Porterville City Council
April 16, 2024

COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS
2024/2025 Annual Action Plan 57
2024/2025 Annual Action Plan 58
APPENDIX 2: Resolution and Proposed Budget
(This will be finalized after plan is approved by City Council) 2024/2025 Annual Action Plan 59
APPENDIX 3: SF-424s and Certifications
(This will be finalized after plan is approved by City Council) RESOLUTION NO. ___-2024

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PORTERVILLE APPROVING THE 2024/2025 ACTION PLAN AND PROPOSED USE OF

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS
BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Porterville does hereby approve the 2024-2025 Action Plan, attached as Exhibit A, and proposed use of Community Development Block Grant Funds with a 2024 Program Year Entitlement Allocation as follows:

Administration $147,885.60
Navigation Center Operations $65,000.00
CCFC – HOP Outreach $4,000.00
Case Management for PSH-FSTC $15,000.00
LINC Services-KTHA $5,000.00
First-Time Low-Income Homebuyer $100,000.00
Homebuyer Education $1,805.00
Owner-Occupied Housing Rehab $100,000.00
Parks Improvement Program $215,737.40
Business Assistance $65,000.00
Fair Housing Program $20,000.00
Total Funding $739,428.00
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of April, 2024. _________________________________
Martha A. Flores, Mayor
ATTEST:

Patrice Hildreth, City Clerk

BY __________________________________
Fernando Gabriel-Moraga,
Acting Chief Deputy City Clerk

EXHIBIT A
24/25 CDBG ACTION PLAN
(Provided as separate attachment to staff report)
Item No. 20.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – APRIL 16, 2024
SUBJECT: Second Reading - Ordinance No. 1905, Regulating Unsafe Camping SOURCE: City Attorney
COMMENT: Ordinance No. 1905, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Porterville repealing Article VII of Chapter 18 (Sections 18-76 through 18-83) of the Porterville Municipal Code, and replacing it with Chapter 18, Article VII which regulates unsafe and unauthorized camping and storage of personal property, protection of critical infrastructure, and mitigation of harm to the public's health, safety, and welfare, was given first reading on April 2, 2024, and has been printed.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council give Second Reading to Ordinance No. 1905, waive further reading, and adopt said Ordinance.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance No. 1905
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Julia Lew, City Attorney
Final Approver: Patrice Hildreth, City Manager

ORDINANCE NO. 1905

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORTERVILLE REPEALING ARTICLE VII OF CHAPTER 18 (SECTIONS 18-76 THROUGH 18-83) OF

THE CITY OF PORTERVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE AND REPLACING IT WITH CHAPTER 18, ARTICLE VII, REGULATING UNSAFE AND UNAUTHORIZED

CAMPING AND STORAGE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY, THE PROTECTION OF

CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE, AND MITIGATION OF HARM TO THE PUBLIC

HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE
WHEREAS, the City of Porterville (“City”) encourages the use of open spaces and facilities within the City by all members of the community; and WHEREAS, all people have a right to be protected from environmental pollution and to live in and enjoy clean, healthful, and safe living conditions; and WHEREAS, camping in undesignated campsites within the City limits creates unsanitary, unhealthy, disorderly, and dangerous conditions that may affect both the campers and the general public, for example when the camping has occurred in the Tule Riverbed or along the embankments, where there has been both severe flood and fire dangers to those camping and the public depending on the season; and WHEREAS, camping in undesignated campsites within the City limits tends to degrade and even destroy the property upon which the camping is occurring, particularly in situations where an encampment is large and ongoing; and WHEREAS, camping in undesignated campsites within the City limits not only detracts from the use of the property for its intended purposes but also can create dangerous conditions for the public; and
WHEREAS, the City has the authority to adopt regulations to ensure the public’s health, safety, and general welfare, and desires to regulate camping within the City; and WHEREAS, a federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, Martin v. City of Boise, 920 F.3d 584 (9 th Cir. 2019) (“Martin”), prohibits criminal prosecution for sleeping outside on public property when adequate shelter is not reasonably available for persons involuntarily experiencing homelessness, based upon an interpretation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Eight Amendment; and WHEREAS, the federal Ninth Circuit court suggested in its decision in Martin that the prohibition on criminal prosecution would not apply to individuals who have reasonable access to adequate temporary shelter; and
WHEREAS, the Ninth Circuit court in Martin suggested that even when adequate shelter is unavailable, an ordinance establishing reasonable time, place, and manner regulations on sitting, lying, or sleeping may be allowed under the U.S. Constitution when the regulations are to address legitimate public health and safety concerns; and Ordinance No. 1905

WHEREAS, the federal Ninth Circuit court in the case of Johnson v. City of Grants Pass, 72 F.4th 868 (9th Cir. 2023) (“Grants Pass”) (to be heard and considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in April 2024), expanded upon its decision in Martin to prohibit civil enforcement for sleeping outside when adequate shelter is not reasonably available for persons involuntarily experiencing homelessness if civil enforcement can lead to criminal enforcement; and
WHEREAS, there are available low barrier overnight shelters operating within the City, that as of the date of the adoption of this Ordinance have had space available nightly; and
WHEREAS, the City has invested significant funds, resources, and time to assist persons experiencing homelessness to find temporary and permanent shelter and necessary public health services to address the causes of their homelessness, has sought to address the underlying issues contributing to homelessness and has striven to be a part of the solution. These City of Porterville actions and efforts have included:

1. City Council, City Manager and staff participation on committees and subcommittees with service groups, regional non-profits, County Public Health Services, and other agencies to address causes of homelessness and work towards solutions.

2. The Police Department’s creation of a SMART team to operate as a homeless liaison to address needs of the unhoused within the City limits and encourage coordination or facilitate connections with available resources.

3. The City’s development of low-barrier shelters, a Navigation Center, and permanent supportive housing to help support the needs of persons experiencing homelessness.

4. The City’s support and collaboration with local service providers to assist individuals and families experiencing homelessness, with funding focused on emergency shelters, housing navigators, bridge housing and permanent supportive housing.

5. The City has transferred the City’s portion of the National Opioid Settlement back to Tulare County to manage a regional effort to combat opioid-related issues that directly impact our unhoused population.

WHEREAS, despite the City’s efforts the Police Department has found that a significant number of the City’s homeless population routinely decline the City’s offers of help for various reasons including, and many people experiencing homelessness refuse to accept services and refuse to move from encampments; and WHEREAS, the City has experienced significant and continuing threats to public health and safety resulting from persons experiencing homelessness sleeping and camping in unauthorized locations in the City, including the following:

Ordinance No. 1905

1. Homeless encampments raise a number of public health concerns related to waste, sanitation, and disease transmission. Unhoused people, like all other people, generate solid waste during their daily activities of food preparation and consumption, shelter building and maintenance and storing their possessions.

Without any place or method of proper storage or disposal, the resulting piles of trash become food sources for rodents, breeding grounds for pathogens, fuel for fires, and unattractive nuisances to the public.

2. The opportunity for the spread of communicable diseases is increased in homeless encampments lacking basic sanitation services and waste collection, with some diseases such as hepatitis A and typhus more likely to occur in homeless populations.

3. Health and safety issues are presented by the violation of fire, building, electrical and other codes and standards for public health and safety, including the unauthorized and unpermitted use of electrical and utility connections, due to the potential and reality of unsafe and unhealthy conditions in encampments, posing life, safety, fire and health threats to both the occupants of the encampments, the general public and emergency responders.

4. Health and safety issues are exacerbated and compounded by larger encampments as there is an exponential increase in these health and safety issues the larger the encampment, including but not limited to both accumulation of trash and debris as well as the greater likelihood of the spread of disease.

5. The City regularly receives a large volume of emails, phone calls and inperson complaints regarding the encampments in the City, and the frequency and number of these complaints has been increasing greatly, recently and in the last year.

6. The homelessness problem in Porterville impacts crime rates.

Homelessness-related crime rates are significant both in terms of crimes against the homeless and also crimes committed by the homeless. The Porterville Police Department estimates a call volume of 17% of total calls for service are related to our unhoused population (with this percentage including complaints as well as arrests).

7. Business owners and residents near encampments are confronted by trash, used needles, and human waste, and increased instances of open drug use, property damage, theft, and break-ins. They have seen their property values decline, their small businesses fail, and their public spaces become uninhabitable.

8. Businesses and residences near encampments experience physical impediments to access to public and private property which both impedes emergency responses, evacuation of occupants during an emergency, and general public access, as well as exacerbates the likelihood of conflict, intimidation Ordinance No. 1905

and threats to the public safety for both the unhoused as well as all members of the public, and furthermore the collection of biohazard materials, human waste, trash and rubbish near businesses and residential areas contributes to a general decline in public health, safety and welfare.

9. Encampments near emergency shelters established for emergency evacuations during events such as winter rainstorms can cause barriers to access for evacuees.

10. Encampments near active construction sites, trash enclosures, areas with heavy vehicle use, and similar areas pose unique threats to both the unhoused as well as the operators of construction equipment and vehicles through unintentional yet predictable collisions and threats to health and safety.

11. Encampments on or near public utilities and critical infrastructure, such as stormwater, water and sewer infrastructure, fire stations, electrical wires and natural gas pipelines, pose unique safety, environmental and security issues and are generally closed to the public or have limited public access for safety, environmental and security reasons.

12. Unauthorized connections or taps to public utilities, as well as violation of fire, building, electrical and other codes and standards, create unsafe conditions and a potential life safety hazard for the occupant, the general public and emergency responders.

13. Encampments pose immense public health concerns as the rates of overdoses from drugs like fentanyl and heroin have increased substantially among the unhoused and encampments can provide an environment conducive to illegal drug consumption.

14. Abandoned encampment cleanups are performed by City Police officers and Parks and Leisure services department staff with police equipment, fire and City code enforcement officers and staff in an attempt to maintain and or control the spread of large encampments and this taxes public resources while unnecessarily exposing first responders and City staff to unhealthy and unsafe situations.

15. Fires in unsafe locations for cooking and warming occur at encampments increasing the risk of fires posing a threat to safety and health, and the City has had to respond directly to major fires caused by such activities over the years.

16. Accumulation of biohazard and medical waste occurs in and around encampments and these items end up in our creeks, storm drains, waterways, and beaches posing a direct threat to health and safety.

Ordinance No. 1905

17. Severe blockage of storm drains and also the Tule Riverbed, due to excessive encampment debris and/or degradation of the river embankments leads to increased roadway and stream flooding and drain blockages during storms causing threats to health and safety.

18. During times of severe storms, unhoused camps are located in and must be evacuated from riverbeds; sloughs; embankments; low lying, unsafe areas; and storm drains due to increased risk of flooding, rapid water movement, and blockage of storm drains, posing safety threats to the residents of the encampments; and
WHEREAS, in light of these significant and continuing threats to public health and safety, the City seeks to adopt reasonable time, place and manner regulations in a manner consistent with the federal Ninth Circuit court’s decisions in Martin and Grants Pass; and
WHEREAS, the City finds that reasonable camping regulations for public property will best serve the public’s health, safety, and general welfare.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORTERVILLE, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. RECITALS. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are hereby adopted as findings in support of this Ordinance as if fully set forth herein.

SECTION 2. CHAPTER 18, ARTICLE VII REPEALED AND REPLACED IN ITS ENTIRETY. Article VII of Chapter 18 (Sections 18-76 through 18-83), entitled “Squatter Camps,” is hereby repealed in its entirety and is replaced with the following:

CHAPTER 18. ARTICLE VII – UNAUTHORIZED CAMPING REGULATIONS Section 18-76 FINDINGS AND PURPOSE
A. As the City continues to offer assistance and services to persons experiencing homelessness, the City must appropriately consider various interests and formulate policy to best protect public health, safety, welfare, property, and the environment, with its limited resources.

B. The City Council acknowledges that at the time of the adoption of this ordinance, although there has been available nightly shelter space within the City, there is a lack of nightly shelter beds and housing available regionally for persons experiencing homelessness and recognizes the systemic lack of state and federal investment in shelter and public health services for those experiencing homelessness.

C. The City Council acknowledges that it is currently unavoidable that some persons will live or shelter for survival outdoors until they are able or willing to access affordable or free shelter or housing. In Porterville, this has Ordinance No. 1905

typically meant sheltering, sometimes for extended periods of time, on City rights-of-way and City property, and at times on other public agency property owned by other public agencies.

D. Public rights-of-way and public property are generally intended for public use and travel. The City Council is the authority for rights-of-way within the City; as such, the City must consider the safety of motorists and pedestrians travelling on roadways and sidewalks, including to and from neighboring properties, businesses, and residences.

E. The City owns limited property where camping can or should be allowed for reasons including but not limited to public health and safety concerns and issues created by the impact of camping on public property.

F. The City has had increasing concerns regarding public health and safety due to instances of camping on or in rights-of way and public property in or near waterways, streets, roads, sidewalks, schools, residences, businesses, critical infrastructure, public access points and similar locations. Public utility properties (e.g., stormwater, water, sewer) are environmentally and operationally sensitive and generally closed to the public or have limited access for safety, environmental and security reasons.

G. Over the long term and working with other governmental agencies and non-profit organizations, the City’s belief is that people should not have to live outside and there are safer options.

H. It is the purpose and intent of the City Council to provide standards for camping and sheltering for survival on City rights-of-way and public property, which are intended to be as compatible as possible with the needs of everyone in Porterville to be healthy, safe, and have access to public places.

I. Smaller camp sites support both the health and safety of people who are camping for survival on public property as well as the health and safety of the public.

J. It is the purpose and intent of the City Council to provide standards for camping and sheltering for survival on City rights-of-way and public property which will address issues such as fire risk, unsanitary conditions, health risks, public infrastructure security, public access impediments, trash, waste, damage to park features and plants, and public safety hazards to both people camping as well as neighboring businesses, residents and community members, as well as environmental degradation, which have occurred with longer-term camping in the City.

Ordinance No. 1905

K. It is the intent of the City to evaluate each removal of an Established Campsite with considerations of public health and safety, including for the people who are sheltering in the camps, potential user conflicts, and available resources. The City intends to use a team approach and coordinate with other governmental agencies and non-profit organizations as appropriate. When the City requires a person experiencing homelessness to remove an Established Campsite, through these regulations, it intends to provide the person adequate time to remove the Established Campsite before the City removes the Established Campsite, to secure any personal property with reasonable utility or reasonable value for the person to retrieve at a later date, and to clean the former Established Campsite to address threats to public health and safety.

Section 18-77 DEFINITIONS
The following words and phrases, when used in this Chapter, shall have the meaning ascribed to them by this section unless it is apparent from the context that another meaning is intended.

A. “Camp” or “Camping” means residing in or using any public property for one or more nights for living accommodation purposes, such as sleeping activities or making preparations to sleep (including the laying down of bedding for the purpose of sleeping), or using any tents, or storing personal belongings (including but not limited to clothing, sleeping bags, bedrolls, blankets, sheets, luggage, backpacks, kitchen utensils, cookware, and similar material), or making any fire using Bunsen burners or other heating items, or regularly cooking meals. These activities constitute camping when it reasonably appears, in light of all the circumstances, that a person is using public property as a living accommodation for one or more nights, with the intent to camp.

B. “Camp Facilities” include, but are not limited to, tents, huts, or similar temporary shelters consisting of any material with a top or roof or any other upper covering or that is otherwise enclosed by sides that is of sufficient size for a person to fit underneath or inside while sitting or lying down and includes the use of a tarp or other material tied or affixed to a structure or bush to create an enclosed area.

C. “Camp Materials” includes but is not limited to, tarpaulins, cots, beds, sleeping bags, hammocks, shopping carts, recyclable material and/or non-City designated cooking or heating facilities and similar equipment, or personal possessions that would facilitate one’s use of a park, public property, or any portion of the public right-of-way as a temporary residence.

D. “Critical Infrastructure” means real property or a facility, whether privately or publicly owned, that the City Council by Ordinance or with Ordinance No. 1905

recommendations from the City Manager by Resolution designates, from time to time, as being so vital and integral to the operation or functioning of the City or in need of protection that its damage, incapacity, disruption, or destruction would have a debilitating impact on the public health, safety, or welfare. Critical infrastructure may include, but is not limited to, government buildings, such as fire stations, police stations, jails, or courthouses; hospitals and health facilities; structures, such as antennas, bridges, roads, train tracks, drainage systems, or levees; or systems, such as computer networks, public utilities, electrical wires, natural gas pipes, telecommunication centers, or water sources.

E. “Enforcement Personnel” means the employee(s) of the City, including but not limited to sworn police officers, and code enforcement officers authorized by the City to seek compliance with, and enforce, the regulations, requirements, and rules of this.

F. "Established Campsite" means a location or locations in the public right-of-way or on City property where a Camp, Camps, and/or Camp Materials have been set up for twenty-four (24) hours or more.

G. “Fire Severity Zones” means mapped area as defined by the Office of State Fire Marshal that designates zones (based on factors such as fuel, slope, and fire weather) with varying degrees of fire hazard (i.e., moderate, high, and very high).

H. “Greywater” means untreated wastewater from bathtubs, showers, bathroom washbasins, clothes washing machines and the like. It does not include any toilet discharge, unhealthy bodily wastes, or manufacturing wastes.

I. “Hazardous Water” means sewage, toilet discharge, unhealthy bodily wastes, manufacturing wastes and the like.

J. “Landscaped Area” means any manicured or natural ground covered areas including but not limited to flower beds, bushes, brush areas, or shrubs.

K. “Personal Property” means any tangible property and includes, but is not limited to, goods, materials, merchandise, tents, tarpaulins, bedding, blankets, sleeping bags, personal items such as household items, luggage, backpacks, clothing, food, documents, and medication.

L. “Playground” means any park or recreational area specifically designed to be used by children that has play equipment installed, or any similar facility located on public or private school grounds, or on City, county, or State park grounds.

Ordinance No. 1905

M. “Public Property” means any publicly owned property in the City, whether improved or unimproved, including, but not limited to, any of the following: public alleyways; public parking lots; public passageways; public streets; public rights-of-way; freeway on-ramps and off-ramps; publicly owned, maintained, or operated parks and/or playgrounds; publicly owned, maintained, or operated landscaped areas or greenbelts; publicly owned fences, trees, light poles, or equipment boxes; publicly owned, maintained, or operated open spaces including, but not limited to, public facilities or buildings of any kind; public sidewalks, curbs, and gutters; public educational institutions; or other government owned, maintained, or operated properties located within the City.

N. “Public Utilities” means every common carrier, toll bridge corporation, pipeline corporation, gas corporation, electrical corporation, telephone corporation, telegraph corporation, water corporation, sewer system corporation, and heat corporation, where the service is performed for, or the commodity is delivered to, the public or any portion thereof, as defined by Public Utilities Code section 216, and as amended.

O. "Rights-of-Way" means all City-owned or controlled rights-of-way, whether in fee title or as holder of a public easement for right-of-way or public access purposes. Public rights of-way include but are not limited to any public road, street, sidewalk, or private street or other property that is subject to a public access easement dedicated or granted to the City for vehicular use, pedestrian use, utilities or other means, and any planter strip or landscaped area located adjacent to or contained within streets that is part of the public right-of-way.

P. “School” means any institution, facility, or organization, whether public or private, that offers instruction on those courses of study required by the California Education Code or that is maintained pursuant to standards set by the State Board of Education. School for purposes of this section does not include vocational or professional institutions of higher education, including a community or junior college, college, or university.

The setback shall be calculated from the school property boundaries.

Q. “Store” means to put aside or accumulate for use when needed, to put for safekeeping, to place or leave in a location.

R. “Transportation Facility Loading Area” means that area within 200 feet of where trains, buses or any form of public transportation loads or unloads passengers.

S. “Vehicle” means a “motor vehicle” as defined by California Vehicle Code, section 415 and includes a “recreational vehicle” as defined by California Health and Safety Code, section 18010(a).

Ordinance No. 1905

Section 18-78 RESTRICTIONS AND TIME, PLACE AND MANNER

REGULATIONS
It is unlawful and a public nuisance for any person to camp on Public Property when there is available space for the person(s) at a shelter location where the person(s) is eligible and is qualified to go. If there is no available shelter space, persons who do not have any other permanent residence or domicile and/or are involuntarily experiencing homelessness are permitted to camp on certain public property, provided the camping is occurring in compliance with the following time, place and manner regulations and consistent with any administrative rules and policies promulgated by the City Manager, or designee, adopted after the Effective Date of this Ordinance, in accordance with this Article. Notwithstanding the specific time, place and manner restrictions set forth in this Section or Article, camping, lodging (or other activities) in a public place in violation of any applicable State or Federal law is prohibited.

A. Time. Unless otherwise specified, any Camping or Camp, where allowed, may only occur for 24-hours at a time in any one location. After 24 hours in one location, the Camp and all associated Camp Materials must be moved at least one street block or 600 feet, whichever is greater, to another allowed location.

B. Place. Camping is not allowed at any time in any of the following places:

1. Within a residentially zoned property boundary or within any area zoned Residential, as determined by the City of Porterville Zoning Map and the Porterville Municipal Code.

2. Within any Mixed-Use Overlay Zone, as determined by the City of Porterville Zoning Map and the Porterville Municipal Code.

3. Any place where Camping, a Camp, or Camp Materials
create a physical impediment preventing emergency or nonemergency ingress, egress or access to public or private property, including but not limited to, on public sidewalks, alleyway or other public rights-of-way, driveways providing access to vehicles, and entrances or exits from buildings and/or other real property; and, within 15 feet of any fire hydrant.

4. Any vehicle lane, bicycle lane, roundabout within any public right-of-way, or Transportation Facility Loading Area.

5. Within 1000 feet from any shelter both established for emergency evacuations as well as approved under the Porterville Ordinance No. 1905

Municipal Code and/or approved consistent with any applicable provision of State or federal law.

6. On any street or public rights-of-way, unless expressly authorized by the City.

7. Within, or within an additional distance boundary as set by Resolution, any School.

8. Within, or within an additional distance boundary as set by Resolution, any Playground.

9. At the following public property: Porterville City Hall, any City-operated Community Center, Porterville Veterans Hall, Porterville Public Library, and Zalud House.

10. On, or within an additional distance boundary as set by Resolution, riverbeds, river embankments, sloughs, waterways, levies, water wells, storm basins or any publicly owned water, sewer or storm drain infrastructure (e.g., sewer lift stations, storm water pump stations or structures).

11. Within, or within an additional distance boundary as set by Resolution, Critical Infrastructure.

12. Within, or within an additional distance boundary as set by Resolution, either a very high Fire Severity Zone or a high Fire Severity Zone.

13. In, or within an additional distance boundary as set by Resolution, Refuse Service Containers (all bin and curbside service containers, in addition to designated Refuse trash enclosures).

14. On or within a certain specified distance of any other Public Property as may be designated from time to time by Resolution of the City Council, with recommendations from the City Manager, Police Chief and Fire Chief, or their designees.

C. Manner. Camping, when and where allowed, is subject to all of the following limitations and regulations:

1. Individuals, Camp Materials, Camps, or personal property may not obstruct, block, prevent access to, or impede: sidewalk accessibility or passage; clear vision of moving vehicles or bicycles; usage of fire hydrants; usage or function of Public Utilities, Critical Infrastructure, or other City infrastructure; or, otherwise obstruct, block, prevent access to, or impede the use of the Rights-of-Way for vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle, or other passage.

Ordinance No. 1905

2. A Camp or Camping shall be limited to a spatial footprint of no greater than 12 feet by 12 feet, or 144 square feet, and shall have a smaller footprint if necessary to comply with the restrictions set forth in this Chapter. The intent of this section is to allow a person to sleep protected from the elements and maintain the essentials for living, while still allowing others to use public spaces as designed and intended.

3. To prevent larger Camping sites from forming and the impacts to public health and safety that can result, a Camp shall not be within a one hundred fifty (150) foot radius of any other Camp, unless otherwise explicitly authorized by City regulation, and only under such conditions adopted by the City and permitted by this Code.

4. Individuals may not accumulate, discard, or leave behind garbage, debris, unsanitary or hazardous materials, or other items of no reasonable utility or reasonable value, as determined by the City, in public rights-of-way, on City property, or on any adjacent public or private property.

5. Open flames, recreational fires, burning of garbage, bonfires, or other fires, flames, or heating deemed unsafe by the Porterville Fire Department, or the Porterville Police Department, are prohibited. Types of flameless cooking stoves and other flameless devices for keeping warm, as consistent with this subsection, are permitted. Additionally, any and all fires, to the extent allowed by this Section, must comply with all State and local laws.

6. Dumping of Greywater or Hazardous Water into any
facilities or places not intended for Greywater or Hazardous Water disposal is prohibited. This includes but is not limited to City streets, public rights-of-way, public waterways, and storm drains, which are not intended for disposal of Greywater or Hazardous Water.

7. Unauthorized connections or taps to Public Utilities, including but not limited to such connections or taps that cross over City property, roadways, rights-of-way, driveways, streets, sidewalks, fences, and private property are prohibited.

8. Violations of building codes, fire codes, and other relevant codes or standards for health and safety are prohibited.

9. Obstruction of, or attachment of Camp Materials or
personal property to, fire hydrants, utility poles, Public Utilities Ordinance No. 1905

infrastructure, public infrastructure, fences, trees, vegetation, vehicles, bridges/infrastructure, or buildings is prohibited.

10. Individuals may not build or erect structures, whether by using plywood, wood materials, pallets, or other materials. Items such as tents, and similar items used for shelter that are readily portable, are not structures for purposes of this section.

11. Storage of personal property such as vehicle tires, bicycles, or associated components (except as needed for an individual's personal use), gasoline, generators, lumber, household furniture, propane tanks, combustible material or gases, or other items or materials, is prohibited, other than what is related to camping, sleeping, or keeping warm and dry, and only to the extent that such items are used in a safe manner.

12. Digging, excavation, terracing of soil, alteration of ground, water or infrastructure, or damage to vegetation or trees is prohibited.

13. All animals in the custody, ownership, or companionship of an Individual, must be leashed or crated at all times.

14. Camps shall consist of no more than two adult persons, their minor dependents, two animals (e.g., dogs) that are leashed or crated at all times, and one tent.

Section 18-79 ENFORCEMENT
A. Voluntary Compliance. Before enforcement actions are taken in respect to this Chapter (with the exception of enforcement of subsection (B)(3) below), the enforcement personnel shall make a good faith effort to contact the person violating this Chapter and provide a reasonable opportunity to cure or remedy the alleged violation. Enforcement Personnel shall make a good faith effort to determine whether the person subject to enforcement has been referred to service providers and/or local non-profit assistance organizations and make a referral if it appears none has been made. The following shall be communicated to the person in a manner designed to help them understand the alleged violation:

1. A written or verbal description or identification of the activity constituting the alleged violation and identification of the recipient as being the person responsible for the violation;

2. A written or verbal statement that the enforcement
personnel has determined the activity to be a violation; Ordinance No. 1905

3. A written or verbal statement of the action required to fix the violation and the time and/or date by which the violation must be fixed; and

4. A written or verbal statement advising that if the violation is not fixed within the time specified, enforcement actions may be imposed.

B. Notice of Violation

1. 72 Hour Notice. Prior to implementing any of the
enforcement mechanisms provided for in this Chapter to remove an Established Campsite and/or Camp Facilities because of violations of this Chapter, the Enforcement Personnel shall provide occupants of an Established Campsite or Camp Facilities, at least 72 hours in advance of any action to remove the Established Campsite or Camp Facilities, notice both to remove the camp within 72 hours consistent with the requirements of this Chapter as well as of the intent by the City to remove the Established Campsite or Camp Facilities in no less than 72 hours (the “notice”). The notice shall be in writing and shall be posted on or near the Established Campsite or Camp Facilities, so as to reasonably communicate the notice to persons living at the Established Campsite or Camp Facilities but not present during the attempt to provide notice. In addition, the Enforcement Personnel shall make a good faith effort to personally provide the written notice to the occupant(s) of the Established Campsite or Camp Facilities present at the time the Enforcement Personnel posts the notice. Failure of the occupant(s) of the encampment to comply with the notice’s requirements to remove the camp within 72 hours consistent with the requirements of this Chapter shall constitute a violation of this Chapter. The notice shall contain the following information:
a. The location of the Established Campsite or Camp
Facilities;
b. The date and time notice was posted;
c. A statement that the Established Campsite or Camp
Facilities violates this Chapter;
d. An advisement that the City will remove the
Established Campsite or Camp Facilities 72 hours after the date and time of the notice;
e. Information about any housing, shelter, or homeless
services available for occupants of the Established Campsite Ordinance No. 1905

or Camp Facilities, the phone number and address to contact in order to obtain such housing, shelter, or homeless services, if available, and information about obtaining free
transportation, if available, to such housing, shelter, or homeless services;
f. An advisement that any personal property remaining
at the Established Campsite or Camp Facilities site when the Enforcement Personnel returns to remove the Camp Facilities will be impounded for no fewer than 90 days, or as provided for by applicable law, and will be discarded thereafter if not claimed; and
g. The address, phone number, and operating hours of
the location where the personal property will be stored and may be retrieved, being a staging or storage area managed by the Porterville Fire Department – Code Enforcement Unit, or as otherwise designated by the City, and that the City will charge no fee for storage or retrieval.

2. Less Than 72 Hour Notice. The notice detailed above may establish a shorter time for the removal of the encampment if the Enforcement Personnel have determined the conditions at the Established Campsite or Camp Facilities requires removal of the Established Campsite or Camp Facilities in less than 72 hours to avoid a potential emergency or threat to public health or safety, such as possible site contamination by hazardous materials or when there is reasonable potential danger to human life or safety. Failure of the occupant(s) of the encampment to comply with the notice’s requirements to remove the camp consistent with the requirements of this Chapter shall constitute a violation of this Chapter.

3. Illegal Activity or Exceptional Emergency. Enforcement personnel may remove an Established Campsite or Camp Facilities without providing the notice described above in the following circumstances:
a. When there is probable cause for law enforcement
officials to believe that illegal activity, other than camping, is occurring at an Established Campsite or Camp Facilities, or in the immediate vicinity of an Established Campsite or Camp Facilities; or
b. When there is probable cause for law enforcement
officials to believe that the property that comprises an Established Campsite or Camp Facilities is being used or is Ordinance No. 1905

intended to be used to commit or facilitate the commission of otherwise illegal activity; or
c. In the event of an exceptional emergency, such as
significant evidence of site contamination by hazardous materials or when there is immediate danger to human life or safety.

C. Removal of an Established Campsite or Camp Facilities. If the occupant(s) fail to comply with the request for voluntary compliance set forth in subsection A above, and after the enforcement personnel comply with the requirements set forth in subsection B above, any Camp, Camp Materials, or personal property in violation of any of the standards in this Chapter may be removed or cleaned-up by the City or its designated contractors, and the enforcement personnel may take appropriate actions to remove an Established Campsite or Camp Facilities and enforce this Chapter, consistent with the following:

1. When removing Camp Facilities, or individuals, Camp
Materials, or personal property from an Established Campsite, enforcement personnel will make reasonable efforts to remove individuals without the use of force or citation.

2. When removing personal property, the City shall make reasonable efforts to determine if the property belongs to an individual and has any reasonable utility or reasonable value. The City shall make reasonable efforts to identify which Established Campsite the property was removed from, to aid in connecting people with their property. Items that are perishable, that have no reasonable use or value, that are not identifiable as belonging to an individual, or that are in an unsanitary condition due to saturation or contamination from bodily fluids, whether human or animal, or other contamination, will be considered garbage, discarded, and need not be stored.

3. Weapons, drug paraphernalia, or other contraband, and items that appear to be either stolen or evidence of a crime, shall be provided to law enforcement officials.

4. Following removal of personal property from City property or rights-of-way, the City shall post a notice at or as near as possible to the location the property was collected and on the City's website, stating where the personal property is being stored, and listing the phone number and hours a person claiming ownership can collect or make arrangements to collect their personal property.

Ordinance No. 1905

5. After an Established Campsite or Camp Facilities has been removed, then at the recommendation of the Police Chief or Fire Chief on the basis of public health and safety, the City Manager may order that no camp be set up in that same location or a 100-foot radius for up to 30 days. The City shall post signs informing the public that camping is prohibited at the location for the specified period of time.

D. Removal and Storage of Personal Property or Camp Materials During Removal of an Established Campsite or Camp Facilities. Personal property or Camp Materials may be removed from City rights-of-way, City property, or a Camp, during removal of an Established Campsite or Camp Facilities pursuant to Section C above, if in violation of the provisions of this Chapter, as provided for herein.

1. Personal property removed from City rights-of-way or City property and unclaimed at the time of removal will be stored by the City for a minimum of ninety (90) days, or the duration (if shorter in time) allowed by applicable State or federal law, counting from the day of the removal as day one.

2. Items that are perishable, that have no reasonable use or value, that are not identifiable as belonging to an individual, or that are in an unsanitary condition due to saturation or contamination from bodily fluids, whether human or animal, or other contamination, will be considered garbage, discarded, and will not be stored.

Property discarded, dumped, or otherwise abandoned in the City rights-of-way or on public property may be immediately discarded.

3. The City will store personal property at a storage facility at or near a designated City facility, where people can reasonably retrieve belongings. Notwithstanding any otherwise applicable City policy or procedure, all items collected and stored pursuant to this Chapter that reasonably appear to have a monetary value at the time of collection of less than one thousand dollars ($1,000) shall be stored at a storage facility, and items that reasonably appear to have a monetary value at the time of collection of one thousand dollars ($1000) or more shall be separately stored for safekeeping with the Porterville Police Department (“MBPD”).

4. The City will make reasonable efforts to provide a range of times the storage facility will be available for people to collect their personal property. The City may dispose of any personal property that remains unclaimed after ninety (90) days, or the duration (if Ordinance No. 1905

shorter in time) allowed by applicable State or federal law, counting from the day of the removal as day one.

Section 18-80 VIOLATIONS
A citation for a violation of this Article shall be for an infraction. At the City's discretion, it may issue Administrative Citations under Chapter 2, Article 14 of this Code. Citations will be issued only when other means of achieving compliance have been unsuccessful or are not practicable for the particular situation. Additionally, the City reserves the right to enforce this Article in accordance with Chapter 1, Sections 1-9 and 1-10 of this Code, to the extent consistent with this Article and Section.

Section 18-81 SUSPENSION OF ENFORCEMENT
The City Council, Manager, or designee, as otherwise specified is specifically authorized to modify or suspend enforcement of any section or part of this Article in the event of a declared emergency, pursuant to applicable State or Federal Law, City regulations, administrative rules or policies, weather conditions (including but not limited to extreme heat or cold), or for any other reason within the City Council or City Manager's authority, regardless of whether an emergency has been declared. In addition, the City Manager may suspend the enforcement of regulations contained in this Chapter when the City Manager, or designee, has determined a person does not have access to shelter and is engaged in case management or behavioral health services, or when necessary or appropriate to respond to a person’s disability, or as further set forth in any administrative policies implementing this Article adopted by the City Manager, or designee pursuant to Section 18-82.

Section 18-82 ADOPTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
The City Manager, or designee may adopt administrative rules or policies governing or guiding enforcement of this Chapter, consistent with the intent of this Chapter, including but not limited to ensuring consistent and appropriate enforcement for various circumstances. These administrative rules or policies should ensure that enforcement is tailored to various circumstances, including but not limited to situations where a person has a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, where minor children are present or otherwise involved, where a person has employment obligations that may relate to their ability to comply with this Chapter, or for other reasons that may support discretion in enforcement.

Section 18-83 METHODS OF ENFORCEMENT NOT EXCLUSIVE
Methods of enforcement for violations of this Chapter are not exclusive and may consist of multiple enforcement mechanisms where Ordinance No. 1905

legally authorized and appropriate. However, the intent of the City is to always resolve violations at the lowest possible level, and to engage to seek compliance and solve problems while maintaining the dignity of all involved.

Section 18-84 OVERNIGHT CAMPING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY
It is unlawful to camp on private property without the property owner’s consent, or to camp on private property in such a manner in violation of applicable law or this Code or as to cause blight or a public nuisance, or to disturb the peace and quiet enjoyment of the adjacent property owners and neighbors. For the purposes of this section, an unlawful encampment includes but is not limited to an area of private property , upon which any person has settled or located, or which they occupy, without having a bona fide claim or color of title thereto, or without the express consent of the owner or person legally in charge thereof or the agent of the same, and/or which is occupied or inhabited by such person in violation of section 103 of the California Building Code or Chapter 7 of this Code (Uniform Building Codes as adopted by the City). Camping inside a motor vehicle shall only be permitted if done in a manner otherwise consistent with this Section and if otherwise (and to the extent) permitted under this Code or applicable law.

Notwithstanding the other restrictions in this Section, camping shall not be permitted on private property where it is conducted in such a manner as to create inadequate sanitation, any trafficking in illegal drugs, or with such frequency, intensity or duration as to constitute a use of land prohibited under Chapter 21 of this Code (zoning regulations), nor where any fee, charge or other monetary consideration is collected for the privilege of Camping or for any services or the use of any facilities related thereto (unless such use/activity has been expressly permitted by the City).

Notwithstanding this Section or other applicable regulations in this Code, camping, lodging (or other activities) on private property in violation of any applicable State or Federal law is prohibited.

SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof may be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 4. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS. All ordinances, parts of ordinances, City resolutions or policies, and the like, in conflict with those sections amended or added Ordinance No. 1905

herein to the Porterville Municipal Code, are hereby expressly superseded by this ordinance.

SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage and adoption.

SECTION 6. CERTIFICATION. The City Clerk shall certify as to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be posted and codified in the manner required by law.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of April, 2024.

Martha A. Flores, Mayor
ATTEST:

Patrice Hildreth, City Clerk
By: ____________________________
Fernando Gabriel-Moraga,
Acting Chief Deputy City Clerk
Item No. 21.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – APRIL 16, 2024
SUBJECT: Authorization to Apply and Receive Financing for the Consolidation of Hope School Water System
SOURCE: Public Works
COMMENT: The City of Porterville provides public water services to its residents (within City limits) and to community residents outside City limits. Due to the impact of water quality, the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board) has sought out and encouraged the consolidation of surrounding private water systems. In this regard, the City has been in active communication to support the consolidation of the Hope Elementary School (HES) Water System. The HES Water System received a compliance order issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Drinking Water (DDW), for supplying water with nitrate concentrations that exceed the MCL of 10 mg/L.

The problem began in 2007 when the sampling results of the only well showed high nitrate concentrations. Since then, HES has been out of compliance and has not resolved the problem. HES supplies water to approximately 275 students and staff through a single source, documenting nitrate contamination over the past 16 years. The nitrate concentrations have exceeded the maximum contaminant level (MCL) the State of California allows for potable drinking water. The school is currently on the bottled water program with the County to provide the school with temporary potable drinking water.

A consolidation analysis has been completed and attached to the staff report outlining the potential for consolidation of the HES System into the City of Porterville’s (City) municipal water system. Feasible consolidation alternative types have been assessed: partial consolidation or full consolidation. Partial consolidation includes the City providing the District with domestic water supply only and the District keeping their existing well and fire storage tank online for fire and irrigation water. A full consolidation analysis includes connecting to the city for all school water uses; the onsite water supply infrastructure will be removed. The full consolidation alternatives assessed include two alternatives that provide the option of a looped system and the full consolidation of the school.

HES seeks to partner with the City to apply for grant funds from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for the consolidation project. The award of a Funding Agreement to support these actions would address the water quality issues faced by HES Water Systems. It will develop the design, environmental, and legal documents necessary to consolidate with the City's water system.

Item No. 21.

The HES water system is located on the South Side of Tea Pot Dome Ave, just East of S. Indiana St., approximately 1.25 miles south of the city limits.

Although a majority of the proposed infrastructure will be within the City's Urban Development Boundary (UDB), the service to HES will extend 0.25 miles out of the UDB. Therefore, this facility's service would fall under the consideration of the City Council and require an Extraterritorial Service Agreement (ESA) to Serve.

City staff has tentatively coordinated discussions of a funding application and what it would consist of: funding for the planning review, design review, and construction of improvements to the city's water supply facilities necessary to meet water quality requirements and system demands. The proposed improvements include new distribution mains for water service to HES, water meters, and fire hydrants. Should the Council choose to proceed with a funding application, a Resolution authorizing the application for a funding agreement and identifying the City's authorized representative by title is required.

The staff recommendation is that the Council consider the Full Consolidation (with the system loop) of the HES Water System with the City and apply for a Drinking Water Grant Funding Program for improvements, including distribution mains to provide water service to the HES Water System, water meters, and fire hydrants, with the adoption of the draft Resolution, authorizing the Mayor or Designee, the Public Works Director, to apply for and receive financing from the California State Water Resources Control Board for Planning, Design, and Construction of the Consolidation with the City of Porterville Project.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:

1. Authorize the Funding Application with the State Water Resources Control Board to consolidate the Hope Elementary School Water System into the City of Porterville’s Water Distribution System;

2. Adopt the draft Resolution authorizing the Mayor or Designee, the Public Works Director, to apply for and receive financing from the California State Water Resources Control Board for the planning, design, and construction of the Hope Elementary School Water System Consolidation Project;

3. Authorize the Mayor or Designee, the Public Works Director, to execute the funding agreement with the State Water Resources Control Board and any other necessary documents to effect the transaction; and

4. Direct the City Attorney as General Counsel to provide a legal opinion letter in regard to the proposed project once a funding agreement is received.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Hope Elementary School PER Final

2. Resolution 19-2016

3. Draft Resolution
Item No. 21.

Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Michael Knight, Assistant City Manager
Final Approver: Patrice Hildreth, City Manager
Hope Elementary School
Engineering Report
Porterville, CA
September 2023
Prepared for:

Self-Help Enterprises
Visalia, CA
Prepared by:

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
455 W. Fir Avenue, Clovis, CA 93611
\\ppeng.com\pzdata\clients\Self Help Enterprises-1875\187521004-Hope Elem Water Syst\200 Technical\204 Engineering Report\2023_0810 Hope Elementary School PER Final.docx Report Prepared for:

Self Help Enterprises
8445 W. Elowin Court
P.O. Box 6520
Visalia, CA. 93290
Contact:

Daniela Medel
559-802-1677
Report Prepared by:

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
Liz Varner, PE
Heather Bashian, PE (QAQC)
Contact:

Liz Varner
559-449-2700
COPYRIGHT 2023 by PROVOST & PRITCHARD CONSULTING GROUP

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group expressly reserves its common law copyright and other applicable property rights to this document. This document is not to be reproduced, changed, or copied in any form or manner whatsoever, nor are they to be assigned to a third party without first obtaining the written permission and consent of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group In the event of unauthorized reuse of the information contained herein by a third party, the third party shall hold the firm of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group harmless, and shall bear the cost of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group's legal fees associated with defending and enforcing these rights.

This report is prepared in accordance with State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Financial Assistance, Drinking Water State Resolving Fund Financial Assistance Application for construction funding. The content conforms to the outline provided for an Engineering Report in Attachment T1 of the Technical Package.

Self Help Enterprises
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 i Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ ES-1 1 Background Project Information................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Community Description ....................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Existing Facilities ................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.2.1 Water Supply Sources ............................................................................................. 1-1

1.2.2 Water Storage ......................................................................................................... 1-2

1.2.3 Water Treatment .................................................................................................... 1-2

1.2.4 Water Distribution System ...................................................................................... 1-2

1.3 Existing Water System Demands ......................................................................................... 1-2

1.3.1 Average Day Demand .............................................................................................. 1-2

1.3.2 Maximum Day Demand ........................................................................................... 1-3

1.3.3 Fire Flow Requirements ........................................................................................... 1-3

1.3.4 Peak Hour Demand ................................................................................................. 1-3

1.3.5 Industrial and Commercial Users ............................................................................. 1-3

1.3.6 Water System Demands Summary .......................................................................... 1-3

1.4 Existing Operations and Maintenance Practices................................................................... 1-4 2 Problem Description .................................................................................................................... 2-1 3 Consolidation Analysis.................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Consolidation Scenarios – City of Porterville ........................................................................ 3-1

3.1.1 Partial Consolidation (Connection at Scranton [Alternative 1]) ................................ 3-1

3.1.2 Full Consolidation (Connection at Scranton [Alternative 2]) ..................................... 3-4

3.1.3 Full Consolidation (Connections at Scranton and Newcomb [Alternative 3]) ............ 3-6

3.1.4 Full Consolidation (Connections at Scranton and Gibbons [Alternative 4]) ............... 3-8

3.2 Land Acquisition ................................................................................................................ 3-10

3.3 Consolidation Conclusion .................................................................................................. 3-10 4 Alternatives Analysis .................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Alternative 1: Partial Consolidation (Connection at Scranton) .............................................. 4-1

4.1.1 Description .............................................................................................................. 4-1

4.1.2 Design Criteria ......................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.3 Environmental Impacts............................................................................................ 4-2 Self Help Enterprises
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 ii

4.1.4 Land Requirements ................................................................................................. 4-2

4.1.5 Agency Requirements ............................................................................................. 4-2

4.1.6 Construction and Site Considerations ...................................................................... 4-3

4.1.7 Cost Estimate .......................................................................................................... 4-4

4.1.8 Advantages/Disadvantages ..................................................................................... 4-4

4.2 Alternative 2: Full Consolidation (Connection at Scranton) .................................................. 4-5

4.2.1 Description .............................................................................................................. 4-5

4.2.2 Design Criteria ......................................................................................................... 4-5

4.2.3 Environmental Impacts............................................................................................ 4-6

4.2.4 Land Requirements ................................................................................................. 4-6

4.2.5 Agency Requirements. ............................................................................................ 4-6

4.2.6 Construction and Site Considerations ...................................................................... 4-6

4.2.7 Cost Estimate .......................................................................................................... 4-6

4.2.8 Advantages/Disadvantages ..................................................................................... 4-7

4.3 Alternative 3: Full Consolidation (Connections at Scranton and Newcomb) ......................... 4-8

4.3.1 Description .............................................................................................................. 4-8

4.3.2 Design Criteria ......................................................................................................... 4-8

4.3.3 Environmental Impacts............................................................................................ 4-9

4.3.4 Land Requirements ................................................................................................. 4-9

4.3.5 Agency Requirements ............................................................................................. 4-9

4.3.6 Construction and Site Considerations .................................................................... 4-10

4.3.7 Cost Estimate ........................................................................................................ 4-10

4.3.8 Advantages/Disadvantages ................................................................................... 4-11

4.4 Alternative 4: Full Consolidation (Connections at Scranton and Gibbons) .......................... 4-12

4.4.1 Description ............................................................................................................ 4-12

4.4.2 Design Criteria ....................................................................................................... 4-12

4.4.3 Environmental Impacts.......................................................................................... 4-13

4.4.4 Land Requirements ............................................................................................... 4-13

4.4.5 Agency Requirements ........................................................................................... 4-13

4.4.6 Construction and Site Considerations .................................................................... 4-13

4.4.7 Cost Estimate ........................................................................................................ 4-14

4.4.8 Advantages/Disadvantages ................................................................................... 4-14

4.5 Alternative 5: New Well without Treatment ...................................................................... 4-15 Self Help Enterprises
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 iii

4.5.1 Description ............................................................................................................ 4-15

4.5.2 Design Criteria ....................................................................................................... 4-15

4.5.3 Environmental Impacts.......................................................................................... 4-16

4.5.4 Land Requirements ............................................................................................... 4-16

4.5.5 Agency Requirements ........................................................................................... 4-16

4.5.6 Construction and Site Considerations .................................................................... 4-16

4.5.7 Cost Estimate ........................................................................................................ 4-17

4.5.8 Advantages/Disadvantages ................................................................................... 4-17

4.6 Alternative 6: Wellhead Treatment on the Existing Well .................................................... 4-18

4.6.1 Description ............................................................................................................ 4-18

4.6.2 Design Criteria ....................................................................................................... 4-18

4.6.3 Environmental Impacts.......................................................................................... 4-19

4.6.4 Land Requirements ............................................................................................... 4-19

4.6.5 Agency Requirements ........................................................................................... 4-19

4.6.6 Construction and Site Considerations .................................................................... 4-19

4.6.7 Cost Estimate ........................................................................................................ 4-19

4.6.8 Advantages/Disadvantages ................................................................................... 4-20

4.7 Alternative 7: No Project ................................................................................................... 4-21

4.8 Alternative Evaluation and Selection ................................................................................. 4-21 5 Selected Project ........................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Project Description .............................................................................................................. 5-1

5.2 Justification ......................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.3 Operations & Maintenance Concerns .................................................................................. 5-2

5.4 Local/County Planning Consistency ..................................................................................... 5-2

5.5 Green or Resilient Components ........................................................................................... 5-4

5.6 Consolidation Governance .................................................................................................. 5-4

5.7 Land Acquisition .................................................................................................................. 5-4

5.8 Conceptual Design............................................................................................................... 5-4

5.9 Water Demand and Capacity Analysis ................................................................................. 5-5

5.9.1 Average Day Demand, Maximum Day Demand, and Peak Hour Demand ................. 5-5

5.9.2 Fire Flow Analysis .................................................................................................... 5-5

5.9.3 Growth Projections and Future Water Demands ..................................................... 5-5

5.9.4 Industrial and Commercial Users ............................................................................. 5-5 Self Help Enterprises
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 iv

5.10 Estimated Useful Life ........................................................................................................... 5-6 6 Selected Project Cost Estimate ..................................................................................................... 6-1 7 Proposed Schedule....................................................................................................................... 7-1 8 Response to Climate Change ........................................................................................................ 8-1

8.1 Vulnerability ........................................................................................................................ 8-1

8.2 Adaptation .......................................................................................................................... 8-2

8.3 Mitigation ........................................................................................................................... 8-2 9 References ................................................................................................................................... 9-1 List of Figures
Figure 1-1: Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................................ 1-5 Figure 1-2: System Schematic ............................................................................................................... 1-6 Figure 3-1: Partial Consolidation (Connection at Scranton) Improvements Layout ................................ 3-3 Figure 3-2: Full Consolidation (Connection at Scranton) Improvements Layout ..................................... 3-5 Figure 3-3: Full Consolidation (Connections at Scranton and Newcomb) Improvements Layout ............ 3-7 Figure 3-4: Full Consolidation (Connections at Scranton and Gibbons) Improvements Layout ............... 3-9 Figure 5-1: Proposed Facilities Schematic ............................................................................................. 5-3 List of Tables
Table ES-1: Selected Project Costs Summary ...................................................................................... ES-2 Table 1-1: Summary of Water System Demands .................................................................................. 1-4 Table 2-1: Water Quality Data .............................................................................................................. 2-1 Table 3-1: Annual O&M Costs – Partial Consolidation ........................................................................... 3-2 Table 3-2: Partial Consolidation Cost Summary ..................................................................................... 3-2 Table 3-3: Annual O&M Costs – Full Consolidations (All Options) ........................................................ 3-4 Table 3-4: Full Consolidation (Connection at Scranton) Cost Summary .................................................. 3-4 Table 3-5: Full Consolidation (Connections at Scranton and Newcomb) Cost Summary ......................... 3-6 Table 3-6: Full Consolidation (Connections at Scranton and Gibbons) Cost Summary ............................ 3-8 Table 4-1: Partial Consolidation (Connection at Scranton) Cost Summary ............................................. 4-4 Table 4-2: Full Consolidation (Connection at Scranton) Cost Summary .................................................. 4-7 Self Help Enterprises
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 v Table 4-3: Full Consolidation (Connections at Scranton and Newcomb) Cost Summary ....................... 4-11 Table 4-4: Full Consolidation (Connections at Scranton and Gibbons) Cost Summary .......................... 4-14 Table 4-5: New Well without Treatment Cost Summary ...................................................................... 4-17 Table 4-6: Wellhead Treatment Cost Summary ................................................................................... 4-20 Table 4-7: Comparison of Alternatives ................................................................................................ 4-22 Table 4-8: Ranking of Alternatives ...................................................................................................... 4-23 Table 5-1: HES Water Demand .............................................................................................................. 5-5 Table 6-1: Selected Project Cost Summary ............................................................................................ 6-1 Self Help Enterprises
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 vi Abbreviations
ADD ......................................................................................................................... Average Day Demand bgs .......................................................................................................................... below ground surface CA .............................................................................................................................................. California City ................................................................................................................................. City of Porterville County ............................................................................................................................ County of Tulare DDW ................................................................................................... SWRCB, Division of Drinking Water District .................................................................................................... Hope Elementary School District DSA ............................................................................................................. Division of the State Architect EOPCC .......................................................................... Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Cost gpcd .................................................................................................................. gallons per capita per day gpm .............................................................................................................................. gallons per minute HES...................................................................................................................... Hope Elementary School LAFCo ........................................................................ Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission MCL ............................................................................................................. Maximum Contaminant Level MDD..................................................................................................................... Maximum Day Demand mg/L ............................................................................................................................. milligrams per liter MSR .................................................................................................................. Municipal Service Review NOV ............................................................................................................................. Notice of Violation µg/L........................................................................................................................... micrograms per liter Report ......................................................................................................................... Engineering Report PHD ............................................................................................................................. Peak Hour Demand PHF ................................................................................................................................... Peak Hour Flow psi ........................................................................................................................ pounds per square inch PVC ................................................................................................................................polyvinyl chloride ROW................................................................................................................ right-of-way, rights-of-way SHE............................................................................................................................Self-Help Enterprises SWRCB ............................................................................................ State Water Resources Control Board UAB ......................................................................................................................... Urban Area Boundary UDB ............................................................................................................Urban Development Boundary Executive Summary
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 ES-1 Executive Summary
The purpose of this engineering report (Report) is to discuss the Hope Elementary School District (District) water system by analyzing alternatives to determine the most feasible solution to the current municipal water quality problem. The District currently supplies water to approximately 275 students and staff through a single source that has documented nitrate contamination over the past 15 years.

The nitrate concentrations have exceeded the maximum contaminant level (MCL) allowed by the State of California for potable drinking water. This report presents seven alternatives to resolve the stated problems and concludes with the selection of the most feasible alternative.

Problem Description
The District is in receipt of a compliance order issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Drinking Water (DDW) for supplying municipal water with nitrate concentrations that exceed the MCL of 10 mg/L. The problem began in 2007 when the sampling results of the only well showed high nitrate concentrations. Since then, the District has been out of compliance and has yet to resolve the problem.

Consolidation Analysis
The consolidation analysis section of this report discusses the potential for consolidation of the District into the City of Porterville’s (City) municipal water system. Four feasible consolidation alternative types are further assessed: partial consolidation or full consolidation. Partial consolidation includes the City providing the District with domestic water supply only, and the District keeping their existing well and fire storage tank online for fire and irrigation water. Full consolidation analysis includes connecting to the City for all school water uses; the onsite water supply infrastructure would be removed. There are three full consolidation alternatives that are assessed in this report, and two of these full consolidation alternatives provide the option of a looped system along with the full consolidation of the school.

Alternatives Analysis
As discussed above, this Report evaluates seven alternatives for the District with respect to the nitrate MCL exceedance. The seven alternatives are as follows:
 Alternative 1: Partial Consolidation (Connection at Scranton)  Alternative 2: Full Consolidation (Connection at Scranton)  Alternative 3: Full Consolidation (Connections at Scranton and Newcomb)  Alternative 4: Full Consolidation (Connections at Scranton and Gibbons)  Alternative 5: New Well without Treatment
 Alternative 6: Wellhead Treatment at Existing Well
 Alternative 7: No Project
Executive Summary
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 ES-2 Major sections of each alternatives analysis include a project description, design criteria and assumptions, advantages, disadvantages, and cost estimates. The alternatives analysis culminates with an alternative selection which is presented as the selected project.

Selected Project
Alternative 3, Full Consolidation at Scranton and Newcomb provide additional benefits to the school, including long term financial feasibility, removal of all operation and maintenance responsibility from the school, and increased water supply resiliency and reliability. The selected project is discussed in greater detail in Section 5.

Selected Project Cost Estimate
A summary of construction and non-construction costs for the selected project are included in the table below:

Table ES-1: Selected Project Costs Summary
Cost Classification Estimated Cost
Construction Costs $3,526,750
Non-Construction Costs $816,700
Contingency (20%) $868,690
Total $5,212,140
Proposed Schedule
The selected alternative is expected to be completed within 25 months of execution of a construction funding agreement between the Hope Elementary School District and the SWRCB, Division of Financial Assistance (DFA). Pre-construction activities including project initiation, finalization of construction documents, and project bidding are expected to take approximately 9 months. Construction is expected to take 12 months. The project is expected to be closed out within 2 months post construction.

Section One: Background Project Information
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 1-1 1 Background Project Information
The District owns and operates a sole source water system that serves the Hope Elementary School (HES), located approximately 1.25 miles south of the City of Porterville, California. The water system is regulated by the DDW as a nontransient-noncommunity water system. The HES system serves a population of approximately 275 persons via one active well; however, as nitrate has been detected at levels higher than the regulatory maximum contaminant level (MCL) the school is currently being provided with bottled water regularly through the Tulare County (County) Bottled Water Program for all potable uses.

1.1 Community Description
Hope Elementary School is a small rural elementary school that is just outside of the City of Portville (City) limits and the City’s Urban Development Boundary (UDB), but within the City’s Urban Area Boundary (UAB) (See Figure 1-1). The school’s population is 275 which includes both students and staff.

The surrounding area to the west includes two residential properties, and to the east, north, and south is agricultural land, currently planted with citrus tree orchards.

1.2 Existing Facilities
HES has two wells located on the school site. One is inactive (Well 1), which failed in 1996 and was disconnected from the system but has not been properly abandoned; construction and capacity information on Well 1 is unknown. The active well (Well 2) is located near the school fields on the eastern side of the campus and includes a storage tank, fire pump, chlorination equipment, well manifold equipment, and onsite piping and appurtenances (See Figure 1-2). The well previously provided the school with both domestic and irrigation water and presently only provides for nonpotable uses, as described below. The school is currently on the bottled water program with the County to provide the school with temporary potable drinking water.

1.2.1 Water Supply Sources
The active well, Well 2, is the only source of water supply for District faculty, students, and miscellaneous staff. Well 2 was drilled in 2000 to a depth of 300 feet and has an understood capacity of 100 gallons per minute (gpm). It has a perforated screen from depths of 140 to 300 feet below ground surface (bgs). The well pump has a 10 horsepower (hp) motor and is set at 150 feet bgs. The well currently is not being chlorinated.

Originally, Well 2 provided water to the buildings for hand washing, toilets, drinking water fountains, supply for irrigation, and filled the water storage tank (used predominantly for fire protection). As noted above, due to the NOVs, the potable uses have been discontinued temporarily. The well is equipped with hydropneumatic pressure tanks with an electrical cabinet located in Building E, just east of the well.

HES has received notices of violation (NOVs) from the DDW for exceedances on Well 2 of the nitrate MCL beginning in 2007 and has since restricted use of the well to irrigation and fire water purposes only.

Section One: Background Project Information
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 1-2 Other than the nitrate violations, the well meets all other constituent MCLs. See Appendix A for recent sampling results.

1.2.2 Water Storage
Well 2 pumps water to a 60,000-gallon (approximately 53,370-gallon usable volume) bolted steel water storage tank (tank) for fire water storage only. The water is circulated and chlorinated to prevent stagnation. The tank is located just south of the well, within the well site boundaries. Fire booster pumps are installed in the pump house, located south of the tank, which feed the onsite fire hydrants.

1.2.3 Water Treatment
Well 2 does not have a treatment system and is not chlorinated. The storage tank water undergoes chlorine treatment as necessary due to algae and other bacteria growth caused by water stagnation.

1.2.4 Water Distribution System
The water system at HES is comprised of mainly 2.5-inch polyvinyl chloride (PVC) water mains beginning at Well 2 and heading north to the school buildings. The irrigation system is comprised of a 4-inch ductile iron water main that branches at the well and proceed south to the school fields; the irrigation system is also equipped with a backflow preventer. The fire water system, comprised of a 8-inch PVC water main, also branches from the well and fills the storage tank to the south of the well site. The booster pumps pump water from the tank to the school hydrants. See Figure 1-2 for the existing water system.

1.2.4.1 System Capacity
Well 2 can produce up to 100 gpm, which is sufficient to supply the current domestic and irrigation water demand (see Section 1.3 below). The well cannot meet the local fire flow requirements, but as noted above, the school has a fire water tank and system that is separate from the domestic and irrigation water. The tank and booster system satisfy the fire flow per the County of Tulare requirements.

1.3 Existing Water System Demands
Water production data was obtained from HES for 2020 and a portion of 2021. Water production data is assumed to be predominantly for irrigation, as the school was not using water for potable purposes and any other indoor uses are assumed to be incidental for the purposes of estimating demands. The domestic water usage during this time has been estimated utilizing the average water use per population being served as described in the following subsections.

1.3.1 Average Day Demand
The Average Day Demand (ADD) for an elementary school is assumed to be equal to average water use for the population being served. The total population of HES is approximately 275 students and staff.

The typical wastewater demand per capita is 16.2 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) for schools and it is assumed that 90 percent of the indoor water demand for a school is wastewater demand (Metcalf & Section One: Background Project Information
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 1-3 Eddy, Inc., 2003, p. 188), therefore yielding a water demand of 18 gpcd1. The total domestic ADD, excluding fire flow, is 6.88 gpm2.

The irrigation demands for the school were calculated using the water usage data from the year 2020, equaling 388,000 gallons. ADD for irrigation use was calculated by summing up the total usage for the year and dividing that by 12 months to get the average use per month. The school has 10 sections of turf (4 large and 6 small) and waters the large sections once a day for an hour, every other day. The smaller sections are watered 5 days a week, 30 minutes a day. This irrigation schedule timing aided in the determination of the average day demand in gallons per minute, see Table 1-1.

1.3.2 Maximum Day Demand
The maximum day demand (MDD) for domestic water use will be calculated using the ADD as determined above, with peaking factors specified in Section 64554 of the Title 22 guidelines for water demand calculations. The MDD peaking factor used for this report is 2.25.

The irrigation MDD flow rate was calculated utilizing the same method as mentioned above, except instead of using the average of the entire usage over the year, the peak month (June 2021) data was used. The same watering schedule was applied to determine the MDD, see Table 1-1.

1.3.3 Fire Flow Requirements
Fire flow is determined by the local fire department authority. HES is located within the Tulare County Fire Department jurisdiction which requires all schools be able to produce 1500 gpm for 2 hours at 20 pounds per square inch (psi) pressure. The County typically refers to the National Fire Prevention Association for fire flow requirements.

The existing well site has a tank and booster pumps for fire flow, as discussed above. The current storage will provide fire flow at 1500 gpm for approximately 35 minutes.

1.3.4 Peak Hour Demand
The peak hour demand will be calculated using Title 22 guidelines Section 64554.3.b.4, which will use the average hourly flow during MDD and multiplying that by a peaking factor of 1.5.

1.3.5 Industrial and Commercial Users
There are no industrial or commercial users within the system.

1.3.6 Water System Demands Summary
Below is a summary of the water demand analysis that is representative of the school’s total water demands for the typical scenarios.
1 16.2 gpcd / 0.9 = 18 gpcd
2 18 gpcd * 275 persons * 12 hours/day * 60 minutes/hour = 6.88 gpm; the usage time frame is assumed to be 12 hours rather than 24 hours due to the operational period of a school being daytime uses only.

Section One: Background Project Information
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 1-4 Table 1-1: Summary of Water System Demands
Demand Type Result (gpm)
ADD (combined total) 11.6
ADD – Domestic 6.9
ADD – Landscape 4.7
MDD (combined total) 32.3
MDD – Domestic [1] 15.5
MDD – Landscape [2] 16.8
PHD [3] 48.5
Fire Flow 1,500 for 2 hours
Notes:
[1] MDD – Domestic equals ADD – Domestic multiplied by MDD peaking factor (ADD * 2.25) [2] MDD – Landscape use is a calculated value from the hottest month (June 2021) and is not a product of using the MDD peaking factor
[3] PHD is MDD (combined total) multiplied by the PHD peaking factor (MDD * 1.5)

1.4 Existing Operations and Maintenance Practices
HES has an operation and maintenance plan with typical well site inspections that include inspecting the well for leaks, damages, electrical hazards, and overall operation. The well is equipped with a flowmeter, and meter readings are logged daily. The operations plan for the District is attached in Appendix B. å
A¤E
A¤E Road 272
Road 208
Avenue 128
Road 216
Indiana
Road 238
Avenue 136
Avenue 160
Avenue 152
Avenue 144
Road 264
Road 298
Road 224
Road 232
Avenue 168
Avenue 176
Road 256
Avenue 184
Avenue 120
Road 248
0 0.5 1
Miles
º Figure 1-1
Hope Elementary
Water System
Porterville, CA
Legend
Porterville City Limits
å Hope Elementary School
Porterville Urban Area Boundary
Porterville Urban Development Boundary
2/7/2022 : G:\Self Help Enterprises-1875\187521004-Hope Elem Water Syst\400 GIS\Map\Hope_Location_L.mxd G!.
? 8" Fire Water
? Well
? Well Fill Line to Tank
? Fire Booster
Pump House
?
53,360 Gallon
Storage Tank
?
3" DIP
Irrigation Water
?
2 1/2" Water Main
To School Buildings
G!.

W Teapot Dome Ave Ave 128
APN
269-090-017
APN
269-090-034
APN
303-060-009
APN
303-060-010
APN
303-060-023
APN
303-060-041
APN
303-060-042
0 40 80
Feet
º Figure 1-2
Hope Elementary School
Existing Facilities
Legend
Tulare County Parcels
Existing Facilities
Water Line
7/19/2021 : G:\Self Help Enterprises-1875\187521004-Hope Elem Water Syst\400 GIS\Map\Hope_Site.mxd Section Two: Problem Description
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 2-1 2 Problem Description
A single well was drilled when the school was opened (Well 1) and supplied water to the elementary school for many years. In 1998, the Well 1 casing failed and could no longer produce water for the school. In 2000, HES drilled a second well (Well 2). Well 1 has not been abandoned or destroyed. In 2007, DDW was given primacy over the water system.

As previously stated, Well No. 2, which is the only active well, does not meet Title 22 standards for nitrate, which is 10 milligrams per liter (mg/L). Compliance Orders were issued by DDW on March 10, 2017, and March 24, 2019, for exceeding the MCL for nitrate; however, Well 2 has exceeded the MCL over the last 5 years. As shown in Table 2-1, test results have varied significantly with no discernible trend line, but all tests, excluding two, exceed the MCL.

Appendix C contains the DDW Compliance Order issued to the District. Table 2-1 is a summary of Nitrate sampling results since 2016 (see Appendix A). Bacteriological sampling was conducted in March 2019 and tested by an outside lab; no bacteriological violations were reported.

Table 2-1: Water Quality Data
Year Nitrate Level
Ranges (mg/L)
2016 8.4
2017 7.2 to 11.1
2018 7.4 to 9.7
2019 9.7 to 12.0
2020 10.8 to 12.3
2021 11.7 to 12.8
2022 13.8 to 15.0
2023 15.9 to 17.9
Section Three: Consolidation Analysis
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 3-1 3 Consolidation Analysis
HES is located approximately 1.25 miles south of the City of Porterville’s (City) water system, the nearest component of which is located at South Indiana Street and West Scranton Avenue. The school is not far from the City limit boundary, ½ a mile from the intersection of Teapot Dome Avenue and State Route

65. Though HES is not within the City limits, consolidation is a potentially feasible alternative due to the proximity of the City’s water system to the school.

3.1 Consolidation Scenarios – City of Porterville
Four consolidation scenarios have been evaluated to reflect the possible consolidation options for the school. In the first option (Section 3.2.1), Well 2 would continue to be active to provide the school with a water supply for irrigation and fire protection; the water service from the City would be for domestic water supply purposes only. The second option (Section 3.2.2) for consolidation is to connect to the City for all the school’s water demands and remove the well and tank site entirely. The third and fourth options for consolidation (Sections 3.2.3 and 3.2.4, respectively) are similar to the second option, but also include a second point of connection to the City system to provide redundancy and discourage stagnation in the water main.

3.1.1 Partial Consolidation (Connection at Scranton [Alternative 1]) With the ongoing issue of nitrate on the HES water system, consolidating to provide domestic water only was analyzed to develop the costs associated with connecting to the City’s system, operating, and maintaining the well for irrigation and redundant fire water storage use (partial consolidation).

This alternative would require installing 6,550 linear feet of PVC water main along West Teapot Dome and South Indiana Avenues and connecting to the City’s water system at West Scranton Avenue; water main sizing will need to be confirmed with the City if this alternative is viable. The school would connect to the water main with a 1-inch service connection and meter. Fire hydrants would be installed along the pipeline to abide by County requirements and a single hydrant would be installed on the school’s frontage for fire protection for the school. The existing well and storage tank would remain active to provide a redundant fire water source and to provide the school with irrigation water. See Figure 3-1 for the proposed water main with 1-inch meter and service connection.

The 1-inch service connection will require a connection fee with the City of Porterville. The connection fee ranges depending on the size of the lot and the size of connection. According to the City of Porterville, a 1-inch service connection fee for the school would be approximately $15,000. This estimate may change slightly pending actual review of the connection by the City.

With this option, the school would continue to own, operate, and maintain the well and site facilities; the ongoing technical and financial impacts of maintaining a well would continue. Continuing to operate a well with no backup source leaves the school susceptible to having no water for non-potable demands if major repairs are required or the well fails. Table 3-1 shows an approximation of costs for the school including a City water bill and ongoing operation and maintenance costs associated with maintaining the well for non-potable uses.

Section Three: Consolidation Analysis
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 3-2 Table 3-1: Annual O&M Costs – Partial Consolidation
Item Description Estimated Cost
Annual Water Costs – City charges $3,630
1” Meter Base Rate – Annual Total $230
HES Annual Water Costs [1] $3,400
Well 2 O&M Annual Costs [2] $23,200
Total Annual Water Usage Costs $26,830
Notes:
[1] Cost is based on total gallons of year usage for the domestic water (no irrigation), charged at the per unit cost of $1.91 (one unit equals 748 gallons); this is typical for all consolidation alternatives.
[2] Annual O&M costs provided by the HES
The total project costs associated with this alternative are shown in Table 3-2. The associated nonconstruction costs for the project include completing the design and construction documents, bid and construction support, construction management, and other costs associated with the construction process.

Table 3-2: Partial Consolidation Cost Summary
Item Description Estimated Cost
Construction Costs [1] $1,688,750
Non-Construction Costs
City Connection Fees, LAFCo Application Fees & MSR Costs $54,000 Construction Documents $84,700
DSA Filing Fee & Inspection $30,000
Bidding Services $8,500
Construction Engineering & Environmental Compliance Services $87,700 Construction Observation $163,500
Testing Costs (Sampling and Compaction) $30,000
Labor Compliance $35,000
Grant Administration $34,600
Contingency (20%) $443,210
Total Estimated Costs $2,659,260
Notes:
[1] Full construction costs attached in Appendix D. These costs assume the connection water main to the City of Porterville would be an 8-inch; however, it is possible a smaller main would be allowed and will be determined during design. This assumption is typical for all consolidation alternatives.

G!.

G!.

G!.

G!.

G!.

G!.

G!.

G!. G!.
?
Well No. 2
To Remain
?
1" Water Meter
C"`
?
Tank & Booster Pumps
To Remain
b"!º
UT
Prospect
St
Orange
Belt Dr Rd
238
Hemlock Ave
Crawford Ave
S Prospect St S 236 Prospect Rd
Ave 124
W Scranton Ave Ave 136
S Indiana St
Ave 128 W Teapot Dome Ave
H
wy 65 State H
wy 65 State Rte 65
0 500 1,000
Feet
º Figure 3-1
Hope Elementary School
1 Inch Meter Installation
Hope Elementary School
G!. Fire Hydrant
Existing City of Porterville
Distribution Main
Proposed Water Main
Porterville City Limits
9/20/2022 : G:\Self Help Enterprises-1875\187521004-Hope Elem Water Syst\400 GIS\Map\Hope_Site_1_in_meter_zoom_out.mxd Section Three: Consolidation Analysis
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 3-4

3.1.2 Full Consolidation (Connection at Scranton [Alternative 2]) The second consolidation alternative would closely resemble the first, except a 2-inch service and meter connection to the school would be required, and the well and tank site would be abandoned (full consolidation). See Figure 3-2 for the proposed water main with 2-inch meter and service connection.

The 2-inch service connection will require a connection fee with the City of Porterville, just as the 1-inch connection described above. The City of Porterville charges connection fees based on acreage; therefore, it is anticipated the estimated $15,000 connection fee is sufficient for this analysis and should be reviewed and potentially updated prior to finalizing total costs for the selected project, if applicable.

Table 3-3 shows an approximation of costs for the school with a connection to the City for all water usage (full consolidation).

Table 3-3: Annual O&M Costs – Full Consolidations (All Options) Item Description Estimated Cost
2” Meter Base Rate – Annual Total $441
HES Annual Water Costs $5,758
Total Annual Water Usage Costs $6,199
The construction and non-construction costs for the full consolidation alternative include completing the design and construction documents, bid and construction support, construction management, and other costs associated with the construction process and are shown on Table 3-4.

Table 3-4: Full Consolidation (Connection at Scranton) Cost Summary Item Description Estimated Cost
Construction Costs [1] $1,795,750
Non-Construction Costs
City Connection Fees, LAFCo Application Fees & MSR Costs $54,000 Construction Documents $84,000
DSA Filing Fee & Inspection $30,000
Bidding Services $8,500
Construction Engineering & Environmental Compliance Services $77,400 Construction Observation $171,000
Testing Costs (Sampling and Compaction) $30,000
Labor Compliance $37,500
Grant Administration $34,600
Contingency (20%) $464,550
Total Estimated Costs $2,787,300
Notes:
[1] Full construction costs attached in Appendix D.

G!.

G!.

G!.

G!.

G!.

G!.

G!.

G!.

G!.
?
Existing Well & Tank Site
Facilities To Be Removed
?
2" Water Meter
C"`
b"!º
UT
Prospect
St
Orange
Belt Dr Rd
238
Hemlock Ave
Crawford Ave
S Prospect St S 236 Prospect Rd
Ave 124
W Scranton Ave Ave 136
S Indiana St
Ave 128 W Teapot Dome Ave
H
wy 65 State H
wy 65 State Rte 65
0 500 1,000
Feet
º Figure 3-2
Hope Elementary School
2 Inch Meter Installation
Hope Elementary School
G!. Fire Hydrant
Existing City of Porterville
Distribution Main
Proposed Water Main
Porterville City Limits
10/7/2022 : G:\Self Help Enterprises-1875\187521004-Hope Elem Water Syst\400 GIS\Map\Hope_Site_2_in_meter_zoom_out.mxd Section Three: Consolidation Analysis
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 3-6

3.1.3 Full Consolidation (Connections at Scranton and Newcomb [Alternative 3]) The third consolidation alternative would closely resemble the second, except an additional 5,300 linear feet of water main would be required to the west of Hope Elementary School along Teapot Dome Avenue in order to make a second connection to the existing City of Porterville water system at the intersection of Teapot Dome Avenue and Newcomb Street. See Figure 3-2 for the proposed water main with 2-inch meter and service connection. This option would have approximately 1,100 linear feet of dead-end main from the intersection of S Indiana Street and W Teapot Dome Avenue to the school.

Though this alternative does not entirely resolve the concern over possible stagnation in the dead-end water main, the City has indicated they will manage stagnation concerns proactively utilizing the proposed fire hydrant in front of the school to blow of water, if needed.

The 2-inch service connection will require a connection fee with the City of Porterville, just as the other alternatives described above. The City of Porterville charges connection fees based on acreage; therefore, it is anticipated the estimated $15,000 connection fee is sufficient for this analysis and should be reviewed and potentially updated prior to finalizing total costs for the selected project, if applicable.

Table 3-3 shows an approximation of costs for the school with a connection to the City for all water usage (full consolidation).

The construction and non-construction costs for the full consolidation alternative with a second connection in Newcomb Street include completing the design and construction documents, bid and construction support, construction management, and other costs associated with the construction process are shown on Table 3-5.

Table 3-5: Full Consolidation (Connections at Scranton and Newcomb) Cost Summary Item Description Estimated Cost
Construction Costs [1] $3,526,750
Non-Construction Costs
City Connection Fees, LAFCo Application Fees & MSR Costs $54,000 Construction Documents $147,400
DSA Filing Fee & Inspection $30,000
Bidding Services $14,600
Construction Engineering & Environmental Compliance Services $84,300 Construction Observation $294,300
Testing Costs (Sampling and Compaction) $80,000
Labor Compliance $72,500
Grant Administration $39,600
Contingency (20%) $868,690
Total Estimated Costs $5,212,140
Notes:
[1] Full construction costs attached in Appendix D.

G!.

G!.

G!.

G!.

G!.

G!.

G!.

G!.

G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!.
?
Existing Well & Tank Site
Facilities To Be Removed
?
2" Water Meter
C`"
b"!º
UT
?
Alternative 3
Cottage
Cir
Teapot
Dome
Ave
Hope
Ave
Chess
Terrace St
Stacie
Ave Pearson St
Mesa
Oak St
Ohio
St
Yates Ave
Melinda Ave
Orange
Belt Dr Rd
238
W Gibbons Ave
Hemlock Ave
Crawford Ave
S Prospect St
Rd 232
W Scranton Ave Ave 136
S
Newcomb St
S Indiana St
Ave 128 W Teapot Dome Ave
State H
wy 65
0 600 1,200
Feet
º Figure 3-3
Hope Elementary School
Proposed Facilities Schematic
8/25/2023 : \\ppeng.com\pzdata\clients\Self Help Enterprises-1875\187521004-Hope Elem Water Syst\400 GIS\Map\Newcomb_Alignment.mxd Legend
Hope Elementary School
Porterville City Limits
G!. Fire Hydrant
Existing City of Porterville
Distribution main
Proposed Water Main
Section Three: Consolidation Analysis
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 3-8

3.1.4 Full Consolidation (Connections at Scranton and Gibbons [Alternative 4]) The fourth consolidation alternative would also closely resemble the second, except an additional 8,600 linear feet of water main would be required east of Hope Elementary School along Teapot Dome Avenue and Main Street in order to make a second connection to the existing City of Porterville water system at the intersection of Main Street and Gibbons Avenue. See Figure 3-2 for the proposed water main with 2- inch meter and service connection. This option removes all dead-end mains from the potential project and therefore removes any concerns of stagnation or impaired water quality.

The 2-inch service connection will require a connection fee with the City of Porterville, just as the other alternatives described above. The City of Porterville charges connection fees based on acreage; therefore, it is anticipated the estimated $15,000 connection fee is sufficient for this analysis and should be reviewed and potentially updated prior to finalizing total costs for the selected project, if applicable.

Table 3-3 shows an approximation of costs for the school with a connection to the City for all water usage (full consolidation).

The construction and non-construction costs for the full consolidation alternative with a second connection in Main Street include completing the design and construction documents, bid and construction support, construction management, and other costs associated with the construction process and are shown in Table 3-6.

Table 3-6: Full Consolidation (Connections at Scranton and Gibbons) Cost Summary Item Description Estimated Cost
Construction Costs [1] $3,832,750
Non-Construction Costs
City Connection Fees, LAFCo Application Fees & MSR Costs $54,000 Construction Documents $123,900
DSA Filing Fee & Inspection $30,000
Bidding Services $8,500
Construction Engineering & Environmental Compliance Services [2] $86,900 Construction Observation $280,800
Testing Costs (Sampling and Compaction) $80,000
Labor Compliance $82,500
Grant Administration $39,600
Contingency (20%) $923,790
Total Estimated Costs $5,542,740
Notes:
[1] Full construction costs attached in Appendix D.
[2] Construction services include: construction observation, construction staking, resident project engineer, and construction related testing.

G!.

G!.

G!.

G!.

G!.

G!.

G!.

G!.

G!. G!. G!.

G!.

G!.

G!.

G!.

G!.
?
Existing Well & Tank Site
Facilities To Be Removed
?
2" Water Meter
C`"
b"!º
UT
?
Alternative 4
Rd
244
Cottage Cir
S
F
St
S 2nd St
E Lincoln St
Chess
Terrace St
Stacie
Ave Pearson St
S 3rd St
S
Main
St
Co H
wy J29
S Jaye St
Mesa
Oak St
Ohio St
S 4 ht St
Yates Ave
S
Kessing St
Melinda Ave
Ave 136
W Scranton
Ave
E Yates
E Yates
Ave
E Gibbons Ave
Crawford Ave
Hemlock Ave
Orange
Belt Dr Rd
238
Rd 248
W Gibbons Ave
Ave 124
S Indiana St
Ave 128 W Teapot Dome Ave
H
wy 65
0 600 1,200
Feet
º Figure 3-4
Hope Elementary School
Proposed Facilities Schematic
8/25/2023 : \\ppeng.com\pzdata\clients\Self Help Enterprises-1875\187521004-Hope Elem Water Syst\400 GIS\Map\Main_St_Alignment_Fig_3_4.mxd Legend
Hope Elementary School
Porterville City Limits
G!. Fire Hydrant
Existing City of Porterville
Distribution main
Proposed Water Main
Section Three: Consolidation Analysis
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 3-10

3.2 Land Acquisition
Land acquisition would not be required for consolidation; however, a permanent agreement between the County and City would be necessary to allow the City access to the water main between the City limits and the school for maintenance purposes. Additionally, an extension of water service to the school from the City would necessitate an extraterritorial services agreement and the related Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) processes. The City does not intend to annex the land up to and surrounding the school as part of this project.

3.3 Consolidation Conclusion
Consolidation Options 1 and 2 would provide a new source supply for the school and resolve the stated problems; however, potentially new problem would be created through a long, dead-end water main, causing excessive maintenance concerns for the City and potentially delivering unsafe drinking water to the school.

Consolidation Options 3 and 4 would also provide a new source supply for the school and resolve the stated problem without introducing a new point of concern. Option 4 provides the most reliable source of water supply for the school with redundancy and no length of dead-end water main included in the potential project.

The Consolidation alternatives are summarized in Section 4 and evaluated with all alternatives to identify a selected project.

Section Four: Alternatives Analysis
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 4-1 4 Alternatives Analysis
This section analyzes seven alternatives for HES that include partial and full consolidation with the City, two full consolidations with different looping alignments, a new well without treatment, a treatment system for the existing well, and no project. Each alternative is further discussed in the following sections.

4.1 Alternative 1: Partial Consolidation (Connection at Scranton) This section serves as a summary of Section 3 to include consolidation as a part of the alternatives analysis.

4.1.1 Description
This alternative includes consolidation with the City to provide domestic water only and maintaining the existing well to continue providing irrigation water and a redundant fire water source. Alternative 1 includes consolidation with the City by installing approximately 6,550 linear feet (approximately 1.25 miles) of water main installed along Indiana Avenue to the point of connection at Scranton Avenue. HES would establish one service connection to the City through a 1-inch service connection and meter. The existing on-site well would continue to be maintained and operated for irrigation and redundant fire supply purposes only. The irrigation system and the domestic potable water system will be completely isolated to avoid backflow into the City’s system.

Per County Fire Requirements, fire hydrants would be required at 500-foot intervals along the consolidation alignment including a hydrant at HES for fire protection at the school.

City connection fees range in cost depending on service connection size and are highly dependent on the size of lot connecting to the City service. As such, a 1-inch service connection to the City is anticipated to cost approximately $15,000 pending City review and approval.

In summary, this alternative would include construction of the following components:
 Approximately 6,550 linear feet water main
 Fire hydrants placed no more than 500 feet apart along proposed water main alignment, except when there are no structures present
 1-inch water service, meter and box
 1-inch backflow preventer
 Installation of fire hydrants along the alignment and at the school  Connection to existing water main at Scranton Avenue
 Connection to existing on-site water system
 Piping reconfiguration of existing well discharge to irrigation and fire only

4.1.2 Design Criteria
The HES water system demands are detailed in Section 1.3; however, the water main connecting the school to the City’s water system will be sized based on City requirements rather than solely on demand Section Four: Alternatives Analysis
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 4-2 criteria. Alternative 1, serving on the domestic demand of 15.5 gpm (MDD), would necessitate a 1-inch service connection.

HES is also required to meet County fire flow requirements of 1,500 gpm for a minimum of two hours.

This alternative includes installing a fire hydrant at the front of the school’s property to provide adequate fire suppression per the County. The existing tank may serve as a redundant fire flow source.

It is understood the new fire hydrant, existing well, and storage tank will satisfy County fire flow requirements.

Alternative 1 includes the assumption that HES would continue using the existing on-site well to deliver irrigation water to the isolated irrigation system and fire flow to the existing storage tank. Existing onsite chlorination equipment and booster pumps associated with the tank will remain intact.

4.1.3 Environmental Impacts
It is not anticipated that adverse environmental impacts will negatively affect the project and prevent this alternative from being considered. Alternative 1 includes the following potential environmental impacts:
 Environmental assessment, in the form of an Initial Study, would be required as part of the evaluation and selection of a suitable alignment for the consolidation main. It is anticipated the environmental clearance documents will show either no impacts or mitigable impacts to the environment if this alternative were selected.
 Dust and storm water pollution during construction, both of which can be mitigated through strategic action plans.
 Traffic control will be required for pipeline installation along Indiana Avenue. Proper traffic control measures will have to be implemented to minimize impact to neighboring properties.  Noise will be generated during construction and trenching operations. Mitigation measures will have to be employed to minimize impacts to neighbors.

4.1.4 Land Requirements
Alternative 1 does not require special land use designations, easements, or land acquisition. The project area lies within District-owned land at HES and along County rights-of-way (ROW). As HES is outside of the City limits and sphere of influence, a municipal service review (MSR) is required.

4.1.5 Agency Requirements

4.1.5.1 Division of the State Architect
Due to the project being located on a school campus, any work done that affects the complete functioning of the school is required to be certified by the Division of the State Architect (DSA). Project certification consists of examination of specific project files for documents required to be submitted before, during and after construction, and to determine if outstanding issues have been resolved.

Project Inspectors, design professionals, and districts all have a part in ensuring compliance. Though this alternative requires very little work on the school campus, it will still be required to be submitted and approved by DSA.

Section Four: Alternatives Analysis
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 4-3

4.1.5.2 County of Tulare
An encroachment permit will be required by the County for any improvements constructed within County ROW, including a traffic control plan. Additionally, the existing agreement between the City and County may need revision to encompass this area.

4.1.5.3 Local Fire Authority
The local fire authority that presides over Hope Elementary School is the County of Tulare Fire Department. Since the school will be keeping their fire water tank online for this alternative, County Fire protection standards will be met. The County also requires placement of fire hydrants along the new pipeline alignment at 500-foot intervals unless structures are not present. The County Fire Department does not require a redundant source for fire water.

4.1.5.4 City of Porterville
The City of Porterville allows for service to schools within the UAB; it is anticipated there will not be any requirement to expand the UDB to provide water service to HES for this reason. However, if this alternative is selected, for the well to remain active, the site must be 5 acres, which it is not currently.

The District owns the surrounding property east and south of the school and it is understood a Lot Line Adjustment can be performed to include additional land east of the school to meet the 5-acre requirement. In addition to these items, it is anticipated a water service agreement and crossconnection survey will be required.

4.1.6 Construction and Site Considerations
Special construction and site considerations are not anticipated to negatively impact Alternative 1.

Typical construction considerations such as traffic control, dust control, and worker protection are routinely managed by construction contractors and should not be a hurdle for the project.

The proposed pipeline alignment along Indiana Street would need to be analyzed for proper placement within existing improvements. Both sides of the ROW have power poles along the shoulder, potentially requiring placement of the pipeline in the pavement to avoid conflicts. This would not inhibit the project but increases construction costs compared to placing the pipeline within the unpaved shoulder. These costs are already anticipated and incorporated in the cost estimate for this alternative.

No other construction and site considerations are anticipated.

Section Four: Alternatives Analysis
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 4-4

4.1.7 Cost Estimate
The preliminary engineer’s opinion of probable construction costs (EOPCC) associated with Alternative 1 is attached in Appendix D. Table 4-1 below summarizes the construction and non-construction costs fully detailed in the EOPCC.

Table 4-1: Partial Consolidation (Connection at Scranton) Cost Summary Item Description Estimated Cost
Construction Cost [1] $1,688,750
Subtotal $1,688,750
Non-Construction Costs
City Connection Fees, LAFCo Application Fees & MSR Costs $54,000 Construction Documents $84,000
DSA Filing Fee & Inspection $30,000
Bidding Services $8,500
Construction Engineering & Environmental Compliance Services $87,700 Construction Observation $163,500
Testing Costs (Sampling and Compaction) $30,000
Labor Compliance $35,000
Grant Administration $34,600
Subtotal $527,300
Contingency (20%) $443,210
Total Estimated Capital Costs $2,659,260
Estimated O&M Costs $26,800
Present Worth of O&M Cost $398,700
Total Life Cycle Costs $3,057,960
Notes:
[1] See Appendix D for a preliminary Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Cost

4.1.8 Advantages/Disadvantages
Alternative 1 presents the following advantages and disadvantages.

Advantages include:
 Provides safe, reliable drinking water to HES.
 HES would no longer operate a potable water system.
 Consistent with State desire to consolidate small water systems.

Disadvantages include:
 The District would be subject to a service agreement from the City, including a monthly, metered service water bill.
 HES would continue to operate and maintain the water system for non-potable uses.  Increased maintenance efforts associated with pipeline dead-ends (water stagnation and bacteria that would require the pipe to be flushed more frequently).

Section Four: Alternatives Analysis
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 4-5

4.2 Alternative 2: Full Consolidation (Connection at Scranton) This section serves as a summary of Section 3 to include consolidation as a part of the alternatives analysis.

4.2.1 Description
Alternative 2 includes consolidation with the City in the same manner as Alternative 1; installation of approximately 6,550 linear feet of water main along Indiana Avenue to the point of connection at Scranton Avenue. Alternative 2, however, includes a 2-inch service connection and meter to provide HES with all water uses (Domestic, Irrigation, and fire flow). The existing on-site storage tank would be removed and the well destroyed.

Alternative 2 also requires fire hydrants to be placed at 500-foot intervals along the consolidation alignment terminating at a single hydrant along the frontage of HES.

City connection fees range in cost depending on service connection size and are highly dependent on the size of lot connecting to the City service. As such, City connection fees for Alternative 2 are estimated to be approximately $15,000 pending City review and approval.

In summary, this alternative would include construction of the following components:
 Approximately 6,550 linear feet of water main
 Fire hydrants placed no more than 500 feet along proposed water main alignment, except when there are no structures present
 2-inch water meter and box
 2-inch backflow preventer
 Connection to existing water main at Scranton Avenue
 Connection to existing on-site water system
 Abandonment of existing on-site well and removal of storage tank

4.2.2 Design Criteria
HES has an MDD of 15.5 and 16.8 gpm for domestic and landscape purposes, respectively. Subsequently, it is assumed that each consolidation option will utilize the same 6,550 linear feet of water main to connect the HES to the City, along with installing fire hydrants along the proposed alignment as well as at the front of the school to satisfy County Fire requirements.

Differences include the amount of water transmitted to HES and the size of service connection and associated connection fee. A total of 32.3 gpm MDD will be required for Alternative 2 and will require a 2-inch service connection.

The existing on-site well and storage tank will be destroyed with the implementation of the full consolidation project. A fire hydrant will be installed along the frontage of HES to meet County fire flow requirements.

Section Four: Alternatives Analysis
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 4-6

4.2.3 Environmental Impacts
It is not anticipated that adverse environmental impacts will negatively affect the project and prevent this alternative from being considered. Alternative 2 includes the following potential environmental impacts:
 Environmental assessment, in the form of an Initial Study, would be required as part of the evaluation and selection of a suitable alignment for the consolidation main. It is anticipated the environmental clearance documents will show either no impacts or mitigable impacts to the environment if this alternative were selected.
 Dust and storm water pollution during construction, both of which can be mitigated through strategic action plans.
 Traffic control will be required for pipeline installation along Indiana Avenue. Proper traffic control measures will have to be implemented to minimize impact to neighboring properties.  Noise will be generated during construction and trenching operations. Mitigation measures will have to be employed to minimize impacts to neighbors.

4.2.4 Land Requirements
Alternative 2 does not require special land use designations, easements, or land acquisition. The project area lies within District-owned land at HES and along County and City ROW. A MSR will be required to extend service to HES, as HES is outside of the City limits and sphere of influence.

4.2.5 Agency Requirements.

The same agency requirements discussed for Alternative 1 apply to Alternative 2 and can be reviewed in Section 4.1.5.

4.2.6 Construction and Site Considerations
Special construction and site considerations are not anticipated to negatively impact Alternative 2.

Typical construction considerations such as traffic control, dust control, and worker protection are routinely managed by construction contractors and should not be a hurdle for the project.

The proposed pipeline alignment along Indiana Avenue would need to be analyzed for proper placement within existing improvements. Both sides of the ROW have power poles along the shoulder, potentially requiring placement of the pipeline in the pavement to avoid conflicts. This would not inhibit the project but increases construction costs compared to placing the pipeline within the unpaved shoulder. These costs are already anticipated and incorporated in the cost estimate for this alternative.

No other construction and site considerations are anticipated.

4.2.7 Cost Estimate
The preliminary EOPCC associated with Alternative 2 is attached in Appendix D. Table 4-2 below summarizes the construction and non-construction costs fully detailed in the EOPCC.

Section Four: Alternatives Analysis
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 4-7 Table 4-2: Full Consolidation (Connection at Scranton) Cost Summary Item Description Estimated Cost
Construction Cost [1] $1,795,750
Subtotal $1,795,750
Non-Construction Costs
City Connection Fees, LAFCo Application Fees & MSR Costs $54,000 Construction Documents $84,000
DSA Filing Fee & Inspection $30,000
Bidding Services $8,500
Construction Engineering & Environmental Compliance Services $77,400 Construction Observation $171,000
Testing Costs (Sampling and Compaction) $30,000
Labor Compliance $37,500
Grant Administration $34,600
Subtotal $527,000
Contingency (20%) $464,550
Total Estimated Capital Costs $2,787,300
Estimated O&M Costs $6,199
Present Worth of O&M Cost $92,200
Total Life Cycle Costs $2,879,500
Notes:
[1] See Appendix D for a preliminary Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Cost

4.2.8 Advantages/Disadvantages
Alternative 2 presents the following advantages and disadvantages.

Advantages include:
 The District would no longer be required to operate a public water system.  Provides safe, reliable drinking water to HES.
 Consistent with State desire to consolidate small water systems.

Disadvantages include:
 The District would be subject to a service agreement from the City, including a monthly, metered service water bill.
 Increased maintenance efforts associated with pipeline dead-ends (water stagnation and bacteria that would require the pipe to be flushed more frequently).

Section Four: Alternatives Analysis
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 4-8

4.3 Alternative 3: Full Consolidation (Connections at Scranton and Newcomb)
This section serves as a summary of Section 3 to include a partial loop consolidation as a part of the alternatives analysis.

4.3.1 Description
Alternative 3 includes full consolidation with the City in the same manner as Alternative 2, with an additional connection to the existing City water main at the intersection of Newcomb Street and Teapot Dome Avenue; installation of approximately 6,550 linear feet of water main along Indiana Avenue to the point of connection at Scranton Avenue and installation of approximately 5,300 linear feet of water main along Teapot Dome Avenue to the point of connection at Newcomb Street. The water main being installed along Teapot Dome Avenue will be crossing State Route 65, requiring a jack and bore installation beneath the state route. Alternative 3 includes a 2-inch service connection and meter to provide HES with all water uses (Domestic, Irrigation, and fire flow). Approximately 1,100 linear feet of dead-end main would remain as part of this alternative. The existing on-site storage tank would be removed and the well destroyed.

Alternative 3 also requires fire hydrants to be placed at 500-foot intervals along the consolidation alignments terminating at a single hydrant along the frontage of HES.

City connection fees range in cost depending on service connection size and are highly dependent on the size of lot connecting to the City service. As such, City connection fees for Alternative 3 are estimated to be approximately $15,000 pending City review and approval.

In summary, this alternative would include construction of the following components:
 Approximately 11,850 linear feet of water main
 Jack and Bore of approximately 300 linear feet of water main underneath State Route 65  Fire hydrants placed no more than 500 feet along proposed water main alignment, except when there are no structures present
 2-inch water meter and box
 2-inch backflow preventer
 Connection to existing water main at Scranton Avenue
 Connection to existing water main at Newcomb Street
 Connection to existing on-site water system
 Abandonment of existing on-site well and removal of storage tank

4.3.2 Design Criteria
HES has an MDD of 15.5 and 16.8 gpm for domestic and landscape purposes, respectively. Subsequently, it is assumed that each consolidation option will utilize the same 6,550 linear feet of water main to provide a primary connection between HES to the City, along with installing fire hydrants along the proposed alignment as well as at the front of the school to satisfy County Fire requirements. Alternative 3 will also include an additional 5,300 linear feet of water main to make a secondary connection between HES and the City to reduce the issues involved with installing a single, mile long service Section Four: Alternatives Analysis
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 4-9 connection. Specific issues that could arise are bacteriological growth and increased water temperature that would require frequent flushing of the pipeline. This alternative would not provide redundancy as the school would still have a single source of connection due to the ¼ mile of service pipeline from the corner of Indiana and Teapot Dome Avenue to the School. It is important to note that this alternative does not entirely eliminate, but significantly reduces, the maintenance efforts associated with pipeline dead-ends such as water stagnation and bacteria growth that would require the pipe to be flushed on a frequent basis, compared to the consolidation method described in Alternative 2.

The total amount of water transmitted to HES and the size of service connection and associated connection fee are the same as Alternative 2. A total of 32.3 gpm MDD will be required and will require a 2-inch service connection.

The existing on-site well and storage tank will be destroyed with the implementation of the full consolidation project. A fire hydrant will be installed along the frontage of HES to meet County fire flow requirements.

4.3.3 Environmental Impacts
It is not anticipated that adverse environmental impacts will negatively affect the project and prevent this alternative from being considered. Alternative 3 includes the following potential environmental impacts:
 Environmental assessment, in the form of an Initial Study, would be required as part of the evaluation and selection of a suitable alignment for the primary and secondary consolidation main. It is anticipated the environmental clearance documents will show either no impacts or mitigable impacts to the environment if this alternative were selected.  Dust and storm water pollution during construction, both of which can be mitigated through strategic action plans.
 Traffic control will be required for pipeline installation along Indiana Avenue and Teapot Dome Avenue. Proper traffic control measures will have to be implemented to minimize impact to neighboring properties. A Caltrans encroachment permit and jack and bore will be required for pipeline installation along Teapot Dome Avenue across State Route 65.  Noise will be generated during construction and trenching operations. Mitigation measures will have to be employed to minimize impacts to neighbors.

4.3.4 Land Requirements
Alternative 3 does not require special land use designations, easements, or land acquisition. The project area lies within District-owned land at HES and along County, Caltrans, and City ROW. A MSR will be required to extend service to HES, as HES is outside of the City limits and sphere of influence.

4.3.5 Agency Requirements
The same agency requirements discussed for Alternative 1 apply to Alternative 3 and can be reviewed in Section 4.1.5. An additional requirement, coordination with Caltrans is required for this Alternative, described below.

Section Four: Alternatives Analysis
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 4-10

4.3.5.1 Caltrans
An encroachment permit will be required by Caltrans for any improvements constructed within Caltrans ROW, including a traffic control plan. The pipeline alignment in Teapot Dome Avenue will require a jack and bore to cross the Caltrans ROW at State Route 65.

4.3.6 Construction and Site Considerations
Special construction and site considerations are not anticipated to negatively impact Alternative 3.

Typical construction considerations such as traffic control and dust control are routinely managed by construction contractors and should not be a hurdle for the project.

The proposed pipeline alignment along Indiana Street and Teapot Dome Avenue would need to be analyzed for proper placement within existing improvements. Both sides of the ROW have power poles along the shoulder, potentially requiring placement of the pipeline in the pavement to avoid conflicts.

The alignment along Teapot Dome Avenue would require a jack and bore underneath State Route 65.

This would not inhibit the project but requires proper shoring of bore pits and more stringent worker protection.

No other construction and site considerations are anticipated.

4.3.7 Cost Estimate
The preliminary EOPCC associated with Alternative 3 is attached in Appendix D. Table 4-3 below summarizes the construction and non-construction costs fully detailed in the EOPCC.

Section Four: Alternatives Analysis
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 4-11 Table 4-3: Full Consolidation (Connections at Scranton and Newcomb) Cost Summary Item Description Estimated Cost
Construction Cost [1] $3,526,750
Subtotal $3,526,750
Non-Construction Costs
City Connection Fees, LAFCo Application Fees & MSR Costs $54,000 Construction Documents $147,400
DSA Filing Fee & Inspection $30,000
Bidding Services $14,600
Construction Engineering & Environmental Compliance Services $84,300 Construction Observation $294,300
Testing Costs (Sampling and Compaction) $80,000
Labor Compliance $72,500
Grant Administration $39,600
Subtotal $816,700
Contingency (20%) $868,690
Total Estimated Capital Costs $5,212,140
Estimated O&M Costs $6,199
Present Worth of O&M Cost $92,000
Total Life Cycle Costs $5,304,140
Notes:
[1] See Appendix D for a preliminary Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Cost

4.3.8 Advantages/Disadvantages
Alternative 3 presents the following advantages and disadvantages.

Advantages include:
 The District would no longer be required to operate a public water system.  Provides safe, reliable drinking water to HES.
 Consistent with State desire to consolidate small water systems.  Provides more system looping than Alternative 2, which will help reduce stagnation, maintenance issues, and bacteriological issues.
 Provides infrastructure and further opportunity for other private user single well water systems along the pipeline alignment to consolidate with the City Disadvantages include:
 The District would be subject to a service agreement from the City, including a monthly, metered service water bill.
 Increased maintenance efforts associated with pipeline dead-ends (water stagnation and bacteria growth that would require the pipe to be flushed more frequently).  SR 65 Jack and Bore crossing and Caltrans encroachment permit Section Four: Alternatives Analysis
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 4-12

4.4 Alternative 4: Full Consolidation (Connections at Scranton and Gibbons)
This section serves as a summary of Section 3 to include full loop consolidation as a part of the alternatives analysis.

4.4.1 Description
Alternative 4 includes consolidation with the City in the same manner as Alternative 2, with an additional connection to the existing City water main at the intersection of Main Street and Gibbons Avenue; installation of approximately 6,550 linear feet of water main along Indiana Avenue to the point of connection at Scranton Avenue and installation of approximately 8,600 linear feet of water main along to the east along Teapot Dome Avenue and Main Street to the point of connection at Gibbons Avenue. Alternative 4 includes a 2-inch service connection and meter to provide HES with all water uses (Domestic, Irrigation, and fire flow). The existing on-site storage tank would be removed and the well destroyed.

Alternative 4 also requires fire hydrants to be placed at 500-foot intervals along the consolidation alignments terminating at a single hydrant along the frontage of HES.

City connection fees range in cost depending on service connection size and are highly dependent on the size of lot connecting to the City service. As such, City connection fees for alternative 4 are estimated to be approximately $15,000 pending City review and approval.

In summary, this alternative would include construction of the following components:
 Approximately 15,150 linear feet of water main
 Fire hydrants placed no more than 500 feet along proposed water main alignment, except when there are no structures present
 2-inch water meter and box
 2-inch backflow preventer
 Connection to existing water main at Scranton Avenue
 Connection to existing water main at Gibbons Avenue
 Connection to existing on-site water system
 Abandonment of existing on-site well and removal of storage tank

4.4.2 Design Criteria
HES has an MDD of 15.5 and 16.8 gpm for domestic and landscape purposes, respectively. Subsequently, it is assumed that each consolidation option will utilize the same 6,550 linear feet of water main to provide a primary connection between HES to the City, along with installing fire hydrants along the proposed alignment as well as at the front of the school to satisfy County Fire requirements. Alternative 6 will also include an additional 8,600 linear feet of water main to make a secondary connection between HES and the City to create a full looped system. This alternative would also provide redundancy as the school would still have two points of connection with the City’s water system. It is important to note that this alternative eliminates the maintenance efforts associated with pipeline dead-ends such as Section Four: Alternatives Analysis
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 4-13 water stagnation and bacteria growth that would require the pipe to be flushed on a frequent basis, compared to the consolidation method described in Alternative 2 and Alternative 3.

The total amount of water transmitted to HES and the size of service connection and associated connection fee are the same as Alternative 2. A total of 32.3 gpm MDD will be required and will require a 2-inch service connection.

The existing on-site well and storage tank will be destroyed with the implementation of the full consolidation project. A fire hydrant will be installed along the frontage of HES to meet County fire flow requirements.

4.4.3 Environmental Impacts
It is not anticipated that adverse environmental impacts will negatively affect the project and prevent this alternative from being considered. Alternative 4 includes the following potential environmental impacts:
 Environmental assessment, in the form of an Initial Study, would be required as part of the evaluation and selection of a suitable alignment for the primary and secondary consolidation main. It is anticipated the environmental clearance documents will show either no impacts or mitigable impacts to the environment if this alternative were selected.  Dust and storm water pollution during construction, both of which can be mitigated through strategic action plans.
 Traffic control will be required for pipeline installation along Indiana Avenue, Teapot Dome Avenue, and Main Street. Proper traffic control measures will have to be implemented to minimize impact to neighboring properties.
 Noise will be generated during construction and trenching operations. Mitigation measures will have to be employed to minimize impacts to neighbors.

4.4.4 Land Requirements
Alternative 4 does not require special land use designations, easements, or land acquisition. The project area lies within District-owned land at HES and along County and City ROW. A MSR will be required to extend service to HES, as HES is outside of the City limits and sphere of influence.

4.4.5 Agency Requirements
The same agency requirements discussed for Alternative 1 apply to Alternative 4 and can be reviewed in Section 4.1.5.

4.4.6 Construction and Site Considerations
Special construction and site considerations are not anticipated to negatively impact Alternative 4.

Typical construction considerations such as traffic control, dust control, and worker protection are routinely managed by construction contractors and should not be a hurdle for the project.

The proposed pipeline alignment along Indiana Street, Teapot Dome Avenue and Main Street would need to be analyzed for proper placement within existing improvements. Both sides of the ROW have Section Four: Alternatives Analysis
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 4-14 power poles along the shoulder, potentially requiring placement of the pipeline in the pavement to avoid conflicts. This would not inhibit the project but increases construction costs compared to placing the pipeline within the unpaved shoulder. These costs are already anticipated and incorporated in the cost estimate for this alternative.

No other construction and site considerations are anticipated.

4.4.7 Cost Estimate
The preliminary EOPCC associated with Alternative 4 is attached in Appendix D. Table 4-4 below summarizes the construction and non-construction costs fully detailed in the EOPCC.

Table 4-4: Full Consolidation (Connections at Scranton and Gibbons) Cost Summary Item Description Estimated Cost
Construction Cost [1] $3,832,750
Subtotal $3,832,750
Non-Construction Costs
City Connection Fees, LAFCo Application Fees & MSR Costs $54,000 Construction Documents $123,900
DSA Filing Fee & Inspection $30,000
Bidding Services $8,500
Construction Engineering & Environmental Compliance Services $86,900 Construction Observation $280,800
Testing Costs (Sampling and Compaction) $80,000
Labor Compliance $82,500
Grant Administration $39,600
Subtotal $786,200
Contingency (20%) $923,790
Total Estimated Capital Costs $5,542,740
Estimated O&M Costs $6,199
Present Worth of O&M Cost $92,000
Total Life Cycle Costs $5,634,740
Notes:
[1] See Appendix D for a preliminary Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Cost

4.4.8 Advantages/Disadvantages
Alternative 4 presents the following advantages and disadvantages.

Advantages include:
 The District would no longer be required to operate a public water system.  Provides safe, reliable drinking water to HES.
 Consistent with State desire to consolidate small water systems.  Provides two connection points to the City system, improving reliability of the HES water supply.

Section Four: Alternatives Analysis
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 4-15  Provides full looped system which will help eliminate stagnation, maintenance issues, and bacteriological issues.
 Provides infrastructure and further opportunity for other single well water systems to consolidate with the City.

Disadvantages include:
 The District would be subject to a service agreement from the City, including a monthly, metered service water bill.

4.5 Alternative 5: New Well without Treatment

4.5.1 Description
Alternative 5 includes construction of a new well without wellhead treatment at HES. In this alternative, it is assumed that a new well can be constructed that produces groundwater without the need for wellhead treatment3.

Construction of a new well would include the following project components:
 Drill, construct, and develop a 100 gpm, 800-foot-deep production well to meet primary and secondary drinking water standards based on zone-sampling.  Connect new well to existing HES distribution.
 Connect new well to existing water storage tank.
 Destruction of existing well.

4.5.2 Design Criteria
HES has an MDD of 15.5 gpm and 16.8 gpm for domestic and landscape purposes, respectively. HES is also required to meet County fire flow requirements of 1,500 gpm for a minimum of two hours.

The new well will be approximately 800 feet in depth and produce a minimum of 100 gpm. New on-site piping will be required to connect the well discharge to the existing distribution system and storage tank. The existing discharge configuration will be maintained, and the storage tank will be kept online and continue its primary use to provide the school with fire water storage. Distribution system pressure will be maintained by the new well.

For the purposes of Alternative 5, it is assumed that the existing tank will remain in place and serve as the primary fire flow source for HES. The current storage tank has the capacity to deliver 1,500 gpm to the distribution system for approximately 35 minutes. Based on experience with County fire flow requirements, it is understood a fire flow reduction waiver will be necessary to implement the project.

This may change pending official review by the County. If a waiver is not approved, additional improvements will be necessary for this alternative, including additional water storage. 3 Prior to proceeding with this alternative, it is be recommended that a hydrogeological study and possibly a test well, including zone sampling and analysis, be constructed to verify this assumption.

Section Four: Alternatives Analysis
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 4-16

4.5.3 Environmental Impacts
It is not anticipated that adverse environmental impacts will negatively affect the project and prevent this alternative from being considered. Alternative 5 includes the following potential environmental impacts:
 Environmental assessment, in the form of an Initial Study, would be required as part of the evaluation and selection of a suitable well site. It is anticipated the environmental clearance documents will show either no impacts or mitigable impacts to the environment if this alternative were selected.
 Dust and storm water pollution during construction, both of which can be mitigated through strategic action plans.
 The proposed well site facilities could have a negative impact to aesthetics near the selected well site. Appropriate screening with fences and/or landscape may be employed to minimize such impacts.
 Noise will be generated during construction and trenching operations. Mitigation measures will have to be employed to minimize impacts to neighbors.

4.5.4 Land Requirements
As the land surrounding the HES campus is owned by the District, if additional land is required to site a new well, it is anticipated the adjacent property to the east and south can accommodate the additional site without acquiring land.

4.5.5 Agency Requirements

4.5.5.1 DSA Review
This alternative will require DSA review as noted in the previous alternatives, as building a new well and connecting the well to the school’s domestic water system is a project that is necessary for complete functioning of the school. Costs for associated fees are included in the cost schedule below.

4.5.5.2 Local Fire Authority
As mentioned in previous alternatives, the local fire authority that presides over Hope Elementary School is the County Fire Department. Since the school will be keeping their fire water tank online for this alternative, County fire protection standards will be met. County Fire Department does not require a redundant source for fire water.

4.5.6 Construction and Site Considerations
Consideration will be required for the following items when developing Alternative 5:
 The location of the new well will be determined with respect to the location of the existing wells (both active and inactive).
 All existing piping connected to the existing well will need to be abandoned and the existing system shall be connected to the new well.
 Aquifer conditions such as water table, water quality, and geographic location will affect the well design and construction costs.

Section Four: Alternatives Analysis
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 4-17 Although the conditions above will affect the overall construction costs and location of the new well, effective design and construction can negate the challenges these considerations present.

In addition to the construction and site considerations outlined above, typical construction considerations such as dust control, storm water management and worker protection are routinely managed by construction contractors and should not be a hurdle for the project.

No other construction and site considerations are considered.

4.5.7 Cost Estimate
The preliminary EOPCC associated with Alternative 5 is attached in Appendix D. Table 4-5 below summarizes the construction and non-construction costs fully detailed in the EOPCC.

Table 4-5: New Well without Treatment Cost Summary
Item Description Estimated Cost
Construction Cost [1] $1,342,250
Subtotal $3,342,250
Non-Construction Costs
Construction Documents $121,700
DSA Filing Fee & Inspection $30,000
Bidding Services $9,300
Construction Engineering & Environmental Compliance Services $59,400 Construction Observation $210,300
Testing Costs (Sampling and Compaction) $25,000
Labor Compliance $32,000
Grant Administration $36,500
Subtotal $524,200
Contingency (20%) $373,290
Total Estimated Capital Costs $2,239,740
Estimated O&M Costs [2] $35,160
Present Worth of O&M Cost $523,100
Total Life Cycle Costs $2,762,840
Notes:
[1] See Appendix D for a preliminary Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Cost. [2] Operations & Maintenance (O&M) costs include partial salary for system operator ($13,000), sampling ($680/month), supplies ($5,000), and electricity for additional treatment system components ($750/month).

4.5.8 Advantages/Disadvantages
Alternative 5 presents the following advantages and disadvantages.

Advantages include:
 Solves the current problem by providing safe drinking water to HES.

Section Four: Alternatives Analysis
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 4-18 Disadvantages include:
 The District will continue with the responsibility of operating a public water system.  A single source of supply lacks redundancy and is more susceptible to water outages.  Does not satisfy the State desire to consolidate small water systems.

4.6 Alternative 6: Wellhead Treatment on the Existing Well

4.6.1 Description
Alternative 6 includes wellhead treatment for removal of nitrate at the existing HES well. Accepted methods for nitrate removal include ion exchange, reverse osmosis, and biological treatment. Reverse osmosis produces wastewater at a minimum rate of 10% of the flowrate and biological treatment has not been proven to be reliable for consistent daily use, therefore, ion exchange is the primary treatment method and will serve as the treatment system of choice for Alternative 6.

Construction of new wellhead treatment would include the following project components:
 Construct new wellhead treatment to remove nitrate from the production water.  Construct holding tank area for brine waste production.  Connection of existing well to new treatment.
 Connection of new treatment to existing distribution system.

4.6.2 Design Criteria
HES has an MDD of 15.5 gpm for domestic uses and is required to meet County fire flow requirements of 1,500 gpm for 2 hours. A MDD of 15.5 gpm results in a use of approximately 22,320 gallons per day (gpd). Brine waste resulting from the ion exchange treatment process is expected to be 0.5% of total flow treated. As a result, the ion exchange treatment is expected to produce a concentrated brine solution of approximately 111 gpd. Brine waste cannot be discharged onsite and must be hauled away to a licensed disposal location, typically the Bay Area of California. Brine haulers can accommodate 4,000 gallons per load, resulting in a need for a 4,500-gallon brine holding tank and a haul every 36 days.

For the purposes of Alternative 6, it is assumed that the existing tank will remain in place and serve as the primary fire flow source for HES. The current storage tank has the capacity to deliver 1,500 gpm to the distribution system for approximately 35 minutes. Based on past experience with County fire flow requirements, it is assumed that a reduction waiver will be necessary to implement the project. This may change pending official review by the County.

It is assumed that the ion exchange treatment will only treat domestic potable water. Therefore, on-site piping reconfiguration will be required to allow the well to serve the existing irrigation system and domestic potable water separately.

Capital costs associated with this alternative include the pilot test, filtration system, construction of a concrete foundation and enclosure facility, system piping and injection manifolds, chemical pumps, and electrical integration. Operational costs for this alternative are relatively high and include chemical Section Four: Alternatives Analysis
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 4-19 deliveries, an operator for daily inspections, ongoing additional electrical costs, brine disposal, and resin regeneration.

4.6.3 Environmental Impacts
It is not anticipated that adverse environmental impacts will negatively affect the project and prevent this alternative from being considered. Alternative 6 includes the following potential environmental impacts:
 Environmental assessment, in the form of an Initial Study, would be required as part of the evaluation of treatment at the existing well site. It is anticipated the environmental clearance documents will show either no impacts or mitigable impacts to the environment if this alternative were selected.
 Dust and storm water pollution during construction, both of which can be mitigated through strategic action plans.
 Noise will be generated during construction and trenching operations. Mitigation measures will have to be employed to minimize impacts to neighbors.

4.6.4 Land Requirements
As the land surrounding the HES campus is owned by the District, if additional land is required to site a water treatment system, it is anticipated the adjacent property to the east and south can accommodate the additional land requirements without acquiring land.

4.6.5 Agency Requirements
The same agency requirements discussed for Alternative 5 apply to Alternative 6 and can be reviewed in Section 4.5.5.

4.6.6 Construction and Site Considerations
Consideration will be required for the following items when developing Alternative 6:
 The wellhead treatment will need to be readily accessible by a tanker truck in order to pump and remove waste generated onsite.
 The wellhead treatment site will need to allow sufficient space to accommodate the wellhead treatment and associated tanks and piping.

Although the conditions above will affect the overall construction costs, effective design and construction can negate the challenges these considerations present.

4.6.7 Cost Estimate
The preliminary EOPCC associated with Alternative 6 is attached in Appendix D. Table 4-6 below summarizes the construction and non-construction costs fully detailed in the EOPCC.

Section Four: Alternatives Analysis
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 4-20 Table 4-6: Wellhead Treatment Cost Summary
Item Description Estimated Cost
Construction Cost [1] $293,500
Subtotal $293,500
Non-Construction Costs
Construction Documents $60,300
DSA Filing Fee & Inspection $30,000
Bidding Services $9,300
Construction Engineering & Environmental Compliance Services $60,200 Construction Observation $144,300
Testing Costs (Sampling and Compaction) $25,000
Labor Compliance $10,000
Grant Administration $22,900
Subtotal $362,000
Contingency (20%) $131,000
Total Estimated Capital Costs $786,600
Estimated O&M Costs [2] $84,500
Present Worth of O&M Cost $1,257,100
Total Life Cycle Costs $2,043,700
Notes:
[1] See Appendix D for a preliminary Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Cost [2] Operations & Maintenance (O&M) costs include partial salary for system operator ($13,000), brine disposal ($2,500 per occurrence, assuming 11 occurrences per year). sampling ($1000/month), supplies ($5,000), an additional contract operator to assist ($1,500/month) and electricity for additional treatment system components ($750/month).

4.6.8 Advantages/Disadvantages
Alternative 6 presents the following advantages and disadvantages.

Advantages include:
 Provides safe drinking water to HES.

Disadvantages include:
 The District will continue to have the responsibility of operating a public water system and treatment facility, including increased regulatory requirements.  A single source of supply lacks redundancy and is more susceptible to water outages.  Does not satisfy the State desire to consolidate small water systems.  Water treatment system requires waste disposal that results in frequent costly waste hauling.  The District will be required to hire or contract with an operator that is certified to operate the treatment system.

Section Four: Alternatives Analysis
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 4-21

4.7 Alternative 7: No Project
Alternative 7 considers no infrastructure improvements and continues use of the water system and bottled water program as it is currently. This alternative continues non-compliance with the nitrate MCL and does not address the NOV the District has received from the SWRCB. Ultimately, the alternative does not provide a solution to the stated problem and is not considered further in this report.

4.8 Alternative Evaluation and Selection
Alternatives 1 through 6 are compared in the following table. Alternative 7 does not provide a solution to the stated problem at HES, therefore it is not included in the comparison.

Each alternative is compared on the basis of capital cost and corresponding estimated monthly user charges, construction challenges, and critical concerns. Table 4-8 assigns a value of 1 through 6 to each alternative based on relative comparisons. A value of 1 ranks as preferred, while a value of 6 ranks as poorly favored.

Section Four: Alternatives Analysis
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 4-22 Table 4-7: Comparison of Alternatives
Comparison Criteria
Alt. No. 1:

Partial
Consolidation
Alt. No. 2: Full
Consolidation
(Scranton)
Alt No. 3: Full
Consolidation
(Scranton and
Newcomb)
Alt. No. 4: Full
Consolidation
(Scranton and
Gibbons)
Alt. No. 5: New
Well without
Treatment
Alt. No. 6:

Wellhead
Treatment on
Existing Well
Costs
Capital Cost $2,659,260 $2,787,300 $5,212,140 $5,542,740 $2,239,740 $786,600 Total Life Cycle Costs $3,057,960 $2,879,500 $5,304,140 $5,634,740 $2,762,840 $2,043,700 Estimated Monthly Cost to HES $2,233 $517 $517 $517 $2,930 $7,042 Critical Concerns
Expansion of HES site to 5-acres to comply
with City requirements to have an on-site well X X X
Continued maintenance and operation
responsibilities required of HES X X X
Difficulty identifying potential new well site X
Need for Service Agreement with City of
Porterville X X X X
Additional cost and responsibility of operating
wellhead treatment X
Need for fire flow waiver from the County of
Tulare or additional fire flow capacity X X X
Does not address State priority of consolidation
of small water systems X X X
Concerns of stagnation, and maintenance and
bacteriological issues due to dead end piping X X X
Process of obtaining Caltrans Permit and
approval and Jack and Bore across SR 65 X
Does not provide redundancy in water supply
for the school X X X X
Section Four: Alternatives Analysis
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 4-23 Table 4-8: Ranking of Alternatives
Comparison Criteria
Alternative Number
Alt. No. 1 Alt. No. 2 Alt. No. 3 Alt. No. 4 Alt. N. 5 Alt. No. 6 Total Life Cycle Cost $3,057,960 $2,879,500 $5,304,140 $5,634,740 $2,762,840 $2,043,700 Life Cycle Cost Rank 4 2 5 6 3 1
Estimated Monthly User Charge 4 1 1 1 5 6
Critical Concerns 7 3 3 1 6 6
City Alternative Preference 4 3 1 2 5 5
Total Scoring: 19 9 10 10 19 18
Notes:
[1] The City has indicated preference
of Alternative No. 3 over the other
consolidation alternatives, as it is in
consistent with other City priorities. As
the City does not have a preference on
non-consolidation alternatives, they
have been given the same score of ‘5’.

As shown above, Alternative 2 is the lowest ranked; however this alternative does not allow for a redundant water supply for the school as it does not include a looped connection to the City’s water system. Alternative 3 provides minimal critical concerns, is ranked low in monthly user charges and a moderate rank amongst life cycle costs. Though this alternative does not entirely resolve the concern over possible stagnation in the dead-end water main, the City has indicated they will manage stagnation concerns proactively utilizing the proposed fire hydrant in front of the school to blow of water, if needed. For these reasons, Alternative 3 is the selected alternative.

Section Five: Selected Project
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 5-1 5 Selected Project
According to the alternative rankings presented in Table 4-8 above, the selected alternative for HES is consolidation with the City of Porterville with two points of connection at Scranton and Newcomb Avenues. The following sections describe the selected project in greater detail.

5.1 Project Description
Full consolidation with the City with a secondary connection in Newcomb Avenue is the selected alternative for all water uses including domestic, irrigation, and fire water. The project includes consolidation with the City through the installation of approximately 6,550 linear feet of water main along Indiana Avenue to the point of connection at Scranton Avenue and the installation of approximately 5,300 linear feet of water main along Teapot Dome Avenue to the point of connection at Newcomb Avenue. The alternative is recommended to provide the school with a redundant service connection, provides the City of Porterville with a looped water main, and relieves the school of the burden of having to own and operate a water system. A 2-inch service connection and meter will be installed to provide water to HES for the purposes of domestic, irrigation, and fire flow uses.

Approximately 1,100 linear feet of dead-end main would remain as part of this alternative. A 2-inch backflow preventer will be placed at the connection to HES to protect the City distribution system.

Alternative 3 also requires fire hydrants to be placed at 500-foot intervals along the consolidation alignments terminating at a single hydrant along the frontage of HES.

The existing on-site well and storage tank will be taken out of service, as they will no longer be needed to provide water to HES. The well will be properly abandoned per County standards, and the tank and other appurtenances will be removed.

City connection fees range in cost depending on service connection size and are highly dependent on the size of lot connecting to the City service. As such, City connections fees for the project are estimated to be approximately $15,000 pending City review and approval.

In summary, this alternative would include construction of the following components:
 Approximately 11,850 linear feet of water main
 Jack and Bore of approximately 300 linear feet of water main underneath State Route 65  Fire hydrants placed no more than 500 feet along proposed water main alignment, except when there are no structures present
 2-inch water meter and box
 2-inch backflow preventer
 Connection to existing water system at Scranton Avenue  Connection to existing water system at Newcomb Avenue  Connection to existing on-site water system
 Abandonment of existing on-site well and removal of storage tank and appurtenances

5.2 Justification
Consolidation with the City is the most financially feasible solution for HES because it provides HES with a source of safe and reliable drinking water through grant funding and a low estimated monthly water Section Five: Selected Project
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 5-2 rate. The project exchanges the non-compliant onsite well as the sole water supply source for a compliant and reliable water supply from the City of Porterville.

While capital costs associated with the selected project are not the lowest, the alternative has an advantage of a lower rank for monthly operational costs. The selected project also has the advantages of receiving appropriate fire flow from the City, removes the responsibility of operating a public water system, provides adequate looping for redundancy, and yields a safe and reliable water service for the School. Alternative 3 is the selected solution to the water concerns faced by HES because of the combination of factors and the willingness of the City to provide proactive system maintenance as needed to avoid stagnation concerns.

5.3 Operations & Maintenance Concerns
The selected project installs a water meter and backflow preventer at the point of connection at HES.

The City is responsible for the service up to the flow meter, at which point it becomes the responsibility of HES. The District will have the responsibility of operating and maintaining the on-site distribution system downstream of the flow meter, including testing and maintaining the backflow preventer. This should not be a major issue as they are familiar with operating and maintaining the existing water system.

5.4 Local/County Planning Consistency
This project is consistent with the Tulare County General Plan. The plan specifically states the following public facilities and services goals:
 To ensure the provision of a reliable, safe, and adequate supply of high-quality water as well as effective distribution and storage facilities to meet the existing and future needs in the County.  The County shall work with agencies providing water service to ensure that there is an adequate quantity and quality of water for all uses, including for fire protection, by, as a minimum, requiring a demonstration by the agency providing water service of sufficient and reliable water supplies and water management measures for proposed urban development.  The County shall continue participation in State, regional, and local water resource planning efforts affecting water resource supply and quality.

G!.

G!.

G!.

G!.

G!.

G!.

G!.

G!.

G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!.
?
Existing Well & Tank Site
Facilities To Be Removed
?
2" Water Meter
C`"
b"!º
UT
?
Alternative 3
Cottage
Cir
Teapot
Dome
Ave
Hope
Ave
Chess
Terrace St
Stacie
Ave Pearson St
Mesa
Oak St
Ohio
St
Yates Ave
Melinda Ave
Orange
Belt Dr Rd
238
W Gibbons Ave
Hemlock Ave
Crawford Ave
S Prospect St
Rd 232
W Scranton Ave Ave 136
S
Newcomb St
S Indiana St
Ave 128 W Teapot Dome Ave
State H
wy 65
0 600 1,200
Feet
º Figure 5-1
Hope Elementary School
Proposed Facilities Schematic
8/25/2023 : \\ppeng.com\pzdata\clients\Self Help Enterprises-1875\187521004-Hope Elem Water Syst\400 GIS\Map\Newcomb_Alignment.mxd Legend
Hope Elementary School
Porterville City Limits
G!. Fire Hydrant
Existing City of Porterville
Distribution main
Proposed Water Main
Section Five: Selected Project
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 5-4

5.5 Green or Resilient Components
The selected project meets the definition of a green project through implementation by eliminating pumps or pumping stations. This project reduces electricity consumption by eliminating the need for a pump at HES and eliminating the on-site booster pumps associated with the storage tank. Instead, HES will supply their facilities through the pressure provided by the City.

The selected project also improves the resiliency of HES through connection to a water system that has redundant sources. Subsequently, HES benefits from the redundancy of sources and is effectively more resilient.

5.6 Consolidation Governance
The selected project involves the consolidation of HES into the City of Porterville for the purposes of water supply only. At the completion of the project, the District will no longer be a public water system, rather, they will be a customer of the City of Porterville. The City will own the water system up to and including the flow meter and HES will be responsible for the onsite water system downstream of the flow meter. The City of Porterville will continue to operate as a public water system.

5.7 Land Acquisition
Alternative 3 does not require special land use designations, easements, or land acquisition. The project area lies within District-owned land and along Tulare County and City ROW.

5.8 Conceptual Design
HES will receive water supply from the City using an adequately looped water main extending from the intersection of Scranton Avenue and Indiana Avenue to the school site in one direction and from a main extending from the intersection of Newcomb Avenue and Tea Comb Dome Ave to the school site in the other direction. HES will connect via a 2-inch water meter and backflow preventer at the end of the service main. Fire hydrants will be installed approximately every 500 feet along the proposed water main alignment. The existing well and storage tank will be removed from service and transported offsite.

The project will need to be reviewed and certified through DSA.

Section Five: Selected Project
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 5-5

5.9 Water Demand and Capacity Analysis
The HES water demands are tabulated in Table 5-1 below. Existing water demands are discussed in further detail in Section 1.3 above.

Table 5-1: HES Water Demand
Demand Type Result (gpm)
ADD (combined total) 11.6
ADD – Domestic 6.9
ADD – Landscape 4.7
MDD (combined total) 32.3
MDD – Domestic [1] 15.5
MDD – Landscape [2] 16.8
PHD [3] 48.5
Fire Flow 1,500 for 2 hours
Notes:
[1] MDD – Domestic is ADD – Domestic multiplied by MDD peaking factor (6.9 * 2.25 = 15.5)
[2] MDD – Landscape use is a calculated value from the hottest month (June 2021) and is not a product of using the MDD peaking factor [3] PHD is MDD (combined total) multiplied by the PHD peaking factor (32.3 * 1.5 =48.5

5.9.1 Average Day Demand, Maximum Day Demand, and Peak Hour Demand The ADD, MDD, and PHD for HES are 11.6, 32.3, and 48.5 gpm, respectively. Therefore, the water supply source will need to meet the MDD of 32.3 gpm. The consolidation project would provide enough water service to meet the MDD of 32.3 gpm.

5.9.2 Fire Flow Analysis
Tulare County fire flow requirements at HES are 1,500 gpm for a minimum of 2 hours. After construction of the consolidation project, HES will have access to a fire hydrant along the frontage of the school. The hydrant will connect to the water main and meet the requirements for fire flow at HES.

5.9.3 Growth Projections and Future Water Demands
It is unlikely the HES service population will grow; therefore, future water demands are not anticipated to increase. However, if there is a nominal increase in student capacity, the 2-inch water service will continue to accommodate the demands. This project does not anticipate growth at HES.

5.9.4 Industrial and Commercial Users
There are no industrial or commercial users included in this project.

Section Five: Selected Project
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 5-6

5.10 Estimated Useful Life
Estimated useful life refers to the longevity of each major construction component and the estimated service life associated with the material composition. The estimated useful life for each project component is categorized below:
 Water Mains – 50+ years
 Water Meter – 20+ years
 Backflow Prevention Device – 40 years
 Fire Hydrants – 50+ years
 Valves – 40 years
Section Six: Selected Project Cost Estimate
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 6-1 6 Selected Project Cost Estimate
A detailed cost summary for the selected project is provided in Section 4.6.7 and further detailed in Appendix D. The cost summary includes all major construction components, non-construction components, operations and maintenance, and contingencies. The cost summary is provided below.

Table 6-1: Selected Project Cost Summary
Item Description Estimated Cost
Construction Cost $3,526,750
Non-Construction Costs $816,700
Contingency (20%) $868,690
Total Estimated Project Cost $5,212,140
Section Seven: Proposed Schedule
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 7-1 7 Proposed Schedule
The following is the proposed schedule for the selected project.

Project Initiation 2 month
Prepare Construction Documents 6 months
Project Bidding 3 months
Construction 12 months
Project Closeout 2 months
Total Project Time (no land acquisition) 25 months
Note: (1) Project schedule begins upon execution of funding agreement.

Section Eight: Response to Climate Change
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 8-1 8 Response to Climate Change
The selected project’s response to climate change is discussed in the following section and includes vulnerability, adaptation, and mitigation.

8.1 Vulnerability
The Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements Project (Project) is in Tulare County, CA and includes pipeline and Jack and Bore components, as well as related appurtenances. The following sections discuss the potential for each type of vulnerability to impact the Project.

8.1.1 Sea Level Rise
The potential for sea levels rising to impact the Project is relatively negligible, as the project lies within the Central Valley, separated from the Pacific Ocean by the Coastal Range of mountains to the west.

8.1.2 Air Quality
As a pipeline project, air quality is not a vulnerability of the Project. Tulare County is located in one of the most impacted air basins in the country – the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin is susceptible to air pollution due to its topography and air dispersion patterns as well as man-made impacts from point and non-point sources.

8.1.3 Saltwater Intrusion / Water Quality
Similar to the risk of being impacted by sea level rise, the project is not in a location that would likely be impacted by saltwater intrusion within its useful life. Other water quality contaminants do exist in the groundwater aquifer near the Project’s improvements, however, those documented in the area do not pose a threat to the materials the improvements will be constructed from.

8.1.4 Water Supply Depletion
This is not a water supply project, nor do the improvements themselves utilize water supply directly, this is not a vulnerability risk for the Project.

8.1.5 Heat Island
This project will not be impacted by the heat island effect.

8.1.6 Flooding/Storm Surges
The improvements associated with the Project may be impacted by flooding, if flooding conditions occur. However, the Project is not within a 100-year floodplain. Therefore, the Project is not anticipated to be significantly affected by flooding/storm surges.

Section Eight: Response to Climate Change
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group · September 2023 8-2

8.1.7 Drought
This project will not be impacted by the drought.

8.2 Adaptation
As the Project has very little vulnerability to impacts of Climate Change, as indicated in Section 8.1, many of the adaptation measures do not apply to the Project, including Alternative Energy Sources, Permeable Pavement , Elevated Construction, Sea Walls, and Levees, and Green Roofing.

8.2.1 Drought and Flooding Contingency
The ultimate owner of this Project improvements, the City of Porterville, has flood contingency planning documents in place that can be employed to protect the improvements. Some such measures include installation of a meter at the school campus and the fiscal impact of water use, it is anticipated water consumption will be reduced compared to non-metered water use. Although HES may adapt to vulnerabilities through consolidation, they may still be susceptible to climate change impacts that affect the City.

8.3 Mitigation
As the Project has very little vulnerability to impacts of Climate Change, as indicated in Section 8.1, similar to Adaptations, the mitigation measures listed on the Climate Change Worksheet do not apply to the Project.

The improvements recommended by the selected alternative will help reduce the effects of climate change by reduced water consumption. Consolidation with the City includes the addition of one meter and service connection that will be billed by water usage to HES. Tracking consumption of water usage naturally leads to a reduction in groundwater pumping and initiates preliminary water conservation measures. This water conservation measure can help mitigate the effects experienced from climate change.

Section Nine: References
Hope Elementary School Water System Improvements
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023 9-1 9 References
(n.d.). Retrieved from https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/ ITRC. (n.d.). ITRC. Retrieved October 2021, from http://www.itrc.org/etdata/ Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. (2003). Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse (4th ed.).

NOAA. (n.d.). NOAA. Retrieved September 2021, from
https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_map_cont.html?bkmrk=ca Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2023
Appendix
Appendix A: Sampling Results
5/7/2019 Water Quality Sampling Results
https://sdwis.waterboards.ca.gov/PDWW/JSP/SamplingResultsByStoret.jsp?SystemNumber=5400994&SamplingPointID=002&SamplingPointName=… 1/2 CA Drinking Water Watch
Sampling Results
WELL 02 (5400994-002)
Click to hide / show columns: Storet Number | Group/Constituent Identification | Sampling Date | XMOD | Result | MCL | DLR | Trigger | Unit |
Display 25 records Search:

Storet
Number
Group/Constituent
Identification
Sampling
Date XMOD Result MCL DLR Trigger Unit
Search nitrate Search Search
71850 NITRATE (AS NO3) 2010-11-04 38.0000 45.000 2.000 23.000 MG/L 71850 NITRATE (AS NO3) 2011-12-23 36.0000 45.000 2.000 23.000 MG/L 71850 NITRATE (AS NO3) 2012-06-21 36.8000 45.000 2.000 23.000 MG/L 71850 NITRATE (AS NO3) 2013-11-12 44.0000 45.000 2.000 23.000 MG/L 71850 NITRATE (AS NO3) 2014-12-10 41.0000 45.000 2.000 23.000 MG/L 71850 NITRATE (AS NO3) 2015-05-06 42.0000 45.000 2.000 23.000 MG/L 00618 NITRATE (AS N) 2016-04-12 8.4 10.000 0.400 5.000 mg/L 00618 NITRATE (AS N) 2017-02-22 10.6 10.000 0.400 5.000 mg/L 00618 NITRATE (AS N) 2017-03-03 10.5 10.000 0.400 5.000 mg/L 00618 NITRATE (AS N) 2017-03-08 11.1 10.000 0.400 5.000 mg/L 00618 NITRATE (AS N) 2017-06-22 7.2 10.000 0.400 5.000 mg/L 00618 NITRATE (AS N) 2017-08-15 7.5 10.000 0.400 5.000 mg/L 00618 NITRATE (AS N) 2017-09-20 7.8 10.000 0.400 5.000 mg/L 00618 NITRATE (AS N) 2017-11-21 7.4 10.000 0.400 5.000 mg/L 00618 NITRATE (AS N) 2018-02-13 9.7 10.000 0.400 5.000 mg/L 00618 NITRATE (AS N) 2018-06-21 7.4 10.000 0.400 5.000 mg/L 00618 NITRATE (AS N) 2018-09-18 9.2 10.000 0.400 5.000 mg/L 00618 NITRATE (AS N) 2018-11-14 9.4 10.000 0.400 5.000 mg/L 00618 NITRATE (AS N) 2019-03-14 11.4 10.000 0.400 5.000 mg/L 00618 NITRATE (AS N) 2019-03-28 11.6 10.000 0.400 5.000 mg/L 00618 NITRATE (AS N) 2019-04-08 12.0 10.000 0.400 5.000 mg/L Search Searc Sear Sea
Print
Appendix B: Operations Plan
• OPERATIONS PLAN FOR HOPE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WATER COMPANY SYSTEM NUMBER : 5400994 November 4th, 2019
The Water Company is a small elementary school water system with 1 wells and 1 Vertical storage tank that is used for fire suppression. The potable water is protected by a RP backflow device between tank and potable water. The liquid CL2 is used in the fire suppression tank. The certified operator is Mr. Tom Day who holds a Treatment 3 and Distribution 3 license with the State of California. Tom takes water samples every month to Porterville Lab for Bac-T and all other samples required are taken to either Porterville Lab or Fruit Growers Lab in Visalia. The system also employs Rob Pendola that oversees daily checks. The water system gets its groundwater from 1 wells. Wells are set up to run automatically when water is needed, to manually turn on wells turn switch from Auto to Hand on the control panel. There is a flow meter located at the well to record water usage. • Routine Operational Procedures for each component of the system:

A. Visual inspection of WELL (daily).

1. Check for the following; leaks, openings, lubricants, electrical hazards, chemical hazards, etc. (record observations and correct problem).

2. Check the pump for proper operation.

3. Log meter readings
B. Visual inspection of the STORAGE TANK (daily).

1. Inspect for any leaks or damage (record observations and repair as needed).

2. Cleaning of STORAGE TANK (annually). Record date cleaned and observations.

3. Check operation of Chlorine pump
C. Maintenance of GAUGES and METERS.

1. Inspect all gauges and meters for leaks and proper function daily. Repair or replace as needed (keep record of date).

D. Inspection and exercising of the VALVES.

1. Inspect valves for leaks (record observations, repair or replace if leaking).

2. Exercise valves (semi-annually, record dates on attached sheet).

E. Operation and maintenance of DISTRIBUTION facilities.

1. Visually inspect the distribution system for leaks on a regular basis.

Record date and observations.

2. Flush Hydrants (semi-annually)
• Monitoring and Reporting.

A. BACTERIOLOGICAL MONITORING; As per approved Sample Siting Plan (attached), required monthly, report to the Department by the 10th of each month, following the sample.

1. If sample positive, retake 4 samples within 24 hours

2. Take five routine samples the month following a positive sample.

3. Keep bacteriological results for five years.

4. Keep any corrective action for sampling for three years.

B. CHEMICAL MONITORING; as required by the Department, forward results to the Department.

1. Keep chemical results for ten years.

2. Keep variance and exemptions for five years.
• Response to violations.

A. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION of violation required.

1. Notification shall be given as per "Emergency public notification" method on record with the Department, or in a manner directed by the Department.

2. State problem and what has been done to correct it.

3. Send a copy of the notification to the Department.
• Consumer complaint response procedures.

A. CONSUMER COMPLAINT procedures.

1. Record in complaint log (name, address and nature of the problem).

2. Investigate the complaint.

3. Verify or dismiss the complaint.

4. Record the steps taken to address or correct the problem.

5. Notify complainant of action taken.

6. Keep complaint records with corrective action for five years. • Emergency Operational Practices. (See Emergency/Disaster Plan for complete description).

A. List of equipment on hand for emergency repairs.

1. Miscellaneous wrenches.

2. Leak clamps and barrells

3. Miscellaneous galvanized parts
B. List of sources of needed equipment, not on hand.

Name Address Phone # Equipment
Rental/
Contract
Patrick Hughes 9200470 Steel Tank Welder On call
PECO 7841120 Electrical repair On call
Frank Schlitz 5395602 Digging equipment On call
Patrick Hughes 9200470 Generator On Call
Amber Chemical
CL2
661
3252072
Chemicals As
Needed
C. List of distributors or suppliers of replacement parts for the system.

Name Address Phone # Equipment
Crouzets
USA BlueBook
782-8298 PVC pipe, valves, and
fittings
PDC 791-0505 pumps, pressure tank and
gauges
Grunfos Tom Order Chlorinator
D. List of emergency contact numbers:

Name Phone #

1. State Water Resource Board 559-447-3131 (Kristin Willet)

2. Law Enforcement –Tulare Co Sherriff 911

3. Electrician Doug Elliott 559-781-2261

4. Laboratory Caroline Thomason 559-782-7510

5. Pump repair service Doug Elliott 559-781-2261

6. CL2 Amber Chemical 661-325-2072

7. Operator Tom Day 559-359-1242

8. Supervisor Rob Rendola 559-789-1100
(Attachments)
Appendix C: Compliance Order

Water Boards

GAVIN NEWSOM

GOVERNOR

JARED BLUMENFELD

SECRETARY FOR

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
State Water Resources Control Board
April 3, 2019
System No. 5400994
Ms. Melanie Matta, Superintendent/Principal
Hope Elementary School
613 W. Teapot Dome Ave.

Porterville, CA 93257
COMPLIANCE ORDER NO. 03.24-19R-001

NITRATE MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVEL VIOLATION
Enclosed is Compliance Order No. 03-24-19R-001 (hereinafter "Order") issued to the Hope Elementary School (hereinafter "Water System") public water system. Please note there are legally enforceable deadlines associated with this Order starting on page 3 of the Order.

The Water System will be billed at the State Water Resources Control Board's (hereinafter "State Water Board") hourly rate for the time spent on issuing this Order. California Health and Safety Code (hereinafter "CHSC"), Section 116577, provides that a public water system must reimburse the State Water Board for actual costs incurred by the State Water Board for specified enforcement actions, including but not limited to, preparing, issuing and monitoring compliance with an order. At this time, the State Water Board has spent approximately one hour on enforcement activities associated with this violation.

The Water System will receive a bill sent from the State Water Board in August of the next fiscal year.

This bill will contain fees for any enforcement time spent on the Water System for the current fiscal year.

Any person who is aggrieved by a citation, order or decision issued under authority delegated to an officer or employee of the state board under Article 8 (commencing with CHSC, Section 116625) or Article 9 (commencing with CHSC, Section 116650), of the Safe Drinking Water Act (CHSC, Division 104, Part 12, Chapter 4), may file a petition with the State Water Board for reconsideration of the citation, order or decision. Appendix 1 to the enclosed Citation contains the relevant statutory provisions for filing a petition for reconsideration (CHSC, Section 116701).

Petitions must be received by the State Water Board within 30 days of the issuance of the citation, order or decision by the officer or employee of the state board. The date of issuance is the date when the Division of Drinking Water mails a copy of the citation, order or decision. If the 30th day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or state holiday, the petition is due the following business day by 5:00 p.m.

Information regarding•filing petitions may be found at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking water/programs/petitions/index.shtml E. JOAQUIN ESOUIVEL, CHAIR EILEEN SOBECK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 265 West Bullard Avenue, Suite 101, Fresno, CA 93704 www.waterboards.ca.gov fa RECYCLED PAPER
Compliance Order No. 03-24-19R-001
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Tulare District staff at (559) 447-3300 or by email at dwodist24ewaterboards.ca.qov.

Sincerely,
Bryan otter, P.E.

Senior Water Resource Control Engineer, Tulare District

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BRANCH

DRINKING WATER FIELD OPERATIONS
Certified Mail No. 7016 3010 0000 0446 1485
cc: Tulare County Environmental Health Department
Ms. Yolanda Cascio, Administrative Assistant (same address) Mr. Tom Day, Contract Operator (P.O. Box 10642, Terra Bella, CA 93257) 03_24_19R_001_5400994_01
2 2
4 5
8 Compliance Order No. 03-24-19R-001
Table 1 — Well 02 Nitrate Sampling Results
Sample Date Result
(mg/14
Sample Type
3/14/19 11.4 Initial
3/28/19 11.6 Confirmation

DETERMINATION
CCR, Title 22, SeCtion 64431, Monitoring Contaminant Levels — Inorganic Chemicals states that public water systems shall comply with the primary MCLs established in table 64431-A (see Appendix 1). The MCL for nitrate (as nitrogen) is 10 mg/L.

Notification to the public of the nitrate was performed by the Water System on March 29, 9 2019, in conformance with CCR, Title 22, Sections 64463.4 and 64465. 10 11 Based on the above Statement of Facts, the State Water Board has determined that the 12 Water System has failed to comply with primary drinking water standards pursuant to 13 CHSC, Section 116555(a)(1) and the nitrate MCL pursuant to CCR, Title 22, Section 14 64431.
15 16 DIRECTIVES
17 To ensure that the water supplied by the Water System is at all times safe, wholesome, 18 healthful, and potable, the Water System is hereby directed to take the following actions:
19 20
21 22 2. Quarterly sampling for nitrate from the Well 02 shall begin April 1, 2019, and shall 23 continue every three months thereafter. The Water System shall ensure that the 24 analytical results are reported to the State Water Board electronically by the

1. On or before April 1, 2022, comply with CCR, Title 22, Section 64431. 3 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Compliance Order No. 03-24-19R-001
analyzing laboratory no later than the 10th day following the month in which the analysis was completed.

3. Monthly public notification to the customers of the Water System shall begin by April 10, 2019 and continue monthly until the State Water Board determines that the nitrate contamination is resolved. Public Notification shall be conducted in conformance with CCR, Title 22, Sections 64463.1 and 64465. A copy of Sections 64463.1 and 64465 is included in Appendix 1. Appendix 2: Notification Template shall be used to fulfill this directive, unless otherwise approved by the State Water Board.
• Public notification for new customers shall be conducted in conformance with CCR, Title 22, Section 64463(e) where the Water System shall give new customers a copy of the most recent public notice prior to or at any time service begins.

Monthly public notification shall be provided every month even when a nitrate result shows a concentration below the nitrate MCL. The notice shall be updated to include the following wording:
"Although the nitrate level(s) during the most recent monitoring period showed results below the MCL, nitrate levels in the water tend to fluctuate and it is possible that the nitrate level may increase at any time between sampling events. Public notification will continue until the nitrate problem is resolved."

4. Complete Appendix 3: Certification of Completion of Notification Form. Submit it together with a copy of the public notification conducted in compliance with Directive No. 3, to the State Water Board within 10 days following each notification.
4 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Compliance Order No. 03-24.19R-001

5. Prepare for State Water Board approval, a Corrective Action Plan, identifying improvements to the water system designed to correct the water quality problems identified as an exceedance of the nitrate MCL and ensure that the Water System delivers water to consumers that meets primary drinking water standards. The plan shall include.a time schedule for completion of each of the phases of the project such as design, construction, and startup, and a date as of which the Water System will be in compliance with the nitrate MCL, which date shall be no later than April 1, 2022.

6. On or before June 1, 2019, submit and present in person the Corrective Action Plan required under Directive No. 5 above to the State Water Board's office located at:

SWRCB — Division of Drinking Water
265 W. Bullard Ave, Suite 101
Fresno, CA 93704

7. Perform the State Water Board approved Corrective Action Plan, and each and every element of said plan, according to the time schedule set forth therein.

8. On or before July 1, 2019 and every three months thereafter, submit a report to the state Water Board in the form provided as Appendix 4 showing actions taken during the previous quarter (calendar three months) to comply with the Corrective Action Plan.

9. Not later than ten (10) days following April 1, 2022, demonstrate to the State Water Board that the water delivered by the Water System complies with the nitrate MCL.
5 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Compliance Order No. 03-24-19R-001

10.Notify the State Water Board in writing no later than five (5) days prior to the deadline for performance of any Directive set forth herein if the Water System anticipates it will not timely meet such performance deadline.

11.By April 30, 2019 complete and return to the State Water Board the "Notification of Receipt" form attached to this Order as Appendix 5. Completion of this form confirms that the Water System has received this Order and understands that it contains legally enforceable directives with due dates.

All submittals required by this Order, with exception of analytical results, shall be electronically submitted to the State Water Board at the following address. The subject line for all electronic submittals corresponding to this Order shall include the following information: Water System name and number, compliance order number and title of the document being submitted.

Bryan Potter, P.E.
dwpdist24waterboards.ca.gov
The State Water Board reserves the right to make modifications to this Order as it may deem necessary to protect public health and safety. Such modifications may be issued as amendments to this Order and shall be effective upon issuance.

Nothing in this Order relieves the Water System of its obligation to meet the requirements of the California SDWA (CHSC, Division 104, Part 12, Chapter 4, commencing with Section 116270), or any regulation, standard, permit or order issued or adopted thereunder.
6 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 Compliance Order No. 03-24-19R-001

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD

DIVISION OF DRINKING WATER
Name of Public Water System: Hope Elementary School
Water System No: 5400994
Attention: Ms. Melanie Matta, Superintendent/Principal
613 W. Teapot Dome Ave.

Porterville, CA 93257
Issued: April 3, 2019

COMPLIANCE ORDER FOR NONCOMPLIANCE

NITRATE MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVEL VIOLATION
CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 22, SECTION 64431 First Quarter 2019
The California Health and Safety Code (hereinafter "CHSC"), Section 1'16655 authorizes the State Water Resources Control Board (hereinafter "State Water Board") to issue a compliance order to a public water system when the State Water Board determines that the public water system has violated or is violating the California Safe Drinking Water Act (hereinafter "California SDWA"), (CHSC, Division 104, Part 12, Chapter 4, commencing with Section 116270), or any regulation, standard, permit, or order issued or adopted thereunder.

Compliance Order No. 03-24-19R-001
The State Water Board, acting by and through its Division of Drinking Water (hereinafter "Division") and the Deputy Director for the Division, hereby issues Compliance Order No. 03-24-19R-001 (hereinafter "Order") pursuant to Section 116655 of the CHSC to the Hope Elementary School (hereinafter "Water System") for violation of CHSC, Section 116555(a)(1) and California Code of Regulations (hereinafter "CCR"), Title 22, Section 64431 Maximum Contaminant Levels (hereinafter "MCL") — Inorganic Chemicals.

A copy of the applicable statutes and regulations are included in Appendix 1, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Water System is classified as a nontransient noncommunity public water system with a population of 275 persons served through 7 service connections. The Water System operates under a Domestic Water Supply Permit No. 03-24-16P-057 issued by the Division on October 19, 2016.

CHSC, Section 116555(a)(1) requires all public water systems to comply with primary drinking water standards as defined in CHSC, Section 116275(c). Primary drinking water standards include maximum levels of contaminants and the monitoring and reporting requirements as specified in regulations adopted by the State Water Board that pertain to maximum contaminant levels.

The State Water Board received laboratory results for a nitrate sample collected on March 14, 2019 and March 28, 2019 from Well 02. The samples showed nitrate concentrations of 11.4 milligrams per liter (hereinafter "mg/L") and 11.6 mg/L from Well

02. A summary of the Water System's most recent nitrate monitoring results is presented in Table 1 below:
2 3
5 Compliance Ordei• No. 03-24-19R-001

PARTIES BOUND
This Order shall apply to and be binding upon the Water System, its owners, shareholders, officers, directors, agents, employees, contractors, successors, and assignees.
6 SEVERABILITY
7 The directives of this Order are severable, and the Water System shall comply with each 8 and every provision thereof notwithstanding the effectiveness of any provision. 9 10 FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTION
11 The California SDWA authorizes the State Water Board to: issue a citation or order with 12 assessment of administrative penalties to a public water system for violation or continued 13 violation of the requirements of the California SDWA or any regulation, permit, stan6rd, 14 citation, or order issued or adopted thereunder including, but not limited to, failure to 15 correct a violation identified in a citation or compliance order. The California SDWA also 16 authorizes the State Water Board to take action to suspend or revoke a permit that has 17 been issued to a public water system if the public water system has violated applicable 18 law or regulations or has failed to comply with an order of the State Water Board, and to 19 petition the superior court to take various enforcement measures against a public water 20 system that has failed to comply with an order of the State Water Board. The State 21 Water Board does not waive any further enforcement action by issuance of this Order. 22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 1617f7/72
Tricia A. Wathen, P.E., Chief
Central California Section
State Water Resources Control Board
Division of Drinking Water
7 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
Appendices (5):

1. Applicable Statutes and Regulations

2. Notification Template

3. Certification of Completion of Public Notification

4. Quarterly Progress Report

5. • Notification of Receipt
Certified Mail No. 7016 3010 0000 0446 1485
8 Compliance Order No. 03-24-19R-001
Appendix D: Sanitary Survey

Appendix E: Cost Estimates
Item
No. Item Description Qty Unit Unit Price Amount
1 Mobilization/Demobilization, Bonds and Insurance 1 LS $ 70,000 $ 70,000 2 Worker Protection 1 LS $ 7,500 $ 7,500
3 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000
4 Prepare and Implement SWPPP 1 LS $ 8,000 $ 8,000
5 Utility Potholing 1 LS $ 6,000 $ 6,000
6 Dust Control 1 LS $ 8,000 $ 8,000
7 Temporary Facilities and Miscellaneous Operations 1 LS $ 15,000 $ 15,000 8 8” PVC DR18 Water Main 6,550 LF $ 140 $ 917,000
9 8" Gate Valve Assembly 8 EA $ 3,500 $ 28,000
10 Bacteriological Sampling Station 2 EA $ 5,500 $ 11,000 11 Air Release Valve 1 EA $ 9,000 $ 9,000
12 Fire Hydrant Assembly 10 EA $ 11,500 $ 115,000
13 1" Water Meter and Box 1 EA $ 10,000 $ 10,000
14 1" Backflow Preventer 1 EA $ 8,000 $ 8,000
15 Temporary Trench Resurfacing (Main) 6,550 LF $ 15 $ 98,250 16 Permanent Trench Resurfacing (Main) 6,550 LF $ 50 $ 327,500 17 Connection to Existing Water Main 1 LS $ 8,500 $ 8,500 18 Connection to Existing Onsite Water System 1 LS $ 8,500 $ 8,500 19 Reconfigure onsite well 1 LS $ 8,500 $ 8,500
$ 1,688,750
$ 54,000
$ 84,000
$ 30,000
$ 8,500
$ 87,700
$ 163,500
$ 30,000
$ 35,000
$ 34,600
$ 527,300
$ 443,210
$ 2,659,260

ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST
Hope Elementary School
Alternative 1: Partial Consolidation (Connection at Scranton) Construction Costs
Non-Construction Costs
Construction Cost Subtotal:

Non-Construction Cost Subtotal:

Contingency (20%)
Total
City Connection Fees, LAFCo Application Fees & MSR Costs Construction Documents
DSA Filing Fee & Inspection
Bidding Services
Construction Engineering & Environmental Compliance Services Construction Observation
Testing Costs (Sampling and Compaction)
Labor Compliance
Grant Administration

\\ppeng.com\pzdata\clients\Self Help Enterprises-1875\187521004-Hope Elem Water Syst\200 Technical\204 Engineering Report\2023-0810 Ch Tables and Costs.xlsx
Item
No. Item Description Qty Unit Unit Price Amount
1 Mobilization, Demobilization, Bonds and Insurance 1 LS $ 75,000 $ 75,000 2 Worker Protection 1 LS $ 7,500 $ 7,500
3 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000
4 Prepare and Implement SWPPP 1 LS $ 8,000 $ 8,000
5 Utility Potholing 1 LS $ 6,000 $ 6,000
6 Dust Control 1 LS $ 8,000 $ 8,000
7 Temporary Facilities and Miscellaneous Operations 1 LS $ 15,000 $ 15,000 8 Well 1 and 2 Abandonment 2 EA $ 20,000 $ 40,000
9 Well 2 Site Demolition and Fire Hydrant Removal 1 LS $ 35,000 $ 35,000 10 8” PVC DR18 Water Main 6,550 LF $ 140 $ 917,000
11 8" Gate Valve Assembly 8 EA $ 3,500 $ 28,000
12 Bacteriological Sampling Station 1 EA $ 5,500 $ 5,500 13 Air Release Valve 4 EA $ 9,000 $ 36,000
14 Fire Hydrant Assembly 10 EA $ 11,500 $ 115,000
15 2" Water Meter and Box 1 EA $ 20,000 $ 20,000
16 2" backflow Preventor 1 EA $ 12,000 $ 12,000
17 Temporary Trench Resurfacing (Main) 6,550 LF $ 15 $ 98,250 18 Permanent Trench Resurfacing (Main) 6,550 LF $ 50 $ 327,500 19 Connection to Existing Water Main at Scranton Avenue 1 LS $ 8,500 $ 8,500 20 Connection to Existing Onsite Water System 1 LS $ 8,500 $ 8,500 Construction Cost Subtotal $ 1,795,750
$ 54,000
$ 84,000
$ 30,000
$ 8,500
$ 77,400
$ 171,000
$ 30,000
$ 37,500
$ 34,600
$ 527,000
$ 464,550
$ 2,787,300

ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST
Hope Elementary School
Alternative 2: Full Consolidation (Connection at Scranton) Non-Construction Costs
Non-Construction Cost Subtotal:

Contingency (20%)
Total
Construction Costs
City Connection Fees, LAFCo Application Fees & MSR Costs Construction Documents
DSA Filing Fee & Inspection
Grant Administration
Bidding Services
Construction Engineering & Environmental Compliance Services Construction Observation
Testing Costs (Sampling and Compaction)
Labor Compliance

\\ppeng.com\pzdata\clients\Self Help Enterprises-1875\187521004-Hope Elem Water Syst\200 Technical\204 Engineering Report\2023-0810 Ch Tables and Costs.xlsx
Item
No. Item Description Qty Unit Unit Price Amount
1 Mobilization, Demobilization, Bonds and Insurance 1 LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000 2 Worker Protection 1 LS $ 40,000 $ 40,000
3 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000
4 Prepare and Implement SWPPP 1 LS $ 20,000 $ 20,000
5 Utility Potholing 1 LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000
6 Dust Control 1 LS $ 10,000 $ 10,000
7 Temporary Facilities and Miscellaneous Operations 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000 8 Well 1 and 2 Abandonment 2 EA $ 20,000 $ 40,000
9 Well 2 Site Demolition and Fire Hydrant Removal 1 LS $ 35,000 $ 35,000 10 8” PVC DR18 Water Main 11,850 LF $ 140 $ 1,659,000
11 8" Gate Valve Assembly 12 EA $ 3,500 $ 42,000
12 Bacteriological Sampling Station 1 EA $ 5,500 $ 5,500 13 Air Release Valve 6 EA $ 9,000 $ 54,000
14 Fire Hydrant Assembly 12 EA $ 11,500 $ 138,000
15 2" Water Meter and Box 1 EA $ 20,000 $ 20,000
16 2" Backflow Preventor 1 EA $ 12,000 $ 12,000
17 Temporary Trench Resurfacing (Main) 11,550 LF $ 15 $ 173,250 18 Permanent Trench Resurfacing (Main) 11,550 LF $ 50 $ 577,500 19 Jack and Bore Across SR 65 300 LF $ 1,000 $ 300,000
20 Connection to Existing City Water Main 2 LS $ 8,500 $ 17,000 21 Connection to Existing Onsite Water System 1 LS $ 8,500 $ 8,500 Construction Cost Subtotal $ 3,526,750
$ 54,000
$ 147,400
$ 30,000
$ 14,600
$ 84,300
$ 294,300
$ 80,000
$ 72,500
$ 39,600
$ 816,700
$ 868,690
$ 5,212,140
Construction Engineering & Environmental Compliance Services

ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST
Hope Elementary School
Alternative 3: Full Consolidation (Connections at Scranton and Newcomb) Construction Costs
Non-Construction Costs
City Connection Fees, LAFCo Application Fees & MSR Costs Construction Documents
DSA Filing Fee & Inspection
Bidding Services
Total
Construction Observation
Testing Costs (Sampling and Compaction)
Labor Compliance
Grant Administration
Non-Construction Cost Subtotal:

Contingency (20%)

\\ppeng.com\pzdata\clients\Self Help Enterprises-1875\187521004-Hope Elem Water Syst\200 Technical\204 Engineering Report\2023-0810 Ch Tables and Costs.xlsx
Item
No. Item Description Qty Unit Unit Price Amount
1 Mobilization, Demobilization, Bonds and Insurance 1 LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000 2 Worker Protection 1 LS $ 30,000 $ 30,000
3 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000
4 Prepare and Implement SWPPP 1 LS $ 15,000 $ 15,000
5 Utility Potholing 1 LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000
6 Dust Control 1 LS $ 10,000 $ 10,000
7 Temporary Facilities and Miscellaneous Operations 1 LS $ 30,000 $ 30,000 8 Well 1 and 2 Abandonment 2 EA $ 20,000 $ 40,000
9 Well 2 Site Demolition and Fire Hydrant Removal 1 LS $ 35,000 $ 35,000 10 8” PVC DR18 Water Main 15,150 LF $ 140 $ 2,121,000
11 8" Gate Valve Assembly 15 EA $ 3,500 $ 52,500
12 Bacteriological Sampling Station 1 EA $ 5,500 $ 5,500 13 Air Release Valve 6 EA $ 9,000 $ 54,000
14 Fire Hydrant Assembly 15 EA $ 11,500 $ 172,500
15 2" Water Meter and Box 1 EA $ 20,000 $ 20,000
16 2" Backflow Preventor 1 EA $ 12,000 $ 12,000
17 Temporary Trench Resurfacing (Main) 15,150 LF $ 15 $ 227,250 18 Permanent Trench Resurfacing (Main) 15,150 LF $ 50 $ 757,500 19 Connection to Existing City Water Main 2 LS $ 8,500 $ 17,000 20 Connection to Existing Onsite Water System 1 LS $ 8,500 $ 8,500 Construction Cost Subtotal $ 3,832,750
$ 54,000
$ 123,900
$ 30,000
$ 8,500
$ 86,900
$ 280,800
$ 80,000
$ 82,500
$ 39,600
$ 786,200
$ 923,790
Total $ 5,542,740
Construction Observation
Testing Costs (Sampling and Compaction)
Labor Compliance
Grant Administration
Non-Construction Cost Subtotal:

Contingency (20%)
Construction Engineering & Environmental Compliance Services

ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST
Hope Elementary School
Alternative 4: Full Consolidation (Connections at Scranton and Gibbons) Construction Costs
Non-Construction Costs
City Connection Fees, LAFCo Application Fees & MSR Costs Construction Documents
DSA Filing Fee & Inspection
Bidding Services

\\ppeng.com\pzdata\clients\Self Help Enterprises-1875\187521004-Hope Elem Water Syst\200 Technical\204 Engineering Report\2023-0810 Ch Tables and Costs.xlsx
Item
No. Item Description Qty Unit Unit Price Amount
1 Mobilization, Demobilization, Bonds and Insurance 1 LS $ 65,000 $ 65,000 2 Worker Protection 1 LS $ 5,000 $ 5,000
3 Temporary Facilities and Miscellaneous Operations 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000 4 Well Site Demolition 2 EA $ 50,000 $ 100,000
5 Drill Pilot Hole 810 LF $ 110 $ 89,100
6 Conduct Zone Sampling 7 EA $ 9,500 $ 66,500
7 F&I 24" Diameter Conductor Casing 50 LF $ 450 $ 22,500 8 Drill 22" Diameter Borehole (810' Total Depth) 750 LF $ 135 $ 101,250 9 Geophysical Logging (E-Log, Deviation & Caliper Log) 1 LS $ 8,500 $ 8,500 10 F&I 10" Diameter Blank Casing 750 LF $ 75 $ 56,250
11 F&I 10" Diameter Perforated Casing 150 LF $ 95 $ 14,250 12 F&I Casing Compression Section 1 EA $ 7,500 $ 7,500
13 F&I 3" Diameter Gravel Pipe 750 LF $ 14 $ 10,500
14 F&I Gravel Pack 155 LF $ 90 $ 13,950
15 F&I Annular Seal 700 LF $ 90 $ 63,000
16 Preliminary Well Development 24 HR $ 425 $ 10,200
17 Mod/Demob Development Pump; Pump up to 24 Hours 1 LS $ 20,000 $ 20,000 18 Additional Pump Development and Test Pumping 40 HR $ 350 $ 14,000 19 Construct Well Pump Foundation 1 LS $ 9,500 $ 9,500
20 F&I Submersible Well Pump and Drop Pipe 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000 21 Well Discharge Piping, Valves & Appurtenances 1 LS $ 30,000 $ 30,000 22 Chlorination Equipment, Foundation, and Enclosure 1 LS $ 40,000 $ 40,000 23 158 Gallon Bladder Tank 1 LS $ 17,500 $ 17,500
24 Site Piping, Valves and Appurtenances 1 LS $ 65,000 $ 65,000 25 Site Grading 1 LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000
26 Class II aggregate base surfacing 75 CY $ 120 $ 9,000 27 Chain Link Fence and 20 Foot Gate 1 LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000 28 Site Electrical Services, Controls & Lighting New Well 1 LS $ 135,000 $ 135,000 29 MCC Control Enclosure and Shade Structure 1 LS $ 125,000 $ 125,000 30 Site Bollards 1 LS $ 9,000 $ 9,000
31 4" C900 DR18 PVC Water Main 350 LF $ 75 $ 26,250
32 Connect to Exisitng Distribution System 1 LS $ 8,500 $ 8,500 Subtotal $ 1,342,250
Construction Costs

ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST
Hope Elementary School
Alternative 5: New Well without Treatment

\\ppeng.com\pzdata\clients\Self Help Enterprises-1875\187521004-Hope Elem Water Syst\200 Technical\204 Engineering Report\2023-0810 Ch Tables and Costs.xlsx
$ 121,700
$ 30,000
$ 9,300
$ 59,400
$ 210,300
$ 25,000
$ 32,000
$ 36,500
$ 524,200
$ 373,290
$ 2,239,740

ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST
Hope Elementary School
Alternative 5: New Well without Treatment
DSA Review and Filing Fees, and Inspection
Construction Engineering & Environmental Compliance Services Construction Observation
Testing Costs (Sampling and Compaction)
Bidding Services
Non-Construction Costs
Non-Construction Cost Subtotal:

Contingency (20%)
Total
Construction Documents
Labor Compliance
Grant Administration

\\ppeng.com\pzdata\clients\Self Help Enterprises-1875\187521004-Hope Elem Water Syst\200 Technical\204 Engineering Report\2023-0810 Ch Tables and Costs.xlsx
Item
No. Item Description Qty Unit Unit Price Amount
1 Mobilization, Demobilization, Bonds and Insurance 1 LS $ 15,000 $ 15,000 2 Worker Protection 1 LS $ 5,000 $ 5,000
3 Prepare and Implement SWPPP 1 LS $ 5,000 $ 5,000
4 Temporary Facilities and Miscellaneous Operations 1 LS $ 10,000 $ 10,000 5 Well 1 Abandonment 1 LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000
6 Pilot Test 1 LS $ 10,000 $ 10,000
7 Ion Exchange Treatment System 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000 8 Continuous Nitrate Analyzer 1 LS $ 30,000 $ 30,000
9 4,500 Gallon Brine Waste Storage Tank 1 LS $ 15,000 $ 15,000 10 Enclosure 1 LS $ 15,000 $ 15,000
11 Concrete Slab Foundation 1 LS $ 15,000 $ 15,000
12 Site Piping 1 LS $ 40,000 $ 40,000
13 Connection to Existing Onsite Water System 1 LS $ 8,500 $ 8,500 Subtotal $ 293,500
$ 60,300
$ 30,000
$ 9,300
$ 60,200
$ 144,300
$ 25,000
$ 10,000
$ 22,900
$ 362,000
$ 131,100
$ 786,600
Construction Costs

ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST
Hope Elementary School
Alternative 6: New Wellhead Treatment on the Existing Well Non-Construction Costs
Non-Construction Cost Subtotal:

Contingency (20%)
Total
Construction Documents
Labor Compliance
Grant Administration
Testing Costs
DSA Review and Filing Fees, and Inspection
Bidding Services
Construction Engineering & Environmental Compliance Services Construction Observation

\\ppeng.com\pzdata\clients\Self Help Enterprises-1875\187521004-Hope Elem Water Syst\200 Technical\204 Engineering Report\2023-0810 Ch Tables and Costs.xlsx

All properties requesting annexation or extraterritorial services are subject to the procedures established below unless otherwise stated. Compliance with City of Porterville procedures does not guarantee approval by LAFCo of annexations or extra-territorial service agreements. Upon request for an annexation or extraterritorial services request, staff will evaluate whether the applicant’s property is within the City’s Urban Development Boundary or Urban Area Boundary and explain the process.

ANNEXATION APPLICATION PROCEDURE

1. A complete annexation application packet includes: fees, an Irrevocable Agreement to Annex, information as needed to define a deed restriction specific to land use and zoning, Application for Annexation, and other materials as required with those applications respectively.

2. On receipt of an application as outlined above, all materials will be considered by the Project Review Committee, who will coordinate in a pre-consultation process with LAFCO staff and the County Public Works Department for review and recommendation.

3. During review by the Project Review Committee of the necessary application and data, staff will prepare a report and findings on all aspects of the proposed action(s).

4. An environmental document will be prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), reviewing the potential environmental effect of the proposed activities. The Zoning Administrator will make an initial determination of the level of environmental review required.

5. After proper noticing, a public hearing will be held for the City Council to hear comments related to the project at a regularly scheduled meeting. The Council will authorize staff to initiate the application with LAFCo. Documents will be filed in accordance with the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act of 2000, as amended, and submitted to the Local Agency Formation Commission for its review, recommendation and action.

6. On consummation by the City Council, the City Clerk shall submit the necessary materials to the State Board of Equalization with the appropriate acreage fees, which are paid by the Applicant.

7. In the event the annexation fails, either by dissenting votes of the City Council or at hearing at LAFCo, the City Council may approve an extraterritorial service agreement within the Urban Development Boundary, subject to conditions identified in the deed restriction.

ANNEXATION EXEMPTION PROCEDURE
Where a certain property meets all of the following criteria, they may proceed with an Extraterritorial Service Agreement for water or storm-water drainage without first attempting annexation, subject to the conditions of Extraterritorial Service Agreements as defined below.

1. Previously developed single family residences on parcels 24,999 square feet or smaller, OR a school developed by a State funded school district.

2. The parcel requesting services must be immediately adjacent to a municipal main providing the requested service, or the property owner shall provide for the extension of the main line to City standards at their expense.

EXHIBIT A

EXTRATERRITORIAL SERVICES APPLICATION

PROCEDURE
Extraterritorial Service connections may be made subject to the following conditions. Note specific parameters and the required findings for connections in the Urban Development Boundary and the Urban Area Boundary.

1. Application: A complete extraterritorial services application packet includes: fees, an Irrevocable Agreement to Annex, information as needed to define a deed restriction specific to land use and zoning, and other materials as required with those applications respectively.

2. General Plan Consistency:
a. Proposed Uses and Improvements: Service connections are to be withheld from proposed uses and improvements that would not be consistent with the adopted Land Use Element of the Porterville Area General Plan and the City of Porterville General Plan.
b. Existing Uses and Improvements: Service connections to existing uses and improvements which are not consistent with the adopted Land Use Element of the Porterville Area General Plan and the City of Porterville General Plan shall be considered at the discretion of the City Council, and may be subject to other restrictions.

3. Agreements and covenants:
a. A deed restriction specific to land use and zoning must be approved by the property owner and the City Council, and recorded with the County of Tulare upon the property, at the applicant’s cost.
b. An irrevocable agreement to annex must be signed by the property owner and recorded with the County of Tulare upon the property, at the applicant’s cost.

4. Time limitations: The City Manager or his designee, or the City Council may condition the approval of applications for service connections by establishing a time frame within which connections must be made to avoid re-application.

5. Improvement Plans: Applications for service connections, which necessitate the extension of one or more municipal facilities to property in order to make such connections, shall be conditioned by the City Manager or his designee, or the City Council to require that Construction Drawings of the intended public improvements be submitted to the City Engineer for plan check and approval. Costs incurred for the preparation of improvement plans, and certain off-site construction and/or installation costs related to extending facilities, shall be the responsibility of the applicant.

6. Fees: Prior to the issuance of a Connection Permit, payment must be made to the City of Porterville of all fees pertinent to the respective service connection, or connections, approved by the City Manager or his designee, or the City Council.

Within the Urban Development Boundary:

For connection of water or storm-water facilities, the requesting party must fully fund the extension of infrastructure if it does not already exist in order to connect. The City of Porterville Wastewater Facility is a regional facility and as such, an extraterritorial service request cannot be denied; however, the requesting party must fund a fair share of the extension of infrastructure if it does not already exist in order to connect. Contract services for police, fire, or building inspection services shall be approved by resolution of the City Council.

For connection of water or storm-water facilities, the following findings must be made in order for the Council approve an extraterritorial service connection:
 That the subject property is a previously developed single family residence on a parcel 24,999 square feet or smaller, OR a school developed by a State funded school district.  That failure to connect to municipal services would result in a threat to public health or safety of affected residents.
 That connection of the subject property would not result in a negative impact to the City of Porterville water and/or storm-water system.
 That the subject property is not within an island as defined by Tulare LAFCo.  That an attempt to annex the subject site is not realistic given current city limit boundaries.

Specifically, the parcel is too far removed from the city limit, and/or the number and valuation of adjacent parcels would result in a failed annexation effort.

Within the Urban Area Boundary:

For connection of water or storm-water facilities, the requesting party must fully fund the extension of infrastructure if it does not already exist in order to connect. The City of Porterville Wastewater Facility is a regional facility and as such, an extraterritorial service request cannot be denied; however, the requesting party must fund a fair share of the extension of infrastructure if it does not already exist in order to connect. Contract services for police, fire, or building inspection services shall be approved by resolution of the City Council.

For connection of water or storm-water facilities, the following findings must be made in order for the Council approve an extraterritorial service connection:
 That the subject property is a previously developed single family residence on a parcel 24,999 square feet or smaller, OR a school developed by a State funded school district.  That failure to connect to municipal services would result in a threat to public health or safety of affected residents.
 That connection of the subject property would not result in a negative impact to the City of Porterville water and/or storm-water system.

EXEMPTIONS AND EXCEPTIONS

1. PVPUD: Connections to Porterville Regional Sewage Treatment Facilities serving uses and improvements to property within the boundaries and jurisdiction of the Porter Vista Public Utility District (PVPUD) are exempted from application to the City of Porterville. Interested parties should contact the PVPUD for information on connection requirements and fees pertaining to sewer services. This exemption does not apply to requests for connection to Municipal Water and/or Master Storm Drain Facilities.

2. PRIOR APPROVALS: Porterville City Council approval of requests for connection to Regional Sewage Treatment, Municipal Water and/or Master Storm Drain Facilities as authorized prior to the adoption and effective date of the respective policies set forth herein shall remain valid and in force according to the terms and conditions initially specified at the time of approval, and re-application will not be required.

3. PROPERTIES WITHIN THE EAST PORTERVILLE FEASIBILITY STUDY PROJECT AREA: The California State Water Resources Control Board, in coordination with the Department of Water Resources Drought Task Force, is charged with preparing a feasibility study to define a long-term solution to the water related issues in East Porterville. Properties within that boundary would be permitted to apply for connection, whether in association with DWR, SWRCB, or at a later date, on their own. Such connections would be subject to the mandatory findings as outlined in this procedure, with the following exceptions:
 Rather than require that the subject property be a developed single-family residence on a parcel 24,999 square feet or smaller, neither the land use nor the parcel size would be restricted neither the land use nor the parcel size would be restricted for legal and legal non-conforming structures and land uses existing as of April 29, 2016.
 Further, properties within certain islands in the EPFS Project Area would not be required to annex prior to connection. This exception does not limit the City of Porterville’s authority to pursue annexation in the future, but rather waives the requirement that annexation must be approved prior to connection.

Legend
Water Services Needed In PVPUD Service Area (1)
WaterServicesNeededInPVPUDServiceAreaParcels (1,822)
PVPUD_boundary (1)
UDB (1)
CityLimits (1)
Existing Water Mains
East Porterville Properties

EXHIBIT B

RESOLUTION NO. ____-2024

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORTERVILLE AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF PORTERVILLE’S PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE TO

APPLY FOR AND RECEIVE FINANCING FROM THE CALIFORNIA STATE WATER

RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD FOR THE PLANNING, DESIGN AND

CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOPE SCHOOL WATER SYSTEM CONSOLIDATION

WITH PORTERVILLE PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City of Porterville provides public water services to the City of Porterville (City); and
WHEREAS, the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) encouraged the Hope School Water System to consolidate with the City; and WHEREAS, the proposed improvements include distribution mains, meters, and fire hydrants to provide water service to Hope School, which is currently served by a private well the exceeds Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) of Nitrate.

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

SECTION 1: The City’s Public Works Director (the “Authorized Representative”) or designee is hereby authorized and directed to sign and file, for and on behalf of the City, a Financial Assistance Application for a financing agreement from the State Water Resources Control Board for the planning, design, and construction of the Hope School Water System Consolidation with Porterville Project (the “Project”).

SECTION 2: This Authorized Representative, or his/her designee, is designated to provide the assurances, certifications, and commitments required for the financial assistance application, including executing a financial assistance agreement from the State Water Resources Control Board and any amendments or changes thereto.

SECTION 3: The Authorized Representative, or his/her designee, is designated to represent the City in carrying out the Entity’s responsibilities under the financing agreement, including certifying disbursement requests on behalf of the Entity and compliance with applicable state and federal laws.

Resolution No. ___-2024

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th of April, 2024.
________________________________
Martha A. Flores, Mayor
Attest:

Patrice Hildreth, City Clerk
By: __________________________________
Fernando Gabriel-Moraga,
Acting Chief Deputy City Clerk