,000,000.00 2,004,300.000.00 2,004,300.00 4.47 03/01/2028 610 100.562,011,200.00 6,900.00
2,004,300.00 1.14 AaaAAA
931142FB4 WALMART 3.900
04/15/28 '28
09/17/2024
09/18/2024 2,200,000.00 2,219,096.000.00 2,219,096.00 3.63 04/15/2028 655 99.532,189,726.00 (29,370.00)
2,219,096.00 1.24 Aa2AA
30303M8L9 META PLATFORMS 4.600
05/15/28 '28
06/25/2024
06/26/2024 3,000,000.00 3,000,180.000.00 3,000,180.00 4.60 05/15/2028 685 100.523,015,600.00 15,420.00
3,000,180.00 1.70 Aa3AA57636QAM6 MASTERCARD 2.950
06/01/29 '29
02/04/2026
02/05/2026 2,700,000.00 2,616,678.000.00 2,616,678.00 3.95 06/01/2029 1,067 96.302,600,208.00 (16,470.00)
2,616,678.00 1.47 Aa3A+
713448FX1 PEPSICO 4.500 07/17/29
'29
07/15/2024
07/17/2024 1,180,000.00 1,179,480.800.00 1,179,480.80 4.51 07/17/2029 1,113 100.331,183,835.00 4,354.20
1,179,480.80 0.67 A1A+
713448GB8 PEPSICO 4.600 02/07/30
'30
02/06/2025
02/07/2025 1,250,000.00 1,247,075.000.00 1,247,075.00 4.65 02/07/2030 1,318 100.801,260,037.50 12,962.50
1,247,075.00 0.71 A1A+
17275RBX9 CISCO SYSTEMS 4.750
02/24/30 '30
02/19/2025
02/24/2025 2,000,000.00 1,999,640.000.00 1,999,640.00 4.75 02/24/2030 1,335 100.922,018,300.00 18,660.00
1,999,640.00 1.14 A1AA166764BY5 CHEVRON 2.236
05/11/30 '30
01/13/2026
01/14/2026 1,500,000.00 1,392,375.000.00 1,392,375.00 4.06 05/11/2030 1,411 91.971,379,610.00 (12,765.00)
1,392,375.00 0.78 Aa2AA023135BS4 AMAZON.COM 1.500
06/03/30 '30
06/27/2025
06/30/2025 4,000,000.00 3,532,640.000.00 3,532,640.00 4.15 06/03/2030 1,434 89.283,571,160.00 38,520.00
3,532,640.00 2.02 A1AA
166756BJ4 CHEVRON USA 4.300
10/15/30 '30
10/14/2025
10/15/2025 2,500,000.00 2,525,750.000.00 2,525,750.00 4.06 10/15/2030 1,568 99.432,485,775.00 (39,975.00)
2,525,750.00 1.40 Aa2AA254687FX9 WALT DISNEY 2.650
01/13/31
02/06/2026
02/09/2026 3,000,000.00 2,817,240.005,741.67 2,822,981.67 4.02 01/13/2031 1,658 92.352,770,470.00 (46,770.00)
2,817,240.00 1.56 A2A
037833ED8 APPLE 1.650 02/08/31 '30 02/23/2026
02/24/2026 1,110,000.00 1,001,763.90814.00 1,002,577.90 3.83 02/08/2031 1,684 88.79985,524.60 (16,239.30)
1,001,763.90 0.56 AaaAA+
02079KBK2 ALPHABET 4.100 02/15/31
'31
02/10/2026
02/17/2026 2,000,000.00 2,000,160.00911.11 2,001,071.11 4.10 02/15/2031 1,691 98.261,965,220.00 (34,940.00)
2,000,160.00 1.11 Aa2AA+
30303MAF9 META PLATFORMS 4.550
05/15/31 '31
06/01/2026
06/02/2026 3,000,000.00 2,986,320.0010,616.67 2,996,936.67 4.65 05/15/2031 1,780 99.462,983,860.00 (2,460.00)
2,986,320.00 1.69 Aa3AACORPORATE
BONDS TOTAL 46,071,000.00 44,929,062.2018,083.45 44,947,145.65 3.94 973 97.5444,872,688.16 (56,374.04)
44,929,062.20 25.34 A+

SUPRANATIONAL
Position Statement
155
TOWN OF PARADISE | JUNE 30, 2026
12 CUSIP DESCRIPTION

TRADE DATE

SETTLE DATE PAR VALUE

PRINCIPAL COST

PURCHASED

INTEREST TOTAL COST

YIELD TO

MATURITY

MATURITY
DATE

DAYS TO

MATURITY

MARKET PRICE

MARKET VALUE

UNREALIZED

GAIN/LOSS BOOK
VALUE
% OF
MV

MOODY'S
S&P
RATING
4581X0EN4 IDB 4.125 02/15/29 MTN 02/16/2024
02/21/2024 3,310,000.00 3,273,358.300.00 3,273,358.30 4.37 02/15/2029 961 99.893,306,292.80 32,934.50
3,273,358.30 1.87 AaaAAA

SUPRANATIONAL
TOTAL 3,310,000.00 3,273,358.300.00 3,273,358.30 4.37 961 99.893,306,292.80 32,934.50
3,273,358.30 1.87 AAA

TOWN OF
PARADISE TOTAL 179,710,507.68 176,052,464.0723,366.58 176,075,830.65 4.06 879 177,058,762.48 1,006,298.42
176,052,464.07 100.00 AAGRAND TOTAL 179,710,507.68 176,052,464.07 23,366.58 176,075,830.65 4.06 879 177,058,762.48
1,006,298.42
176,052,464.07 100.00 AAPosition Statement
156
TOWN OF PARADISE | JUNE 30, 2026
13 Transaction Statement

TOWN OF PARADISE

TRADE DATE SETTLE DATE CUSIP DESCRIPTION PAR VALUE PRINCIPAL COST

PURCHASED

INTEREST TOTAL

PURCHASE
YIELD
BUY
04/21/2026 04/27/2026 92970QAK1 WFCIT-261-A 2,000,000.00 1,999,719.60 0.00 (1,999,719.60) 4.08 04/30/2026 05/05/2026 US3137FUZW75 FH-K112-AM 2,250,000.00 1,982,460.94 259.75 (1,982,720.69) 4.16 05/27/2026 05/29/2026 35802GAA8 FRESB 2026-SB127 A5F 4.39 02/25/2031 3,000,000.00 (2,990,321.46) 4.48 06/01/2026 06/02/2026 91282CQK0 US TREASURY 3.875 04/30/31 1,500,000.00 1,479,433.59 5,212.30 (1,484,645.89) 4.19 06/01/2026 06/02/2026 30303MAF9 META PLATFORMS 4.550 05/15/31 '31 3,000,000.00 2,986,320.00 10,616.67 (2,996,936.67) 4.65 BUY TOTAL 11,750,000.00 11,427,809.80 26,331.36 (11,454,344.31) 4.36

TRADE DATE SETTLE DATE CUSIP DESCRIPTION PAR VALUE BOOK VALUE TOTAL NET

REALIZED

GAIN/LOSS

MATURITY
05/01/2026 05/01/2026 21969AAE2 CORONA 1.361 05/01/2026 (1,925,000.00) 1,931,336.75 1,925,000.00 (6,336.75) 06/01/2026 06/01/2026 80182AAE9 SANTA CRUZ CNTY CALIF PENSION OBLIG 1.024 06/01/2026 (2,135,000.00) 2,132,000.70 2,135,000.00 2,999.30 06/01/2026 06/01/2026 20772KNX3 CONNECTICUT ST 1.123 06/01/2026 (2,200,000.00) 2,213,090.00 2,200,000.00 (13,090.00) MATURITY TOTAL (6,260,000.00) 6,276,427.45 6,260,000.00 (16,427.45)

TRADE DATE SETTLE DATE CUSIP DESCRIPTION PAR VALUE BOOK VALUE TOTAL NET

REALIZED

GAIN/LOSS

PRINCIPAL PAYDOWN
04/15/2026 04/15/2026 344930AD4 FCAOT-23B-A3 (177,897.54) 179,162.28 177,897.53 (1,264.75) 04/27/2026 04/27/2026 3137FMU67 FH-K735-A2 (596,400.05) 582,561.69 596,400.07 13,838.38 05/15/2026 05/15/2026 344930AD4 FCAOT-23B-A3 (160,312.03) 161,451.75 160,312.03 (1,139.72) 05/26/2026 05/26/2026 3137FMU67 FH-K735-A2 (924,828.65) 903,369.68 924,828.61 21,458.93 06/15/2026 06/15/2026 344930AD4 FCAOT-23B-A3 (139,026.15) 140,014.54 139,026.16 (988.38) 06/25/2026 06/25/2026 35802GAA8 FRESB 2026-SB127 A5F 4.39 02/25/2031 (167.82) 166.71 167.82 1.11 06/25/2026 06/25/2026 3137FQK77 FH-KC07-A7 (430,300.90) 415,761.43 430,300.90 14,539.47

PRINCIPAL PAYDOWN
TOTAL (2,428,933.14) 2,382,488.08 2,428,933.12 46,445.04 157
TOWN OF PARADISE | JUNE 30, 2026
14 Transaction Statement

TRADE DATE SETTLE DATE CUSIP DESCRIPTION PAR VALUE BOOK VALUE TOTAL NET

REALIZED

GAIN/LOSS
SELL
04/23/2026 04/24/2026 91282CJR3 US TREASURY 3.750 12/31/28 (2,000,000.00) 1,983,750.00 1,996,953.13 13,203.13 SELL TOTAL (2,000,000.00) 1,983,750.00 1,996,953.13 13,203.13 158
TOWN OF PARADISE | JUNE 30, 2026
15 Income/Dividend Received

IDENTIFIER DESCRIPTION PAYMENT DATE POST DATE

INTEREST/DIVIDENDS

RECEIVED

US BANK
58510R580 MEEDER:GOVERNMENT MM;Y 03/31/2026 04/01/2026 5,001.48 3133ERAK7 FED FARM CR BNKS 4.375 04/10/29 04/10/2026 04/10/2026 54,687.50 02582JKV1 AXCMT-254-A 04/15/2026 04/15/2026 4,575.92
344930AD4 FCAOT-23B-A3 04/15/2026 04/15/2026 6,533.27
166756BJ4 CHEVRON USA 4.300 10/15/30 '30 04/15/2026 04/15/2026 72,263.89 05522RDJ4 BACCT-241-A 04/15/2026 04/15/2026 6,162.50
931142FB4 WALMART 3.900 04/15/28 '28 04/15/2026 04/15/2026 42,900.00 742651DZ2 PEFCO 3.900 10/15/27 04/15/2026 04/15/2026 33,150.00 44935JAD8 HART-25C-A3 04/15/2026 04/15/2026 13,741.67
91282CJR3 US TREASURY 3.750 12/31/28 04/23/2026 04/24/2026 23,618.78 3137FQK77 FH-KC07-A7 04/01/2026 04/27/2026 4,043.83
3137FMU67 FH-K735-A2 04/01/2026 04/27/2026 3,628.13
3137HLJA1 FHMS K-540 A2 4.513 02/25/2030 04/01/2026 04/27/2026 7,521.67 3140Q2C97 FN BZ6395 04/01/2026 04/27/2026 9,630.45
3132XFRD2 FH WN1383 04/01/2026 04/27/2026 8,860.83
3132XKTY3 FH WN5066 04/01/2026 04/27/2026 10,695.00
3137HFF59 FHMS K-527 A2 4.618 07/25/2029 04/01/2026 04/27/2026 11,545.00 3140LLEB3 FN BS9129 04/01/2026 04/27/2026 4,725.35
3140Q1JZ4 FN BZ5679 04/01/2026 04/27/2026 8,960.51
3140Q0AJ1 FN BZ4508 04/01/2026 04/27/2026 8,397.99
3137FJEH8 FHMS K-081 A2 3.9 08/25/2028 04/01/2026 04/27/2026 3,331.25 3140HUFK7 FN BL2869 04/01/2026 04/27/2026 7,207.50
91282CMZ1 US TREASURY 3.875 04/30/30 04/30/2026 04/30/2026 67,812.50 58510R580 MEEDER:GOVERNMENT MM;Y 04/30/2026 05/01/2026 4,094.23 21969AAE2 CORONA 1.361 05/01/2026 05/01/2026 05/01/2026 13,099.63 166764BY5 CHEVRON 2.236 05/11/30 '30 05/11/2026 05/11/2026 16,770.00 912828X88 US TREASURY 2.375 05/15/27 05/15/2026 05/15/2026 34,437.50 02582JKV1 AXCMT-254-A 05/15/2026 05/15/2026 4,575.92
159
TOWN OF PARADISE | JUNE 30, 2026
16 Income/Dividend Received
92970QAK1 WFCIT-261-A 05/15/2026 05/15/2026 4,080.00
30303M8L9 META PLATFORMS 4.600 05/15/28 '28 05/15/2026 05/15/2026 69,000.00 05522RDJ4 BACCT-241-A 05/15/2026 05/15/2026 6,162.50
91412G2Y0 UNIVERSITY CALIF REVS 3.039 05/15/27 05/15/2026 05/15/2026 30,390.00 344930AD4 FCAOT-23B-A3 05/15/2026 05/15/2026 5,757.94
44935JAD8 HART-25C-A3 05/15/2026 05/15/2026 13,741.67
3137FJEH8 FHMS K-081 A2 3.9 08/25/2028 05/01/2026 05/26/2026 3,331.25 3140Q0AJ1 FN BZ4508 05/01/2026 05/26/2026 8,127.08
3132XKTY3 FH WN5066 05/01/2026 05/26/2026 10,350.00
3140Q2C97 FN BZ6395 05/01/2026 05/26/2026 9,319.79
3140HUFK7 FN BL2869 05/01/2026 05/26/2026 6,975.00
3137FQK77 FH-KC07-A7 05/01/2026 05/26/2026 4,043.83
3137HLJA1 FHMS K-540 A2 4.513 02/25/2030 05/01/2026 05/26/2026 7,521.67 3140Q1JZ4 FN BZ5679 05/01/2026 05/26/2026 8,671.46
3140LLEB3 FN BS9129 05/01/2026 05/26/2026 4,572.92
3132XFRD2 FH WN1383 05/01/2026 05/26/2026 8,575.00
3137HFF59 FHMS K-527 A2 4.618 07/25/2029 05/01/2026 05/26/2026 11,545.00 3137FMU67 FH-K735-A2 05/01/2026 05/26/2026 2,205.72
91282CFZ9 US TREASURY 3.875 11/30/27 05/31/2026 06/01/2026 54,250.00 80182AAE9 SANTA CRUZ CNTY CALIF PENSION OBLIG 1.024
06/01/2026 06/01/2026 06/01/2026 10,931.20
91282CMA6 US TREASURY 4.125 11/30/29 05/31/2026 06/01/2026 54,656.25 157432MH5 CHAFFEY CMNTY COLLEGE DIST 4.530 06/01/29 06/01/2026 06/01/2026 22,650.00 157432MG7 CHAFFEY CMNTY COLLEGE DIST 4.450 06/01/28 06/01/2026 06/01/2026 23,918.75 57636QAM6 MASTERCARD 2.950 06/01/29 '29 06/01/2026 06/01/2026 39,825.00 20772KNX3 CONNECTICUT ST 1.123 06/01/2026 06/01/2026 06/01/2026 12,353.00 58510R580 MEEDER:GOVERNMENT MM;Y 05/31/2026 06/01/2026 7,140.26 023135BS4 AMAZON.COM 1.500 06/03/30 '30 06/03/2026 06/03/2026 30,000.00 3130ATUS4 FHLBANKS 4.250 12/10/27 06/10/2026 06/10/2026 14,875.00 05522RDJ4 BACCT-241-A 06/15/2026 06/15/2026 6,162.50
92970QAK1 WFCIT-261-A 06/15/2026 06/15/2026 6,800.00
160
TOWN OF PARADISE | JUNE 30, 2026
17 Income/Dividend Received
344930AD4 FCAOT-23B-A3 06/15/2026 06/15/2026 5,059.24
44935JAD8 HART-25C-A3 06/15/2026 06/15/2026 13,741.67
02582JKV1 AXCMT-254-A 06/15/2026 06/15/2026 4,575.92
3133EPNH4 FED FARM CR BNKS 3.875 06/21/28 06/21/2026 06/22/2026 21,312.50 3137HFF59 FHMS K-527 A2 4.618 07/25/2029 06/01/2026 06/25/2026 11,545.00 3140Q1JZ4 FN BZ5679 06/01/2026 06/25/2026 8,960.51
3140LLEB3 FN BS9129 06/01/2026 06/25/2026 4,725.35
3140Q0AJ1 FN BZ4508 06/01/2026 06/25/2026 8,397.99
3137FJEH8 FHMS K-081 A2 3.9 08/25/2028 06/01/2026 06/25/2026 3,331.25 3140HUFK7 FN BL2869 06/01/2026 06/25/2026 7,207.50
35802GAA8 FRESB 2026-SB127 A5F 4.39 02/25/2031 06/01/2026 06/25/2026 10,974.26 US3137FUZW75 FH-K112-AM 06/01/2026 06/25/2026 1,948.12
3137FQK77 FH-KC07-A7 06/01/2026 06/25/2026 4,043.83
3140Q2C97 FN BZ6395 06/01/2026 06/25/2026 9,630.45
3132XFRD2 FH WN1383 06/01/2026 06/25/2026 8,860.83
3137HLJA1 FHMS K-540 A2 4.513 02/25/2030 06/01/2026 06/25/2026 7,521.67 3132XKTY3 FH WN5066 06/01/2026 06/25/2026 10,695.00
91282CEW7 US TREASURY 3.250 06/30/27 06/30/2026 06/30/2026 40,625.00 3130AMWE8 FHLBANKS 2.000 06/30/28 '26 06/30/2026 06/30/2026 20,000.00 91282CPR6 US TREASURY 3.625 12/31/30 06/30/2026 06/30/2026 45,312.50 91282CHK0 US TREASURY 4.000 06/30/28 06/30/2026 06/30/2026 50,000.00 US BANK - TOTAL 1,288,373.68
TOTAL 1,288,373.68
161
TOWN OF PARADISE | JUNE 30, 2026
18 Contribution/Withdrawals and Expenses

POST DATE PAR VALUE TOTAL

TOWN OF PARADISE

CUSTODY FEE
04/24/2026 (957.44) (957.44)
05/22/2026 (942.67) (942.67)
06/25/2026 (942.17) (942.17)
CUSTODY FEE TOTAL (2,842.28) (2,842.28)

MANAGEMENT FEE
04/30/2026 (5,500.00) (5,500.00)
05/26/2026 (5,500.00) (5,500.00)
06/23/2026 (5,500.00) (5,500.00)
MANAGEMENT FEE TOTAL (16,500.00) (16,500.00)
162
TOWN OF PARADISE | JUNE 30, 2026
19 CUSIP DESCRIPTION POST DATE AMOUNT
254687FX9 WALT DISNEY 2.650 01/13/31 07/13/2026 39,750.00 7954507A7 SALLIE MAE BNK 1.000 07/14/26 07/14/2026 1,229.81 7954507A7 SALLIE MAE BNK 1.000 07/14/26 07/14/2026 1,240.00 344930AD4 FCAOT-23B-A3 07/15/2026 4,616.81
742651DY5 PEFCO 1.400 07/15/28 07/15/2026 20,475.00
02582JKV1 AXCMT-254-A 07/15/2026 4,575.92
05522RDJ4 BACCT-241-A 07/15/2026 6,162.50
92970QAK1 WFCIT-261-A 07/15/2026 6,800.00
44935JAD8 HART-25C-A3 07/15/2026 13,741.67
713448FX1 PEPSICO 4.500 07/17/29 '29 07/17/2026 26,550.00 63873KGP6 NATIXIS NY 07/23/26 07/23/2026 63,666.67
3140Q0AJ1 FN BZ4508 07/25/2026 8,127.08
3132XKTY3 FH WN5066 07/25/2026 10,350.00
3140LLEB3 FN BS9129 07/25/2026 4,572.92
3132XFRD2 FH WN1383 07/25/2026 8,575.00
3140HUFK7 FN BL2869 07/25/2026 6,975.00
3140Q2C97 FN BZ6395 07/25/2026 9,319.79
3140Q1JZ4 FN BZ5679 07/25/2026 8,671.46
35802GAA8 FRESB 2026-SB127 A5F 4.39 02/25/2031 07/27/2026 10,973.64 US3137FUZW75 FH-K112-AM 07/27/2026 1,948.13
3137HLJA1 FHMS K-540 A2 4.513 02/25/2030 07/27/2026 7,521.67 3137HFF59 FHMS K-527 A2 4.618 07/25/2029 07/27/2026 11,545.00 742718FZ7 PROCTER GAMBLE 3.950 01/26/28 07/27/2026 39,203.75 3137FJEH8 FHMS K-081 A2 3.9 08/25/2028 07/27/2026 3,331.25 3137FQK77 FH-KC07-A7 07/27/2026 3,143.06
48128GU99 JP MORGAN 1.250 07/31/27 '26 MTN 07/31/2026 15,625.00 91282CHQ7 US TREASURY 4.125 07/31/28 07/31/2026 51,562.50 JUL 2026 TOTAL 390,253.62
Projected Income
For the Period July 01, 2026 to June 30, 2027
163
TOWN OF PARADISE | JUNE 30, 2026
20 CUSIP DESCRIPTION POST DATE AMOUNT
696735QQ5 PALMDALE CALIF SCH DIST 1.071 08/01/26 08/03/2026 1,338.75 13063DC48 CALIFORNIA STATE 1.700 02/01/28 08/03/2026 7,650.00 20056XAC2 COMMERCE CALIF PENSION OBLI 1.212 08/01/26 08/03/2026 3,181.50 13063EGT7 CALIFORNIA STATE 4.500 08/01/29 08/03/2026 38,250.00 918608UN8 VACAVILLE CALIF UNI SCH DIS 1.457 08/01/27 08/03/2026 2,549.75 713448GB8 PEPSICO 4.600 02/07/30 '30 08/07/2026 28,750.00 037833ED8 APPLE 1.650 02/08/31 '30 08/10/2026 9,157.50
037833CJ7 APPLE 3.350 02/09/27 '26 08/10/2026 25,125.00 344930AD4 FCAOT-23B-A3 08/17/2026 4,062.53
4581X0EN4 IDB 4.125 02/15/29 MTN 08/17/2026 68,268.75
02079KBK2 ALPHABET 4.100 02/15/31 '31 08/17/2026 41,455.56 74432BBC1 PRUDENTIAL FINL 4.000 08/15/27 MTN 08/17/2026 57,920.00 02582JKV1 AXCMT-254-A 08/17/2026 4,575.92
05522RDJ4 BACCT-241-A 08/17/2026 6,162.50
92970QAK1 WFCIT-261-A 08/17/2026 6,800.00
44935JAD8 HART-25C-A3 08/17/2026 13,741.67
17275RBX9 CISCO SYSTEMS 4.750 02/24/30 '30 08/24/2026 47,500.00 3137HLJA1 FHMS K-540 A2 4.513 02/25/2030 08/25/2026 10,124.65 3132XFRD2 FH WN1383 08/25/2026 8,569.83
3140LLEB3 FN BS9129 08/25/2026 4,581.76
3140Q0AJ1 FN BZ4508 08/25/2026 8,124.04
3140Q2C97 FN BZ6395 08/25/2026 9,313.12
US3137FUZW75 FH-K112-AM 08/25/2026 1,948.13
3137HFF59 FHMS K-527 A2 4.618 07/25/2029 08/25/2026 11,545.00 3140HUFK7 FN BL2869 08/25/2026 6,946.44
3132XKTY3 FH WN5066 08/25/2026 10,343.75
3140Q1JZ4 FN BZ5679 08/25/2026 8,666.12
35802GAA8 FRESB 2026-SB127 A5F 4.39 02/25/2031 08/25/2026 10,972.87 Projected Income
For the Period July 01, 2026 to June 30, 2027
164
TOWN OF PARADISE | JUNE 30, 2026
21 CUSIP DESCRIPTION POST DATE AMOUNT
3137FJEH8 FHMS K-081 A2 3.9 08/25/2028 08/25/2026 3,331.25 3137FQK77 FH-KC07-A7 08/25/2026 3,143.06
3133EP4A0 FED FARM CR BNKS 4.250 02/28/29 08/28/2026 21,250.00 91282CCW9 US TREASURY 0.750 08/31/26 08/31/2026 9,375.00 91282CCW9 US TREASURY 0.750 08/31/26 08/31/2026 18,945.31 91282CHX2 US TREASURY 4.375 08/31/28 08/31/2026 44,843.75 91282CGP0 US TREASURY 4.000 02/29/28 08/31/2026 44,500.00 91282CFH9 US TREASURY 3.125 08/31/27 08/31/2026 35,937.50 AUG 2026 TOTAL 638,951.00
478160DH4 JOHNSON&JOHNSON 4.550 03/01/28 '28 09/01/2026 45,500.00 24422EWD7 JOHN DEERE CAP 2.350 03/08/27 MTN 09/08/2026 17,625.00 38149MZJ5 GOLDMAN BANK USA 1.050 09/08/26 09/08/2026 1,120.50 38149MZJ5 GOLDMAN BANK USA 1.050 09/08/26 09/08/2026 1,317.99 14913R2Q9 CTRPLLR FIN SERV 1.150 09/14/26 MTN 09/14/2026 (6,275.00) 14913R2Q9 CTRPLLR FIN SERV 1.150 09/14/26 MTN 09/14/2026 14,375.00 44935JAD8 HART-25C-A3 09/15/2026 13,741.67
344930AD4 FCAOT-23B-A3 09/15/2026 3,561.99
02582JKV1 AXCMT-254-A 09/15/2026 4,575.92
92970QAK1 WFCIT-261-A 09/15/2026 6,800.00
05522RDJ4 BACCT-241-A 09/15/2026 6,162.50
89236TJZ9 TOYOTA MOTOR CRD 3.050 03/22/27 MTN 09/22/2026 26,687.50 3140HUFK7 FN BL2869 09/25/2026 6,912.06
US3137FUZW75 FH-K112-AM 09/25/2026 1,948.13
3132XKTY3 FH WN5066 09/25/2026 10,336.75
3137HFF59 FHMS K-527 A2 4.618 07/25/2029 09/25/2026 11,545.00 3140Q0AJ1 FN BZ4508 09/25/2026 8,116.42
35802GAA8 FRESB 2026-SB127 A5F 4.39 02/25/2031 09/25/2026 10,972.23 3137FJEH8 FHMS K-081 A2 3.9 08/25/2028 09/25/2026 3,331.25 Projected Income
For the Period July 01, 2026 to June 30, 2027
165
TOWN OF PARADISE | JUNE 30, 2026
22 CUSIP DESCRIPTION POST DATE AMOUNT
3137FQK77 FH-KC07-A7 09/25/2026 3,143.06
3137HLJA1 FHMS K-540 A2 4.513 02/25/2030 09/25/2026 10,124.65 3132XFRD2 FH WN1383 09/25/2026 8,564.05
3140LLEB3 FN BS9129 09/25/2026 4,573.47
3140Q2C97 FN BZ6395 09/25/2026 9,305.43
3140Q1JZ4 FN BZ5679 09/25/2026 8,660.14
91282CJA0 US TREASURY 4.625 09/30/28 09/30/2026 58,390.63 91282CFL0 US TREASURY 3.875 09/30/29 09/30/2026 65,875.00 91282CQG9 US TREASURY 3.875 03/31/31 09/30/2026 58,125.00 91282CKG5 US TREASURY 4.125 03/31/29 09/30/2026 51,562.50 91282CFM8 US TREASURY 4.125 09/30/27 09/30/2026 19,593.75 09659CJW9 BNP PARIBAS NY 09/30/26 09/30/2026 71,999.28
91282CMU2 US TREASURY 4.000 03/31/30 09/30/2026 62,000.00 SEP 2026 TOTAL 620,271.86
3133ERAK7 FED FARM CR BNKS 4.375 04/10/29 10/13/2026 54,687.50 931142FB4 WALMART 3.900 04/15/28 '28 10/15/2026 42,900.00 02582JKV1 AXCMT-254-A 10/15/2026 4,575.92
05522RDJ4 BACCT-241-A 10/15/2026 6,162.50
92970QAK1 WFCIT-261-A 10/15/2026 6,800.00
44935JAD8 HART-25C-A3 10/15/2026 13,741.67
344930AD4 FCAOT-23B-A3 10/15/2026 3,070.01
742651DZ2 PEFCO 3.900 10/15/27 10/15/2026 33,150.00
166756BJ4 CHEVRON USA 4.300 10/15/30 '30 10/15/2026 53,750.00 3137FQK77 FH-KC07-A7 10/25/2026 50,733.03
3137FQK77 FH-KC07-A7 10/26/2026 3,103.86
3140Q0AJ1 FN BZ4508 10/26/2026 8,109.23
3140HUFK7 FN BL2869 10/26/2026 6,873.15
3140LLEB3 FN BS9129 10/26/2026 4,562.85
Projected Income
For the Period July 01, 2026 to June 30, 2027
166
TOWN OF PARADISE | JUNE 30, 2026
23 CUSIP DESCRIPTION POST DATE AMOUNT
US3137FUZW75 FH-K112-AM 10/26/2026 1,948.13
3137HFF59 FHMS K-527 A2 4.618 07/25/2029 10/26/2026 11,545.00 3140Q2C97 FN BZ6395 10/26/2026 9,297.09
3140Q1JZ4 FN BZ5679 10/26/2026 8,653.86
3132XFRD2 FH WN1383 10/26/2026 8,557.97
35802GAA8 FRESB 2026-SB127 A5F 4.39 02/25/2031 10/26/2026 10,971.56 3137FJEH8 FHMS K-081 A2 3.9 08/25/2028 10/26/2026 3,331.25 3132XKTY3 FH WN5066 10/26/2026 10,329.39
3137HLJA1 FHMS K-540 A2 4.513 02/25/2030 10/26/2026 10,124.65 OCT 2026 TOTAL 366,978.59
91282CMZ1 US TREASURY 3.875 04/30/30 11/02/2026 67,812.50 91282CQK0 US TREASURY 3.875 04/30/31 11/02/2026 29,062.50 53948BL31 LLOYDS BK NY BR 11/03/26 11/03/2026 80,767.50 09659CLA4 BNP PARIBAS NY 11/10/26 11/10/2026 90,389.03
166764BY5 CHEVRON 2.236 05/11/30 '30 11/12/2026 16,770.00 91412G2Y0 UNIVERSITY CALIF REVS 3.039 05/15/27 11/16/2026 30,390.00 912828X88 US TREASURY 2.375 05/15/27 11/16/2026 34,437.50 30303M8L9 META PLATFORMS 4.600 05/15/28 '28 11/16/2026 69,000.00 02582JKV1 AXCMT-254-A 11/16/2026 4,575.92
344930AD4 FCAOT-23B-A3 11/16/2026 2,595.14
05522RDJ4 BACCT-241-A 11/16/2026 6,162.50
92970QAK1 WFCIT-261-A 11/16/2026 6,800.00
30303MAF9 META PLATFORMS 4.550 05/15/31 '31 11/16/2026 72,420.83 44935JAD8 HART-25C-A3 11/16/2026 13,741.67
3132XKTY3 FH WN5066 11/25/2026 10,319.80
US3137FUZW75 FH-K112-AM 11/25/2026 1,948.13
3140HUFK7 FN BL2869 11/25/2026 6,818.78
3137HFF59 FHMS K-527 A2 4.618 07/25/2029 11/25/2026 11,545.00 Projected Income
For the Period July 01, 2026 to June 30, 2027
167
TOWN OF PARADISE | JUNE 30, 2026
24 CUSIP DESCRIPTION POST DATE AMOUNT
3140Q1JZ4 FN BZ5679 11/25/2026 8,645.67
35802GAA8 FRESB 2026-SB127 A5F 4.39 02/25/2031 11/25/2026 10,970.74 3137FJEH8 FHMS K-081 A2 3.9 08/25/2028 11/25/2026 3,331.25 3140Q0AJ1 FN BZ4508 11/25/2026 8,095.81
3137HLJA1 FHMS K-540 A2 4.513 02/25/2030 11/25/2026 10,124.65 3140Q2C97 FN BZ6395 11/25/2026 9,285.91
3140LLEB3 FN BS9129 11/25/2026 4,525.75
3132XFRD2 FH WN1383 11/25/2026 8,550.04
91282CMA6 US TREASURY 4.125 11/30/29 11/30/2026 54,656.25 91282CFZ9 US TREASURY 3.875 11/30/27 11/30/2026 54,250.00 NOV 2026 TOTAL 727,992.85
57636QAM6 MASTERCARD 2.950 06/01/29 '29 12/01/2026 39,825.00 157432MH5 CHAFFEY CMNTY COLLEGE DIST 4.530 06/01/29 12/01/2026 22,650.00 157432MG7 CHAFFEY CMNTY COLLEGE DIST 4.450 06/01/28 12/01/2026 23,918.75 023135BS4 AMAZON.COM 1.500 06/03/30 '30 12/03/2026 30,000.00 3130ATUS4 FHLBANKS 4.250 12/10/27 12/10/2026 14,875.00
344930AD4 FCAOT-23B-A3 12/15/2026 2,128.91
02582JKV1 AXCMT-254-A 12/15/2026 4,575.92
05522RDJ4 BACCT-241-A 12/15/2026 6,162.50
92970QAK1 WFCIT-261-A 12/15/2026 6,800.00
44935JAD8 HART-25C-A3 12/15/2026 13,741.67
3133EPNH4 FED FARM CR BNKS 3.875 06/21/28 12/21/2026 21,312.50 3137FJEH8 FHMS K-081 A2 3.9 08/25/2028 12/25/2026 3,331.25 3140Q1JZ4 FN BZ5679 12/25/2026 8,640.36
3140Q0AJ1 FN BZ4508 12/25/2026 8,088.93
3140Q2C97 FN BZ6395 12/25/2026 9,278.44
3137HLJA1 FHMS K-540 A2 4.513 02/25/2030 12/25/2026 10,124.65 35802GAA8 FRESB 2026-SB127 A5F 4.39 02/25/2031 12/25/2026 10,970.04 Projected Income
For the Period July 01, 2026 to June 30, 2027
168
TOWN OF PARADISE | JUNE 30, 2026
25 CUSIP DESCRIPTION POST DATE AMOUNT
3132XKTY3 FH WN5066 12/25/2026 10,313.59
3140LLEB3 FN BS9129 12/25/2026 4,510.34
US3137FUZW75 FH-K112-AM 12/25/2026 1,948.13
3132XFRD2 FH WN1383 12/25/2026 8,544.91
3140HUFK7 FN BL2869 12/25/2026 6,780.87
3137HFF59 FHMS K-527 A2 4.618 07/25/2029 12/25/2026 11,545.00 3130AMWE8 FHLBANKS 2.000 06/30/28 '26 12/30/2026 20,000.00 91282CEW7 US TREASURY 3.250 06/30/27 12/31/2026 40,625.00 91282CPR6 US TREASURY 3.625 12/31/30 12/31/2026 45,312.50 91282CHK0 US TREASURY 4.000 06/30/28 12/31/2026 50,000.00 DEC 2026 TOTAL 436,004.25
254687FX9 WALT DISNEY 2.650 01/13/31 01/13/2027 39,750.00 02582JKV1 AXCMT-254-A 01/15/2027 4,575.92
92970QAK1 WFCIT-261-A 01/15/2027 6,800.00
05522RDJ4 BACCT-241-A 01/15/2027 6,162.50
44935JAD8 HART-25C-A3 01/15/2027 13,741.67
742651DY5 PEFCO 1.400 07/15/28 01/15/2027 20,475.00
344930AD4 FCAOT-23B-A3 01/15/2027 1,676.46
713448FX1 PEPSICO 4.500 07/17/29 '29 01/19/2027 26,550.00 35802GAA8 FRESB 2026-SB127 A5F 4.39 02/25/2031 01/25/2027 10,968.07 US3137FUZW75 FH-K112-AM 01/25/2027 1,948.13
3137HFF59 FHMS K-527 A2 4.618 07/25/2029 01/25/2027 11,545.00 3140Q2C97 FN BZ6395 01/25/2027 9,269.29
3140HUFK7 FN BL2869 01/25/2027 6,732.43
3140LLEB3 FN BS9129 01/25/2027 4,475.60
3137FJEH8 FHMS K-081 A2 3.9 08/25/2028 01/25/2027 3,331.25 3132XFRD2 FH WN1383 01/25/2027 8,538.80
3137HLJA1 FHMS K-540 A2 4.513 02/25/2030 01/25/2027 10,124.65 Projected Income
For the Period July 01, 2026 to June 30, 2027
169
TOWN OF PARADISE | JUNE 30, 2026
26 CUSIP DESCRIPTION POST DATE AMOUNT
3140Q0AJ1 FN BZ4508 01/25/2027 8,078.45
3140Q1JZ4 FN BZ5679 01/25/2027 8,634.05
3132XKTY3 FH WN5066 01/25/2027 10,306.19
742718FZ7 PROCTER GAMBLE 3.950 01/26/28 01/26/2027 39,203.75 JAN 2027 TOTAL 252,887.20
48128GU99 JP MORGAN 1.250 07/31/27 '26 MTN 02/01/2027 15,625.00 13063DC48 CALIFORNIA STATE 1.700 02/01/28 02/01/2027 7,650.00 91282CHQ7 US TREASURY 4.125 07/31/28 02/01/2027 51,562.50 13063EGT7 CALIFORNIA STATE 4.500 08/01/29 02/01/2027 38,250.00 918608UN8 VACAVILLE CALIF UNI SCH DIS 1.457 08/01/27 02/01/2027 2,549.75 037833ED8 APPLE 1.650 02/08/31 '30 02/08/2027 9,157.50
713448GB8 PEPSICO 4.600 02/07/30 '30 02/08/2027 28,750.00 037833CJ7 APPLE 3.350 02/09/27 '26 02/09/2027 23,715.00 037833CJ7 APPLE 3.350 02/09/27 '26 02/09/2027 25,125.00 344930AD4 FCAOT-23B-A3 02/15/2027 1,237.43
05522RDJ4 BACCT-241-A 02/15/2027 6,162.50
44935JAD8 HART-25C-A3 02/15/2027 13,741.67
4581X0EN4 IDB 4.125 02/15/29 MTN 02/16/2027 68,268.75
02079KBK2 ALPHABET 4.100 02/15/31 '31 02/16/2027 41,000.00 74432BBC1 PRUDENTIAL FINL 4.000 08/15/27 MTN 02/16/2027 57,920.00 02582JKV1 AXCMT-254-A 02/16/2027 4,575.92
92970QAK1 WFCIT-261-A 02/16/2027 6,800.00
17275RBX9 CISCO SYSTEMS 4.750 02/24/30 '30 02/24/2027 47,500.00 US3137FUZW75 FH-K112-AM 02/25/2027 1,948.13
3137HFF59 FHMS K-527 A2 4.618 07/25/2029 02/25/2027 11,545.00 3140Q2C97 FN BZ6395 02/25/2027 9,262.14
35802GAA8 FRESB 2026-SB127 A5F 4.39 02/25/2031 02/25/2027 10,965.37 3137FJEH8 FHMS K-081 A2 3.9 08/25/2028 02/25/2027 3,331.25 Projected Income
For the Period July 01, 2026 to June 30, 2027
170
TOWN OF PARADISE | JUNE 30, 2026
27 CUSIP DESCRIPTION POST DATE AMOUNT
3140Q1JZ4 FN BZ5679 02/25/2027 8,629.26
3140LLEB3 FN BS9129 02/25/2027 4,448.20
3137HLJA1 FHMS K-540 A2 4.513 02/25/2030 02/25/2027 10,124.65 3140HUFK7 FN BL2869 02/25/2027 6,692.97
3140Q0AJ1 FN BZ4508 02/25/2027 8,070.79
3132XFRD2 FH WN1383 02/25/2027 8,534.16
3132XKTY3 FH WN5066 02/25/2027 10,300.58
FEB 2027 TOTAL 543,443.52
91282CFH9 US TREASURY 3.125 08/31/27 03/01/2027 35,937.50 3133EP4A0 FED FARM CR BNKS 4.250 02/28/29 03/01/2027 21,250.00 478160DH4 JOHNSON&JOHNSON 4.550 03/01/28 '28 03/01/2027 45,500.00 91282CHX2 US TREASURY 4.375 08/31/28 03/01/2027 44,843.75 91282CGP0 US TREASURY 4.000 02/29/28 03/01/2027 44,500.00 24422EWD7 JOHN DEERE CAP 2.350 03/08/27 MTN 03/08/2027 2,655.00 24422EWD7 JOHN DEERE CAP 2.350 03/08/27 MTN 03/08/2027 17,625.00 02582JKV1 AXCMT-254-A 03/15/2027 4,575.92
92970QAK1 WFCIT-261-A 03/15/2027 6,800.00
05522RDJ4 BACCT-241-A 03/15/2027 6,162.50
44935JAD8 HART-25C-A3 03/15/2027 13,741.67
344930AD4 FCAOT-23B-A3 03/15/2027 803.28
89236TJZ9 TOYOTA MOTOR CRD 3.050 03/22/27 MTN 03/22/2027 26,687.50 89236TJZ9 TOYOTA MOTOR CRD 3.050 03/22/27 MTN 03/22/2027 (7,752.50) 3137FJEH8 FHMS K-081 A2 3.9 08/25/2028 03/25/2027 3,331.25 3132XKTY3 FH WN5066 03/25/2027 10,295.55
3140Q1JZ4 FN BZ5679 03/25/2027 8,624.97
35802GAA8 FRESB 2026-SB127 A5F 4.39 02/25/2031 03/25/2027 10,962.29 3137HLJA1 FHMS K-540 A2 4.513 02/25/2030 03/25/2027 10,124.65 3132XFRD2 FH WN1383 03/25/2027 8,530.01
Projected Income
For the Period July 01, 2026 to June 30, 2027
171
TOWN OF PARADISE | JUNE 30, 2026
28 CUSIP DESCRIPTION POST DATE AMOUNT
3140LLEB3 FN BS9129 03/25/2027 4,427.05
3140Q2C97 FN BZ6395 03/25/2027 9,255.54
3140Q0AJ1 FN BZ4508 03/25/2027 8,064.69
US3137FUZW75 FH-K112-AM 03/25/2027 1,948.13
3137HFF59 FHMS K-527 A2 4.618 07/25/2029 03/25/2027 11,545.00 3140HUFK7 FN BL2869 03/25/2027 6,654.89
91282CJA0 US TREASURY 4.625 09/30/28 03/31/2027 58,390.63 91282CFL0 US TREASURY 3.875 09/30/29 03/31/2027 65,875.00 91282CQG9 US TREASURY 3.875 03/31/31 03/31/2027 58,125.00 91282CKG5 US TREASURY 4.125 03/31/29 03/31/2027 51,562.50 91282CFM8 US TREASURY 4.125 09/30/27 03/31/2027 19,593.75 91282CMU2 US TREASURY 4.000 03/31/30 03/31/2027 62,000.00 MAR 2027 TOTAL 672,640.48
3133ERAK7 FED FARM CR BNKS 4.375 04/10/29 04/12/2027 54,687.50 05522RDJ4 BACCT-241-A 04/15/2027 6,162.50
92970QAK1 WFCIT-261-A 04/15/2027 6,800.00
44935JAD8 HART-25C-A3 04/15/2027 13,741.67
344930AD4 FCAOT-23B-A3 04/15/2027 380.08
166756BJ4 CHEVRON USA 4.300 10/15/30 '30 04/15/2027 53,750.00 742651DZ2 PEFCO 3.900 10/15/27 04/15/2027 33,150.00
931142FB4 WALMART 3.900 04/15/28 '28 04/15/2027 42,900.00 02582JKV1 AXCMT-254-A 04/15/2027 4,575.92
3137HFF59 FHMS K-527 A2 4.618 07/25/2029 04/26/2027 11,545.00 3132XKTY3 FH WN5066 04/26/2027 10,289.57
3140Q1JZ4 FN BZ5679 04/26/2027 8,619.86
3140Q2C97 FN BZ6395 04/26/2027 9,247.45
3132XFRD2 FH WN1383 04/26/2027 8,525.06
3140Q0AJ1 FN BZ4508 04/26/2027 8,056.53
Projected Income
For the Period July 01, 2026 to June 30, 2027
172
TOWN OF PARADISE | JUNE 30, 2026
29 CUSIP DESCRIPTION POST DATE AMOUNT
3137FJEH8 FHMS K-081 A2 3.9 08/25/2028 04/26/2027 3,331.25 3137HLJA1 FHMS K-540 A2 4.513 02/25/2030 04/26/2027 10,124.65 35802GAA8 FRESB 2026-SB127 A5F 4.39 02/25/2031 04/26/2027 10,956.15 3140LLEB3 FN BS9129 04/26/2027 4,392.75
3140HUFK7 FN BL2869 04/26/2027 6,606.30
US3137FUZW75 FH-K112-AM 04/26/2027 1,948.13
91282CMZ1 US TREASURY 3.875 04/30/30 04/30/2027 67,812.50 91282CQK0 US TREASURY 3.875 04/30/31 04/30/2027 29,062.50 APR 2027 TOTAL 406,665.36
166764BY5 CHEVRON 2.236 05/11/30 '30 05/11/2027 16,770.00 91412G2Y0 UNIVERSITY CALIF REVS 3.039 05/15/27 05/15/2027 13,580.00 912828X88 US TREASURY 2.375 05/15/27 05/15/2027 220,785.16 02582JKV1 AXCMT-254-A 05/17/2027 4,575.92
05522RDJ4 BACCT-241-A 05/17/2027 6,162.50
92970QAK1 WFCIT-261-A 05/17/2027 6,800.00
44935JAD8 HART-25C-A3 05/17/2027 13,741.67
30303MAF9 META PLATFORMS 4.550 05/15/31 '31 05/17/2027 68,250.00 91412G2Y0 UNIVERSITY CALIF REVS 3.039 05/15/27 05/17/2027 30,390.00 912828X88 US TREASURY 2.375 05/15/27 05/17/2027 34,437.50 30303M8L9 META PLATFORMS 4.600 05/15/28 '28 05/17/2027 69,000.00 3140Q0AJ1 FN BZ4508 05/25/2027 8,047.35
35802GAA8 FRESB 2026-SB127 A5F 4.39 02/25/2031 05/25/2027 10,952.14 3132XKTY3 FH WN5066 05/25/2027 10,283.49
3132XFRD2 FH WN1383 05/25/2027 8,520.03
3137FJEH8 FHMS K-081 A2 3.9 08/25/2028 05/25/2027 3,331.25 3137HLJA1 FHMS K-540 A2 4.513 02/25/2030 05/25/2027 10,124.65 3140HUFK7 FN BL2869 05/25/2027 6,553.26
3140LLEB3 FN BS9129 05/25/2027 4,346.99
Projected Income
For the Period July 01, 2026 to June 30, 2027
173
TOWN OF PARADISE | JUNE 30, 2026
30 CUSIP DESCRIPTION POST DATE AMOUNT
US3137FUZW75 FH-K112-AM 05/25/2027 1,948.13
3137HFF59 FHMS K-527 A2 4.618 07/25/2029 05/25/2027 11,545.00 3140Q2C97 FN BZ6395 05/25/2027 9,238.97
3140Q1JZ4 FN BZ5679 05/25/2027 8,614.66
MAY 2027 TOTAL 577,998.65
157432MH5 CHAFFEY CMNTY COLLEGE DIST 4.530 06/01/29 06/01/2027 22,650.00 157432MG7 CHAFFEY CMNTY COLLEGE DIST 4.450 06/01/28 06/01/2027 23,918.75 91282CMA6 US TREASURY 4.125 11/30/29 06/01/2027 54,656.25 91282CFZ9 US TREASURY 3.875 11/30/27 06/01/2027 54,250.00 57636QAM6 MASTERCARD 2.950 06/01/29 '29 06/01/2027 39,825.00 023135BS4 AMAZON.COM 1.500 06/03/30 '30 06/03/2027 30,000.00 3130ATUS4 FHLBANKS 4.250 12/10/27 06/10/2027 14,875.00
02582JKV1 AXCMT-254-A 06/15/2027 4,575.92
92970QAK1 WFCIT-261-A 06/15/2027 6,800.00
44935JAD8 HART-25C-A3 06/15/2027 13,741.67
3133EPNH4 FED FARM CR BNKS 3.875 06/21/28 06/21/2027 21,312.50 3137HLJA1 FHMS K-540 A2 4.513 02/25/2030 06/25/2027 10,124.65 35802GAA8 FRESB 2026-SB127 A5F 4.39 02/25/2031 06/25/2027 10,947.38 3140Q0AJ1 FN BZ4508 06/25/2027 8,040.75
3140Q1JZ4 FN BZ5679 06/25/2027 8,610.13
3140Q2C97 FN BZ6395 06/25/2027 9,231.35
3132XFRD2 FH WN1383 06/25/2027 8,515.64
US3137FUZW75 FH-K112-AM 06/25/2027 1,948.13
3137HFF59 FHMS K-527 A2 4.618 07/25/2029 06/25/2027 11,545.00 3140HUFK7 FN BL2869 06/25/2027 6,503.57
3132XKTY3 FH WN5066 06/25/2027 10,278.17
3137FJEH8 FHMS K-081 A2 3.9 08/25/2028 06/25/2027 3,331.25 3140LLEB3 FN BS9129 06/25/2027 4,315.07
Projected Income
For the Period July 01, 2026 to June 30, 2027
174
TOWN OF PARADISE | JUNE 30, 2026
31 CUSIP DESCRIPTION POST DATE AMOUNT
91282CEW7 US TREASURY 3.250 06/30/27 06/30/2027 40,625.00 91282CPR6 US TREASURY 3.625 12/31/30 06/30/2027 45,312.50 3130AMWE8 FHLBANKS 2.000 06/30/28 '26 06/30/2027 25,000.00 91282CHK0 US TREASURY 4.000 06/30/28 06/30/2027 50,000.00 JUN 2027 TOTAL 540,933.67
GRAND TOTAL 6,175,021.05
Projected Income
For the Period July 01, 2026 to June 30, 2027
175
Meeder provides monthly statements for its investment management clients to provide information about the investment portfolio. The information should not be used for audit or confirmation purposes. Please review your custodial statements and report any inaccuracies or discrepancies.

Certain information and data has been supplied by unaffiliated third parties. Although Meeder believes the information is reliable, it cannot warrant the accuracy of information offered by third parties. Market value may reflect prices received from pricing vendors when current market quotations are not available. Prices may not reflect firm bids or offers and may differ from the value at which the security can be sold.

Statements may include positions from unmanaged accounts provided for reporting purposes. Unmanaged accounts are managed directly by the client and are not included in the accounts managed by Meeder. This information is provided as a client convenience and Meeder assumes no responsibility for performance of these accounts or the accuracy of the data reported.

Investing involves risk. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Debt and fixed income securities are subject to credit and interest rate risk. The investment return and principal value of an investment will fluctuate so that an investors shares, when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Current performance may be lower or higher than the performance data quoted.

Meeder Public Funds, Inc. is a registered investment adviser and affiliate of Meeder Investment Management, Inc. Investment advisory services are provided through Meeder Public Funds, Inc. Please contact us if you would like to receive a copy of our current ADV disclosure brochure or privacy policy. © 2026 Meeder Investment Management
meederpublicfunds.com | 866.633.3371
Disclosure
176

Town of Paradise
Council Agenda Summary
Date: August 11, 2026
Agenda Item: 2(e)
ORIGINATED BY: Scott E. Huber, Town Attorney
REVIEWED BY: Jennifer Macarthy, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Adoption of Cash Transaction Rounding Guidelines

LONG TERM
RECOVERY PLAN:

No
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 2026-___, “A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Paradise Creating a Guideline for Transactions with the Town Involving U.S.

Coins and Federal Reserve Notes.”
Background:

The Town regularly accepts cash payments and issues cash refunds in amounts that may require one-cent coins. Because pennies are no longer consistently available through financial institutions, Town staff cannot reliably maintain an adequate supply. The proposed resolution establishes a uniform procedure for completing affected cash transactions while preserving the exact amount of all non-cash payments.

Analysis:

The resolution directs staff to round the final cash amount to the nearest five cents. Amounts ending in one, two, six, or seven cents are rounded down; amounts ending in three, four, eight, or nine cents are rounded up. Rounding does not apply when the total is two cents or less, the transaction is paid entirely by non-cash means, or the person tenders the exact cash amount.

Taxes are calculated before rounding. For mixed payments, only the cash portion is rounded, and cash refunds are treated in the same manner. The procedure provides consistent administrative guidance without changing any amount authorized or settled through a non-cash payment system.

It should be noted that the state legislature is in the process of adopting legislation to implement this procedure. This resolution is being proposed in the interim until state law comes into effect.

Financial Impact:

The resolution is expected to have no material fiscal impact. Any minor gains or losses resulting from individual cash transactions should substantially offset over time. Taxes, fees, and non-cash payment amounts are not affected.
177

TOWN OF PARADISE
RESOLUTION NO. 2026 - ___

A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF PARADISE CREATING A GUIDELINE FOR TRANSACTIONS WITH THE TOWN INVOLVING U.S. COINS AND

FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES
WHEREAS, the Town often completes monetary transactions with individuals that involve the exchange of U.S. coins and Federal reserve notes; and WHEREAS, with the termination of the manufacturing of pennies by the U.S. Treasury, banks are no longer able to supply pennies to their customers; and WHEREAS, Town Staff is unable to consistently maintain the U.S. coins necessary for transactions involving one-cent ($0.01) coins and Town Council desires to provide a consistent solution for these transactions.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Paradise as follows:

TOWN OF PARADISE TRANSACTION GUIDE
Section 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

Section 2. Definitions
(a) “Cash payment” means any transaction with the Town of Paradise (“Town) using U.S. coins and Federal reserve notes.
(b) “Non-cash payment” means any transaction with the Town using any demand or negotiable instrument such as; electronic fund transfer, money order, credit card, debit card, electronic payment, cryptocurrency, or other like instrument. (c) “Town Staff” means any employee of the Town of Paradise responsible for completing monetary transactions between the Town and a person.

(d) “Person” includes any individual, firm, partnership, joint venture, limited liability company, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, business trust, receiver, assignee for the benefit of creditors, trustee, trustee in bankruptcy, completing a transaction with the Town.
(e) “Transaction” means any exchange of money between the Town and a person for any purpose.
(f) “Total transaction price” means the total amount calculated by the Town for a transaction including any applicable taxes, fees, or surcharges, or tax, fee, or surcharge reimbursement.
178
Section 3. Rounding Process
(a) Town Staff shall determine the total transaction price in the following manner:
(1) If the total transaction price ends with one cent ($0.01), two cents ($0.02), six cents ($0.06), or seven cents ($0.07), it shall be rounded down to the nearest amount of cents divisible by five for those persons seeking to complete a transaction with a cash payment.
(2) If the total transaction price ends with three cents ($0.03), four cents ($0.04), eight cents ($0.08), or nine cents ($0.09), it shall be rounded up to the nearest amount of cents divisible by five for those individuals paying payments made with a cash payment.
(b)The total transaction price shall not be calculated pursuant to subdivision (a) of this Guide for the following transactions:
(1) The total transaction price is two cents ($0.02) or less; (2) Payment for the full amount of the total transaction price is made entirely by non-cash payment; OR
(3) The cash payment provided is equal to the total transaction price. (c) Any refund issued to a person by Town Staff paid in whole or in part with a cash payment, including a refund issued to a person that submitted a cash payment to Town Staff for more than the total transaction price, shall be rounded in the same manner as the total transaction price pursuant to this Section of the Guide.
(d) (1) If a payment for the total transaction price is made with a combination of cash payment and non-cash payment, Town Staff shall round the portion of the total transaction price paid with a cash payment in the same manner as the total transaction price pursuant to this Section of the Guide.
(2) Any rounding made pursuant to this subdivision shall not alter or affect the exact amount authorized, cleared, or settled through any non-cash payment system.

Section 4. Tax Calculation. The taxes required for any transaction with the Town shall be calculated prior to the completion of the rounding process stated in Section 2 of this Guide.

Section 5. Severability. The provisions of this Guide are severable. If any provision of this title or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.

Section 6. No Reimbursement. Persons that choose to complete transactions with the Town using cash payment in whole or in part are not eligible for reimbursement for the rounding process stated in Section 2 of this Guide.
179
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Paradise on this 11th day of August 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

By:

Steve Crowder, Mayor
ATTEST:

Melanie Elvis, CMC, Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Scott E. Huber, Town Attorney
180
Town of Paradise
Council Agenda Summary
Date: August 11, 2026
Agenda Item: 6(a)
ORIGINATED BY: Colette Curtis, Recovery and Economic
Development Director
REVIEWED BY: Jennifer Macarthy, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Chico Regional Airport Revenue Guarantee Fund Contract

LONG TERM
RECOVERY PLAN:

Yes
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:

1. Hear a presentation regarding the City of Chico Regional Airport; and

2. Direct staff to amend the contract with the City of Chico to extend the original agreement for $75,000 towards the Chico Regional Airport Revenue Guarantee Fund until January 1, 2028; or

3. Direct staff to take no action and allow the existing contract to expire; or

4. Provide alternate direction.

Background:

At the February 2024 Council meeting, Town Council heard a presentation from the Chico Airport Manager offering an investment opportunity for the Chico Airport Revenue Guarantee Fund. As part of the renewed effort to restore air service to the region, the Chico Airport requires a Revenue Guarantee Fund of $1.5 Million to begin negotiations with airlines in earnest.

At the March 2024 Council meeting, Council directed staff to enter into a contract with the City of Chico to provide $75,000 towards the Revenue Guarantee Fund, with a 25% deposit up front, and the rest contingent upon a successful contract negotiation with a commercial airline. The contract had an expiration date of January 2026.

Analysis:

Considering the continued efforts for a commercial airline to serve the region, Council may extend the contract through a contract amendment to continue the Town’s pledge of $75,000 towards the Revenue Guarantee Fund.

Once operational, it is expected the airport will see 700 or more passengers per day, bringing 15,000 new visitors to the region each year in addition to the daily travel of local residents. A conservative estimate of the financial impact to the region is estimated at $10 Million in regional benefit per year.

Reestablishing air service in the region provides a benefit to Paradise residents and businesses.

The availability of a nearby airport is a factor in the decision to relocate to Paradise, and during recovery Paradise is interested in supporting these types of services for residents. The investment also includes marketing space in the Chico Airport. 181
Financial Impact:

This investment of $75,000 would impact the Town’s General Fund.

The investment opportunity has been presented as a one-time investment towards the Revenue Guarantee Fund, however any content for the advertising space, and the periodic updating of that content would be an additional cost.

Chico airport has asked for a 25% deposit upon approval of the investment, with the remainder of the investment paid upon execution of an agreement with an airline. The deposit has already been paid, and if the contract is amended it would remain in place. If the contract is left to expire, the deposit would be returned.

Attachments:

1. Original Chico Airline Revenue Guarantee Fund (RGF) Partner Agreement

2. Original Chico Airline Revenue Guarantee Fund (RGF) Partner Agreement Amendment 1 182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191

FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHICO, THE TOWN OF PARADISE

AND EXPLORE BUTTE COUNTY
This First Amendment to Agreement is made on August 11, 2026, to the Agreement between the City of Chico, the Town of Paradise, and Explore Butte County.

RECITALS:

A. The agreement was conditioned upon the acquisition of commercial air service to the Chico Airport on or before from January 1, 2026 (“Service Deadline”) as well as an agreement for the City of Chico to enter into a Minimum Revenue Guarantee Agreement with an airline on or before January 1, 2026 (“Funding Condition”).

B. The Parties have agreed to amend the agreement to extend the Service Deadline and the Funding Condition deadline.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Agreement shall be amended as follows:

1. The Service Deadline in Paragraph 2.0 shall be extended to January 1, 2028.

2. The Funding Condition deadline in Paragraph 2.0 shall be extended to January 1, 2028.

3. All other provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. If there is a conflict between this First Amendment and the Agreement, this First Amendment shall control.

TOWN OF PARADISE CITY OF CHICO
By:____________________________
Jennifer Macarthy, Town Manager
By:

Date: Date:

REVIEWED AS TO FORM: REVIEWED AS TO FORM:

By: _____________________________ By:

Scott E. Huber, Town Attorney
ATTEST: EXPLORE BUTTE COUNTY
By: _____________________________ By:

Melanie Elvis, Town Clerk
Date:
192

Town of Paradise
Council Agenda Summary
Date: August 11, 2026
Agenda Item: 6(b)
ORIGINATED BY: Nadia Alekseev, Housing Program Manager
REVIEWED BY: Jennifer Macarthy, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Resolutions acknowledging the Project Completion of four Multifamily rental housing projects: Eaglepointe Apartments, Cypress Family Apartments, Kathy Court Apartments (aka
Mayer Commons) and Northwind Apartments.

LONG TERM
RECOVERY PLAN:

No
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:

Consider adopting the following resolutions:

1. Resolution No. ______, “A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Paradise Acknowledging the Project Completion of the Eaglepointe Rental Housing Project, a 43- unit Affordable Large Family Housing Complex located at 5975 Maxwell Dr., (APN: 053-380-045-000).”

2. Resolution No. ______, “A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Paradise Acknowledging the Project Completion of the Cypress Family Rental Housing Project, a 70- unit Affordable Large Family Housing Complex located at 1633 Cypress Ln., (APN: 050-140-179-000).”

3. Resolution No. ______, “A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Paradise Acknowledging the Project Completion of the Kathy Court (aka Mayer Commons) Rental Housing Project, a 12- unit Affordable Large Family Housing Complex located at 1565 Kay Ct., (APN: 053-170-144-000).”

4. Resolution No. ______, “A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Paradise Acknowledging the Project Completion of the Northwind Rental Housing Project, a 21- unit Affordable Senior Housing Complex located at 6983 Pentz Rd., (APN: 050-082-023-000).”
Background:

In response to the 2018 wildfires, floods, and mudslides in California, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development allocated $1,017,399,000 in Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funds under Public Laws 115-254 and 116-20 to the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to support state-wide recovery needs.

From this allocation of CDBG-DR funds, State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD or Department) created the Disaster Recovery – Multifamily Housing Program (DR-MHP) and allocated $55,906,660 in funds to the Town of Paradise as a subrecipient in their CDBG-DR Action Plan which was approved by the U.S. Department of 193
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in August 2020. The Town Council adopted a resolution accepting this allocation on January 13, 2021, and the Town entered into a Master Standard Agreement with HCD on December 16, 2021.

The Town released a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) and Request for Proposals (RFP) on March 18, 2022, to solicit eligible multifamily housing projects. Proposals received were evaluated for compliance with the DR-MHP Policies and Procedures. Eligible projects were selected on a first-come, first-served basis and submitted to HCD for review and funding consideration.

Following its review, HCD awarded DR-MHP funding to seven multifamily housing projects in the Town of Paradise. Five are completed and two are currently under construction.

In 2024, HCD published an Action Plan Amendment No. 7, which redirected additional funding to the Town's DR-MHP program. On January 15, 2025, the Town Council adopted a Resolution accepting additional DR-MHP funding. Subsequently, on June 3, 2025, an amendment to the Master Standard Agreement was executed, providing an additional allocation of $28,801,012 and increasing the Town's total Multifamily Housing Program funding to $84,707,672. The additional funding allocation was directed to the final two DR-MHP projects that were conditionally approved by HCD but had remaining funding gaps.

The Town oversees and monitors the construction and lease-up of approved projects and will continue to conduct annual compliance monitoring throughout the 20-year affordability period to ensure ongoing compliance with program requirements.

Analysis:

Eaglepointe:

Town of Paradise received a Notice to Proceed (NTP) from HCD on March 14, 2023, for construction of Eaglepointe Apartments, a 43-unit (42 affordable units and 1 manager unit) Multifamily Affordable Housing Project. The project was awarded $7,390,000 in DR-MHP funding. Construction of the project has been completed, and Certificates of Occupancy were issued by the Town of Paradise on September 27, 2024.

Cypress Family:

Town of Paradise received a Notice to Proceed (NTP) from HCD on December 31, 2023, for construction of Cypress Family Apartments, a 70-unit (69 affordable units and 1 manager unit) Multifamily Affordable Housing Project. The project was awarded $14,278,677 in DR-MHP funding. Construction of the project has been completed, and Certificates of Occupancy were issued by the Town of Paradise on December 12, 2025.

Kathy Ct (aka Mayer Commons):

Town of Paradise received a Notice to Proceed (NTP) from HCD on August 3, 2023, for construction of Kathy Ct Apartments, later renamed to Mayer Commons, a 12-unit Multifamily Affordable Housing Project. This complex was a reconstruction project of the apartments that were lost in the Camp Fire. The project was awarded $2,695,318 in DR-MHP funding.

Construction of the project has been completed, and Certificate of Occupancy was issued by the Town of Paradise on September 4, 2025.

Northwind Senior:

Town of Paradise received a Notice to Proceed (NTP) from HCD on December 31, 2023, for construction of Northwind Senior Apartments, a 21-unit Senior Affordable Housing Project. The project was awarded $3,600,000 in DR-MHP funding. Construction of the project has been completed, and Certificates of Occupancy were issued by the Town of Paradise on March 6, 2025.
194
The Town of Paradise must submit a Resolution authorizing the completion of each Multifamily Project to HCD in order to comply with all of the requirements set forth in the Master Standard Agreement and Notice to Proceed and to complete the Project Closeout Checklist and submit the final financial report for reimbursement of the remaining 10% retention of the project award.

Financial Impact:

Adoption of these resolutions is a required component of the overall project close-out process.

Failure to adopt the resolutions may delay reimbursement of eligible expenditures and could result in the forfeiture of a portion of the awarded grant funds. 195

TOWN OF PARADISE
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-_____

RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF PARADISE ACKNOWLEDGING THE PROJECT COMPLETION OF THE EAGLEPOINTE RENTAL HOUSING PROJECT, A 43-UNIT AFFORDABLE LARGE FAMILY HOUSING COMPLEX LOCATED AT 5975 MAXWELL DR., A PORTION OF APN: 053-380-045-000.

WHEREAS, in response to the 2018 wildfires, floods, and mudslides in California, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development allocated $1,017,399,000 in Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funds under Public Laws 115-254 and 116-20 to the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to support state-wide recovery needs; and,
WHEREAS, from this allocation of CDBG-DR funds, State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD or Department) created the Disaster Recovery – Multifamily Housing Program (DR-MHP) and allocated up to $55,906,660 in funds to the Town of Paradise as a subrecipient in their CDBG-DR Action Plan which was approved by the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in August 2020; and, WHEREAS, the Town of Paradise entered into a Master Standard Agreement on December 16, 2021 with HCD; and,
WHEREAS, HCD allocated an additional $28,801,012 in funds to the Town of Paradise as a subrecipient in their CDBG-DR Action Plan Amendment No.7, increasing the Town’s total Multifamily Housing Program funding to $84,707,672 through a Master Standard Agreement Amendment 1, executed on June 3, 2025; and,
WHEREAS, Town of Paradise was awarded $7,390,000 in CDBG-DR program funds on March 14, 2023, for construction-related costs associated with Eaglepointe Rental Housing Project through a competitive Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery/Disaster Recovery – Multifamily Housing Program Notice of Funding Availability (“NOFA”) released on March 18, 2022; and,
WHEREAS, HCD issued the Town of Paradise a Notice to Proceed on March 14, 2023, for the development of the Large Family affordable housing project known as Eaglepointe located 5975 Maxwell Dr., and consisting of 42 affordable units and 1 unrestricted manager’s unit targeted to Large Families at or below 80% of the Area Median Income.

WHEREAS, the Project completed construction and was issued a Certificate of Occupancy by the Town of Paradise Building Department on September 27, 2024, and, WHEREAS, the Town of Paradise must submit a Resolution authorizing the completion of the Eaglepointe Rental Housing Project to HCD in order to comply with all of the requirements set forth in the Master Standard Agreement and Notice to Proceed and to complete the Project Closeout Checklist and submit the final financial report for reimbursement of the remaining 10% retention of the project award.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Paradise that Town of Paradise that Town of Paradise does hereby acknowledge the project completion of Eaglepointe Rental Housing Project.
196

TOWN OF PARADISE
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-____
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town of Paradise, in connection with the authorization of project completion for Eaglepointe Rental Housing Project, is authorized and directed to deliver a Resolution documenting project completion, and any and all other documents required or deemed necessary or appropriate to carry into effect the full intent and purpose of the above resolution, in order to evidence the Town of Paradise obligations related thereto, and HCD’s security therefore; certain other documents required by the Department as security for, evidence of or pertaining to the Master Standard Agreement and Notice to Proceed, and all amendments thereto (collectively Eaglepointe Rental Housing Project CDBG-DR Grant Documents).

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Paradise on this 11th day of August 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________________
Steve Crowder, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Melanie Elvis, Town Clerk
APPROVE AS TO FORM:
________________________________
Scott E. Huber, Town Attorney
197

TOWN OF PARADISE
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-____

RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF PARADISE ACKNOWLEDGING THE PROJECT COMPLETION OF THE CYPRESS FAMILY RENTAL HOUSING PROJECT, A 70-UNIT AFFORDABLE LARGE FAMILY HOUSING COMPLEX LOCATED AT 1633 CYPRESS LN., A PORTION OF APN: 050-140-179-000.

WHEREAS, in response to the 2018 wildfires, floods, and mudslides in California, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development allocated $1,017,399,000 in Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funds under Public Laws 115-254 and 116-20 to the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to support state-wide recovery needs; and,
WHEREAS, from this allocation of CDBG-DR funds, State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD or Department) created the Disaster Recovery – Multifamily Housing Program (DR-MHP) and allocated up to $55,906,660 in funds to the Town of Paradise as a subrecipient in their CDBG-DR Action Plan which was approved by the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in August 2020; and, WHEREAS, the Town of Paradise entered into a Master Standard Agreement on December 16, 2021 with HCD; and,
WHEREAS, HCD allocated an additional $28,801,012 in funds to the Town of Paradise as a subrecipient in their CDBG-DR Action Plan Amendment No.7, increasing the Town’s total Multifamily Housing Program funding to $84,707,672 through a Master Standard Agreement Amendment 1, executed on June 3, 2025; and,
WHEREAS, Town of Paradise was awarded $14,278,677 in CDBG-DR program funds on December 28, 2023, for construction-related costs associated with Cypress Family Rental Housing Project through a competitive Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery/Disaster Recovery – Multifamily Housing Program Notice of Funding Availability (“NOFA”) released on March 18, 2022; and,
WHEREAS, HCD issued the Town of Paradise a Notice to Proceed on December 31, 2023, for the development of the Large Family affordable housing project known as Cypress Family located 1633 Cypress Ln., and consisting of 69 affordable units and 1 unrestricted manager’s unit targeted to Large Families at or below 80% of the Area Median Income.

WHEREAS, the Project completed construction and was issued a Certificate of Occupancy by the Town of Paradise Building Department on December 12, 2025, and, WHEREAS, the Town of Paradise must submit a Resolution authorizing the completion of the Cypress Family Rental Housing Project to HCD in order to comply with all of the requirements set forth in the Master Standard Agreement and Notice to Proceed and to complete the Project Closeout Checklist and submit the final financial report for reimbursement of the remaining 10% retention of the project award.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Paradise that Town of Paradise does hereby acknowledge the project completion of Cypress Family Rental Housing Project.
198

TOWN OF PARADISE
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-____
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town of Paradise, in connection with the authorization of project completion for Cypress Family Rental Housing Project, is authorized and directed to deliver a Resolution documenting project completion, and any and all other documents required or deemed necessary or appropriate to carry into effect the full intent and purpose of the above resolution, in order to evidence the Town of Paradise obligations related thereto, and HCD’s security therefore; certain other documents required by the Department as security for, evidence of or pertaining to the Master Standard Agreement and Notice to Proceed, and all amendments thereto (collectively Cypress Family Rental Housing Project CDBG-DR Grant Documents).

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Paradise on this 11th day of August 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________________
Steve Crowder, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Melanie Elvis, Town Clerk
APPROVE AS TO FORM:
________________________________
Scott E. Huber, Town Attorney
199

TOWN OF PARADISE
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-____

RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF PARADISE ACKNOWLEDGING THE PROJECT

COMPLETION OF THE KATHY COURT (AKA MAYER COMMONS) RENTAL HOUSING PROJECT, A 12-UNIT AFFORDABLE LARGE FAMILY HOUSING COMPLEX LOCATED AT 1565 KAY CT., A PORTION OF APN: 053-170-144-000.

WHEREAS, in response to the 2018 wildfires, floods, and mudslides in California, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development allocated $1,017,399,000 in Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funds under Public Laws 115-254 and 116-20 to the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to support state-wide recovery needs; and,
WHEREAS, from this allocation of CDBG-DR funds, State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD or Department) created the Disaster Recovery – Multifamily Housing Program (DR-MHP) and allocated up to $55,906,660 in funds to the Town of Paradise as a subrecipient in their CDBG-DR Action Plan which was approved by the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in August 2020; and, WHEREAS, the Town of Paradise entered into a Master Standard Agreement on December 16, 2021 with HCD; and,
WHEREAS, HCD allocated an additional $28,801,012 in funds to the Town of Paradise as a subrecipient in their CDBG-DR Action Plan Amendment No.7, increasing the Town’s total Multifamily Housing Program funding to $84,707,672 through a Master Standard Agreement Amendment 1, executed on June 3, 2025; and,
WHEREAS, Town of Paradise was awarded $2,695,318 in CDBG-DR program funds on July 31, 2023, for construction-related costs associated with Kathy Court (aka Mayer Common) Rental Housing Project through a competitive Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery/Disaster Recovery – Multifamily Housing Program Notice of Funding Availability (“NOFA”) released on March 18, 2022; and,
WHEREAS, HCD issued the Town of Paradise a Notice to Proceed on August 3, 2023, for the development of the Large Family affordable housing project known as Kathy Court (aka Mayer Commons) located 1565 Kay Ct., and consisting of 12 affordable units targeted to Large Families at or below 80% of the Area Median Income.

WHEREAS, the Project completed construction and was issued a Certificate of Occupancy by the Town of Paradise Building Department on September 4, 2025, and, WHEREAS, the Town of Paradise must submit a Resolution authorizing the completion of the Kathy Court (aka Mayer Commons) Rental Housing Project to HCD in order to comply with all of the requirements set forth in the Master Standard Agreement and Notice to Proceed and to complete the Project Closeout Checklist and submit the final financial report for reimbursement of the remaining 10% retention of the project award.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Paradise that Town of Paradise that Town of Paradise does hereby acknowledge the project completion of Kathy Court (aka Mayer Commons) Rental Housing Project.
200

TOWN OF PARADISE
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-____
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town of Paradise, in connection with the authorization of project completion for Kathy Court (aka Mayer Commons) Rental Housing Project, is authorized and directed to deliver a Resolution documenting project completion, and any and all other documents required or deemed necessary or appropriate to carry into effect the full intent and purpose of the above resolution, in order to evidence the Town of Paradise obligations related thereto, and HCD’s security therefore; certain other documents required by the Department as security for, evidence of or pertaining to the Master Standard Agreement and Notice to Proceed, and all amendments thereto (collectively Kathy Court (aka Mayer Commons) Rental Housing Project CDBG-DR Grant Documents).

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Paradise on this 11th day of August 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________________
Steve Crowder, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Melanie Elvis, Town Clerk
APPROVE AS TO FORM:
________________________________
Scott E. Huber, Town Attorney
201

TOWN OF PARADISE
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-____

RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF PARADISE ACKNOWLEDGING THE PROJECT COMPLETION OF THE NORTHWIND SENIOR RENTAL HOUSING PROJECT, A 12-UNIT AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING COMPLEX LOCATED AT 6983 PENTZ RD., A PORTION OF APN: 050-082-023-000.

WHEREAS, in response to the 2018 wildfires, floods, and mudslides in California, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development allocated $1,017,399,000 in Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funds under Public Laws 115-254 and 116-20 to the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to support state-wide recovery needs; and,
WHEREAS, from this allocation of CDBG-DR funds, State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD or Department) created the Disaster Recovery – Multifamily Housing Program (DR-MHP) and allocated up to $55,906,660 in funds to the Town of Paradise as a subrecipient in their CDBG-DR Action Plan which was approved by the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in August 2020; and, WHEREAS, the Town of Paradise entered into a Master Standard Agreement on December 16, 2021 with HCD; and,
WHEREAS, HCD allocated an additional $28,801,012 in funds to the Town of Paradise as a subrecipient in their CDBG-DR Action Plan Amendment No.7, increasing the Town’s total Multifamily Housing Program funding to $84,707,672 through a Master Standard Agreement Amendment 1, executed on June 3, 2025; and,
WHEREAS, Town of Paradise was awarded $3,600,000 in CDBG-DR program funds on December 21, 2023, for construction-related costs associated with Northwind Senior Rental Housing Project through a competitive Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery/Disaster Recovery – Multifamily Housing Program Notice of Funding Availability (“NOFA”) released on March 18, 2022; and,
WHEREAS, HCD issued the Town of Paradise a Notice to Proceed on December 31, 2023, for the development of the Senior affordable housing project known as Northwind Senior located 6983 Northwind Senior, and consisting of 21 affordable units targeted to Seniors at or below 80% of the Area Median Income.

WHEREAS, the Project completed construction and was issued a Certificate of Occupancy by the Town of Paradise Building Department on March 6, 2025, and, WHEREAS, the Town of Paradise must submit a Resolution authorizing the completion of the Northwind Senior Rental Housing Project to HCD in order to comply with all of the requirements set forth in the Master Standard Agreement and Notice to Proceed and to complete the Project Closeout Checklist and submit the final financial report for reimbursement of the remaining 10% retention of the project award.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Paradise that Town of Paradise that Town of Paradise does hereby acknowledge the project completion of Northwind Senior Rental Housing Project.
202

TOWN OF PARADISE
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-____
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town of Paradise, in connection with the authorization of project completion for Northwind Senior Rental Housing Project, is authorized and directed to deliver a Resolution documenting project completion, and any and all other documents required or deemed necessary or appropriate to carry into effect the full intent and purpose of the above resolution, in order to evidence the Town of Paradise obligations related thereto, and HCD’s security therefore; certain other documents required by the Department as security for, evidence of or pertaining to the Master Standard Agreement and Notice to Proceed, and all amendments thereto (collectively Northwind Senior Rental Housing Project CDBG-DR Grant Documents).

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Paradise on this 11th day of August 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________________
Steve Crowder, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Melanie Elvis, Town Clerk
APPROVE AS TO FORM:
________________________________
Scott E. Huber, Town Attorney
203

Town of Paradise
Council Agenda Summary
Date: August 11, 2026
Agenda Item: 6(c)
ORIGINATED BY: Aimee Beleu, Finance Director/ Town Treasurer REVIEWED BY: Jennifer Macarthy, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Monthly Financial Report

LONG TERM
RECOVERY PLAN:

No
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:

1. Review and file the July 2026 Monthly Financial Report, and provide feedback to staff regarding whether the report meets the Council’s expectations and informational needs, including any recommendations for additional or revised financial information to be included in future monthly reports.

Background:

July 2026 represents the first month of the fiscal year, and both revenues and expenditures are affected by the timing of receipts and annual payments. Many General Fund revenue sources have not yet been received. Property tax apportionments from Butte County are generally distributed in December and April, following the County's property tax collection cycle. Sales tax, franchise fees, and other intergovernmental revenues are also received throughout the year and often lag the month in which they are generated. As a result, revenue activity in July is expected to be minimal and should not be viewed as indicative of annual revenue performance.

The approximately $1,000,000 reflected in Other Financing Sources represents a transfer from the PRO account and should not be interpreted as current-year operating revenue.

On the expenditure side, several significant annual costs are incurred at the beginning of the fiscal year, including the CalPERS unfunded accrued liability (UAL) prepayment, workers' compensation premiums, and other annual personnel-related obligations. These costs are recognized early in the fiscal year, causing expenditure categories, particularly personnel-related costs to appear higher than a straight-line monthly comparison would suggest. These expenditures are anticipated within the adopted budget, and as additional revenues are received and expenditures are spread over the fiscal year, the year-to-date percentages will normalize.

Analysis:

This report is being presented as the first in a series of monthly financial reports and provides an opportunity for the Town Council to offer feedback on the format, content, and level of detail presented. Staff welcomes Council's input to ensure future reports provide the financial information most useful for monitoring the Town's fiscal condition and supporting informed decision-making.

Financial Impact:

None
204
Budget Amended Current Month YTD YTD Budget - YTD % Used/ Amendments Budget Transactions Encumbrances Transactions Transactions Rec'd .00 8,764,919.00 9,926.05 .00 9,926.05 8,754,992.95 0
.00 375,140.00 1,111.11 .00 1,111.11 374,028.89 0
.00 23,100.00 2,500.00 .00 2,500.00 20,600.00 11
.00 30,490.00 .00 .00 .00 30,490.00 0
.00 2,116,043.00 .00 .00 .00 2,116,043.00 0
.00 83,877.00 4,172.43 .00 4,172.43 79,704.57 5
.00 25,100.00 481.99 .00 481.99 24,618.01 2
.00 14,670,651.00 1,000,000.00 .00 1,000,000.00 13,670,651.00 7 $0.00 $26,089,320.00 $1,018,191.58 $0.00 $1,018,191.58 $25,071,128.42 4% .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++
.00 12,013,560.00 3,903,101.99 .00 3,903,101.99 8,110,458.01 32 .00 1,534,285.00 54,994.42 .00 54,994.42 1,479,290.58 4 .00 611,977.00 8,997.75 7,682.00 8,997.75 595,297.25 3
.00 116,865.00 495.00 .00 495.00 116,370.00 0
.00 388,531.00 1,649.75 .00 1,649.75 386,881.25 0
.00 9,508,812.00 166,423.42 .00 166,423.42 9,342,388.58 2 .00 232,425.00 1,165.00 .00 1,165.00 231,260.00 1
.00 41,150.00 .00 .00 .00 41,150.00 0
.00 30,850.00 .00 .00 .00 30,850.00 0
.00 1,033,519.00 45,560.14 (12,900.00) 45,560.14 1,000,858.86 3 .00 1,277,491.00 1,320,951.76 .00 1,320,951.76 (43,460.76) 103 .00 (700,145.00) .00 .00 .00 (700,145.00) 0
$0.00 $26,089,320.00 $5,503,339.23 ($5,218.00) $5,503,339.23 $20,591,198.77 21% .00 26,089,320.00 1,018,191.58 .00 1,018,191.58 25,071,128.42 4% .00 26,089,320.00 5,503,339.23 (5,218.00) 5,503,339.23 20,591,198.77 21% $0.00 $0.00 ($4,485,147.65) $5,218.00 ($4,485,147.65) $4,479,929.65 Grand Totals
.00 26,089,320.00 1,018,191.58 .00 1,018,191.58 25,071,128.42 4% .00 26,089,320.00 5,503,339.23 (5,218.00) 5,503,339.23 20,591,198.77 21% Grand Totals $0.00 $0.00 ($4,485,147.65) $5,218.00 ($4,485,147.65) $4,479,929.65 Budget by Account Classification Report
Through 07/31/26
Prior Fiscal Year Activity Included
Summary Listing
Adopted
Account Classification Budget
Fund 1010 - General Fund

REVENUE
Taxes 8,764,919.00
Licenses and Permits 375,140.00
Fines, Forfeitures and Penalties 23,100.00
Investment Revenue 30,490.00
Intergovernmental Revenues 2,116,043.00
Charges for Services 83,877.00
Other Revenues 25,100.00
Other Financing Sources 14,670,651.00
REVENUE TOTALS $26,089,320.00

EXPENSE
PRIOR YR ENTRY .00
Salaries and Wages 12,013,560.00
Other Employee Costs 1,534,285.00
Supplies 611,977.00
Postage Printing and Advertising 116,865.00
Utilities 388,531.00
Services 9,508,812.00
Employee Development 232,425.00
Other Costs 41,150.00
Special Costs 30,850.00
Capital Outlay 1,033,519.00
Debt Service 1,277,491.00
Other Financing Uses (700,145.00)
EXPENSE TOTALS $26,089,320.00
Fund 1010 - General Fund Totals
REVENUE TOTALS 26,089,320.00
EXPENSE TOTALS 26,089,320.00
EXPENSE TOTALS 26,089,320.00
$0.00
Fund 1010 - General Fund Totals $0.00
REVENUE TOTALS 26,089,320.00
Run by Aimee Beleu on 07/31/2026 10:09:13 AM Page 1 of 1 205

Town of Paradise
Council Agenda Summary
Date: August 11, 2026
Agenda Item: 6(d)
ORIGINATED BY: Melanie Elvis, Town Clerk
REVIEWED BY: Jennifer Macarthy, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Appoint a voting delegate and two alternatives to the League of California Cities Annual Conference

LONG TERM
RECOVERY PLAN:

No.

COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:

1. Consider appointing a voting delegate and two alternatives to the League of California Cities Annual Conference.

Background:

The League of California Cities is a statewide association representing California's incorporated cities. Each year, member cities are invited to designate one official voting delegate and up to two alternates to participate in the Annual General Assembly held during the League of California Cities Annual Conference.

During the General Assembly, delegates consider and vote on resolutions addressing municipal policy issues, including local governance, public finance, housing, infrastructure, public safety, environmental policy, transportation, and other issues affecting cities statewide. The adopted resolutions help guide the League of California Cities ' legislative priorities and advocacy efforts before the California Legislature and state agencies.

Each member city (or town) must formally designate its voting delegate and alternates by action of the governing body and submit the required certification to League of California Cities before the established deadline, September 1, 2026.

Analysis:

The appointment of a voting delegate and alternates is an administrative appointment intended to ensure the city is represented during the Cal Cities Annual General Assembly. The appointment does not commit the town to any specific policy position. Rather, it authorizes the selected representative to vote on behalf of the town during the General Assembly, consistent with the Council's direction and the delegate's understanding of the town’s interests.

If no Council Members attend the conference, Council may appoint a staff member as its delegate. 206
Financial Impact:

There is no direct fiscal impact associated with the appointment itself. Conference registration, travel, and lodging expenses, if applicable, are addressed through the City's adopted budget and travel policies.
207
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org DATE: Wednesday, May 13, 2026
TO: Mayors, Council Members, City Clerks, and City Managers RE: DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATES AND ALTERNATES
League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo, Sept. 23-25, 2026 Anaheim Convention Center
Every year, the League of California Cities convenes a member-driven General Assembly at the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo. The General Assembly is an important opportunity where city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy.

Taking place on Friday, Sept. 25, 2026 the General Assembly is comprised of voting delegates appointed by each member city; every city has one voting delegate. Your appointed voting delegate plays an important role during the General Assembly by representing your city and voting on resolutions.

To cast a vote during the General Assembly, your city must designate a voting delegate and up to two alternate voting delegates, one of whom may vote if the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity. Voting delegates may either be an elected or appointed official.

Action by Council Required. Consistent with Cal Cities bylaws, a city’s voting delegate and up to two alternates must be designated by the city council. Please note that designating the voting delegate and alternates must be done by city council action and cannot be accomplished by individual action of the mayor or city manager alone.

Following council action, please submit your city’s delegates through the online submission portal by Tuesday, Sept. 1, 2026. When completing the Voting Delegate submission form, you will be asked to attest that council action was taken. You will need to be signed in to your My Cal Cities account when submitting the form.

Submitting your voting delegate form by the deadline will allow us time to establish voting delegate/alternate records prior to the conference and provide pre-conference communications with voting delegates.

Conference Registration Required. The voting delegate and alternates must be registered to attend the conference. They need not register for the entire conference; they may register for Friday only. Conference registration opens June 2.

For a city to cast a vote, one voter must be present at the General Assembly and in possession of the voting delegate card and voting tool. Voting delegates and Council Action Advised by September 1, 2026
208
alternates need to pick up their conference badges before signing in and picking up the voting delegate card at the voting delegate desk. This will enable them to receive the special sticker on their name badges that will admit the voting delegate into the voting area during the General Assembly.

Please view Cal Cities’ event and meeting policy in advance of the conference.

Transferring Voting Card to Non-Designated Individuals Not Allowed. The voting delegate card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but only between the voting delegate and alternates. If the voting delegate and alternates find themselves unable to attend the General Assembly, they may not transfer the voting card to another city official.

Seating Protocol during General Assembly. At the General Assembly, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission to the voting area will be limited to the individual in possession of the voting card and with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate.

The voting delegate desk, located in the conference registration area of the Anaheim Convention Center, will be open at the following times: Wednesday, Sept. 23, 8:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. and Thursday, Sept. 24, 7:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m. On Friday, Sept. 25, the voting delegate desk will be open at the General Assembly, starting at 7:30 a.m., but will be closed during roll calls and voting.

The voting procedures that will be used at the conference are attached to this memo.

Please share these procedures and this memo with your council and especially with the individuals that your council designates as your city’s voting delegate and alternates.

Once again, thank you for submitting your voting delegate and alternates by Tuesday, Sept. 1. If you have questions, please contact Zach Seals at [email protected].

Attachments:
• General Assembly Voting Guidelines
• Information Sheet: Cal Cities Resolutions and the General Assembly 209
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org General Assembly Voting Guidelines

1. One City One Vote. Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to Cal Cities policy.

2. Designating a City Voting Representative. Prior to the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo, each city council may designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates; these individuals are identified on the voting delegate form provided to the Cal Cities Credentials Committee.

3. Registering with the Credentials Committee. The voting delegate, or alternates, may pick up the city's voting card at the voting delegate desk in the conference registration area. Voting delegates and alternates must sign in at the voting delegate desk. Here they will receive a special sticker on their name badge and thus be admitted to the voting area at the General Assembly.

4. Signing Initiated Resolution Petitions. Only those individuals who are voting delegates (or alternates), and who have picked up their city’s voting card by providing a signature to the credentials committee at the voting delegate desk, may sign petitions to initiate a resolution.

5. Voting. To cast the city's vote, a city official must have in their possession the city's voting card and voting tool; and be registered with the credentials committee. The voting card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates but may not be transferred to another city official who is neither a voting delegate nor alternate.

6. Voting Area at General Assembly. At the General Assembly, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission to the voting area will be limited to the individual in possession of the voting card and with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate.

7. Resolving Disputes. In case of dispute, the credentials committee will determine the validity of signatures on petitioned resolutions and the right of a city official to vote at the General Assembly.
210
Sixty days before the
Annual Conference
and Expo, Cal Cities
members may submit
policy proposals on
issues of importance
to cities. The resolution must
have the concurrence of at least
five additional member cities or
individual members.

How it works: Cal Cities
Resolutions and the General Assembly
General Assembly
General Resolutions Policy Committees
Developing League of California Cities policy is a dynamic process that engages a wide range of members to ensure Cal Cities represents cities with one voice. These policies directly guide Cal Cities’ advocacy to promote local decision-making, and lobby against statewide policies that erode local control.

The resolutions process and General Assembly is one way that city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy. If a resolution is approved at the General Assembly, it becomes official Cal Cities policy. Here’s how resolutions and the General Assembly work.

The petitioned
resolution is an
alternate method
to introduce policy
proposals during
the annual conference. The
petition must be signed by
voting delegates from 10% of
member cities, and submitted to
the Cal Cities President at least
24 hours before the beginning
of the General Assembly.

Petitioned Resolutions
The Cal Cities
President assigns
general resolutions
to policy committees
where members
review, debate, and recommend
positions for each policy proposal.

Recommendations are forwarded
to the Resolutions Committee.

Who’s who
The Resolutions Committee
includes representatives
from each Cal Cities
diversity caucus, regional
division, municipal
department, and policy
committee, as well as
individuals appointed by
the Cal Cities president.

Voting delegates
are appointed by each
member city; every city
has one voting delegate.

The General Assembly is a
meeting of the collective
body of all voting
delegates —one from
every member city.

Seven policy committees
meet throughout the year
to review and recommend
positions to take on bills
and regulatory proposals.

Policy committees include
members from each Cal
Cities diversity caucus,
regional division, and
municipal department,
as well as individuals
appointed by the Cal
Cities president.

During the General Assembly, voting delegates
debate and consider general and petitioned
resolutions forwarded by the Resolutions
Committee. Potential Cal Cities bylaws
amendments are also considered at this meeting.

Cal Cities policy
development is a memberinformed process,
grounded in the voices and
experiences of city officials
throughout the state.

For more information visit www.calcities.org/general-assembly Prior to the Annual Conference and Expo
Resolutions Committee
The Resolutions
Committee considers
all resolutions. General
Resolutions approved1 by
either a policy committee
or the Resolutions Committee are next
considered by the General Assembly.

General resolutions not approved, or
referred for further study by both a
policy committee and the Resolutions
Committee do not go to the General
Assembly. All Petitioned Resolutions
are considered by the General
Assembly, unless disqualified.2
During the Annual Conference and Expo
1 The Resolution Committee can amend a general resolution prior to sending it to the General Assembly. 2 Petitioned Resolutions may be disqualified by the Resolutions C 211 ommittee according to Cal Cities Bylaws Article VI. Sec. 5(f).

Town of Paradise
Office of the Mayor
5555 Skyway
Paradise, CA 95969
(530) 872-6291
Working together to rebuild a thriving community.

August 11, 2026
Goats in Paradise, Inc.
1450 Idlewild Lane
Paradise, CA 95969
Dear Goats in Paradise, Inc.,
The Town of Paradise continues to face long-lasting impacts from the 2018 Camp Fire, including significant challenges related to wildfire risk and the resulting increases in insurance premiums for residents and businesses. Despite ongoing recovery efforts, many property owners are experiencing extreme insurance costs or difficulty obtaining coverage at all. These conditions underscore the urgent need for effective, economical, and sustainable wildfire-mitigation strategies within our community.

One such strategy is the proposed goat-grazing vegetation-management program through the Goats in Paradise, Inc. organization. Targeted grazing provides a safe, efficient, and environmentally responsible method of reducing hazardous fuels in high-risk areas. Goats are able to access steep terrain, dense brush, and locations that are difficult or unsafe for mechanical equipment or manual crews. This approach not only lowers fire risk but also reduces costs for both the Town and property owners.

The Town of Paradise strongly supports the continued implementation and expansion of this program.

We believe that broadening goat-grazing operations to additional neighborhoods and public lands will further enhance community safety, improve defensible space, and contribute to long-term wildfire resilience. As insurance markets continue to respond to risk conditions in the region, proactive vegetation-management efforts like this are essential to protecting our residents and strengthening our community’s future. This program will assist in the decrease of risk and attract insurance companies offering affordable insurance policies.

The Town of Paradise appreciates the collaboration of local partners, landowners, and organizations who make this program possible. We look forward to seeing it grow and succeed as part of our comprehensive wildfire-mitigation strategy.

Sincerely,
Steve Crowder, Mayor
Town of Paradise
212
Goats in Paradise, Inc.

Community-Based Grazing for Wildfire Fuel Reduction and Land Stewardship
Project Overview
Northern California's landscapes continue to experience significant ecological changes following decades of catastrophic wildfires. Large areas that were once characterized by mixed conifer forests, oak woodlands, grasslands, and agricultural lands are increasingly transitioning to dense stands of brush and small-diameter trees. Without active management, these previously burned areas can rapidly accumulate fine and medium fuels, increasing wildfire intensity, rate of spread, and the threat posed to nearby communities, infrastructure, natural resources, and public safety.

Many former agricultural properties and open grazing lands now sit idle, allowing vegetation to regenerate unchecked. Species such as California bay, brush, and other woody vegetation are increasingly occupying areas that historically supported a more diverse mosaic of forest, pasture, and rangeland habitats. As vegetation densities increase, so too does the accumulation of wildfire fuels that contribute to severe fire behavior.

State and federal agencies invest millions of dollars annually in vegetation management and fuel reduction projects designed to reduce wildfire risk. While mechanical treatment, hand crews, and prescribed fire remain important tools, managed livestock grazing offers a complementary and cost-effective approach to reducing fuel loads while providing additional ecological and community benefits.

Project Purpose
Goats in Paradise, Inc. proposes to establish a community-based managed grazing program focused on reducing wildfire fuels, improving vegetation management, and restoring productive use of underutilized lands throughout the Paradise Ridge and surrounding communities.

The project is based upon established research and best management practices, including guidance contained in the University of California publication Grazing for Change: Using Managed Livestock Grazing to Reduce Fire Fuel Loads (2021). Managed grazing is recognized as an effective vegetation management strategy that can reduce fuel continuity, suppress invasive vegetation, improve land stewardship, and complement other wildfire mitigation efforts.
213
While grazing is only one component of a comprehensive wildfire mitigation strategy, it offers a sustainable and cost-effective long-term management tool when properly planned and implemented.

Organizational Structure
To maximize eligibility for public grants, partnerships, and funding opportunities, Goats in Paradise has been incorporated as a California nonprofit corporation.

The organization will be governed by a three-member Board of Directors responsible for strategic oversight and policy direction. Day-to-day operations will be managed by a General Manager responsible for livestock operations, project implementation, partnerships, and program administration.

Goats in Paradise intends to collaborate with a variety of public and private partners, including:
• Butte County Resource Conservation District
• California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) • Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
• Butte County Fire Safe Council
• University of California Cooperative Extension
• Private landowners
• Public grant programs and philanthropic funding sources Initial Project Area
The primary herd development and management area will be located on approximately four acres at the east end of Idlewild Lane in Paradise, California. This site currently serves as the organization's holding, breeding, and kidding facility and is limited to 18 adult goats pursuant to Paradise Municipal Code requirements.

Additional grazing operations will occur on the approximately 13-acre Anchor Way property and the 5-acre Story Book property. These sites will serve as vegetation management and fuel reduction areas while providing a base of operations for expanding grazing activities onto adjacent properties.

Interest has already been expressed by approximately 18 neighboring property owners representing more than 200 acres of potential grazing opportunities. Although the currently identified project area encompasses approximately 22 acres, participation by neighboring landowners could readily expand the program to more than 50 acres during the initial phases of implementation.

As the program develops and additional partnerships are established, it is anticipated that managed grazing operations could expand to hundreds or even thousands of acres throughout the region.
214
Grazing Infrastructure and Land Management
Project infrastructure will be designed to support effective vegetation management while protecting environmental and cultural resources.

Fence locations will be determined by topography, grazing management objectives, environmental constraints, and operational needs, rather than strictly following property boundaries. Protective measures will be implemented to avoid impacts to cultural resources, riparian areas, sensitive habitats, and other environmentally significant features.

Livestock water systems may be developed utilizing existing water rights and infrastructure where available. Water troughs and associated facilities will be located outside sensitive riparian corridors and designed in accordance with applicable environmental regulations and permitting requirements.

To facilitate long-term planning and investment, participating property owners will enter into grazing agreements with Goats in Paradise. Longer-term agreements provide the stability necessary to justify investments in permitting, fencing, water infrastructure, vegetation improvements, herd development, and ongoing management activities.

Technical Support and Partnerships
The success of the project relies upon collaboration with technical experts and partner agencies.

The Resource Conservation District and NRCS may aid in fencing, water development, grazing infrastructure, vegetation management planning, permitting, and conservation practices.

The University of California Cooperative Extension can provide technical guidance regarding:
• Livestock selection and stocking rates
• Grazing duration and timing
• Seasonal grazing strategies
• Vegetation management objectives
• Environmental compliance
• Lease development and landowner agreements
Because no single grazing prescription is appropriate for every property, site-specific assessments will be conducted to evaluate vegetation conditions, fuel characteristics, environmental constraints, and land management goals.
215
Adaptive management principles will be utilized throughout the project. Grazing strategies will be adjusted as conditions change in response to weather patterns, invasive species, vegetation responses, predator activity, and evolving scientific knowledge.

Community Benefits
In addition to reducing wildfire fuel, the project provides several community benefits:
• Reduced wildfire risk and fuel accumulation
• Enhanced vegetation management
• Increased utilization of underused lands
• Support for local agriculture
• Educational opportunities for youth and community organizations • Improved ecological stewardship
• Cost-effective long-term fuel reduction
Goats in Paradise also intends to partner with local organizations such as FFA, 4-H, and scouting programs to provide educational opportunities, community service projects, and livestock-related learning experiences.

Organizational Qualifications
Goats in Paradise is led by Jon Remalia, who holds a Master of Science degree with a minor in Animal Science from The Ohio State University.

Mr. Remalia brings extensive experience in:
• Animal husbandry and livestock management
• Ranch operations and agricultural land management
• Wildland firefighting
• Vegetation management and fuel reduction
• Natural resource stewardship
His professional experience includes ranch management, livestock operations, wildfire response, and nearly two decades of vegetation management work throughout Northern California.

Conclusion
Goats in Paradise seeks to establish a sustainable, community-supported grazing program that complements existing wildfire mitigation efforts while providing long-term ecological, economic, and public safety benefits. Through strategic partnerships, adaptive management, and responsible stewardship, the program aims to reduce hazardous fuel loads, improve landscape resilience, and support safer communities throughout the Paradise Ridge and surrounding region.
216

Town of Paradise
Council Agenda Summary
Date: August 11, 2026
Agenda Item: 7(b)
ORIGINATED BY: Town Council
REVIEWED BY: Jennifer Macarthy, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Town Council Committee Reports

LONG TERM
RECOVERY PLAN:

No
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:

1. Council Members’ written reports on standing, external and ad hoc committee representation.

Background:

During the May 12, 2026, Council meeting, the Council approved changing Council reports on committee representation from verbal reports to written reports. The Councilmembers submitted the following reports for August 2026.

Standing Committee Reports
Economic Development Committee:

Council Member Lange: Long-Term Recovery Plan Update presentation by Willdan Ad Hoc Committee Reports
Building Division CAP Committee
Council Member Lange: 16 complaints to date, requested running status on all complaints every meeting
Paradise Sewer Project
Council Member Lange: Subsequent EIR in progress, community response drafted Grand Jury Response Committee
Council Member Lange: We had several meetings to draft responses for full council consideration 217
External Committee Reports
Butte County Air Quality Management District
Council Member Lassonde:

The following is a summary of the BCAQMD Board actions:
 Approved the following on Consent:
 Minutes of May 28, 2026 Meeting of the Board of Directors.  Activity Report on Butte County Air Quality Management District Activities.  Status Report on Calendar of Events.
 Status Report on Communications.
 Financial Status Report for Fiscal Year 2025-26.
 4th Quarter Grant Revenue Report.
 PBRM Grant Amendment – Additional funds.
 Closed the Hearing period for the Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Budget and approved Resolutions 2026-04 Budget Adoption & 2026-05 Contracted Outside Legal Services.  Opened the public hearing for PM2.5 Second Maintenance Plan and approved Resolution 2026-13 Second PM2.5 Maintenance Plan.
 Approved Resolution of Intention to amend the CalPERS Pension contracts to incorporate the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA) provisions and language.  Received the APCO report.
 Closed Session – Employee Association COLA opener. Closed Session report – The Board provided direction to APCO Ertle regarding the Employee Association COLA opener. The direction provided was unanimous.

Additional Community Activities:

Mayor Crowder:
 Spent half a day with Congressman Gallagher touring our recovery. We started at Hope Plaza and ended at Bille Park. Our conversation was about what he can help us with needs in Paradise. We talked sewer, health care, insurance, building costs, and owner/builder issues just to name a few.
 Numerous meetings and phone calls with citizens ranging from weeds in town, Grand Jury Council meeting, and new Recycling collection center going in at Save Mart center just to name a few.
 New officer swearing in
 PGE Vacaville EOC Tour and fire safety and how they set up mobile camps in communities during emergencies
 Ribbon Cutting for Paradise Elementary School
 Ribbon cutting for Youth For Change return to Paradise Council Member Lange:
 PUSD Liaison meeting- update on Paradise Elementary construction. Status of permit application for food service and maintenance project. PUSD inquired about status of stop sign at PHS and requested annual meeting to discuss snow protocols. AG Building coming soon.
 Astronomy on the Lake with PRPD
 Board of Realtors meeting
218
 Party in the Park
 2
nd Annual Christmas Preview planning has begun
 Paradise Elementary School grand opening
 Habitat for Humanity ribbon cutting, #26
 Youth for Change ribbon cutting
Council Member Lassonde:

Attended the following activities:
 All July Party in the Park events in Town Booth
 July 16 – Community Changes Virtual Workshop
 July 27 - Officer Baccala Swearing In
 July 29 – Special Town Council Meeting
 July 30 – Grand Opening of Paradise Elementary
219