Redlands City Council
December 20, 2022

CITY OF REDLANDS

CITY COUNCIL

A G E N D A
DECEMBER 20, 2022

PAUL BARICH
Mayor

EDDIE TEJEDA
Mayor Pro Tempore

DENISE DAVIS
Council Member
JENNA

GUZMAN-LOWERY
Council Member

MICK GALLAGHER
Council Member
***

JEANNE DONALDSON
City Clerk

ROBERT DAWES
City Treasurer
CHARLES M. DUGGAN JR.

City Manager
YVETTE M. ABICH GARCIA
City Attorney
5:00 p.m. Open Public Meeting, Public Comment (Closed Session) 6:00 p.m. Open Session (Public Meeting)
* * *
City Council Chambers
Civic Center, 35 Cajon Street, Redlands, California
Recycled Paper
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 1 of 728

A G E N D A
The following information comprises the agenda for the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Redlands at the times noted below in the City Council Chambers, Civic Center, 35 Cajon Street, Redlands, California, on:

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2022
To join via Zoom on a computer, laptop, or smart device Please visit www.zoom.us, click on Join a Meeting
Enter the Meeting ID 824 4618 0187, then run the Zoom launcher To join via Zoom with audio only (cell phone or landline):

Dial 1-877-853-5247
Enter the Meeting ID 824 4618 0187
Should the City lose connectivity on Zoom, we will halt the meeting until it can be restored. To check on the status of remote connectivity in the event of an outage, go to the City’s website at www.cityofredlands.org or to the City’s Facebook page at @CityofRedlands or the Instagram page at @CityofRedlands_CityHall.

In the event the City cannot reestablish Zoom connectivity in a reasonable amount of time, the mayor will adjourn the meeting to a future date.

PLEASE NOTE: Anyone desiring to speak on an agendized item at this meeting may do so during the consideration of that item. Due to time constraints and the number of persons who may wish to give oral testimony, public comments will be limited to three (3) minutes.

To provide comment while participating from Council Chambers:

Although it is not required, speakers are encouraged to submit a "Speaker Sign Up Sheet" before the meeting is convened. Forms are available in the Office of the City Clerk or in Council Chambers.

After the meeting has convened, you may place the speaker form in the basket at the table along the north wall of the Chambers. Please do not disturb the City Clerk while the meeting is in progress.

To provide comment through Zoom (on a computer, laptop, or smart device):

Click the "Raise Hand" button and the moderator will unmute you when it is your turn to speak To provide comment via audio only (cell phone or landline):

Dial *9 to "Raise Hand". The moderator will identify you by your area code and last 3 numbers of your telephone number when it is your turn to speak.

PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES, PAGERS AND OTHER ELECTRONIC

COMMUNICATION DEVICES UPON ENTERING THE CHAMBERS
5:00 P.M.

A. Call City Council Meeting to Order.

B. Public Comment
(Any person wishing to provide public comment on a closed session matter may do so at this time.)
Recycled Paper
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 2 of 728
C. Recess City Council Meeting to a Closed Session

1. Conference with legal counsel: Existing Litigation - Government Code §54956.9(d)(1) (City Attorney Garcia)
Two Cases:

Lydia Rodriguez v. City of Redlands, San Bernardino Superior Court Case No.

CIVDS1935452
a.
b.Steve Rogers v. City of Redlands, San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. CIVSB2126031 Recycled Paper
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 3 of 728
6:00
D. Reconvene City Council Meeting
E. Invocation by Council Member Guzman-Lowery - Pledge of Allegiance (In keeping with long-standing traditions of legislative invocations, this City Council meeting may include a brief invocation. Such invocations are not intended to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief. Neither the City nor the City Council endorses any particular religious belief or form of invocation.) F. Closed Session Report
(No reportable action taken in closed session unless otherwise announced by the City Attorney at this time.)
G. Certification of Election - Oaths of Office - Reorganization of the City Council

1. Consideration of Resolution No. 8397 of the City Council of the City of Redlands reciting the fact of the General Municipal Election held on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, declaring the results and such other matters as provided by law (City Clerk Donaldson)

2. Recognition of outgoing Council Member Mick Gallagher.

3. Presentation of certificates of election - Administration of oaths of office

1. Newly elected Council Members (City Clerk Donaldson)

4. Election of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore (City Clerk Donaldson) (The City Clerk will conduct the elections of the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore for the term of two years. If more than one nomination is made, a public roll call vote will be taken.

Nominations do not require a second.)

5. Comments from Mayor, Mayor Pro Tempore, and newly elected and re-elected City Council Members

6. Brief Recess
H. Reconvene City Council Meeting
I. Public Comment - City Council
(At this time, the City Council will provide an opportunity for the public to address them on any subject, within the jurisdiction of the City Council, which is not already scheduled on this agenda. However, any matter that requires action will be referred to staff for a report and possible action at a subsequent meeting. Comments will be limited to three {3} minutes.) J. Consent Calendar
(The following routine items have been recommended for approval and will be acted upon simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by a Councilmember or a member of the audience.)

1. Approve the regular meeting minutes of December 6, 2022 (City Clerk Donaldson)

2. Approve the Local Appointments List for 2023 in accordance with Government Code Section 54972 (Mayor Barich)
Recycled Paper
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 4 of 728

3. Approve recommendation for appointments to the Planning Commission (Mayor Barich)

4. Approve recommendation for reappointments to the Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission (Mayor Pro Tem Tejeda)

5. Approve recommendation for an appointment to the Traffic and Parking Commission (Council Member Davis)

6. Adopt Resolution No. 8428 authorizing remote teleconference meetings by the City Council and all Boards, Commissions, and Committees of the City in accordance with Assembly Bill 361 (2021) for a period of 30 days (Council Member Davis)

7. Approve recommendation for a reappointment to the Cultural Arts Commission (Council Member Guzman-Lowery)

8. Approve recommendation for reappointments to the Library Board of Trustees Commission (Council Member Gallagher)

9. Adopt Ordinance No. 2940 (Second Reading) - Amending Chapter 1.08 of the Municipal Code regarding Custody and Use of the Official City Seal and City Logos, Badges and Patches (Assistant City Manager McConnell)

10. Approve a Second Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Webb Municipal Finance, LLC to allow for the continued performance of professional services for the annual levy administration and annexations for Community Facilities District No. 2004-1, authorize an Additional Appropriation in the amount of $33,577.59 and determine that this contract amendment is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State's guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (Development Services Director Desatnik)

11. Adopt Resolution No. 8426 - Annual Report of Development Impact Fees for the Year Ended June 30, 2022, and Adoption of Findings (Management Services/Finance Director Garcia)

12. Authorize an annual maintenance payment to Motorola Solutions, Inc. in the amount of $96,853.66 for the Police Department's Spillman Computer Aided Dispatch/Records Management System (Management Services/Finance Director Garcia)

13. Receive and file the Annual Reports for Community Facility District (CFD) No. 2001-1 and Community Facility District (CFD) No. 2003-1 pursuant to Local Agency Special Tax and Bond Accountability Act (SB 165) (Management Services/Finance Director Garcia)

14. Reject all bids for the Security Fencing Installation Project (Municipal Utilities and Engineering Director Harris)

15. Approve withdrawal from the Santa Ana River - Mill Creek Exchange Plan Agreement, and authorize the City Manager or his designee to issue a withdrawal notice to the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District (Municipal Utilities and Engineering Director Harris)

16. Approve the License Agreement with the California Department of Water Resources and the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (Municipal Utilities and Engineering Director Harris)

17. Adopt Resolution No. 8416 establishing an approved contractor list pursuant to the Uniform Recycled Paper
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 5 of 728

17. Adopt Resolution No. 8416 establishing an approved contractor list pursuant to the Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act and determination that approval of the Resolution is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State's guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (Municipal Utilities and Engineering Director Harris)

18. Adopt Resolution No. 8419 approving the 2022 Water Systems Master Plan and determine this action is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State's guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (Municipal Utilities and Engineering Director Harris)

19. Adopt Resolution No. 8420 authorizing the submittal of a grant application to the California Department of Water Resources for the 2022 Urban Community Drought Relief Funding Program requesting supplemental funding for the engineering and replacement of the Sunset Reservoir (Municipal Utilities and Engineering Director Harris)

20. Approve the Additional Services Agreement with the Flock Group, Inc. for the lease of automated license plate recognition cameras in the amount of $69,550 for two years (Deputy Police Chief Martinez)

21. Approve the First Amendment to the Agreement with Universal Protection Service, LP, DBA Allied Universal Security Services to amend the total to an amount not to exceed $135,785.28 (Assistant City Manager Boatman)

22. Approve the in-kind support for use of the Redlands Sports Park in the amount of $66,584 for Redlands Region 50 of the American Youth Soccer Organization (Assistant City Manager Boatman)
K. Communications

1. Discussion and possible action relating to the selection of two City Council representatives to serve on the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District Regional Recycled Water Ad Hoc Committee (Mayor Barich)

2. Discussion and possible action on Ordinance No. 2954 and Resolution No. 8429 relating to the process for filling vacancies on the City Council (Mayor Pro Tem Tejeda) L. Public Hearings

1. Resolution No. 8427
(Mayor to declare meeting open as a public hearing)
Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 8427 - A request for approval of Street Vacation No. 186 to vacate an excess public right-of-way that is three (3) feet wide and 404 feet in length along the westerly side of Jasper Avenue, and along the eastern property line of the commercial property located at the southwest corner of the Naples Avenue Jasper Avenue intersection (APN: 0298-051-07-0000) (Applicant: Madison Capital Group) (Development Services Director Desatnik)
a.

Recycled Paper
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 6 of 728

2. Resolution No. 8424
(Mayor to declare meeting open as a public hearing)
Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 8424 - A request for approval of Street Vacation No. 187 to vacate an excess public right-of-way that is four (4) feet wide and 152.91 feet in length along the easterly side of North Church Street, and across the front property line of the residential property located 710 North Church Street (APNs: 0170-071-03-0000 and 0170-071-04-0000) (Michael Frazier, Applicant) (Development Services Director Desatnik) a.

3. Resolution No. 8425
(Mayor to declare meeting open as a public hearing)
Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 8425 - A request to vacate excess public right-of-way along East Highland Avenue, which is ten (10) feet wide and 998 feet in length, along the southerly side of East Highland Avenue and approximately 50 feet west of Redlands Street/South Lincoln Street, along the entire frontage of the previously approved Tract Map No. 20065 (APN: 0174-161-25-0000) (Hicks and Hartwick, Inc., Applicant) (Development Services Director Desatnik)
a.

M. New Business

1. Consideration of Ordinance No. 2953 changing Chapter 2.02 of the Redlands Municipal Code relating to the selection of the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore, their respective terms of office, and adoption of Resolution No. 8414 (Council Member Davis)
N. Individual Council Member Announcements and/or Reports on Activities (No collective discussion or action.)
O. Adjournment
The next regular meeting of the City Council will be held on January 17, 2023 If you challenge any proposed development entitlement listed on this agenda in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at or prior to this public hearing.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact Goutam Dobey, of the Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department at (909) 798-7584 ext 2. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
(28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II)
Any writings or documents distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding an open session agenda item less than 72 hours before this meeting are available for public inspection at the City Clerk's Office or at the dais of the City Clerk once the open session begins.

Staff reports or other written documentation relating to items referred to on the agenda are available at the A. K. Smiley Public Library, 125 West Vine Street, Redlands, California, and on the City’s website referenced below.

Regular meetings are televised live on Redlands TV Channel 3 (Spectrum) and Channel 35 (Frontier) and re-broadcast at 7:00 P.M. the following Wednesday, Friday and Sunday; and at 9:00 A.M. Thursday, Saturday and Monday. Meetings are also streamed live and archived for later viewing on demand on the City’s website at www.cityofredlands.org. Agendas, staff reports and minutes of the City Council of the City of Redlands are available online at: www.cityofredlands.org.

Recycled Paper
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 7 of 728
City Council Meeting G. 1.

DATE: 12/20/2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBJECT: Consideration of Resolution No. 8397 of the City Council of the City of Redlands reciting the fact of the General Municipal Election held on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, declaring the results and such other matters as provided by law (City Clerk Donaldson) MOTION(S):

If the City Council determines that staff’s recommendation is appropriate, the following motion is provided:

I move to adopt Resolution No. 8397.

Recognition of Outgoing Council Member Mick Gallagher

1. Mr. Gallagher to exit the dais as a Council Member.

Certificates of Election - Administration of Oath of Office Council Members District 1, 3 and 5
City Clerk Donaldson to administer oath of office to newly elected Council Member Denise Davis

1. City Clerk Donaldson to administer oath of office to newly elected Council Member Mario Jacob Saucedo

2. City Clerk Donaldson to administer oath of office to newly elected Council Member Paul T. Barich

3. Election of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore (City Clerk Donaldson) (If a new selection process is not established, the City Clerk will conduct the elections of the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore for the term of two years. If more than one nomination is made, a public roll call vote will be taken. Nominations do not require a second.)
Comments from the newly elected Council Members.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 8 of 728
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended the City Council adopt Resolution No. 8397, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redlands reciting the fact of the General Municipal Election held on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, declaring the results and such other matters as provided by law.

DISCUSSION:

Pursuant to the requirements of the laws of the State of California relating to General Law cities, the Redlands City Council adopted Resolution No. 8317 on June 21, 2022, calling and ordering to be held in the City of Redlands, California, a General Municipal Election, and requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino authorize the Registrar of Voters to canvass the returns and provide the necessary services pertaining to the election to be held Tuesday, November 8, 2022, for the purpose of electing three Members of the City Council by-district, in Districts 1, 3 and 5 for the full term of four years.

Furthermore, on July 5, 2022, the Redlands City Council adopted Resolution No. 8364, ordering the submission of an ordinance proposing to amend Section

5.08.482 of the Redlands Municipal Code as it relates to Business License Tax Rates for Distribution Centers (MEASURE J); and on August 4, 2022, the Redlands City Council adopted Resolution No. 8378, ordering the submission of an ordinance proposing to amend sections lA.0, lA.10, 1.A.30, 4.2B and 4.41j of the Redlands General Plan 2035, collectively titled, "Principles of Managed Development (MEASURE F), to the qualified voters of the City of Redlands at the General Municipal Election to be held on November 8, 2022, and requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino authorize the Registrar of Voters to canvass the returns.

The San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters provided a Statement of Certification of Election results of the 2022 Statewide General Election, showing the total number of votes cast in San Bernardino County and that the totals as shown are full, true and correct.

ALTERNATIVES:

Not Applicable.

STRATEGIC PLAN:

Not Applicable.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 9 of 728
SUBMITTED BY:

Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
RECOMMENDED BY:

Charles M. Duggan Jr., City Manager
REVIEWED BY:

Yvette M. Abich Garcia, City Attorney
Janice McConnell, Assistant City Manager
PREPARED BY:

Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
Fiscal Impact
Discussion:

Certification of Election Results will not have an impact on the City of Redlands General Fund.

Attachments
Certified Election Results
Reso No. 8397 General Election Results
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 10 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 11 of 728
12/8/22, 9:34 AM 11/08/2022 - Statewide General Election Results https://results.rov.sbcounty.gov/Results/20221108/ 1/4
City of Redlands Member, City Council District 1 (Vote for 1) Mail Ballot
Designated
Mail Ballot Polling Place Provisional Total
Times Cast 3,390 5 548 30 3,973 /
7,639

52.01%
Undervotes 394 0 62 7 463
Overvotes 2 0 0 0 2
Candidate Party Mail Ballot
Designated
Mail Ballot Polling Place Provisional Total
DENISE DAVIS 1,705 1 157 12 1,875 53.45%
TOM BERG 717 0 214 6 937 26.71%
RODGIR COHEN 257 2 56 2 317 9.04%
ANDREW HODER 315 2 59 3 379 10.80%
Total Votes 2,994 5 486 23 3,508
Mail Ballot
Designated
Mail Ballot Polling Place Provisional Total
Unresolved Write-In 0 0 0 0 0
Statewide General
Election
Final Certified Election Results Next Update: Final Posting ELECTION CONTESTS MENU  FILTER CONTESTS 
Precincts Reported: 21 of 21 (100.00%)
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 12 of 728
12/8/22, 9:34 AM 11/08/2022 - Statewide General Election Results https://results.rov.sbcounty.gov/Results/20221108/ 2/4
City of Redlands Member, City Council District 3 (Vote for 1) Mail Ballot
Designated
Mail Ballot Polling Place Provisional Total
Times Cast 3,852 4 659 29 4,544 /
8,899

51.06%
Undervotes 463 0 87 5 555
Overvotes 1 0 0 0 1
Candidate Party Mail Ballot
Designated
Mail Ballot Polling Place Provisional Total
MIKE SAIFIE 1,350 0 333 9 1,692 42.43%
MARIO JACOB SAUCEDO 2,038 4 239 15 2,296 57.57%
Total Votes 3,388 4 572 24 3,988
Mail Ballot
Designated
Mail Ballot Polling Place Provisional Total
Unresolved Write-In 0 0 0 0 0
City of Redlands Member, City Council District 5 (Vote for 1) Mail Ballot
Designated
Mail Ballot Polling Place Provisional Total
Times Cast 6,882 0 959 32 7,873 /
11,591

67.92%
Undervotes 2,087 0 320 8 2,415
Overvotes 0 0 0 0 0
Candidate Party Mail Ballot
Designated
Mail Ballot Polling Place Provisional Total
PAUL T. BARICH 4,706 0 626 21 5,353 98.08%
Total Votes 4,795 0 639 24 5,458
Mail Ballot
Designated
Mail Ballot Polling Place Provisional Total
RICHARD O'DONNELL WRITE-IN 89 0 13 3 105 1.92%
Unresolved Write-In 0 0 0 0 0
Precincts Reported: 23 of 23 (100.00%)
Precincts Reported: 17 of 17 (100.00%)
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 13 of 728
12/8/22, 9:34 AM 11/08/2022 - Statewide General Election Results https://results.rov.sbcounty.gov/Results/20221108/ 3/4
City of Redlands MEASURE F (Vote for 1)
Mail Ballot
Designated
Mail Ballot Polling Place Provisional Total
Times Cast 21,041 9 3,274 144 24,468 /
45,411

53.88%
Undervotes 1,871 0 297 27 2,195
Overvotes 5 0 1 0 6
Candidate Party Mail Ballot
Designated
Mail Ballot Polling Place Provisional Total
YES 7,637 2 813 52 8,504 38.19%
NO 11,528 7 2,163 65 13,763 61.81%
Total Votes 19,165 9 2,976 117 22,267
Mail Ballot
Designated
Mail Ballot Polling Place Provisional Total
Unresolved Write-In 0 0 0 0 0
City of Redlands MEASURE J (Vote for 1)
Mail Ballot
Designated
Mail Ballot Polling Place Provisional Total
Times Cast 21,041 9 3,274 144 24,468 /
45,411

53.88%
Undervotes 1,467 0 253 26 1,746
Overvotes 3 0 0 0 3
Candidate Party Mail Ballot
Designated
Mail Ballot Polling Place Provisional Total
YES 10,956 2 1,123 54 12,135 53.41%
NO 8,615 7 1,898 64 10,584 46.59%
Total Votes 19,571 9 3,021 118 22,719
Mail Ballot
Designated
Mail Ballot Polling Place Provisional Total
Unresolved Write-In 0 0 0 0 0
Precincts Reported: 95 of 95 (100.00%)
Precincts Reported: 95 of 95 (100.00%)
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 14 of 728
12/8/22, 9:34 AM 11/08/2022 - Statewide General Election Results https://results.rov.sbcounty.gov/Results/20221108/ 4/4
777 East Rialto Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92415-0770
Tel 1-800-881-VOTE • (909) 387-8300
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 15 of 728
1 RESOLUTION NO. 8397

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS

RECITING THE FACTS OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2022, AND DECLARING THE RESULTS

AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS PROVIDED BY LAW
WHEREAS, a general municipal election was held and conducted in the City of Redlands on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, as required by law; and
WHEREAS, notice of the election was given in time, form, and manner as provided by law; that voting precincts were properly established; that election officers were appointed; and that in all respects the election was held and conducted and the votes were cast, received, and canvassed, and the returns made and declared in time, form and manner as required by the provisions of the California Elections Code for the holding of elections in general law cities; and WHEREAS, pursuant to City Council action approved on June 21, 2022, the County Registrar of Voters canvassed the returns of the election and has certified the results to this City Council; said results are received, attached and made a part hereof as "Exhibit "A;" NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Redlands does resolve, declare, determine and order as follows:

Section 1. That the names of persons voted for at the election for Member of the City Council, were as follows:

DISTRICT 1:
• DENISE DAVIS
• TOM BERG
• RODGIR COHEN
• ANDREW HODER
DISTRICT 3:
• MIKE SAIFIE
• MARIO JACOB SAUCEDO
DISTRICT 5:
• PAUL T BARICH
• RICHARD O’DONNELL (Write-In Candidate)
Section 2. That the measures voted upon at the election were as follows:

Measure F: “AN INITIATIVE ORDINANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF REDLANDS AMENDING SECTIONS 1A.0, 1A.10, 1.A.30, 4.2B AND 4.41J OF THE Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 16 of 728
2 PRINCIPLES OF MANAGED DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS GENERAL PLAN 2035"
Measure J: “AN ORDINANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 5.08.482 OF THE REDLANDS OF THE CITY’S MUNICIPAL CODE AS IT RELATES TO BUSINESS LICENSE TAX RATES FOR DISTRIBUTION CENTERS”.

Section 3. That the number of votes given at each precinct and the number of votes given in the City to each of the persons named above for the respective office for which the persons were candidates and the number of votes for and against the measures are as listed in Exhibit "A" attached hereto.

Section 4. That the City Council of the City of Redlands does hereby declare and determine that:

DENISE DAVIS was elected as a Member of the City Council, District 1, for the full term of four years;
MARIO JACOB SAUCEDO was elected as a Member of the City Council, District 3, for the full term of four years;
PAUL T BARICH was elected as a Member of the City Council, District 5, for the full term of four years;
Section 5. That as a result of the election, a majority of the voters voting on MEASURE F, relating to, amending Sections 1a.0, 1a.10, 1.A.30, 4.2b and 4.41j of the Principles of Managed Development of the City of Redlands General Plan 2035, did not vote in favor of it, and that the measure was not carried and shall not be deemed adopted and ratified.

Section 6. That as a result of the election, a majority of the voters voting on MEASURE J, relating to, Business License Tax Rates for Distribution Centers, did vote in favor of it, and that the measure was carried and shall be deemed adopted and ratified.

Section 7. The City Clerk shall enter on the records of the City Council of the City of Redlands a statement of the results of the election showing the whole number of votes cast in the City; the names of the persons voted for; the measure voted upon; for what office each person was voted for; the number of votes given at each precinct to each person, and for and against the measure; and the total number of votes given to each person, and for and against the measure.

Section 8. That the City Clerk shall immediately make and deliver to each of the persons so elected a Certificate of Election signed by the City Clerk and authenticated; that the City Clerk shall also administer to each person elected the Oath of Office prescribed in the Constitution of the State of California and shall have them subscribe to it and file it in the Office of the City Clerk; and each and all of the persons so elected shall then be inducted into the respective office to which they have been elected.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 17 of 728
3 ADOPTED, SIGNED AND APPROVED this 20th day of December, 2022. _________________________________
Paul T. Barich, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 18 of 728
4 I, Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk of the City of Redlands, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 8397 was duly adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 20th day of December 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_________________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 19 of 728
5 EXHIBIT “A”

CERTIFIED RESULTS
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 20 of 728
City Council Meeting J. 1.

DATE: 12/20/2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBJECT: Approve the regular meeting minutes of December 6, 2022 (City Clerk Donaldson)
MOTION:

I move to approve the regular meeting minutes of December 6, 2022.

Attachments
Regular meeting minutes of December 6, 2022
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 21 of 728

MINUTES
Regular meetings of the City Council and the Board of Directors of the Successor Agency of the former Redevelopment Agency of the City of Redlands held in the Council Chambers, Civic Center, 35 Cajon Street, on December 6, 2022 at 5:00 P.M.

Present:  Paul Barich, Mayor
Eddie Tejeda, Mayor Pro Tempore
Denise Davis, Council Member
Jenna Guzman-Lowery, Council Member
Mick Gallagher, Council Member
Staff: Charles M. Duggan, Jr., City Manager; Yvette M. Abich Garcia, City Attorney; Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk; Janice McConnell, Assistant City Manager; Chris Boatman, Assistant City Manager; Carl Baker, Public Information Officer; Chris Catren, Police Chief; Danielle Garcia, Management Services/Finance Director; Brian Desatnik, Development Services Director; John Harris, Municipal Utilities and Engineering Director; Rich Sessler, Fire Chief

Mayor Barich called the meeting to order and explained that comments could be presented in-person, via Zoom, via cell phone or landline. This was conducted as a teleconference meeting with Council Member Davis participating remotely and all votes during the meeting were conducted by roll call. He offered the public an opportunity to provide comment on any item on the agenda for the closed session.

PUBLIC COMMENT
AYSO & Sport Park- Seven people, including Ernesto Lemos, Jamie Corbett, Courtney Meyer, Isaiah Lopez, Stephanie Meriaux, Rasu Mathurakku and Bruce Laycook spoke in support of the American Youth Soccer Organization (AYSO), describing several ways in which the program brings exceptional value to the community. They requested the Council delay terminating the contract and accept a 90-day tolling agreement. Stephanie Meriaux, Isaac Villagrana and Isaiah Chavez urged the Council to manage the sports park equitably, allowing programs, other than AYSO, to use the fields, while Jared Gustafsan said mental health benefits are tied to a robust youth program.

CLOSED SESSION
Conference with legal counsel: Anticipated Litigation - Government Code §54956.9(d)(2), and §54956.9(e)(3) (Assistant City Manager Boatman)
A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the City Council on the advice of its legal counsel, based on the below described existing facts and circumstances, there is significant exposure to litigation against the City.

One Case:
a. Receipt of written communication threatening litigation by Burton Haimes, of CC_SA_December 6, 2022

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 22 of 728
Tennenbaum, Helpern, Syracuse, Hirschtritt. A copy is available for public inspection in the City Clerk's Office.

Conference with legal counsel: Anticipated Litigation - Government Code §54956.9(d)(2) and §54956.9 (e)(3) (Assistant City Manager McConnell)
One Case:

Facts and circumstances: Consideration of a workers’ compensation claim filed by Taylor Shuey
a.

RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
The meeting reconvened at 6:19 P.M. with an invocation by Mayor Pro Tem Tejeda followed by the pledge of allegiance to the American flag.

CLOSED SESSION REPORT
City Attorney Abich Garcia announced that no reportable action was taken during the closed session.

PRESENTATIONS
Holiday Performance
The Redlands Girls' Vocal Ensemble, led by Katharine Bond, performed musical selections celebrating the holiday season.

City's 2022 Holiday Video
Public Information Officer, Carl Baker, presented the City's 2022 Holiday video wishing the community a wonderful holiday season.

Mayor Barich announced Item I-23 relating to American Youth Soccer Association (AYSO) would be pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion by the Council.

PUBLIC COMMENT
National Transgender Day of Remembrance - Twenty- eight speakers voiced their support of the Council for approving the proclamation remembering National Transgender Day promoting a safe environment for queer and trans people. They thanked the City for what they considered to be courageous behavior, standing up to hate. They spoke passionately about the need for inclusivity, kindness and gender-affirming care to help everyone feel safe and accepted. They thought the Gays Against Groomers (GAG) organization was misleading the public with their agenda, which they claimed capitalizes on misinformation and fear. Ana McNaughton suggested the Human Relations Commission could play a vital role in the contentious dialogue.

Eighteen speakers of Gays Against Groomers (GAG) expressed anger and disappointment with Council Members for approving a proclamation remembering National Transgender Day and they claimed that schools and community leaders were trying to indoctrinate children about CC_SA_December 6, 2022

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 23 of 728
they claimed that schools and community leaders were trying to indoctrinate children about sexual and gender identity. Various viewpoints were presented passionately, including, protections under the 1st Amendment provide for freedom of speech to everyone and yet, they said that some of the Council spoke harshly to a member of the audience who addressed them at the November 15 meeting. They thought this behavior showed a lack of leadership on the dais. They also wanted schools to protect students and stop promoting lies and ideologies which they said could cause irrevocable harm to our youth.

Health Facts - Isaac Villagrana said health facts should be based on science and not on divisive talk and finger-pointing. He suggested health education be returned to the RUSD curriculum.

AB 1177 - Jonathan Shidler was in favor of forming a commission to review AB 1177 known as the Public Banking Option Act, related to providing basic financial services to all residents, including underbanked households and unemployed residents who often don't have access to traditional and affordable financial services.

Homelessness- Luis Camargo complained about the growing homeless population near Orange and Lugonia. He said he had witnessed blatant drug use and vandalism, and he urged the City to take action to address the problem.

Mayor Barich called for a brief recess at 9:04 P.M. The Council Meeting reconvened at 9:16 P.M.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Minutes
On motion of Mayor Pro Tempore Eddie Tejeda, seconded by Council Member Mick Gallagher, the City Council unanimously approved, by roll call vote, the regular meeting minutes of November 15, 2022, the special meeting minutes of November 15, 2022, and the special meeting minutes for July 29, 2022.

Vote: 5 - 0 Passed
Student Commissioner Appointments
On motion of Mayor Pro Tempore Eddie Tejeda, seconded by Council Member Mick Gallagher, the City Council unanimously appointed, by roll call vote, Kelechi Amobi, Citrus Valley High School, to serve as the student commissioner on the Human Relations Commission for calendar year 2023; appointed Johnathan Ghazal, Redlands East Valley High School, to serve as the student commissioner on the Traffic and Parking Commission for calendar year 2023; and appointed Nikitas Jos, Redlands High School, to serve as the student commissioner on the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission for calendar year 2023.

Vote: 5 - 0 Passed
CC_SA_December 6, 2022

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 24 of 728

Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Appointment
On motion of Mayor Pro Tempore Eddie Tejeda, seconded by Council Member Mick Gallagher, the City Council unanimously appointed, by roll call vote, Scott Carlson to serve the remainder of a four-year term on the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission ending March 1, 2025.

Vote: 5 - 0 Passed
Resolution No. 8411 Remote Teleconference Meetings
On motion of Mayor Pro Tempore Eddie Tejeda, seconded by Council Member Mick Gallagher, the City Council unanimously approved, by roll call vote, Resolution No. 8411 authorizing remote teleconference meetings by the City Council and all Boards, Commissions, and Committees of the City in accordance with Assembly Bill 361 (2021) for a period of 30 days.

Vote: 5 - 0 Passed
Ordinance No. 2952 City Procurement Business Preference Program On motion of Mayor Pro Tempore Eddie Tejeda, seconded by Council Member Mick Gallagher, the City Council unanimously adopted, by roll call vote, Ordinance No. 2952, amending Chapter 2.16 of the Redlands Municipal Code relating to the establishment of a business preference program for City procurement. The ordinance provides for an 8% local preference applicable to businesses operating within the City for procurement of supplies, materials, equipment and specialized goods; and provides for a 2% preference for County of San Bernardino businesses for procurement of supplies, materials, equipment and specialized goods and provides a four-year sunset provision for the increased local preference, with an end-date of December 31, 2026. The existing 1% local preference that generates sales tax dollars, would be reinstated on January 1, 2027.

Vote: 5 - 0 Passed
Resolution No. 8406 City Employee Salary Schedule
On motion of Mayor Pro Tempore Eddie Tejeda, seconded by Council Member Mick Gallagher, the City Council unanimously approved, by roll call vote, Resolution No. 8406 establishing a Salary Schedule and Compensation Plan for City Employees and Rescinding Resolution No. 8352. Position changes were made in Municipal Utilities and Engineering, Facilities and Community Services, and Police and Fire Departments. Salary adjustments have also been made to full and part-time positions as necessary to maintain compliance with minimum wage requirements.

Vote: 5 - 0 Passed
CC_SA_December 6, 2022

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 25 of 728

RAMME & RCSEA Side Letter Agreements
On motion of Mayor Pro Tempore Eddie Tejeda, seconded by Council Member Mick Gallagher, the City Council unanimously approved, by roll call vote, the Side Letter Agreements between the City and the Redlands Association of Mid-Management Employees and the Redlands Civilian Safety Employees Association. The agreements provide for a $3,500 retention bonus for its employees. All other provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and RAMME and RCSEA employees are unaffected by this agreement.

Vote: 5 - 0 Passed
Resolution No. 8423 Time Extension CRA No. 907
On motion of Mayor Pro Tempore Eddie Tejeda, seconded by Council Member Mick Gallagher, the City Council unanimously approved, by roll call vote, Resolution No. 8423 to authorize a one-year time extension to the expiration date of Commission Review and Approval No. 907 to construct one commercial office building totaling approximately 7,198 square-feet in size located at 1702 West Park Avenue (APN: 0292-155-22-0000).

Vote: 5 - 0 Passed
Ordinance No. 2951 Self-Storage Facilities
On motion of Mayor Pro Tempore Eddie Tejeda, seconded by Council Member Mick Gallagher, the City Council unanimously approved, by roll call vote, Ordinance No. 2951 (Ordinance Text Amendment No. 363 - Second Reading) to amend the Redlands Municipal Code Section 18.96.070 for the Highway Commercial (C-4) zone to permit self-storage facilities as a conditional use subject to a Conditional Use Permit on properties in the C-4 zone that are a minimum of five acres in size.

Vote: 5 - 0 Passed
Utility Customer Management Database Invoice Payment
On motion of Mayor Pro Tempore Eddie Tejeda, seconded by Council Member Mick Gallagher, the City Council unanimously approved, by roll call vote, payment of the invoice to Systems & Software, Inc. for support of the enQuesta Utility Database for Customer Management in an amount not-to-exceed $188,415 for annual software maintenance and support.

Vote: 5 - 0 Passed
Grant Acceptance State Library Building Forward
On motion of Mayor Pro Tempore Eddie Tejeda, seconded by Council Member Mick CC_SA_December 6, 2022

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 26 of 728
On motion of Mayor Pro Tempore Eddie Tejeda, seconded by Council Member Mick Gallagher, the City Council unanimously accepted, by roll call vote, the California State Library Building Forward Grant in the amount of $445,035 for the Lower Level Revive Project at the A.K. Smiley Public Library; approved an additional appropriation of the same; and adopted Resolution No. 8417 authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute the Grant Agreement, and all other related documents.

Vote: 5 - 0 Passed
Ordinance No. 2946 Prima Facie Speed Limits
Municipal Utilities and Engineering Director Harris reviewed Ordinance No. 2946, amending Chapter 10.24 of the Redlands Municipal Code to establish prima facie speed limits for various streets throughout the City. He pointed out this was the second reading and on November 15, 2022, a public hearing was conducted to receive public input. In accordance with the CVC, City staff contracted with RK Engineering Group, Inc to perform traffic surveys on various street segments throughout the City. The recommended speed limits identified in the RK summary report titled "2021 Engineering and Traffic Survey" (2021 E&TS) was approved by the Traffic and Parking Commission on March 2, 2022 and was accepted by City Council on June 7, 2022 with adoption of Resolution No. 8348.

This methodology used was founded on the premise that a reasonable speed limit is one that conforms to the actual behavior of the majority of vehicle operators within a street corridor.

Speed limits that are established based on this methodology reduce the variance in vehicle speeds. The CAMUTCD allows the City Engineer discretion to adjust the 85th percentile speed up or down by five (5) miles per hour in consideration of physical or environmental conditions that may impact vehicle operator behavior.

As public comment, Chris Deveau, Jim D'Amico, Sarah and Camille strongly urged the Council to reconsider increasing the speed limit on Alta Vista to 40 mph and requested it remain at 35 mph. They pointed out the street included several twists and turns, creating blind spots, and they said that pedestrians and cyclists would be in danger because the street lacked proper sidewalks and shoulders. They thought the methodology was flawed and that residents should have been included in the discussion. Council Members and staff discussed at length state law and considered options that might be available to provide safe environments for all street users. It was agreed that a new survey should be ordered once the state law allowed the City Engineer more discretion to adjust speed limits.

On motion of Mayor Pro Tempore Eddie Tejeda, seconded by Council Member Mick Gallagher, the City Council unanimously adopted, by roll call vote, Ordinance No. 2946, amending Chapter 10.24 of the Redlands Municipal Code to establish prima facie speed limits for various streets throughout the City of Redlands.

Vote: 5 - 0 Passed
CC_SA_December 6, 2022

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 27 of 728

Amending Agreement EVC Bike Route Interconnect Project
On motion of Mayor Pro Tempore Eddie Tejeda, seconded by Council Member Mick Gallagher, the City Council unanimously approved, by roll call vote, the First Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with KOA Corporation to extend the termination date to December 31, 2023 for the East Valley Corridor Bike Route Interconnect Project.

Vote: 5 - 0 Passed
Amending DIF Study Professional Services Agreement
On motion of Mayor Pro Tempore Eddie Tejeda, seconded by Council Member Mick Gallagher, the City Council unanimously approved, by roll call vote, the Second Amendment to the Development Impact Fee Study Professional Services Agreement with David Taussig and Associates, Inc. to extend the termination date to December 31, 2023.

Vote: 5 - 0 Passed
Asset Management System Agreement
On motion of Mayor Pro Tempore Eddie Tejeda, seconded by Council Member Mick Gallagher, the City Council unanimously approved, by roll call vote, the First Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Sedaru, Inc. to expand the scope of work to provide an asset management system for street maintenance, and increase the service fee by $65,000.

Vote: 5 - 0 Passed
Rejects Bids Sunset Temporary Reservoir Replacement Project On motion of Mayor Pro Tempore Eddie Tejeda, seconded by Council Member Mick Gallagher, the City Council unanimously approved, by roll call vote, to reject all bids for the Sunset Temporary Reservoir Replacement Project. Staff recommended rejecting all bids and postponing the Project until the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was complete and a California Water Board Division of Drinking Water permit has been issued.

Vote: 5 - 0 Passed
Amending Agreement for Water Treatment Plant Sludge Press Engineering Project On motion of Mayor Pro Tempore Eddie Tejeda, seconded by Council Member Mick Gallagher, the City Council unanimously approved, by roll call vote, the First Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Dudek for the Hinckley Water Treatment Plant Sludge Press Engineering Project to extend the project completion deadline to December 31, 2023.

Vote: 5 - 0 Passed
CC_SA_December 6, 2022

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 28 of 728

Polygraph Services Contract SB County
On motion of Mayor Pro Tempore Eddie Tejeda, seconded by Council Member Mick Gallagher, the City Council unanimously approved, by roll call vote, the agreement with the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department to provide pre-employment polygraph examinations for applicants and to authorize the Chief of Police to execute the agreement.

Vote: 5 - 0 Passed
Police Department Vehicle for Specialized Investigations On motion of Mayor Pro Tempore Eddie Tejeda, seconded by Council Member Mick Gallagher, the City Council unanimously approved, by roll call vote, the agreement between the City of Redlands and Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company for the Redlands Police Department to utilize a vehicle from Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company in specialized investigations involving GPS technology.

Vote: 5 - 0 Passed
MOU Inland Regional Narcotics Enforcement
On motion of Mayor Pro Tempore Eddie Tejeda, seconded by Council Member Mick Gallagher, the City Council unanimously approved, by roll call vote, the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Inland Regional Narcotics Enforcement Team (IRNET) and authorized the Chief of Police to sign.

Vote: 5 - 0 Passed
Artwork Loan and Display Agreements
On motion of Mayor Pro Tempore Eddie Tejeda, seconded by Council Member Mick Gallagher, the City Council unanimously determined, by roll call vote, that approval of the Artwork Loan and Display Agreements are exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15301 of the State's guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act; and approved three Artwork Loan and Display Agreements with Rude Calderon, Chad La Fever, and John and Nicolas Meyer.

Vote: 5 - 0 Passed
Furniture Purchase Orders
On motion of Mayor Pro Tempore Eddie Tejeda, seconded by Council Member Mick Gallagher, the City Council unanimously approved, by roll call vote, cooperative purchase orders with Trendway Furniture in an amount not to exceed $45,273 and with Global Industries in an amount not to exceed $112,421 for furnishings at the State Street City Hall facility located at 300 E. State Street; approved a sole source purchase order with Consolidated Office Systems in an amount not to exceed $26,176 for installation of the furnishing; and approved an additional appropriation in the amount of $183,870.

Vote: 5 - 0 Passed
CC_SA_December 6, 2022

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 29 of 728
Vote: 5 - 0 Passed
AYSO Reimbursement of Funds for Redlands Sports Park Construction Assistant City Manager Boatman provided background of the proposed disbursement of $207,768 to the American Youth Soccer Association (“AYSO”) as pro-rated reimbursement of funds received in connection with the City’s construction of the Redlands Sports Park. Staff recommended to move forward with the disbursement of funds. AYSO has been a valued partner of the City since 2008 but inflation for maintenance costs have significantly increased yet AYSO's maintenance contribution has only increased marginally and it now pays far less than any other youth sports organization. City Manager Duggan reiterated the City would also work with AYSO to grant them a permit so they can continue the program through the next year and the City would continue a dialogue with them to negotiate a new contract.

As public comment, Norma Mendez, Michael Reynaga, Denise Key Igbinosun and two audience members agreed AYSO was a great program that served many young people, but they pointed out it was not the only program, and they urged the Council to promote an equitable plan for sharing the fields, allowing more groups to participate. In support of AYSO, Nicole Madsen and Eric Holliday said that AYSO stood for inclusivity, with a mission that promotes every player must play, and they added that Region 50 offered even more opportunities to participate with their VIP (special needs) program.

On motion of Mayor Pro Tempore Eddie Tejeda, seconded by Council Member Mick Gallagher, the City Council unanimously approved, by roll call vote, a disbursement of $207,768 to the American Youth Soccer Association (AYSO) as pro-rated reimbursement of funds received in connection with the City’s construction of the Redlands Sports Park; and approved an additional appropriation from the Parks Development Fund.

Vote: 5 - 0 Passed

COMMUNICATIONS
National Community Survey
City Manager Duggan requested the presentation of survey results be postponed to a future meeting and Council Members agreed to table this item until the January 17, 2023 City Council meeting.

Selection Process of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem
Council Member Davis opened the discussion relating to the process for selecting the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore, and their respective terms of office. She proposed a 1-year seniority-based rotation with the most senior Council Member becoming Mayor, and the 2nd most senior serving as Mayor Pro Tem.  At the end of the 1-year term, the Mayor Pro Tem would then rotate into the role of Mayor. The proposal also included an "opt-out" clause allowing a Council Member to decline serving as mayor.

Mayor Pro Tem Tejeda proposed a modification to the current code, stipulating a Council Member must agendize their interest in being selected as Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem by their colleagues in the second regularly scheduled City Council meeting in November coinciding with a statewide CC_SA_December 6, 2022

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 30 of 728
the second regularly scheduled City Council meeting in November coinciding with a statewide general election. Council Members who have declared their interest may be selected by majority vote of their colleagues and serve a term reflecting the two-year statewide election cycle. The proposal allowed for the Mayor and/or Mayor Pro Tem to resign from serving at anytime and the Mayor and/or Mayor Pro Tem may be removed from their position by a majority vote of their colleagues. He also suggested an option to place the question before the voters to create the position of Mayor as elected at-large by the electors once every two years.

Each Council Member offered their thoughts and perspectives regarding the proposals before them. Council Members Guzman-Lowery and Davis pointed out the district boundary maps would need to be redrawn if the voters determined the position of Mayor should be elected at-large and this could be costly, time-consuming and confusing. Council Member Gallagher was comfortable with the present method of selection, adding the system was effective and had withstood the test of time. As public comment, Valerie Roach, Jennifer Kim, Samantha Trad and Karen Brandon supported the annual rotation method as they said it provided more transparency and diversity and reduced bias. They pointed to the survey results showing the various surrounding cities that have already instituted an annual rotation system. Ana McNaughton liked the recommendation to require Council Members to announce their interest in being selected as Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem in advance, but overall, she thought the item was being rushed and she preferred the Council take more time to thoroughly review and consider the matter.

On motion of Mayor Pro Tem Tejeda, seconded by Council Member Gallagher, the City Council, by roll-call vote, failed to direct staff to bring forth proposed changes to the City's Municipal Code for the selection of the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem as proposed by Mayor Pro Tem Tejeda.

Vote:  2-3 Failed
NAY:  Mayor Barich, Council Member Davis, Council Member Guzman-Lowery On motion of Council Member Denise Davis, seconded by Council Member Jenna Guzman-Lowery, the City Council approved, by roll call vote, to direct staff to bring forth proposed changes to the City's Municipal Code for the selection of the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem as proposed by Council Member Davis, providing for a 1-year seniority-based rotation with the most senior Council Member becoming Mayor, and the 2nd most senior serving as Mayor Pro Tem.  At the end of the 1-year term, the Mayor Pro Tem would then rotate into the role of Mayor.

Vote: 3 - 2 Passed
NAY:  Mayor Pro Tempore Eddie Tejeda
Council Member Mick Gallagher
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ordinance No. 2948 Fire Code Update
Mayor Barich declared the meeting open as a public hearing and called on Fire Chief Sessler for review of Ordinance No. 2948 amending Chapter 15.20 of the Redlands Municipal Code for the adoption of the 2022 California Fire Code, which incorporates by reference the 2021 International Code, with necessary California amendments. With no further discussion, Mayor Barich closed the public hearing.

CC_SA_December 6, 2022

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 31 of 728
On motion of Council Member Jenna Guzman-Lowery, seconded by Council Member Mick Gallagher, the City Council unanimously adopted, by roll call vote, Ordinance No. 2948 amending Chapter 15.20 of the Redlands Municipal Code for the adoption of the 2022 California Fire Code, which incorporates by reference the 2021 International Code, with necessary California amendments.

Vote: 5 - 0 Passed
NEW BUSINESS
Ordinance No. 2940 Official City Seal and City Logos
Public Information Officer Carl Baker discussed the City Seal and City Logo and reviewed Ordinance No. 2940, proposing to amend Chapter 1.08 of the Municipal Code regarding Custody and Use of the Official City Seal and City Logos, Badges and Patches. In early 2022, Mayor Paul Barich commissioned Pennington Designs to create a new logo for the City. In June 2022, the City Council adopted the new city logo and following the adoption of the logo, Mayor Barich donated the logo and all graphics, proofs, drafts and other items associated with the logo to the City.

All intellectual property rights, including any rights to do any act necessary to secure copyright or trademark registration, renewals, reissues, and extensions are the property of the City. The ordinance will provide for adopted policies and detailed regulations for the use of the Official City Seal or any other City logos, badges or patches.

On motion of Mayor Pro Tempore Eddie Tejeda, seconded by Council Member Jenna Guzman-Lowery, the City Council unanimously introduced, by roll call vote, Ordinance No. 2940 amending Chapter 1.08 of the Municipal Code regarding custody and use of the Official City Seal and City Logos, Badges and Patches and determined that the Ordinance is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State's Guidelines.

Vote: 5 - 0 Passed
Contract Award 2022 Citywide Sidewalk and ADA Ramp Replacement Municipal Utilities and Engineering Director Harris presented a Public Work Construction Contract with Tryco General Engineering for the 2022 Citywide Sidewalk and ADA Ramp Replacement Project for an amount not-to-exceed $1,000,000. The Project will replace approximately 3 miles of lifted and broken sidewalks and forty-five ADA curb ramps in various locations throughout the City.

On motion of Mayor Pro Tempore Eddie Tejeda, seconded by Council Member Jenna Guzman-Lowery, the City Council unanimously determined, by roll call vote, that approval of the 2022 Citywide Sidewalk and ADA Ramp Replacement Project is exempt from environmental review in accordance with Section 15301(c) of the State's Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act; approved the 2022 Citywide Sidewalk and ADA Ramp Replacement Project plans and specifications, and awarded the Public Work Construction Contract to Tryco General Engineering for an amount not to-exceed $1,000,000.

CC_SA_December 6, 2022

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 32 of 728
Vote: 5 - 0 Passed
Wellhead Perchlorate Treatment Project Agreement
Municipal Utilities and Engineering Director Harris detailed the Professional Services Agreement with Dudek for the Wellhead Perchlorate Treatment Project for an amount not to exceed $512,170.

Perchlorates are commercially produced salts that are primarily used as oxidizers for pyrotechnic devices and are commonly used in rocket fuels and fertilizers and trace amounts of perchlorate persist in the Bunker Hill Basin and have been detected at four City groundwater well sites. In preparation of the anticipated perchlorate MCL reduction threshold, staff developed a scope of work to engineer a treatment solution at the City's groundwater well sites.

On motion of Mayor Pro Tempore Eddie Tejeda, seconded by Council Member Jenna Guzman-Lowery, the City Council unanimously determined, by roll call vote, that the Wellhead Perchlorate Treatment Project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15301(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act; approved the Professional Services Agreement with Dudek for the Wellhead Perchlorate Treatment Project for an amount not-to-exceed $512,170.

Vote: 5 - 0 Passed
Redlands Bowl Re-Stucco Project Contract Award
Assistant City Manager Boatman introduced the need for the Public Work Construction Contract with K.C. Restoration Co., Inc. for an amount not-to-exceed $258,188.97 for the Redlands Bowl Re-Stucco Project. He pointed out an arithmetic error was discovered in the bid proposal, showing bid Item #3 and #4 were not correctly multiplied. The total bid amount was corrected based on the given unit price, which did not affect the ranking. He announced the work is in preparation for the 100-year anniversary of the Bowl next year.

On motion of Mayor Pro Tempore Eddie Tejeda, seconded by Council Member Mick Gallagher, the City Council unanimously determined, by roll call vote, that approval of the Public Work Construction Contract with K.C. Restoration Co., Inc. for the Redlands Bowl Re-Stucco Project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15301 of the State's guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act; approved the additional appropriation of $284,007.87 as detailed in the staff report; agreed to waive the minor error in the bid by K.C.

Restoration Co., Inc.; and approved an award of the Public Work Construction Contract in the amount of $258,188.97 to K.C. Restoration Co., Inc. for the Redlands Bowl Re-Stucco Project.

Vote: 5 - 0 Passed
Arts and Culture Master Plan
Assistant City Manager Boatman offered background related to the recommendation by the Cultural Arts Commission to develop an Arts and Culture Master Plan. On September 13, 2021, the Commission recommended the City Council direct staff to prepare a request for proposal for the development of an Arts and Culture Master Plan and designate funding in the amount of $100,000. The Commission views the Plan as a necessary tool to ensure that art is promoted and utilized in a cohesive and intentional manner throughout the community. He reviewed the AEP5 CC_SA_December 6, 2022

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 33 of 728
Study which documented the economic contributions of the arts in 341 communities and regions across the country, and the economic impact for Redlands from nonprofit arts and culture organizations and their audiences was found to support 416 full-time equivalent jobs, with over $609,000 in revenue generated for local government and over $3,390,000 in event-related expenditures annually.

As public comment, Tristan Clark stated he very much appreciated the new paintings on the local bus stop benches. Council Members Davis and Guzman-Lowery enthusiastically supported exploring this further.

On motion of Council Member Jenna Guzman-Lowery, seconded by Council Member Denise Davis, the City Council unanimously agreed, by roll call vote, to direct staff to advertise a request for proposal for the development of an Arts and Culture Master Plan.

Vote: 5 - 0 Passed
COUNCIL MEMBER ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ACTIVITIES
Mayor Barich announced the Christmas parade was a great success and he thanked the RPOA for hosting two separate Thanksgiving dinners recently.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further action required the meeting adjourned at 10:52 P.M. The next regular meeting of the City of Redlands City Council will be held on December 20, 2022.

SUCCESSOR AGENCY OF THE FORMER REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF

REDLANDS
Chairman Barich called the meeting to order and offered anyone present the opportunity to address the Board on any subject not already on the agenda, within the jurisdiction of the Successor Agency.

PUBLIC COMMENT
None forthcoming
Minutes
On motion of Vice Chair Tejeda, seconded by Board Member Gallagher, the minutes of the regular meeting of November 1, 2022 were unanimously approved.

Vote:  5 - 0 Passed

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, the Successor Agency Board of Directors' meeting was adjourned at 10:53 P.M. The next regular meeting of the Agency will be held on February 7, 2023.

CC_SA_December 6, 2022

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 34 of 728
City Council Meeting J. 2.

DATE: 12/20/2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBJECT: Approve the Local Appointments List for 2023 in accordance with Government Code Section 54972 (Mayor Barich)
MOTION:

I move to approve the Local Appointments List for 2023 as required by Government Code Section 54972.

DISCUSSION:

In accordance with Government Code Section 54972, each legislative body is required to prepare a list of all regular and ongoing commissions and boards which are appointed by the City Council. The list is to include all appointive terms which will expire during the next calendar year with the name of the incumbent appointee, the date of appointment, the date the term expires and the necessary qualifications for the position. To comply with Government Code Section 54972, staff has prepared the attached local appointments list for calendar year 2023.

SUBMITTED BY:

Janice McConnell, Assistant City Manager
REVIEWED BY:

Charles M. Duggan, Jr., City Manager
PREPARED BY:

Jennifer Macias, Management Analyst
Attachments
Local Appointments List 2023
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 35 of 728
1 I:\cmo\BOARDS\Local Appt Lists\local appointments list 2023.docx

CITY OF REDLANDS

BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND

COMMITTEES LOCAL APPOINTMENTS LIST
FOR 2023
(Govt. Code § 54972)

AIRPORT ADVISORY BOARD
Board members shall serve without compensation and shall be residents of the City and neither officers nor employees thereof.

Name of Incumbent Appt. Date Date Term Expires
Jason Golembeski 11/02/2021 05/01/2023

CITRUS PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Commission members shall serve without compensation and shall be neither officers nor employees of the City.

There are no terms expiring on this commission in 2023.

CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION
Commission members shall serve without compensation and shall be residents of the City and neither officers nor employees thereof.

Name of Incumbent Appt. Date Date Term Expires
Danielle Guidici Wallis 12/21/2021 01/06/2023

HISTORIC AND SCENIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Commission members shall serve without compensation and shall be residents of the City and neither officers nor employees thereof.

Name of Incumbent Appt. Date Date Term Expires
Kurt Heidelberg 05/05/2015 01/18/2023
Dr. Lauren Weiss Bricker 03/05/2019 01/18/2023
Steven Holm 03/05/2019 01/18/2023

HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION
Commission members shall serve without compensation and shall be residents of the City of Redlands and neither officers nor employees thereof. The student member of the Commission shall serve without compensation and shall be from the junior class of a Redlands Unified School District High School at the time of appointment to the Commission.

Name of Incumbent Appt. Date Date Term Expires
Kenneth Ford 03/05/2019 03/05/2023
Student Commissioner 01/01/2023 12/31/2023
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 36 of 728
2 I:\cmo\BOARDS\Local Appt Lists\local appointments list 2023.docx

LIBRARY BOARD
Name of Incumbent Appt. Date Date Term Expires
William Hatfield 02/19/1997 01/01/2023
Kate Pretorius 09/06/2016 01/01/2023

MUNICIPAL UTILITIES/PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION
Commission members shall serve without compensation and shall be residents of the City of Redlands and neither officers nor employees thereof.

There are no terms expiring on this commission in 2023.

MEASURE T OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
Committee members shall serve without compensation, shall each be a resident of the city with the exception of the two (2) members representing the city's employee bargaining units, and shall be neither a member of any other standing commission, board or committee of the city nor an employee thereof.

Name of Incumbent Appt. Date Date Term Expires
Steven M. Chapman 04/20/2021 04/20/2023
Shelli Stockton 04/20/2021 04/20/2023
Joseph Valdivia 04/21/2022 04/21/2023
Mike Foster 04/21/2022 04/21/2023

PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
Commission members shall serve without compensation and shall be residents of the City of Redlands and neither officers nor employees thereof. The student member of the Commission shall serve without compensation and shall be from the junior class of a Redlands Unified School District High School at the time of appointment to the Commission.

Name of Incumbent Appt. Date Date Term Expires
Douglas Gonzales 11/05/2019 03/01/2023
Adam Hebden 11/05/2019 03/01/2023
Earl Ryan Johnson 05/05/2015 03/01/2023
Student Commissioner 01/01/2023 12/31/2023

PLANNING COMMISSION
The Commission members shall be residents of the City of Redlands and neither officers nor employees thereof.

Name of Incumbent Appt. Date Date Term Expires
Joe Richardson 02/19/2019 01/06/2023
Mario Saucedo 02/19/2019 01/06/2023
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 37 of 728
3 I:\cmo\BOARDS\Local Appt Lists\local appointments list 2023.docx

STREET TREE COMMITTEE
The Committee members shall serve without compensation and shall be residents of the City of Redlands and neither officers nor employees thereof.

Name of Incumbent Appt. Date Date Term Expires
Lorraine Enriquez 02/19/2019 02/16/2023
Janet Ward 11/20/2012 02/16/2023
Augustin Ortega 09/03/2019 02/16/2023
Andrew Hoder 01/06/2015 02/16/2023

TRAFFIC AND PARKING COMMISSION
Members of the Commission shall serve without compensation and shall be residents of the City of Redlands and neither officers nor employees thereof. The student member of the Commission shall serve without compensation and shall be from the junior class of a Redlands Unified School District High School at the time of appointment to the Commission.

Name of Incumbent Appt. Date Date Term Expires
Student Commissioner 01/01/2023 12/31/2023
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 38 of 728
City Council Meeting J. 3.

DATE: 12/20/2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBJECT: Approve recommendation for appointments to the Planning Commission (Mayor Barich)
MOTION:

I move to appoint Marc Shaw and Rich Smith to each serve four-year terms on the Planning Commission beginning January 6, 2023 ending January 6, 2027.

RECOMMENDATION:

Pursuant to the Redlands Municipal Code, appointments to this commission are made by the Mayor. It is recommended by Mayor Barich that the City Council consider the appointments of Marc Shaw and Rich Smith to the Planning Commission.

DISCUSSION:

The terms of Commissioners Joe Richardson and Mario Saucedo will expire on January 6, 2023. Commissioners Richardson and Saucedo are not seeking reappointment. A public notice inviting interested residents to submit an application for an appointment to the Planning Commission was issued in October. The public notice was concurrently aired on Redlands TV and posted on the community bulletin board at the A. K. Smiley Public Library. The local newspapers also received distribution of the public notice. Seven applications were received, and three applications from a previous notice were included.

The Planning Commission consists of seven members as follows:

Joe Richardson - Term Expires 1.6.23
Mario Saucedo - Term Expires 1.6.23
Rosemarie Gonzales
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 39 of 728
Steven Frasher
Matthew Endsley
Maryn Wells
Karah Shaw
ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council may choose not to support the recommendation and direct staff to seek further applications for consideration.

SUBMITTED BY:

Janice McConnell, Assistant City Manager
REVIEWED BY:

Charles M. Duggan, Jr., City Manager
PREPARED BY:

Jennifer Macias, Management Analyst
Attachments
Public Notice
Planning Commission Applications
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 40 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 41 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 42 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 43 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 44 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 45 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 46 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 47 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 48 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 49 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 50 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 51 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 52 of 728
City Council Meeting J. 4.

DATE: 12/20/2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBJECT: Approve recommendation for reappointments to the Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission (Mayor Pro Tem Tejeda)
MOTION:

I move to reappoint Kurt Heidelberg, Dr. Lauren Weiss Bricker, and Steven Holm to each serve four-year terms on the Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission ending January 18, 2027.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended by Mayor Barich and Mayor Pro Tem Tejeda that the City Council consider these appointments to the Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission. Pursuant to the Redlands Municipal Code, appointments are made by the Mayor and approved by the City Council. However, Mayor Barich has expressed his desire to rotate recommendations for commission/board appointments among the City Council Members; therefore, Mayor Pro Tem Tejeda has been delegated authority by Mayor Barich to make the recommendation for this appointment.

DISCUSSION:

The terms of Commissioners Kurt Heidelberg, Dr. Lauren Weiss Bricker, and Steven Holm on the Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission expire on January 18, 2023. Commissioners Heidelberg, Weiss Bricker, and Holm are seeking reappointment and are each eligible to serve an additional term.

A public notice requesting interested residents to submit an application for the Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission was issued in October 2022. In addition, the public notice was concurrently aired on Redlands TV and posted at the community bulletin board at the A. K. Smiley Public Library. The local newspapers also received distribution of the public notice. The City received 3 applications from residents interested in serving on this commission.

The Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission consists of seven members Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 53 of 728
The Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission consists of seven members as follows:

Dr. Rose-Marie Raumin
Greg Weissman
Justine Guidry
Kurt Heidelberg (1.18.23)
Nathan Gonzales (permanent member)
Dr. Lauren Weiss Bricker (1.18.23)
Steven Holm (1.18.23)
ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council may choose not to support the recommendation and direct staff to seek further applications for consideration.

SUBMITTED BY:

Janice McConnell, Assistant City Manager
REVIEWED BY:

Charles M. Duggan Jr., City Manager
Yvette M. Albich Garcia, City Attorney
PREPARED BY:

Jennifer Macias, Management Analyst
Attachments
Historic & Scenic Preservation Applications
Public Notice
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 54 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 55 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 56 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 57 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 58 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 59 of 728
City Council Meeting J. 5.

DATE: 12/20/2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBJECT: Approve recommendation for an appointment to the Traffic and Parking Commission (Council Member Davis)
MOTION:

I move to appoint Kevin Morningstar and Bill Waddell to each serve a four-year term on the Traffic and Parking Commission ending December 20, 2026.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended by Mayor Barich and Council Member Davis that the City Council consider these appointments to the Traffic and Parking Commission.

Pursuant to the Redlands Municipal Code, appointments to this commission are made by the Mayor and approved by the City Council. However, Mayor Barich has expressed his desire to rotate recommendations for commission/board appointments among the City Council Members; therefore, Council Member Davis has been delegated authority by Mayor Barich to make the recommendation for these appointments.

DISCUSSION:

The terms of Commissioners Matt Malouf and Curtis Dison on the Traffic and Parking Commission expire on December 20, 2022. Commissioners Malouf and Dison are not seeking reappointment. A public notice requesting interested residents to submit an application for the Traffic and Parking Commission was issued in October 2022. In addition, the public notices were concurrently aired on Redlands TV and posted at the community bulletin board at the A. K. Smiley Public Library. The local newspapers also received distribution of the public notice. Four applications were received in response. One application from a previous posting was included.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 60 of 728
The Traffic and Parking Commission consists of six members as follows:

Curtis Dison - Term Expires 12.20.22
Anna Jaiswal
Matt Malouf - Term Expires 12.20.22
Eric Shamp
Marc Tran
Cassie MacDuff
ALTERNATIVE:

The City Council may choose not to support the recommendation and direct staff to seek further applications for consideration.

SUBMITTED BY:

Janice McConnell, Assistant City Manager
REVIEWED BY:

Charles M. Duggan, Jr., City Manager
PREPARED BY:

Jennifer Macias
Attachments
Traffic & parking Commission Applications
Public notice
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 61 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 62 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 63 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 64 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 65 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 66 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 67 of 728
City Council Meeting J. 6.

DATE: 12/20/2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution No. 8428 authorizing remote teleconference meetings by the City Council and all Boards, Commissions, and Committees of the City in accordance with Assembly Bill 361 (2021) for a period of 30 days (Council Member Davis)
MOTION:

I move to adopt Resolution No. 8428.

DISCUSSION:

On December 6, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 8411 authorizing remote teleconference meetings by the City Council and all Boards, Commissions, and Committees of the City in accordance with Assembly Bill 361 (2021) for a period of 30 days ending January 4, 2023. AB 361, signed into law on September 16, 2021, amends Government Code Section 54953 to provide the authority and specific requirements for public agencies to hold virtual meetings during a proclaimed state of emergency and remain in compliance with the Brown Act.

In accordance with Government Code Section 54953 (e)(3), the City Council must review the need and make findings for continuing the teleconferencing as authorized by AB 361 at least once every thirty days until the Governor terminates the state of emergency. With the adoption of Resolution No. 8384, the City Council is reaffirming its findings and compliance with AB 361 for an additional 30 days ending January 18, 2023.

SUBMITTED BY:

Council Member Denise Davis
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 68 of 728
Attachments
Reso. 8428 Teleconference Meeting
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 69 of 728
1 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8428 Teleconference Meeting 12.20.22.docx RESOLUTION NO.8428

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS

AUTHORIZING REMOTE TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS BY THE CITY

COUNCIL AND ALL BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEES OF THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASSEMBLY BILL 361 (2021) FOR A PERIOD

OF THIRTY DAYS
WHEREAS, COVID-19 (also known as the “Coronavirus Disease”) is a respiratory disease that hasspread acrossthe globe, with thousands of confirmed casesin California, including within the City of Redlands (“City”); and
WHEREAS, on January 31, 2020, the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services declared a public health emergency based on the threat caused by COVID-19, and the President of the United States issued a proclamation declaring a national emergency concerning COVID-19 beginning March 1, 2020; and
WHEREAS, in response to COVID-19, the Governor of the State of California issued a proclamation of a state of emergency on March 4, 2020; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City adopted a proclamation of a local emergency related to the COVID-19 virus on March 17, 2020; and
WHEREAS, the City is committed to preserving and fostering public access, transparency, observation, and participation in meetings of the City Council and City boards, commissions, and committees(hereafter collectively referred to as “legislative bodies;”) and WHEREAS, all meetings of the City Council and legislative bodies are open and public as required by the Ralph M. Brown Act (“Brown Act”) (Government Code section 54950 et seq.), so that any member of the public may attend, observe, and participate in a meaningful way; and
WHEREAS, Government Code section 54953(b)(3) of the Brown Act allows a local legislative body to hold public meetings by teleconference and to make public meetings accessible telephonically or otherwise electronically to all members of the public seeking to attend and to address the local legislative body, as long as the following requirements are met:

1. Each teleconference location from which a member is participating is noticed on the agenda;

2. Each teleconference location is accessible to the public;

3. Members of the publicmust be able to addressthe body at each teleconference location;

4. At least one member of the legislative body must be physically present at the location specified in the meeting agenda; and

5. During teleconference meetings, at least a quorum of the members of the local body must participate from locations within the local body’s territorial jurisdiction; and
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 70 of 728
2 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8428 Teleconference Meeting 12.20.22.docx WHEREAS, the Brown Act, as amended by AB 361 (2021), at Government Code section 54953(e), allows for remote observation and participation in meetings by members of a legislative body and members of the public without compliance with the requirements of Government Code section 54953(b)(3), subject to certain conditions; and WHEREAS, the initial required condition of Government Code section 54953(b)(3) is a declaration of a state of emergency by the Governor pursuant to the California Emergency Services Act at Government Code section 8625, proclaiming the existence of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the state and within the boundaries of the City, caused by conditions as described in Government Code section 8558; and WHEREAS, the Governor’s proclamation of a state of emergency includes area within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City; and
WHEREAS, Government Code section 54953(e)(3)(A-B), added by AB 361, provides an alternative to having public meetings in accordance with Government Code Section 54953(b)(3) when the City Council has reconsidered the circumstances of the COVID-19 state of emergency and that the following circumstances exist:

1. The state of emergency because COVID-19 continues to directly impact the ability of the members of City Council and the members of the City’s boards, commissions, and committees to meet safely in person; and

2. The State of California and the County of San Bernardino continue to recommend measures to promote social distancing; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 54953(e) further requires that state or local officials have imposed, or recommended, measures to promote social distancing, or the legislative body finds that meeting in person would present an imminent risk to the health or safety of attendees; and
WHEREAS, such conditions now exist in the City in that (i) state and local officials do recommend social distancing measures, and (ii) emergency conditions evidenced by COVID-19 and its variants create ongoing COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths, such that meeting in person would present imminent risk to health or safety of attendees; and WHEREAS, the City Council affirms that it will allow for observation and participation by City Council members as well as board, commission, and committee members and the public, via Zoom, or other appropriate technology, in an effort to protect the constitutional and statutory rights of all attendees; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 54953 (e)(3) further requires that the City Council review the need and make findings for continuing the teleconferencing as authorized by AB 361 at least once every thirty days until the Governor terminates the state of emergency; Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 71 of 728
3 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8428 Teleconference Meeting 12.20.22.docx

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 2. The City Council finds that the state of emergency conditions related to COVID-19 as set forth in the Governor’s and City’s proclamations of emergency are on-going.

Section 3. The City Council further finds that State and county officials recommend social distancing conditions causing imminent risk to attendees as described above exist.

Section 4. The City Council hereby recognizes and affirms the existence and conditions of a state of emergency as proclaimed by the Governor, and the City, and affirms, authorizes, and proclaims the existence of a local emergency throughout the City.

Section 5. The City Council finds that the state of emergency because COVID-19 continues to directly impact the ability of members of the City Council and the members of the City’s b oards, c ommissions, and committees to meet safely in person and such fact creates an imminent health risk to such members.

Section 6. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Council, and all of the boards, commissions, and committees of the City, to conduct their meetings without compliance with Government Code section 54953(b)(3), and to instead comply with the remote meeting requirements as authorized by Government Code section 54953(e).

Section 7. The City Manager and City Clerk are authorized and directed to take all actions reasonably necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Resolution, including, conducting open and public meetings remotely in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e), and other applicable provisions of the Brown Act, for all City Council meetings, and all boards, commissions, and committee meetings of the City.

Section 8. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption and shall be effective until either (i) January 18, 2023, or (ii) such time as the City Council adopts a Subsequent Resolution in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e)(3) to extend the time during which the City Council and all City legislative bodies may continue to meet remotely, without compliance with Government Code section 54953(b)(3), but otherwise as permitted by Government Code section 54953(e).

ADOPTED, SIGNED AND APPROVED this 20thday of December 2022. ________________________
ATTEST: Paul T. Barich, Mayor
____________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 72 of 728
4 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8428 Teleconference Meeting 12.20.22.docx I, Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk of the City of Redlands, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the City Council at a special meeting thereof held on the 20thday of December 2022.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 73 of 728
City Council Meeting J. 7.

DATE: 12/20/2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBJECT: Approve recommendation for a reappointment to the Cultural Arts Commission (Council Member Guzman-Lowery)
MOTION:

I move to reappoint Danielle Giudici-Wallis to serve a four-year term on the Cultural Arts Commission beginning January 6, 2023 and ending January 6, 2027.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended by Council Member Guzman-Lowery that the City Council consider this reappointment to the Cultural Arts Commission. Pursuant to the Redlands Municipal Code, appointments to this commission are made by the Mayor and approved by the City Council. However, Mayor Barich has expressed his desire to rotate recommendations for commission/board appointments among the City Council Members; therefore, Council Member Guzman-Lowery has been delegated authority by Mayor Barich to make the recommendation for this reappointment.

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Danielle Giudici Willis' term will expire January 6, 2023. She is interested and eligible for reappointment to a four-year term ending January 6, 2027. A public notice requesting interested residents to submit an application for the Cultural Arts Commission was issued in October. In addition, the public notices were concurrently aired on Redlands TV and posted on the community bulletin board at A. K. Smiley Public Library. The local newspapers also received distribution of public notices. No applications were received from the recent posting. However, five applications were included from previous postings.

The Cultural Arts Commission consists of seven members as follows:

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 74 of 728
Daniel Goham
Dennis Christensen
Kelly McGrail
Margo Mullen
Danielle Giudici Wallis-expiration 1/6/2023
Jina Edwards
Daniel Rodriguez
ALTERNATIVE:

The City Council may choose not to support the recommendation and direct staff to seek further applications for consideration.

SUBMITTED BY:

Jennifer Macias, Management Analyst
REVIEWED BY:

Charles M. Duggan, Jr., City Manager
Janice McConnell, Assistant City Manager
Attachments
Public Notice
Cultural Arts Commission Applications
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 75 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 76 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 77 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 78 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 79 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 80 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 81 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 82 of 728
City Council Meeting J. 8.

DATE: 12/20/2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBJECT: Approve recommendation for reappointments to the Library Board of Trustees Commission (Council Member Gallagher)
MOTION:

I move to reappoint William D. Hatfield and Kate Pretorius to each serve three-year terms on the Library Board of Trustees beginning January 1, 2023 and ending January 1, 2026.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended by Mayor Barich and Council Member Gallagher that the City Council consider these reappointments to the Library Board of Trustees.

Pursuant to the Redlands Municipal Code, appointments are made by the Mayor and approved by the City Council. However, Mayor Barich has expressed his desire to rotate recommendations for commission/board appointments among the City Council Members; therefore, Council Member Gallagher has been delegated authority by Mayor Barich to make the recommendation for these reappointments.

DISCUSSION:

The terms of Library Board Members William D. Hatfield and Kate Pretorius will expire on January 6, 2023. Board Members Hatfield and Pretorius have each expressed an interest in reappointment to the Library Board of Trustees.

Because Library Board members are governed by the State Education Code and are not subject to the City's two, four-year term limitation as other City commissioners, Board Members Hatfield and Pretorius are eligible for reappointment.

A public notice requesting interested residents to submit an application for the Library Board of Trustees was issued in October. In addition, the public notice was concurrently aired on Redlands TV and posted at the community bulletin Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 83 of 728
was concurrently aired on Redlands TV and posted at the community bulletin board at the A. K. Smiley Public Library. The local newspapers also received distribution of the public notice. One application was received in response, and one from a previous notice was included for consideration.

The Library Board of Trustees Commission consists of five members as follows:

Martin Davis
Rosa Gomez
William T. Hardy, Jr.

William D. Hatfield - Term Expires 1.1.23
Kate Pretorious - Term Expires 1.1.23
ALTERNATIVE:

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 84 of 728
ALTERNATIVE:

The City Council may choose not to support the recommendation and direct staff to seek further applications for consideration.

SUBMITTED BY:

Janice McConnell, Assistant City Manager
REVIEWED BY:

Charles M. Duggan, Jr., City Manager
PREPARED BY:

Jennifer Macias, Management Analyst
Attachments
Public Notice
Library Board Applications
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 85 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 86 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 87 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 88 of 728
City Council Meeting J. 9.

DATE: 12/20/2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBJECT: Adopt Ordinance No. 2940 (Second Reading) - Amending Chapter

1.08 of the Municipal Code regarding Custody and Use of the Official City Seal and City Logos, Badges and Patches (Assistant City Manager McConnell)
MOTION(S):

If the City Council determines that staff’s recommendation is appropriate, the following motion is provided:

I move to adopt Ordinance No. 2940.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 2940 amending Chapter 1.08 of the Municipal Code regarding custody and use of the Official City Seal and City Logos, Badges and Patches.

DISCUSSION:

The proposed ordinance and staff report prepared for the introduction of this ordinance are available in the City Clerk's office.

ALTERNATIVES:

The Council may continue this matter in order to allow additional time to review Ordinance No. 2940.

STRATEGIC PLAN:

Not Applicable
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 89 of 728
SUBMITTED BY:

Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
RECOMMENDED BY:

Charles M. Duggan Jr., City Manager
REVIEWED BY:

Yvette M. Abich Garcia, City Attorney
Janice McConnell, Assistant City Manager
Danielle Garcia, Management Services/Finance Director
PREPARED BY:

Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
Fiscal Impact
Discussion:

Codification: $22/per page affected by the change
Legal Publication: $300
Attachments
Ordinance No. 2940 City Seal and Logo
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 90 of 728
1 C:\Users\DESTIN~2\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@8449FF91\@[email protected] ORDINANCE NO. 2940

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING REDLANDS MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 1.08 ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR

CUTODY AND USE OF THE CITY SEAL, LOGOS, BADGES AND PATCHES WHEREAS, the City desires to protect its official Seal and Logo from all unauthorized uses to prevent fraud, deception, misrepresentation, and/or abuse; WHEREAS, California Government Code § 34051.5 and California Elections Code § 18304 prohibits the use of the City seal in any campaign literature or mass mailing with intent to deceive voters; WHEREAS, the use of a reproduction or facsimile of a seal may create a misleading, erroneous, or false impression of an endorsement or authorization by the City or public official; and WHEREAS, the City Council seeks to ensure that the City Seal and City Logo are used only for purposes directly related to the official business of the City of Redlands, or as expressly authorized.

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Chapter 1.08 of the Redlands Municipal Code titled, “City Seal,” is hereby re-titled and amended in its entirety to read as follows:
“CHAPTER 1.08

CUSTODY AND USE OF THE OFFICIAL CITY SEAL, CITY LOGOS, BADGES AND

PATCHES
Sections:

1.08.010 Definitions.

1.08.020 Use of Official City Seal, City Logos Badges and/or Patches.

1.08.030 Prohibited Uses of City Seal, City Logos, Badges and/or Patches.

1.08.040 Penalties.

1.08.010 Definitions. The following words shall have the meanings set forth below when used in this Chapter:

A. “Official City Seal” means the official City Seal of the City of Redlands as adopted by City Council Ordinance No. 2718. The official seal of the City of Redlands shall be in the form of a die approximately two inches (“2”) in diameter. The form of the die shall be two (2) circles, one inside the other. Within the smaller circle shall be imprinted the words “Incorporated 1888,” and within the larger circle and outside the limits of the inner circle shall be imprinted the words “City of Redlands California depicted below:

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 91 of 728
2 C:\Users\DESTIN~2\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@8449FF91\@[email protected] B. “City Logo” shall be the following image adopted as the official logo of the City of Redlands by action of the City Council on June 7, 2022:

C. “Redlands Police Logo” shall be the following image adopted as the official logo of the Redlands Police Department:

D. “Redlands Police Badge” shall be the following image adopted as the official badge of the Redlands Police Department:

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 92 of 728
3 C:\Users\DESTIN~2\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@8449FF91\@[email protected] E. “Redlands Police Patch” shall be the following image adopted as the official patch of the Redlands Police Department:

F. “Redlands Recreation & Senior Services Logo” shall be the following image adopted as the official logo of Redlands Recreation & Senior Services:

G. “Official City Seal, City Logos, Badges and/or Patches” shall mean collectively the Official City Seal, the City Logo, the Redlands Police Logo, the Redlands Police Badge, Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 93 of 728
4 C:\Users\DESTIN~2\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@8449FF91\@[email protected] the Redlands Police Patch, and the Redlands Recreation & Senior Services Logo, unless expressly stated otherwise.

1.08.020 Use of Official City Seal, City Logos, Badges and Patches.

A. The City Clerk or designee, acting as the Custodian of the Official City Seal as defined herein is authorized to use or affix the Official City Seal, as appropriate, to all certificates and documents as may be required by law, by this Municipal Code, or by City ordinance or resolution, to authenticate official City documents or to indicate institutional sanction for official, legal and ceremonial purposes.

B. The Official City Seal, City Logos, Badges and/or Patches shall only be used for purposes directly connected with the official business of the City of Redlands, its City Council, City boards, commissions, committees, City officers, employees or departments, or for other city-related purposes upon written authorization of the City Clerk or designee for use of the Official City Seal and the City Manager or designee for use of the City Logos, Badges and/or Patches.

C. The members of the City Council and City boards, commissions and committees, and any City officer or employee may use stationary, business cards, and other materials and articles printed by the City with the Official City Seal, City Logos, Badges and/or Patches only while acting within the scope of their office or employment.

D. The Director of Facilities & Community Services shall designate the vehicles, equipment or other items of property belonging to the City to be affixed with the image of the City Logos, Badges and/or Patches, as appropriate.

E. The City Council retains the right to create variations of the Official City Seal and any City Logos, Badges and/or Patches and to adopt and establish other official City seals and logos, badges and patches. Such variations may include, but are not limited to, centennial or other seals or logos which mark anniversaries, events, and/or any other City occasion the City Council wishes to commemorate. The Official City Seal, City Logos, City Badges and/or Patches may only be altered pursuant to ordinance or resolution of the City Council.

1.08.030 Prohibited Uses of Official City Seal, City Logos, Badges and Patches.

A. Except as otherwise provided for herein, it is unlawful for any person or entity to make use of the Official City Seal, City Logos, Badges and/or Patches or any portion, facsimile, mock-up, derivative or reproduction thereof, or make or use any design, symbol, emblem, insignia or similar device that is an imitation of said Official City Seal, City Logos, Badges and/or Patches or that may be mistaken therefor, that is designed, intended or likely to confuse or mislead the public, for private or commercial purposes or for any purpose other than the official business of the City.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 94 of 728
5 C:\Users\DESTIN~2\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@8449FF91\@[email protected] No person, firm, association, or corporation shall use the Official City Seal and the City Logos, Badges and/or Patches or any facsimile thereof for purposes of supporting or opposing the nomination or election to any City or other public office of any person, or for purposes of supporting or opposing any ballot measure, nor include such Official City Seal or any City Logos, Badges and/or Patches on any writing distributed for purposes of influencing the action of the electorate, or any part thereof, in any election. This section shall not be applicable to official writings issued by the City or the City Council as a whole pursuant to law.

1.08.040 Penalties.

Unauthorized use of the Official City Seal, City Logos, Badges and/or Patches for malicious, deceptive, fraudulent, or other unauthorized purposes in violation of this Chapter is declared to be a public nuisance and the City can abate or enjoin such use pursuant to the Redlands Municipal Code. Violation of this Chapter shall be an infraction or misdemeanor, as determined by the City Attorney. Nothing herein prevents the City from using any other available civil and/or criminal remedies allowed by law to protect the Official City Seal, City Logos, City Badge and/or Patch from improper or illegal use.

Section 2. WHEREAS, the City Council hereby determines that approval of Ordinance No. 2940 is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State’s Guidelines implementing CEQA because it can be seen with certainty that adoption of the Ordinance will not cause any significant environmental effects and will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

Section 3. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held to be unconstitutional or invalid or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional or invalid or ineffective. To this end the provisions of this Ordinance are declared to be severable.

Section 4. The Mayor shall sign this ordinance and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and shall cause it, or a summary of it, to be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City, and thereafter, this ordinance shall take effect as provided by law.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 95 of 728
6 C:\Users\DESTIN~2\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@8449FF91\@[email protected] Paul T. Barich, Mayor
ATTEST:

Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 96 of 728
7 C:\Users\DESTIN~2\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@8449FF91\@[email protected] I, Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk, City of Redlands, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council at the regular meeting thereof, held on the 6th day of December, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 97 of 728
City Council Meeting J. 10.

DATE: 12/20/2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBJECT: Approve a Second Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Webb Municipal Finance, LLC to allow for the continued performance of professional services for the annual levy administration and annexations for Community Facilities District No. 2004-1, authorize an Additional Appropriation in the amount of $33,577.59 and determine that this contract amendment is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State's guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (Development Services Director Desatnik)
MOTION(S):

If the City Council determines that staff’s recommendation is appropriate, the following motions are provided:

I move that City Council determine that approval of this contract amendment is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State's guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act;

1. I move to approve the Second Amendment to the Agreement with Webb Municipal Finance, LLC changing the name of the City's representative, updating the rate schedule and extending the end term by 3 years from December 31, 2022 to December 31, 2025, in an amount not-to-exceed $86,500; and

2. I move to authorize an Additional Appropriation in the amount of $33,577.59.

3. Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 98 of 728
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends City Council approve the Second Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Webb Municipal Finance, LLC to change the name of the City’s representative, extend the end term of the agreement for 3 years from December 31, 2022, to December 31, 2025, and authorize an Additional Appropriation in the amount of $33,577.59, to allow for the continued performance of professional services for the annual levy administration and annexations for Community Facilities District No. 2004-1 (District) which is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.

DISCUSSION:

On September 18, 2018, City Council approved an agreement with Webb Municipal Finance, LLC for an amount not to exceed $56,500.

On November 5, 2019, City Council approved a first amendment to the agreement with Webb Municipal Finance, LLC to change the City's representative and to extend the term of the agreement for 3 years through December 31, 2022.

Webb Municipal Finance, LLC is a Municipal Advisor with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Webb provides land use research, classification of property, financial analysis, report preparation, enrollment of special taxes, annexation boundary map preparation, landowner elections, and preparation of notices for tax liens for the City's Community Facilities District (CFD). Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department staff utilizes Webb to provide CFD annual levy, administration, and annexation services.

Webb Municipal Finance, LLC, has been the CFD Engineer since the formation of the District, has processed all annexations into the District for the past 18 years, and has prepared the required annual CFD Engineer's Reports which establish the annual assessments to be collected by the San Bernardino County Assessor.

The proposed action is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act's (CEQA) guidelines pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) as the amendment of an existing agreement would be covered by the general rule common sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, and there is negligible expansion of existing facilities.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 99 of 728
ALTERNATIVES:

City Council may elect not to amend the existing agreement and direct staff to advertise a request for proposals for the annual levy, administration, and annexations for the Community Facilities District No. 2004-1. However, not approving these actions would result in a halt in the processing of future annexations until a new CFD engineering firm is selected.

STRATEGIC PLAN:

Not applicable.

SUBMITTED BY:

Brian Desatnik, Director
RECOMMENDED BY:

Charles M. Duggan Jr., City Manager
REVIEWED BY:

Yvette M. Abich Garcia, City Attorney
Janice McConnell, Assistant City Manager
Danielle Garcia, Management Services/Finance Director
PREPARED BY:

Tricia Munoz, Management Analyst
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year: 2022-23
Revenue Generating: N
Appropriation Required Y/N: Y
Amount: $33,577.59
Budgeted Y/N: N
Account No.: 101163-6106
Discussion:

Approval of this Second Amendment will result in the use of General Fund.

However, fees for funding this agreement are supported by an annexation fee each time an annexation into the Community Facilities District 2004-1 is requested. The Development Services Department Land Use Engineering Division (101163-6106) 2022-23 budget will need to be increased by $33,577.59 for the Second Amendment to the Agreement with Webb Municipal Finance, LLC.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 100 of 728
Attachments
Second Amendment Webb Municipal Finance LLC
First Amendment_Webb Municipal Finance LLC
Original Agreement_Webb Municipal Finance LLC
Additional Appropriation
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 101 of 728
1 I:\cmo\Agreements\Webb Municipal Finance LLC 2nd Amendment FY-22-0085.docx-jm

SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT TO PERFORM PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This second amendment (“Second Amendment”) to the agreement for the provision of services associated with Community Facilities District (“Agreement”), dated September 18, 2018, by and between the City of Redlands, a municipal corporation and a general law city (“City”), and Webb Municipal Finance, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company (“Consultant”), is made and entered into this 20th day of December 2022. City and Consultant are sometimes individually referred to herein as a “Party”, and collectively as the “Parties”.

RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Parties entered into a Professional Services Agreement (“Agreement”) on September 18, 2018 to provide Community Facilities District services to the City; WHEREAS, the Parties entered into a First Amendment to the Agreement (“First Amendment”) on November 5, 2019; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Parties to amend their existing Agreement, specifically to make a change to the City’s designated representative, update the Consultant’s Hourly Rate Schedule and extend the time for performance of services by Consultant.

NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration in the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged City and Consultant agree as follows:

AGREEMENT
Section 1. Article 3 of the Agreement, entitled “Responsibilities of the City,” is hereby amended to read as follows:
“3.2 City designates Brian Desatnik, Development Services Director, as City’s representative with respect to performance of the Services, and such person shall have the authority to transmit instructions, receive information, interpret and define City’s policies and decisions with respect to performance of the Services."
Section 2. Article 4 of the Agreement, entitled “Performance of Services” is hereby amended to read as follows:
“4.2 Consultant shall complete the Services by December 31, 2025, unless the Services are terminated earlier as provided for herein.”
Section 3. Exhibit “B” entitled “Hourly Rate Schedule” and as described in Article 5.1, and made part of the First Amendment is hereby replaced with a new Exhibit “B”, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein and into the Agreement by this reference.

Section 4. All other provisions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged by this Second Amendment and in effect.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 102 of 728
2 I:\cmo\Agreements\Webb Municipal Finance LLC 2nd Amendment FY-22-0085.docx-jm IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Second Amendment, to be effective as of 20
th day of December 2022.

CITY OF REDLANDS WEBB MUNICIPAL FINANCE, LLC
________________________________ By: ________________________________ Paul T. Barich, Mayor Heidi Schoeppe
President/Managing Director
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 103 of 728
3 I:\cmo\Agreements\Webb Municipal Finance LLC 2nd Amendment FY-22-0085.docx-jm EXHIBIT “B”

HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE

CLASSIFICATION
Engineers/Project Managers/Planners/Scientists/ Rates
Assessment/Special Tax Consultants/Landscape Architects/Designers $/Hour Principal II.............................................................................................................................. 293.00 Principal I .............................................................................................................................. 279.00 Senior III ............................................................................................................................... 252.00 Senior II ................................................................................................................................ 240.00 Senior I ............................................................................................................................... 232.00 Associate III .......................................................................................................................... 208.00 Associate II ........................................................................................................................... 197.00 Associate I ............................................................................................................................ 191.00 Assistant V ........................................................................................................................... 173.00 Assistant IV .......................................................................................................................... 156.00 Assistant III ........................................................................................................................... 144.00 Assistant II ............................................................................................................................ 135.00 Assistant I ............................................................................................................................. 98.00 Survey Services
2-Person Survey Party .......................................................................................................... 302.00 1-Person Survey Party ......................................................................................................... 208.00 Inspection Services
Construction Manager II ....................................................................................................... 245.00 Construction Manager I ........................................................................................................ 185.00 Inspector (Non-Prevailing Wage) ......................................................................................... 141.00 Inspector Overtime (Non-Prevailing Wage) .......................................................................... 190.00 Inspector (Prevailing Wage) ................................................................................................. 152.00 Inspector Overtime (Prevailing Wage) .................................................................................. 200.00 Administrative Services
Project Coordinator .............................................................................................................. 115.00 Administrative Assistant III ................................................................................................... 102.00 Administrative Assistant II .................................................................................................... 91.00 Administrative Assistant I ..................................................................................................... 72.00 Other Direct Expenses
Incidental Charges ............................................................................................................... Cost Postage ................................................................................................................................ Cost Subcontracted Services ....................................................................................................... Cost Special Consultant………………………………………………………………………………… 365.00 Survey/Inspection Per Diem.................................................................................................. Prevailing Wage Rate
In-House Delivery Up to 1/2 hour.......................................................................................... 32.00 In-House Delivery 1/2 Hour up to 1 Hour .............................................................................. 64.00 In-House Delivery Over 1 Hour up to 2 Hours ...................................................................... 118.00 In-House Delivery Over 2 Hours ........................................................................................... 170.00 Survey/Inspection Vehicle .................................................................................................... 0.81/Mile Mileage ................................................................................................................................. 0.72/Mile Note: All rates are subject to change based on annual inflation and cost of living adjustments. Prevailing wages are dictated by the California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR). As such, the indicated rate will remain in effect until revised rates are published by the DIR. The rate shown shall be subject to renegotiation to remain in compliance with State requirements if prevailing wages are increased by the DIR.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 104 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 105 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 106 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 107 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 108 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 109 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 110 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 111 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 112 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 113 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 114 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 115 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 116 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 117 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 118 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 119 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 120 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 121 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 122 of 728
DATE OF REQUEST:

An additional appropriation is hereby requested as follows:

Department:

JUSTIFICATION:

Requested By:

Recommended By Finance Director: Recommended:

Yes No Signed
Comments: Approved by City Council:

Date:

Signed:

City Clerk
REVENUE APPROPRIATION INCREASE (if applicable)
EXPENDITURE APPROPRIATION INCREASE (if applicable)
$ -
$ -
TRANSACTION NO:

ACCOUNTING PERIOD:

Account Description Orgkey Object Code Job Ledger (If
applicable) Amount
Job Ledger (If
applicable) Account Description Orgkey Object Code Amount Department Head
City Manager

CITY OF REDLANDS

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION

FINANCE USE ONLY

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 123 of 728
City Council Meeting J. 11.

DATE: 12/20/2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution No. 8426 - Annual Report of Development Impact Fees for the Year Ended June 30, 2022, and Adoption of Findings (Management Services/Finance Director Garcia)
MOTION(S):

If the City Council determines that staff's recommendation is appropriate, the following motion is provided:

I move to adopt Resolution No. 8426.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council adopt Resolution No. 8426 approving the Annual Report of Development Impact Fees for the year ended June 30, 2022, and the findings contained therein.

DISCUSSION:

Government Code Section 66006 requires municipalities imposing impact fees to prepare an annual report that summarizes the revenues and interest income earned and the expenditures made for each category of development impact fees during a given fiscal year. This report was filed with the City Clerk’s Office and available for public review on December 1, 2022. The report must provide the beginning and ending balances of the fiscal year, the amount of fees collected by the City, interest income and any other income earned, a description of how the fees were expended during the subject fiscal year, and any refunds or allocations pursuant to Government Code Section 66001(f). If fees are unexpended or uncommitted for a period of five or more years, the report must include a finding identifying the purpose of the fee and the anticipated improvements to be financed by the fee. If such findings are not made, State law requires that the City refund the unused fees being held.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 124 of 728
At June 30, 2022, outstanding loans to be repaid from future development impact fees include: $7,835,045 to the General Fund and $40,966 to the Water Operating Fund. The grand total of these outstanding loans is $7,876,011.

ALTERNATIVES:

Not Applicable
STRATEGIC PLAN:

Not Applicable
SUBMITTED BY:

Danielle Garcia, Management Services/Finance Director
RECOMMENDED BY:

Charles M. Duggan, Jr., City Manager
REVIEWED BY:

Yvette M. Abich Garcia, City Attorney
Janice McConnell, Assistant City Manager
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year: FY 2021-22
Discussion:

None. All required findings are included in the report.

Attachments
AB 1600 Annual Report FY 2021-22
Resolution No. 8426 DIF Annual Report FY 2021-2022
Public Facilities Summary of Cash Transactions FY 2021-22 Resolution No. 7951 Development Impact Fees Rescinding 7907 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 125 of 728
December 20, 2022
The Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council, and Residents of Redlands Redlands, CA 92373
Subject: Annual Report of Development Impact Fees
Dear Mayor, Members of the City Council, and Residents of Redlands, Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act (the “Act”) (Government Code section 66000 et seq.), and specifically section 66006 of the Act, the following report on the receipt, use, and retention of development impact fees for the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 is hereby presented to the City Council for review and approval. Development impact fees are charged by local governments to defray all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to new development being constructed within the City. The requirements for enactment of a development impact fee program are set forth in the Act, which was enacted by the State Legislature as Assembly Bill No. 1600 and is commonly referred to as “AB 1600 requirements”.

In Redlands, development impact fees may be collected at the time of issuance of a certificate of occupancy or date of final inspection, or earlier as permitted by Government Code section, for the purpose of mitigating the impacts caused by new development on the City’s infrastructure. Fees are used to finance the acquisition, construction, and improvement of public facilities related to new development projects. A separate funding structure has been established to account for the impact of new development on each of the following types of public facilities: Open Space, Parks, Public Facilities (including police, fire, community center, library, and general government facilities), Transportation, Water, Non-Potable Water, Solid Waste, and Sewer.

Impact fees collected and spent during Fiscal Year 2021-22 were set by Resolution No. 7951 as approved by the City Council on April 2, 2019, which rescinded Resolution No. 7907. The amount of corresponding fee types, currently established by Resolution No. 7951, is attached hereto. The Act requires the City to prepare an annual report for the City’s development impact fees, summarizing the revenues, interest income, and expenditures for each category of funds during the fiscal year. This report was filed with the City Clerk’s Office and A. K. Smiley Public Library and was available for public review on December 6, 2022.

Respectfully submitted,
Management Services / Finance Staff
City Manager’s Office
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 126 of 728
2 | P a g e
CITY OF REDLANDS – ANNUAL REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (227) Open Space Fund – Redlands Municipal Code Chapter 3.32 establishes an Open Space and Park Development Impact Fee. Twenty-five percent (25%) of this fee is deposited into an Open Space Fund to be used solely for the purpose of acquisition, improvement, preservation, and expansion of open space areas within the City in accordance with the provisions of the recreation, open space, and conservation element of the City’s General Plan. The General plan specifies the policy to preserve open space land in order to protect the visual character of the City, provide for public outdoor recreation, conserve natural resources, support groundwater recharge, and otherwise preserve open space areas.

In the General Plan, specific open space areas in the Planning Area include the “Emerald Necklace” concept, San Timoteo Canyon, the Santa Ana Wash, and Live Oak Canyon. Fee amounts are set by Resolution No. 7951.

The following table shows the balances, receipts, and expenditures of the Open Space Fund for the current and last five fiscal years:
2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 Beg. Balance 727,643 428,728 505,631 1,508,088 1,622,321 1,746,567 Receipts 49,392 78,399 1,003,8811 185,482 126,661 419,0862 Expenditures (348,306) (1,496) (1,424) (71,249) (2,416) (9,599) Ending Balance 428,728 505,631 1,508,088 1,622,321 1,746,567 2,156,054 1 Includes non-DIF revenue of $785,000 deposit of land sale proceeds designated by the City Council for the acquisition of open space and received from the sale of the City’s Mullin grove property. 2Receipts also include a GASB 31 Adjustment.

Receipts include fees of $478,934 and negative investment income of $60,848. Negative investment income is caused by GASB 31 for the temporary fair value adjustment of investments held by the City at June 30, 2022. Actual investment income was $15,240.

Expenditures include $9,599 in administrative charges.

Over the last ten years, monies collected in the Open Space Fund, along with grant monies, have been spent on the restoration and acquisition of open space within San Timoteo Canyon, including the San Timoteo Creek Habitat Enhancement Project, the Thompson Property, the Allen property, the Mistretta property and most recently, the Hudson property.

The current cash balance exceeds the cumulative fee collection over the past five years by $914,043, when adjusting for the $785,000 deposit of land sale proceeds as detailed above1. As a result, the City must make “findings” in accordance with the requirements of Government Code Section 66006.

Findings:

Fees deposited into an Open Space Fund are to be used solely for the purpose of acquisition, improvement, preservation, and expansion of open space areas within the City in accordance with the Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 127 of 728
3 | P a g e
CITY OF REDLANDS – ANNUAL REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES provisions of the recreation, open space, and conservation element of the City’s General Plan. Because development impact fee revenue fluctuates and is difficult to forecast, there is no estimate for anticipated funding sources or amounts to complete the projects listed below. Monies collected into the Open Space Fund, including the existing excess cash, are expected to be used in accordance with the General Plan for the following projects over the next 3-5 years:

1. Open Space/Citrus Acquisition – the City is committed to retaining and improving the maximum feasible amount of open space property for recreational opportunities, conservation, agricultural uses, and resource protection. In terms of agricultural open space, one of the City’s goals is to increase the City’s acreage of citrus groves to an approximate target of 200 acres. As of FY 2022, the city owns 185 acres.

2. Emerald Necklace – the Emerald Necklace is a conceptual framework for a series of green open spaces and park areas surrounding the city approximately 45 miles in length, joined together with a special scenic road and trail system. The City has identified gaps in the Emerald Necklace and is working collaboratively to prioritize land acquisition or other resource preservation strategies in those areas. Several sites and properties have been purchased under this framework. Additionally, as suitable properties become available for acquisition, the City will evaluate opportunities to purchase the same.

3. Scenic Routes and Trails – The City has several project priorities: develop a linear parkway/recreational corridor centered along San Timoteo Creek and extending throughout the canyon, coordinate with San Bernardino County and the Santa Ana River Conservancy on implementing the objectives of the Santa Ana River Trail Parkway and Open Space Plan, and to complete the Emerald Necklace system of scenic routes and trails, including the Zanja Trail, Santa Ana River Trail, San Timoteo Trail, and other trails linking parks, regional trails, and open space areas.

No refunds of fees, because of the cumulative cash balance in the Open Space fund, are required, and none have been made during Fiscal Year 2021-2022.
(250) Park Development Fund – Park development impact fees are levied for the purpose of acquiring and developing land for parks. The fees are established per the Redlands Municipal Code as noted above for Open Space. Fee amounts are set by Resolution No. 7951. Seventy-five percent (75%) of the Open Space and Parks fees are deposited into the Park Development Fund. The General Plan sets the policy on park development as one aimed towards creating and maintaining a high-quality, diversified park system that enhances Redlands’ unique attributes. The General Plan prescribes the parkland standard of 5 acres per 1,000 residents and, based on that standard, 82 acres of new parkland would be required to meet the needs of the Planning Area.

The following table shows the balances, receipts, and expenditures of the Park Development Fund for the current and last five fiscal years:
2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 Beg. Balance 555,525 760,793 708,482 477,392 609,313 878,329 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 128 of 728
4 | P a g e
CITY OF REDLANDS – ANNUAL REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES Receipts 614,052(1) 326,477(2) 1,020,460(3) 454,596 382,923 1,408,479 Expenditures (408,784) (378,788) (1,251,551) (322,674) (113,907) (244,684) Ending Balance 760,793 708,482 477,392 609,313 878,329 2,042,124 (1) Includes miscellaneous revenues/transfers of $465,912 that were received from Nevada Palmetto Grove sales proceeds to reimburse expenditures for both Heritage Park off-site improvements ($400,000) and Skate Park Project design costs ($65,912).
(2) Includes miscellaneous revenues/transfers of $101,531 that were received from Nevada Palmetto Grove sales proceeds and community donations to reimburse expenditures for the Skate Park Project design & project-related costs ($16,850 to date).
(3) Includes miscellaneous revenues/transfers of $635,613 that were received from Nevada Palmetto Grove sales proceeds and community donations of $38,723 to fund the construction of the Skate Park.

Impact fee revenue in this category consists of $1,468,650 in fees and $60,171 in negative investment income. Negative investment income is caused by GASB 31 for the temporary fair value adjustment of investments held by the City at June 30, 2022. Actual investment income was $11,628.

Disbursements during Fiscal Year 2021-22 totaled $244,684, including a payment of $62,859 in principal, $39,398 in interest, and $3,846 in fees associated with the State I-Bank loan for the Sports Park. Park Development impact fees will represent approximately 35% of the total cost for the Sports Park design & construction once the debt service is fully satisfied. Projects funded this year included the purchase of a 2,500 square foot parcel to expand the City’s Sports Park for $22,828 and $86,381 towards a portion of the cost to convert two tennis courts into eight (8) pickleball courts at the Redlands Community Center. Other disbursements included $29,373 in administrative charges.

The current cash balance exceeds the cumulative fee collection over the past five years by $644,380.

As a result, the City must make “findings” in accordance with the requirements of Government Code Section 66006.

Findings:

Fees deposited into the Park Development Fund can be used for the acquisition, development, expansion and improvement of parks, sports fields and similar active and passive recreational use.

Because development impact fee revenue fluctuates and is difficult to forecast, there is no estimate for anticipated funding sources or amounts to complete the projects listed below. Monies collected into the Park Development Fund, including the existing excess cash, are expected to be used in accordance with the General Plan for the following projects over the next 3-5 years, or as development needs dictate:

1. Transit Villages – Proposed as approximately 20 acres of community and neighborhood parks to serve residents and employees in the Transit Village Overlay Zone.

2. Mission/Zanja Park - Proposed as a linear park that would follow the Mission Zanja. To be developed as a natural trail with neighborhood and pocket parks along its length.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 129 of 728
5 | P a g e
CITY OF REDLANDS – ANNUAL REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES

3. Israel Beal Park Expansion - Continued expansion of Israel Beal Park along the bluffs as land is developed on its western border. Additional acreage will include active and passive recreation area as well as trails including the future location of the Santa Ana River Trail.

4. West Redlands Park - Proposed neighborhood park near the intersection of Kansas Street and Orange Avenue.

5. Centennial Park – Proposed 30-acre park, located along the bluffs adjacent to Riverview Drive.

This land was acquired for recreational uses including trails and parkland as well as for flood control. The Santa Ana River Trail is planned to go through this park.

No refunds of fees, because of the cumulative cash balance in the Park Development fund, are required, and none have been made during Fiscal Year 2021-2022.
(251) Public Facilities Development Fund - Public Facilities Development Fees have been established per Redlands Municipal Code Chapter 3.60 with the purpose and intent of implementing the Redlands General Plan to ensure that public facilities and related improvements which satisfy City standards are available concurrent with the needs caused by new development within the City. Fee amounts are set by Resolution No. 7951. Fees are collected from applicants for development projects to construct, improve, and maintain public facilities as identified in the City’s public facilities program.

Police Facilities
The purpose of this fee is to provide a revenue source that will provide funds to acquire vehicles, equipment, and facilities that will mitigate the impacts of new residential and non-residential development on the City’s Police resources. A complete listing of proposed facilities is contained within the City’s Development Impact Fee Justification Study, dated January 9, 2017.

The following table shows the balances, receipts, and expenditures of the Police Facilities Fee for the current and last five fiscal years:
2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 Beg. Balance 349,293 422,566 428,533 440,922 464,906 471,706 Receipts 74,769 6,088 12,641 24,474 6,939 22,322
Expenditures (1,495) (122) (253) (489) (139) (446)
Ending Balance 422,566 428,532 440,922 464,906 471,706 493,582 Receipts consist of $22,322 in fees. Disbursements include $447 in administrative charges.

The current cash balance exceeds the cumulative fee collection over the past five years by $386,671.

As a result, the City must make a “finding” in accordance with the requirements of Government Code Section 66006.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 130 of 728
6 | P a g e
CITY OF REDLANDS – ANNUAL REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES Findings:

Fees deposited into the Public Facilities Fund – Police Facilities category are to be used solely for costs related to police facilities, vehicles, and equipment. The largest cost, by far, will be the development of a new safety hall center. The current buildings that house police staff are aged, not ADA-compliant, and represent barriers to effectively managing the department’s resources. As a result, plans have been underway to conceptualize and fund a new Safety Hall. In December 2021, the City acquired a property at 1625 West Redlands Boulevard to retrofit into a new safety hall center. The total project to convert this building into a new police facility is estimated to cost somewhere between $40 and 60 million dollars, including construction, commissioning, and furnishing. Impact fees will be used to help fund the retrofit project once it commences and their expenditure will reflect a portion of new development’s share in the cost of the new facility. Because development impact fee revenue fluctuates and is difficult to forecast, there is no estimate for anticipated funding sources or amounts, in total, that are needed to complete the Safety Hall project. The City anticipates developing a timeline for this project in early 2023. From that point, timelines for project construction/completion are likely to be established.

No refunds are required, and none have been made during Fiscal Year 2021-22.

Fire Facilities
The purpose of this fee is to establish a revenue source that will provide funds to construct various Fire facilities and acquire equipment and vehicles that will mitigate the impacts of new residential and nonresidential development on the City’s Fire facilities. A complete listing of proposed facilities is contained within the City’s Development Impact Fee Justification Study, dated January 9, 2017.

The following table shows the balances, receipts, and expenditures, including loan activity, of the Fire Facilities Fee for the current and last five fiscal years:
2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 Beg. Balance - 13,700 69,271 315,622 399,928 463,557
Receipts 117,100 75,378 251,379 196,707 140,752 427,545 Expenditures (103,399) (19,807) (5,028) (112,401) (77,123) (29,051) Ending Balance 13,700 69,271 315,622 399,928 463,557 862,051 Receipts consist of $427,545 in fees.

Disbursements include $8,550 in administrative charges. In addition, $20,500 was expended on a plan to prepare a facility and spatial needs assessment, including architectural layouts, for the City’s fire stations.

The current cash balance exceeds the cumulative fee collection over the past five years by $80,735. As a result, the City must make a “finding” in accordance with the requirements of Government Code Section 66006.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 131 of 728
7 | P a g e
CITY OF REDLANDS – ANNUAL REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES Findings:

Fees deposited into the Public Facilities Fund – Fire Facilities category are to be used solely for costs related to fire facilities, vehicles, and equipment. The largest cost, by far, will involve the creation of two new fire stations and the relocation of a third temporary structure currently serving as a fire station. The City is currently setting aside funds to finance these projects and intends to use funding from these development impact fees to partially fund the City’s cost as it relates to new development.

These new stations will serve areas of newer development that are currently outside the 4-minute drive time window for call response. Because development impact fee revenue fluctuates and is difficult to forecast, the City anticipates that it will use multiple different funding sources, including possible debt issuance to finance the construction of the new stations. The City anticipates developing a timeline for this project in early 2023. From that point, timelines for project construction/completion are likely to be established.

No refunds are required, and none have been made during Fiscal Year 2021-22.

Library Facilities
The library facility impact fees were established to provide a revenue source that will generate funds to acquire various library collection items and remodel/refurbish existing facilities that will mitigate the impacts of new residential development on the City’s Library facilities. Planned uses from the proceeds of these fees include the expansion of library collection items as well as the remodeling and refurbishment of existing facilities. Collection items include, but are not limited to, books, periodicals, newspapers, DVDs, e-books, etc.

Previously, impact fees collected for Library Facilities were also used to make contributions towards the annual debt service of the 2003 Lease Revenue Refunding Certificates of Participation (COP). The 2003 COPs refunded prior COPs that were used to finance major improvements to the Library’s facilities. The past fees collected were earmarked to pay debt service on these bonds, which matured in Fiscal Year 2017-2018 and are now designated to repay outstanding loans from the General Fund, as well as loans that were provided by the Storm Drain Construction, and Water funds. Those loans were incurred during those fiscal years when library impact fee revenues were insufficient to meet the debt service requirements.

The following table shows the balances, receipts, and expenditures, including loan activity, of the Library Facilities Fee for the current and last five fiscal years:
2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 Beg. Balance - - - 0 0 0
Receipts 143,742 108,011 26,890 42,926 33,427 133,379
Expenditures (143,742) (108,011) (26,890) (42,926) -33,427 (133,379 Ending Balance - - - 0 0 0
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 132 of 728
8 | P a g e
CITY OF REDLANDS – ANNUAL REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES Receipts consist of $133,379 in fees.

Disbursements include $956 in interest expense on its share of inter-fund loans noted above that were provided during Fiscal Year 2010-2011, $2,668 in administrative charges, and $130,712 repaid on outstanding loans from the Storm Drain and Water Funds.

As of June 30, 2022, outstanding loans total $3,784,436, with $3,743,470 owed to the General Fund, and $40,966 owed to the Water Fund. During fiscal year 2021-22, the outstanding loan from the Storm Drain Construction Fund in the amount of $58,078 was fully repaid by the Library Facilities category of Fund 251. As noted, these loans occur when impact fee revenues are insufficient to cover the Library Facilities category 34% share of debt service on the 2003 Lease Revenue Refunding COPs. Historically, no specific term or interest rate has been established for loans owed to the General Fund, however, when the City Council approved loans from the Storm Drain Construction Fund and Water Funds, they did so with the caveat that as sufficient impact fees become available, the non-General Fund loans would be repaid first, with interest set at the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) annual interest rate.

For fiscal year 2021-2022, the interest rate was 0.39%. Because development impact fee revenue fluctuates and is difficult to forecast, there is no estimate for the date on which the remaining outstanding balances of the interfund loans will be repaid.

No refunds of fees are required, and none have been made during Fiscal Year 2021-2022.

General Government Facilities
Impact fees for General Government Facilities were first established with the completion of the impact fee study performed in Fiscal Year 2006-2007 and implemented in August 2007, and the most recent fee justification study is the City’s Development Impact Fee Justification Study dated January 9, 2017.

The purpose of this fee is to establish a revenue source that will provide funds to purchase and install additional IT hardware and construct a government center/safety hall building and public parking facility that will mitigate the impacts of new residential and non-residential development on the City’s general government facilities.

The following table shows the balances, receipts, and expenditures, including loan activity, of the General Government Facilities Fee for the current and last five fiscal years:
2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 Beg. Balance - - - 535 0 0
Receipts 258,296 197,046 299,241 233,858 159,044 511,327 Expenditures (258,296) (197,046) (299,241) (234,392) -159,044 (511,327) Ending Balance - - - (0) (0) (0)
Receipts consist of $511,327 in fees.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 133 of 728
9 | P a g e
CITY OF REDLANDS – ANNUAL REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES Disbursements include $31,255 in total interest expense on its share of inter-fund loans provided during Fiscal Year 2010-2011, $10,227 in administrative charges, and a loan repayment of $469,845 to the General Fund. For fiscal year 2021-2022, the interest rate was 0.39%.

As of June 30, 2022, the remaining outstanding loan totals $4,091,574 and is owed to the General Fund.

Previous loans in place from the Open Space Fund (227) and Park Development Fund (250) have been repaid in full, including the current year interest and all outstanding principal. As noted, these loans occur when impact fee revenues are insufficient to cover the General Government Facilities category 60% share of debt service on the 2003 Lease Revenue Refunding COPs. When the City Council approved loans from the Open Space and Park Development Funds, they did so with the caveat that as sufficient impact fees become available, the non-General Fund loans would be repaid first, with interest set at the annual Local Agency Investment Fund rate. Although no specific term or interest rate has historically been established for General Fund loans, in Fiscal Year 2010-2011 when non-General fund loans were made and interest approved on these loans at the Local Agency Investment Fund rate, interest was also applied in the same manner to the General Fund loan made in that year. Since that time, $54,018 in interest has been added to the General Fund loan principal balance, including an additional $31,255 that has been added for fiscal year 2021-2022. For fiscal year 2021-2022, the Local Agency Investment Fund interest rate was 0.39%. Because development impact fee revenue fluctuates and is difficult to forecast, there is no estimate for the date on which this loan from the General Fund will be repaid.

No refunds of fees are required, and none have been made during Fiscal Year 2021-2022.

Community Center Facilities
Community Center Facilities impact fees were established in Fiscal Year 2014-2015 and are collected using a replacement cost per capita for the City’s existing community centers as the basis for the fees.

The fees charged to future residential development are set at a level needed to maintain the existing level of service as the City grows. The purpose of these fees collected from future development is to approximately cover the cost of adding community center space while maintaining the current ratio of community center asset value to population. The most recent fee justification study is the City’s Development Impact Fee Justification Study, dated January 9, 2017, which contains a complete listing of proposed community center facilities.

The following table shows the balances, receipts, and expenditures of the Community Center Facilities Fee for the current and last five fiscal years:
2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 Beg. Balance 47,081 67,644 68,208 68,208 68,208 68,208
Receipts 21,031 576 - - 0 -
Expenditures (468) (12) - - 0 -
Ending Balance 67,644 68,208 68,208 68,208 68,208 68,208 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 134 of 728
10 | P a g e
CITY OF REDLANDS – ANNUAL REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES There were no receipts or disbursements made from this category in fiscal year 2021-2022.

The current cash balance exceeds the cumulative fee collection over the past five years by $46,601. As a result, the City must make a “finding” in accordance with the requirements of Government Code Section 66006.

Findings:

Fees deposited into the Public Facilities Fund – Community Center Facilities category are to be used solely for the purpose of costs related to adding community center space to maintain the current ratio of community center asset value to population.

The largest cost, by far, will involve the construction of a new community center. Projects of this nature are generally large in scope and require several years’ worth of receipts. The cost estimate developed in 2016 to complete the construction of a new community center was $7,488,046 according to the most recent fee justification study - the City’s Development Impact Fee Justification Study, dated January 9, 2017. Timelines for completing this project are difficult to estimate due mainly to the significant costs and the unpredictability of the timing of adequate impact fee revenue.

No refunds are required, and none have been made during Fiscal Year 2021-2022.

At June 30, 2022, the Public Facilities Fund has Advances Payable (Interfund Loans) to Other Funds for loans received as follows:

Advance Payable To:

General Fund $ 7,835,045
Open Space Fund -
Park and Open Space Fund -
Storm Drain Construction Fund -
Water Operating Fund 40,966
Total $ 7,876,011
As noted above, fees collected for Fire, Library, and General Government Facilities have been collected and used to make contributions towards the annual debt service of the 2003 Lease Revenue Refunding Certificates of Participation (COP), which matured during Fiscal Year 2017-2018. The 2003 COPs refunded prior COPs that were used to finance Fire Station #3 (6% of total debt service), as well as Library Facilities (34% of total debt service) and the City Yard (60% of total debt service). In years when Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 135 of 728
11 | P a g e
CITY OF REDLANDS – ANNUAL REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES the revenue from these fee categories was insufficient to meet debt service obligations, the Public Facilities Fund was loaned amounts from the General Fund, Open Space, Park Development, Storm Drain Construction, and Water Funds. For fiscal year 2021-2022, the interest rate was 0.39%. Because development impact fee revenue fluctuates and is difficult to forecast, there is no estimate for the date on which each loan will be repaid.

Transportation Fees
During Fiscal Year 2021-2022, Resolution No. 7951 prescribed the methodologies and amounts of Transportation fees. Impact fees in this category are intended to fund transportation improvements, including the following components: interchange improvements, railroad crossing improvements, improvements to regional arterials, and improvements to local streets. The first three components are intended to satisfy the requirement, pursuant to Measure I (2010-2041) and the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) Congestion Management Plan, that the City assess new development for its fair share of the cost of those improvements. The local street component is based on data provided by the City that represents the full cost of local street improvement projects needed entirely to serve future development. Allocations are established based on a weighted average for each improvement type based on cost. The City’s Development Impact Fee Study, dated January 9, 2017, estimated transportation improvement costs in each component category and allocated them according to the tables below.

Resolution No. 7701, DIF Study Jan. 2017
Fund 252 - Regional Arterial 43%
Fund 252 - RR Crossings 1%
Fund 252 - Local Streets 19%
Fund 253 - Signals 4%
Fund 254 - Interchanges 36%
These development fees are utilized in conjunction with revenue generated under the Measure “I” half-cent sales tax to fund regional transportation projects. These fees establish a revenue source that will provide funds to construct various transportation projects that will mitigate the impacts of new development on the City's circulation system. The uses to which the fees are to be put include the funding of new roadways within the City limits.
(252) Arterial Street Construction Fund – This fund includes development fees, as discussed above, for both the regional (SBCTA) and local transportation development fees which, in concert with the Regional Measure “I” sales tax revenue, when needed, are used to construct transportation Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 136 of 728
12 | P a g e
CITY OF REDLANDS – ANNUAL REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES improvements. Both development and Measure “I” funds are required to construct the transportation improvement projects. A complete listing of proposed facilities is contained within the City’s Development Impact Fee Justification Study, dated January 9, 2017.

The following table shows the balances, receipts, and expenditures of the Arterial Street Construction Fund for the current and last five fiscal years:
2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 Beg. Balance 2,310,315 3,015,544 3,141,989 3,721,696 3,954,816 3,928,436 Receipts 721,613 133,137 592,243 597,315 398,827 528,723 Expenditures (16,384) (6,692) (12,536) (364,193) (425,207) (13,058) Ending Balance 3,015,544 3,141,989 3,721,696 3,954,816 3,928,436 4,444,102 Impact fee revenue in this category consists of $652,898 in fees and $124,175 in negative investment income. Negative investment income is caused by GASB 31 for the temporary fair value adjustment of investments held by the City at June 30, 2022. Actual investment income was $32,904.

Disbursements consist of $13,058 in administrative charges.

The current cash balance exceeds the cumulative fee collection over the past five years by $2,290,120.

As a result, the City must make “findings” in accordance with the requirements of Government Code Section 66006.

Findings:

Monies collected into the Arterial Street Construction Fund, including the existing excess cash, are based on a detailed breakdown of citywide transportation projects needed to mitigate the impacts of new development through the year 2035. These projects have been approved by the City Council for construction under this program, as a part of Resolution No. 7951 and the Development Impact Fee Study dated January 9, 2017. The project list includes improvements to regional and local arterials with a total estimated cost allocated to new development of $21,087,242.

A complete listing of proposed facilities is contained within the City’s Development Impact Fee Justification Study, dated January 9, 2017.

Below is a partial listing from that study.
• Alabama Street from the northerly City limit to Palmetto Avenue o Estimated Cost - $10,653,000
o New Development Fair Share – 23.1%
• Orange Street from Lugonia Avenue to Interstate 10 freeway o Estimated Cost - $2,960,000
o New Development Fair Share – 23.1%
• San Bernardino Avenue from Church Street to Wabash Avenue Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 137 of 728
13 | P a g e
CITY OF REDLANDS – ANNUAL REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES o Estimated Cost - $2,744,000
o New Development Fair Share – 23.1%
• Ford Street from 5th Avenue to Interstate 10 freeway
o Estimated Cost - $2,058,000
o New Development Fair Share – 23.1%
Because development impact fee revenue fluctuates and is difficult to forecast, there is no estimate for the date on which the project will be completed. At this time, no other sources of revenue are projected.

No refunds of fees are required, and none have been made during Fiscal Year 2021-2022. (253) Traffic Signals Fund – This fund includes seven percent of the transportation development impact fees collected and is for the purpose of constructing traffic signals and signal improvements.

The following table shows the balances, receipts, and expenditures of the Traffic Signals Fund for the current and last five fiscal years:
2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 Beg. Balance 1,122,990 1,210,815 1,223,302 1,283,765 1,382,585 1,444,989 Receipts 89,357 16,708 72,366 99,412 62,910 40,123
Expenditures (1,532) (4,221) (11,903) (591) (507) (37,399) Ending Balance 1,210,815 1,223,302 1,283,765 1,382,585 1.444.989 1,447,712 Impact fee revenue in this category consists of $76,221 in fees, $3,870 in developer deposits, and $39,968 in negative investment income. Negative investment income is caused by GASB 31 for the temporary fair value adjustment of investments held by the City at June 30, 2022. Actual investment income was $11,411.

Disbursements consist of $1,524 in administrative charges, $23,395 for engineering and design services for the University Street & Brockton Avenue traffic signal construction project, and $12,480 for the preparation of environmental documents related thereto.

The current cash balance exceeds the cumulative fee collection over the past five years by $1,272,245.

As a result, the City must make “findings” in accordance with the requirements of Government Code Section 66006.

Findings:

Monies collected into the Traffic Signals Fund, including the existing excess cash, are based on a detailed breakdown of citywide transportation projects needed to mitigate the impacts of new development through the year 2035. These projects have been approved by the City Council for Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 138 of 728
14 | P a g e
CITY OF REDLANDS – ANNUAL REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES construction under this program, as a part of Resolution No. 7701 and the Development Impact Fee Study dated January 9, 2017. The project list includes local signal projects with a total estimated cost allocated to new development of $4,996,610. A complete listing of proposed facilities is contained within the City’s Development Impact Fee Justification Study, dated January 9, 2017.

Below is a partial listing from that study.
• Texas Street and Pioneer Avenue
o Estimated Cost - $350,000
o New Development Fair Share – 32.32%
• University Street and Brockton Avenue
o Estimated Cost - $300,000
o New Development Fair Share – 32.32%
• Intelligent Traffic Management System
o Estimated Cost - $5,400,000
o New Development Fair Share – 23.1%
• Automated Fire/Police Emergency Vehicle Preemption System o Estimated Cost - $150,000
o New Development Fair Share – 32.32%
Because development impact fee revenue fluctuates and is difficult to forecast, there is no estimate for the date on which the project will be completed. At this time, no other sources of revenue are projected.

No refunds of fees are required, and none have been made during Fiscal Year 2021-2022. (254) Freeway Interchange Fund – As discussed above, thirty-seven percent of the transportation fees collected are to meet the City’s responsibility for the construction of major freeway interchange improvements on I-10 and one freeway interchange on the I-210 freeway. These projects are funded through the collection of multi-jurisdictional development fees and the collection of regional Measure “I” revenue, under the 2010-2040 Measure “I” voter-approved ½ cent sales tax transportation program.

Two projects are currently underway. The first is the I-10/University Street Interchange project. The San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) and the City, in coordination with Caltrans District 8, will widen the I-10 westbound on-ramp and I-10 eastbound off-ramp at University Street, as well as restripe University Street from Citrus Avenue to Central Avenue. The project is designed to reduce congestion, improve safety, and improve traffic operations along University Street between Citrus Avenue and Central Avenue. It will also install new traffic signals at the I-10 eastbound off-ramp at University Street and the I-10 westbound on-ramp at University Street and provide street Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 139 of 728
15 | P a g e
CITY OF REDLANDS – ANNUAL REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES improvements within the project limits including drainage improvements, pavement construction, and landscaping replacement.

On September 3, 2013, the City entered into a memorandum of understanding to commence the design of the project. The initial estimate to design and construct the Project was estimated to cost $5.2 million. Pursuant to the Cooperative Agreement, the City is responsible for 17.9% ($912,900) of the total $5.1 million project cost, with the remaining 82.1% ($4,188,000) to be funded by SBCTA. The remaining $100,000 is for project management costs that are the sole responsibility of the City. In May 2019, SBCTA informed the City that an amendment to the Cooperative Agreement would be needed as the total project cost for the Project had increased from $5.2 million to $5,812,935. Increases in costs were mainly attributable to planning & design stages, project management, and additional paving requirements. Project planning and design have been completed, and the construction work has started and is anticipated to conclude in late 2022.

In addition to the University I-10 Interchange project, on February 16, 2016, the City entered into a memorandum of understanding to commence the alternative Interstate 10 – Alabama Street Interchange project. When constructed, the Project will improve the Interstate 10 at Alabama Street Interchange between Orange Tree Lane and Industrial Park Avenue, with on and off-ramp widening, the addition of turning lanes, new pavement, and striping. As part of the MOU, funding responsibilities for the development of the estimated $10.96 million Project were delineated for the parties. Per SBCTA's 10-Year Delivery Plan and SBCTA's Development Mitigation Nexus Study, the City, SBCTA, and County of San Bernardino have funding responsibilities for the Project. Specifically, SBCTA has 49.5% of the Public Share of funding responsibilities (~$5.26m) for the Project, and the City and County share the remaining 50.5% (~$5.70m) Development Share, with City responsible for 34.9% ~ ($1.99m) and County 65.1% (~$3.71m). In November 2016, City Council approved a Development Mitigation Cooperative Agreement with the County in order to memorialize the financial responsibilities between the City and County for their shared Development Share responsibilities.

In mid to late 2019, SBCTA approached City and County about cost increases identified during the design of the Project. The total project cost has risen from the original estimate of $10.96 million to a new estimate of $15.15 million, a rise of $4.19 million. With this new estimate, City costs for the Project have risen from $1,990,065 million to $2,506,921, an increase of ~$516,856. The City has been in contact with both SBCTA and County and both entities have the funding necessary and desire to move forward with the Project. SBCTA has completed the design phase, and construction on the project began in January 2022 and is anticipated to conclude in December 2022.

At this time, staff is unable to ascertain when all required funding amounts will be received by the City.

This is because the rate and pace of development is difficult to determine with respect to the deposit of impact fees by developers.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 140 of 728
16 | P a g e
CITY OF REDLANDS – ANNUAL REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES The following table shows the balances, receipts, and expenditures of the Freeway Interchange Fund for the current and last five fiscal years:
2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 Beg. Balance 2,418,020 2,855,127 2,766,083 2,941,748 3,815,420 3,046,266 Receipts 491,600 156,368 559,907 1,293,437 243,103 479,165 Expenditures (54,493) (245,412) (384,243) (419,765) (1,012,257) (1,906,865) Ending Balance 2,855,127 2,766,083 2,941,748 3,815,420 3,046,266 1,618,566 Impact fee revenue in this category consists of $387,421 in fees, reimbursement from the County of San Bernardino of $188,988 for a share of the portion of construction costs related to the I-10 Alabama Street Project, and $97,255 in negative investment income. Negative investment income is caused by GASB 31 for the temporary fair value adjustment of investments held by the City at June 30, 2022.

Actual investment income was $25,077.

Disbursements consist of $7,748 in administrative charges. Expenses also included $32,045 was disbursed in connection with the City’s cooperative cost-sharing agreement for project management services associated with the I-10 Alabama Street Project. Capital expenditures were also made from this account: $1,867,071 for the I-10 Alabama Street Project.

During Fiscal Year 2021-2022, the current cash balance exceeds the cumulative fee collection over the past five years by $161,199. As a result, the City must make “findings” in accordance with the requirements of Government Code Section 66006.

Findings:

Monies collected into the Freeway Interchanges Fund, including the existing excess cash, are based on a detailed breakdown of citywide transportation projects needed to mitigate the impacts of new development through the year 2035. These projects have been approved by the City Council for construction under this program, as a part of Resolution No. 7951 and the Development Impact Fee Study dated January 9, 2017. The project list includes local signal projects with a total estimated cost allocated to new development of $6,029,266. A complete listing of proposed facilities is contained within the City’s Development Impact Fee Justification Study, dated January 9, 2017.

Below is a partial listing from that study.
• I-10 at Mountain View:
o Estimated Cost - $53,214,296
o New Development Fair Share – $784,485 (3.9%)
• I-10 at California
o Estimated Cost - $46,562,380
o New Development Fair Share – $3,249,495 (14.6%)
• I-10 at Wabash
o Estimated Cost - $41,822,810
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 141 of 728
17 | P a g e
CITY OF REDLANDS – ANNUAL REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES o New Development Fair Share – $1,871,571 (12.5%)
• I-10 at Live Oak
o Estimated Cost - $19,478,974
o New Development Fair Share – $72,072 (1%)
• I-10 at 5th Street
o Estimated Cost - $8,364,562
o New Development Fair Share – $51,643 (1.4%)
Because development impact fee revenue fluctuates and is difficult to forecast, there is no estimate for the date on which the project will be completed. At this time, no other sources of revenue are projected.

No refunds of fees are required, and none have been made during Fiscal Year 2021-2022. (405) Storm Drain Fund – New development generates additional stormwater runoff by increasing the amount of land that is not penetrable to precipitation. Consequently, new development generates the need for, and benefits from, expanded storm drain facilities. Storm Drain Development Fees have been established per Redlands Municipal Code Chapter 3.56 with the purpose and intent of implementing the Redlands General Plan to ensure that storm drain facilities and improvements that satisfy City standards are available concurrent with the needs caused by new development within the City. This chapter establishes the methods of financing the construction of the required storm drain facilities.

Fees are established by Resolution No. 7951.

The following table shows the balances, receipts, and expenditures of the Storm Drain Fund for the current and last five fiscal years:
2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 Beg. Balance 1,789,457 1,832,744 1,832,238 1,985,305 1,975,112 2,118,971 Receipts 94,186 112,404 206,098 227,799 151,397 299,402 Expenditures (50,899) (112,910) (53,032) (237,992) (7,538) (12,428) Ending Balance 1,832,744 1,832,238 1,985,305 1,975,112 2,118,971 2,405,945 Impact fee revenue in this category consists of $306,560 in fees and $65,235 in negative investment income. Negative investment income is caused by GASB 31 for the temporary fair value adjustment of investments held by the City at June 30, 2022. Actual investment income was $17,790.

Disbursements consist of $12,428 in administrative costs.

At June 30, 2022, a loan made from the Storm Drain Construction Fund in Fiscal Year 2010-2011 to the Public Facilities Fund for a portion of its half-share of annual debt service on the 2003 Lease Revenue Refunding Certificates of Participation has been fully repaid.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 142 of 728
18 | P a g e
CITY OF REDLANDS – ANNUAL REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES During Fiscal Year 2021-2022, the current cash balance exceeds the cumulative fee collection over the past five years by $1,805,377. As a result, the City must make “findings” in accordance with the requirements of Government Code Section 66006.

Findings:

New development generates additional stormwater runoff by increasing the amount of land that is not penetrable to precipitation. Consequently, new development generates the need for, and benefits from, expanded storm drain facilities. Fees are to be used on the costs associated with the construction of regional and local facilities, based on the amount of estimated costs allocable to new development and new service population.

Storm drain construction is an ongoing effort. Projects are generally large in scope and require several years’ worth of receipts. For the last two years, the City has been preparing to further develop the Opal basin project. However, recent investigation suggests a reprioritization of storm drain projects to better meet current conditions. Still, the Opal Basin remains a project under consideration. In 2014, the City adopted a Drainage Master Plan. The outlines scope and priority of various projects. Timelines for completing these projects are difficult to estimate due mainly to each project’s significant costs and the unpredictability of the timing of adequate impact fee revenue.

The project list includes local and regional projects in terms of the City’s share, with a total estimated cost allocated to new development of $10,724,400.

1. Reservoir Canyon – The Reservoir Canyon Channel is the second largest watershed area tributary to downtown. The total costs to fund new and upgrade existing storm drain facilities that would mitigate the flooding potential specific to this watershed have been estimated at $16,510,000; new Development Fair Share – 27%.

2. Downtown Watershed – The Downtown watershed consists of the local drainage systems in the downtown area. The total costs to fund new and upgrade existing storm drain facilities that would mitigate the flooding potential specific to this watershed have been estimated at $10,210,000; new Development Fair Share – 27%.

3. Redlands Opal Basin – This project addresses the Mission Zanja watershed (the largest watershed tributary) and consists of the construction of a retention basin and is one of two major facilities needed to protect the City during a 100-yearstorm event. When completed, the facility will retain up to 825 acre-feet of water. Additional funds to complete the $13 million project will come from the Storm Drain Fund and other sources as they become available; new Development Fair Share – 27%.

Because development impact fee revenue fluctuates and is difficult to forecast, there is no estimate for the date on which the project will be completed. At this time, no other sources of revenue are projected.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 143 of 728
19 | P a g e
CITY OF REDLANDS – ANNUAL REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES No refunds of fees are required, and none have been made during Fiscal Year 2021-2022. (508) Water Source Acquisition Fund - The Water Source Acquisition Fund is established per Redlands Municipal Code Chapter 13.40.020 to implement the Redlands General Plan and finance the acquisition of approved water stock and water rights to assist the City in maintaining an adequate supply of water to meet the needs of development requiring water service from the city. Water Source Acquisition charges are established per Section 13.40.040 of the Redlands Municipal Code. Fee amounts are set by Resolution No. 7951.

The following table shows the balances, receipts, and expenditures of the Water Source Acquisition Fund for the current and last five fiscal years:
2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 Beg. Balance 131,549 112,116 258,120 753,768 898,102 943,636 Receipts 232,384 146,004 495,649 144,333 45,534 500,418 Expenditures (251,817) - - - - -
Ending Balance 112,116 258,120 753,768 898,102 943,363 1,444,054 Receipts include $540,844 in fees and $40,426 in negative investment income. Negative investment income is caused by GASB 31 for the temporary fair value adjustment of investments held by the City at June 30, 2022. Actual investment income was $9,991.

There were no disbursements for fiscal year 2021-2022.

During Fiscal Year 2021-2022, the current cash balance exceeds the cumulative fee collection over the past five years by $1,805,377. As a result, the City must make “findings” in accordance with the requirements of Government Code Section 66006.

Findings:

The Water Source Acquisition Fund is intended to provide funds for the purchase of approved water stocks and rights, as set forth in the Redlands Municipal Code. As the City expands its housing stock and non-residential development, it is critical that the City plan on acquiring supplies sufficient, not just to serve development needs, but also to meet its annual groundwater recharge/replenishment requirements, which are affected by new development. To this end, the following water rights and stocks have been identified, but the strategy and timeline to acquire rights and stocks from this list is currently under development. The City estimates that a more formal plan for water source acquisition will be developed and adopted by Council during the calendar year 2023. • Crafton Water Company
• Redlands Heights Water Company
• South Mountain Water Company
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 144 of 728
20 | P a g e
CITY OF REDLANDS – ANNUAL REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES • Bear Valley Mutual Water Company
No refunds of fees are required, and none have been made during Fiscal Year 2021-2022. (509) Water Capital Improvement Fund – The Water Capital Improvement Fund is established per Redlands Municipal Code Chapter 3.48 to implement the Redlands General Plan and finance the construction of water capital facilities and improvements to provide new capacity required to serve new development requiring water service from the city. This chapter establishes the methods of collecting fees for financing the construction of the water facilities. Fee amounts are set by Resolution No. 7951.

The following table shows the balances, receipts, and expenditures of the Water Capital Improvement Fund for the current and last five fiscal years:
2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 Beg. Balance (0) 51,246 (0) (0) (0) (0)
Receipts 604,149 654,396 2,191,906 1,132,991 772,122 1,624,228 Expenditures (552,902) (705,643) (2,191,906) (1,132,991) (772,122) (1,624,228) Ending Balance 51,246 (0) (0) (0) (0) (0)
Receipts include $1,624,228 in fees.

Disbursements include a payment to the Water Fund (501) in the amount of $1,624,228. This represents a 4% share of that fund’s debt service, with the Water Operating Fund picking up the other 96% share of debt service. Projects financed through this debt service include the Agriculture Drainage Water Management Loan Program, used to finance the Texas Street Wellhead Treatment Project, and the Clean Water State Revolving Fund loan agreement that financed the construction of the Hinckley water treatment plant upgrade.

No refunds of fees are required, and none have been made during Fiscal Year 2021-2022. (519) Solid Waste Capital Improvement Fund - The Solid Waste Capital Improvement Fund is established per the Redlands Municipal Code Chapter 3.70 to implement the Redlands General Plan and finance the cost of solid waste capital facilities and equipment to provide new capacity required to serve development requiring solid waste service from the city. Included are landfill, material recovery and transfer station facilities, solid waste collection equipment, transfer equipment, and other capital facilities equipment. Fee amounts are set by Resolution No. 7951.

The following table shows the balances, receipts, and expenditures of the Solid Waste Capital Improvement Fund for the current and last five fiscal years:

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 145 of 728
21 | P a g e
CITY OF REDLANDS – ANNUAL REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 Beg. Balance 3,924,397 4,152,887 4,259,811 4,556,559 4,452,524 5,157,797 Receipts 320,261 106,924 446,896 453,305 163,410 284,311 Expenditures (91,771) - (150,148) (557,340) (15,477) (1,089,511) Ending Balance 4,152,887 4,259,811 4,556,559 4,452,524 4,600,457 4,352,597 Receipts include $435,148 in fees and $150,837 in negative investment income. Negative investment income is caused by GASB 31 for the temporary fair value adjustment of investments held by the City at June 30, 2022. Actual investment income was $41,478.

Disbursements include $1,089,511 towards the purchase of three new automated side-loading trucks to add new routes for solid waste, recycling, and green waste as a result of the recent addition of singlefamily residences, as well as 20% of the lease payment on a new D7 dozer used in landfill operations.

The current cash balance exceeds the cumulative fee collection over the past five years by $3,189,104.

As a result, the City must make “findings” in accordance with the requirements of Government Code Section 66006.

Findings:

Monies collected into the Solid Waste Capital Improvements Fund, including the existing excess cash, are expected to be used for the developer-paid portion of major capital improvements. The project list includes capital improvement projects as well as capital equipment replacement, with a total estimated cost allocated to new development of approximately $1,220,000.

1. Phase V landfill expansion (FY 2024) –costs estimated at approximately $5 million. New Development Fair Share – 20% ($1,000,000).

2. Expansion of the leachate and landfill gas recovery systems (FY 2023) is necessary to provide extraction and collection on landfill expansion areas as well as capital improvement to the existing system layout in order to maintain regulatory compliance with State and Federal requirements. Estimated costs depend on the scope of the project and are estimated at $600,000 to $700,000 for construction and engineering. New Development Fair Share – 20% per project ($120,000 - $140,000).

3. Landfill operation heavy equipment (ongoing) the projected expense for capital replacement of landfill equipment ranges from $1.5 to 2.3 million dollars and covers offroad vehicles such as Loaders and Graders as well as on-road vehicles such as Fuel Trucks and Water Trucks. New Development Fair Share – 20% per project ($300,000 - $460,000).

Because development impact fee revenue fluctuates and is difficult to forecast, there is no estimate for the date on which the project will be completed. At this time, no other sources of revenue are projected.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 146 of 728
22 | P a g e
CITY OF REDLANDS – ANNUAL REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES No refunds of fees are required, and none have been made during Fiscal Year 2021-2022. (529) Sewer Capital Improvement Fund - The Sewer Capital Improvement Fund is established per Redlands Municipal Code Chapter 3.44 to implement the Redlands General Plan and finance the construction of wastewater capital facilities to provide new capacity required to serve development requiring sewer service from the City. Included are wastewater treatment plant facilities, sewer trunk lines sized larger than the eight-inch local collection mains and appurtenances used to serve property frontage, and other capital facilities and appurtenances. Fee amounts are set by Resolution No. 7951.

The following table shows the balances, receipts, and expenditures of the Sewer Capital Improvement Fund for the current and last five fiscal years:
2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 Beg. Balance 2,624,406 2,633,256 2,846,876 5,041,145 6,115,482 0 Receipts 777,381 508,336 2,395,041 1,275,108 845,212 1,650,192 Expenditures (768,532) (294,716) (200,771) (200,771) (6,960,694) (55,858) Ending Balance 2,633,256 2,846,876 5,041,145 6,115,482 0 1,594,334 Receipts include $1,697,186 in fees and $46,994 in negative investment income. Negative investment income is caused by GASB 31 for the temporary fair value adjustment of investments held by the City at June 30, 2022. Actual investment income was $17,425.

Disbursements included $55,858 in project cost-sharing to install a large sewer trunk line parallel to Alabama Street between Pioneer Avenue and Palmetto Avenue. This project expands the capacity of the current trunk line from 24 to 36 inches, which will be needed as the property through which the line runs is currently under development.

No refunds of fees are required, and none have been made during Fiscal Year 2020-2021. (532) Nonpotable Capital Improvement Fund - The Nonpotable Capital Improvement Fund is established per the Redlands Municipal Code Chapter 3.53 to implement the Redlands General Plan and finance the construction of nonpotable capital facilities to provide new capacity required to serve development requiring nonpotable water service from the City. Included are mains and appurtenances used to serve property frontage, and other capital facilities and appurtenances. Fee amounts are set by Resolution No. 7951.

The following table shows the balances, receipts, and expenditures of the Nonpotable Capital Improvement Fund for the current and last five fiscal years:
2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 Beg. Balance 852,751 1,117,268 1,150,025 1,254,427 1,331,477 1,536,923 Receipts 264,517 32,757 104,402 77,050 205,446 30,445
Expenditures - - - - - (53,262)
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 147 of 728
23 | P a g e
CITY OF REDLANDS – ANNUAL REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES Ending Balance 1,117,268 1,150,025 1,254,427 1,331,477 1,536,923 1,514,107 Receipts include $72,506 in fees and $42,061 in negative investment income. Negative investment income is caused by GASB 31 for the temporary fair value adjustment of investments held by the City at June 30, 2022. Actual investment income was $12,081.

Disbursements include $53,262 expended on the design and preparation plans and specifications for two recycled water reservoirs to be constructed at the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant.

For continuity, it is worth noting that with the conversion of the City’s financial accounting system, this fund was renumbered from Fund 539 Nonpotable Capital Improvement Fund to Fund 532 Nonpotable Capital Improvement Fund.

The current cash balance exceeds the cumulative fee collection over the past five years by $918,471.

As a result, the City must make “findings” in accordance with the requirements of Government Code Section 66006.

Findings:

Monies collected into the Nonpotable Capital Improvements Fund, including the existing excess cash, are expected to be used for several projects that will enhance and expand the nonpotable water distribution system pressure zones. Specifically, major projects under evaluation include:

1. Construction of a nonpotable reservoir, booster station and pipeline needed to operate Pressure Zones 1350 and 1570. These two pressure zones are the City’s two lowest and, as such, are particularly sensitive to increases in demand from new growth and development. Cost estimates for the project total $4.8 million.

Because development impact fee revenue fluctuates and is difficult to forecast, there is no estimate for the date on which the project will be completed. At this time, no other sources of revenue are projected.

No refunds of fees are required, and none have been made during Fiscal Year 2021-2022.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 148 of 728
1 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8426 DIF Annual Report FY 2021-22.docx RESOLUTION NO. 8426

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS APPROVING THE CITY’S ANNUAL DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT AND

MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS WITH RESPECT THERETO
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 66006 requires local agencies that impose development impact fees upon development projects to deposit such fees in separate capital facilities accounts to avoid commingling of such fees with other revenues and funds of the local agency, and to expend those fees only for the purposes collected; and WHEREAS, for each separate capital facility account or fund established, the local agency shall, within 180 days after the last day of each fiscal year, make available to the public the following information for the fiscal year:

A. A brief description of the fee;
B. The amount of the fee;
C. The beginning and ending fund balance of the account; D. The amount of the fees collected and the interest earned; E. The identification of the improvements on which the fees were expended, including the percentage of the cost of the public improvements funded with fees; F. The identification of the commencement construction date for incomplete improvements for which sufficient funds have been collected;
G. A description of each interfund transfer or loan, and the date of such loan, the repayment date, and the interest rate;
H. The amount of refunds of fees, if any made pursuant to Government Code Section 66001; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 66001 requires local agencies, for the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit of fees into an account or fund, and every five years thereafter, to make certain findings with respect to that portion of the account or fund remaining unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted; and
WHEREAS, the annual report reflecting the balance in each capital improvement fee account, the fee, interest, income, and the amount of expenditure upon public improvements, and the amount of refunds made for the fiscal year, if any, has been available for public review as required by law;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS AS FOLLOWS:

Section1. The City Council hereby approves the Annual Report of Development Impact Fees for the year ended June 30, 2022.

Section 2. The City Council finds and determines that with respect to development impact fees remaining unexpended or uncommitted in their respective accounts, for five (5) or more years after deposit of the fee, as follows:

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 149 of 728
2 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8426 DIF Annual Report FY 2021-22.docx A. New development in the City will continue to generate additional demands on public facilities throughout the City, and will contribute to the impact upon existing public facilities.

B. There is reasonable relationship between the fees’ uses and the types of development for which the fees are charged, as these reasonable relationships are described in more detail in the City’s Development Impact Fee studies and improvement master plans.

C. There is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project upon which the fee is imposed.

D. The fees expected to be generated by new development will not exceed the costs for construction of the public facilities identified in the City’s improvement master plans and as set forth in the Developer Impact Fee study.

E. That the Annual Report identifies all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing for any incomplete improvements.

F. That the Annual Report designates the approximate dates on which fees are expected to be deposited for the financing of any incomplete improvements.

ADOPTED, SIGNED AND APPROVED this 20th day of December, 2022. ________________________
Paul T. Barich, Mayor
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 150 of 728
3 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8426 DIF Annual Report FY 2021-22.docx ATTEST:
____________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
I, Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk of the City of Redlands, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 20th day of December, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 151 of 728
City of Redlands
Public Facilities Development Fees
Cash Transactions for Fiscal Year 2022
Prepared 10/5/2022
6% 34% 60%
Police Fire Library Gen Gov't Comm Ctr
DESCRIPTION Facilities Facilities Facilities Facilities Facilities TOTAL Beginning Cash Balance (July 1) 471,706.27 $ $ 0.00 463,557.01 $ 0.00 $ $ 1, 68,208.42 $ 003,471.71 Impact Fee Receipts 22,322.34 427,544.60 133,379.23 511,326.70 1, - 094,572.87 Misc. Receipts - - - - - -
Investment Income - - - - - -
Expenditures** - (20,500.00) - - - (20,500.00)
Interest on Loans - - (956.00) (31,254.99) - (32,210.99) 2% Admin Charge (446.45) (8,550.89) (2,667.58) (10,226.53) - (21,891.46) Debt Service - COPs - - - - - -
Debt Service - Fire - - - - - -
Loan from (repayment to):
- General Fund (101) - - - (501,100.17) - (501,100.17)
- General Fund (101) Int - - - 31,254.99 - 31,254.99
- Open Space Fund (227) - - - -
- Park/Open Space Dev Fund (250) - - - -
- Storm Drain Const Fund (405) - - (58,403.00) - - (58,403.00) - Storm Drain Const Fund (405) Int 325.00 325.00
- Water Fund (501) - - (72,308.65) - - (72,308.65)
- Water Fund (501) Int - - 631.00 - - 631.00
Ending Cash Balance (June 30) $ 493,582.16 $ 862,050.72 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 68,208.42 $ 1,423,841.30 Liabilities & Equity:

Loans Payable (0.00) 0.00 3,784,436.40 4,091,574.35 7, - 876,010.75 Fund Balance 493,582.16 862,050.72 (3,784,436.40) (4,091,574.35) 68,208.42 (6,452,169.45) Total Liabilities & Equity $ 493,582.16 $ 862,050.72 $ - $ 0.00 $ 68,208.42 $ 1,423,841.30 ** = excludes accounts payable
Notes: 1. Although the Public Facilities Development Fund is accounted for as a special revenue fund, each fee must be accounted for separately (Government Code Section 66001 et seq, commonly known as "AB 1600").

2. The fees collected for Fire Facilities, Library and City Yard were previously committed toward one-half of the annual debt service requirements of the 2003 Lease Revenue Refunding Certificates of Participation which refunded the 1993 Refunding of the 1986/87 Projects Certificates of Participation. Annual debt service on this one-half portion was charged to each of the three fees based upon an allocated share of the original proceeds used for acquisition and construction activities. The General Fund was responsible for the other half of the total annual debt service requirements. The debt was fully defeased in FY 2018-19. Loan amounts from the General Fund, Water and Storm Drain Funds remain outstanding.

3. When fees collected for these three categories of public facilities were not sufficient to cover their share of the annual debt service, the General Fund made loans to each category as necessary. These loans are governed by Resolution No. 7354, the City's interfund loan policy.

4. In FY 2010-11, for one-time only, Council authorized loans from other specific funds to cover, as necessary, the public facilities share of debt service.

These loans, with interest at the annual LAIF rate, are to be repaid in proportion to the loan balances, before repayment to the General Fund.

Actual loans required were as follows: General Fund,$300,753; Open Space, $130,000: Park/Open Space Dev, $130,000; Storm Drain, $100,000; Water, $150.000.
11/21/2022
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 152 of 728
soLu rloN No. as
A RESQLUTION O` THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMBNT 7MPACT FEES FOR ACCE550RY

DWELLING UN TS WITH RESPECT TO SEWER, WATER, SOLID WASTE,

ACQLJ SITI N O WATER STOCK AND WATER RIGHT, OPEN SPACE
1-lND ARKS, TRANSPORTATION, AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, RESTATING SUCH DEVELOPMENT IIvIPACT FEES FOR ALL QTHER TYPES F
DEVELOPMENT, ND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 907
WHEREAS, Chapters 3. 32, 3. 44, 3. 48, 3. 54, 3. 56, 3. 60, 3. 70 and 13. 0 of tl e Redlands Municipal Code es#ablish, respectively, Open Space and arks, Sewer Capital Imprave nent, Water Capital Improvement, Transportatzon znproveznents, Storn1 Drain Facilities, Public Facilities Fees, Solid Waste ImproveinEnt, and the Acquisition of Water Stock And Water Rights, to implement the City' s General PIan to ensure that ublic facilities impravements which meet City standards are available coneurrent with the need caused for suc11 facilities Uy new development in t e City; and WHEREAS, it is now tl-e desire af the City Council ot' tiie City of Redlands (" this City Council") to establish developzzaent iampact fees for Accessory Dwelling Units; and WHEREAS, on August 31, 201 S, DTA, orznally ktao rn as David Taussig and Associates, prepared a study in accordance witl Government code section 6b000 et seq. for the City recommending the amounts of developinen i npact fees whicii may be imposed for Accessory Dwelling Units; and WHEREAS, the developanent iinpact fee provisians af the Redlands M znicipal Code provide that the s eci c a nounts offees shall be established by resolution of this City Council; and WHEREAS, by purpases of efficiency, it is further tl e desire ofthis City Council to establish tl e develop ent in. pact fees for Accessary Dwellin Units and restate he development impact fees for all other categories of development within tl is oiie resalution; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council afthe City of Redlands as follows:

Sectian I. The Open Space and Parks Fee is hereby establislied in the fallowing aznounts:

Residential Development ee per dwellina unit

1. Accessory Dwelling Unit ( more than 700 sq. ft.} 2, 454. 85 Accessory Dwelling Unit (less than or ec ual to 700 sg, ft.} 1,$ 41. 14

2. Single Family 3, 959. 94

3. Multi-Family 3, 624. 6?

4. Transit Oriented 2, 454. 85
Sectioi 2. Tl e Library Fee is hereby establisl ed in the following amo nts:

Residential Develo anent Fee taer dwellin unit
l. Accessory Dwelling Unit { more than 700 sq. ft.) 164. 02 I
I: 1ResolutinnslRes7900- 79991ResoCo rected79S1 Deve[ opment] mpactFees f2' SClfldl Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 lg g 7. C OCX 153 of 728
Accessory Dwelling Unit ( less than or equal to 700 sq. f.) 123. 01

2. Single Family 264. 58

3. Multi-Fainily 242. 1 S

4. Transit Oriented 164. 02
Sectinn 3. TI e Stonn Drain Facilities ' ee is hereby established in the following amounts:

Residential Fee per dwellin unit

1. Single Parn ily 04. 00

2. Multi-Fanuly 343. 00

3. Transit Orie ted 343. 00
Non- Residential Fee per 1, 0 0 square feet af buildin area l. Retail 170. 00

2. Coinmercial 170. d0

3. Faod Service and Ente tainment 170. 00

4. ffice 170. 00

5. Warehousing- Standard 150. 00

6. Warehousing- High Cube 150. 00

7. Manufacturing and Assembly I50. 00
S. IndustriallOther 50. 00

9. Institutional and Health Care 15Q. 00
Non-Residentiai Fee per roozza ( sinale uest room ar suite) J. Hotel/ Motel 170. 00
Section 4, Tl e Public Facilities Fee is hereby established in tlie following amounts:

Residez tzal Development Fee per dw lling uni
l. Accessory Dwelling Unit ( more than 700 sq. ft.) 425. 55 Accessory Dwelling Unit ( less than or equal to 700 sc. ft.) 3I9. 16

2. Sin le Family 6$ 6. 45

3. Multi- az n.ily b2833

4. Transifi Orien d 425. 55
No a- Residential Fee per 1,(? 00 sc uare t eet of buildi ia area l. Retaii 197. 03

2. Commercial 83. 13

3. Food Service and Entertauunent 1, 068. 13

4. Office 852.$ 3
S. Warehousiana- Standard 266. 06

6. Warehousing Hi h Cube 44. 83
2 i:ll2esolutionslRes7900- 79991ResoCorrected795i ] Jevelo mentlmpactFees ReSClllf Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 Itlg 79. dOCX
154 of 728

7. Manufacturing and Assembly 230. 16

8. dustria]/ Qther 217. 54

9. Institutio al and Healtl Gare 439. 1p
Non- Residential ee er_room( sin le auest room or suite}

1. Hotel/ Motel I9$. 7d
Section 5. The Fire Prot cfiion Facilities F e is I ere y estabiisl ed in tt e following a nounts:

Residez tial Developx aent ee per dwellin uiiit

1. Accessory Dwelling Unit{ inore#han 700 sq. ft.) 357. 74 Accessory Dwelling Unit( less t1 an or equal to 740 sq. ft.} 26$. 31

2. Single Fai ily 577. 08

3. Multi-Family 528. 2I
Transit Oriented 357. 74
Non- Residential Fee per 1, 000 square feet of Uuildin area I. Retail 165. b4

2. Commercial 69. 89

3. Food Service and Entertairunent 897. 94

4. Office 716. 94

5. Warehousing- Standard 223. 67

6. Warehousing- Higl Cube 37. 69

7. Manufacturing and Assembly I93. 49
IndustriallQther 182. 88

9. Institutional and Health Care 369. 14
Non- Residential Fee per roo a( sin le auest roona ar suzte)

1. HoteI/ Motel 167. 04
5ection 6. The Police Facilities' ee is hereby established in he following amounts:

Residential Development ee per dwellin unit

1. Accessory Dwelling LT it ( znore tlian 700 sq. ft.) I 8. 67 Accessory Dwellin Unit ( Iess tl an or ec ual to 700 sq. ft.) 14. 00

2. Single Family 30. 1 I

3. Multi-Family 27. 56

4. Transit Oriented 18. 66
Non- Residen#ial Fee per 1. 000 square feet of buildinQ area

1. Retazl 8. 64

2. Commercial 3. 65

3. Pood Service and Entertaita m.en.t 4b, 8S

4. Office 37. 40
3 I: 1ResolutianslRes 790Q- 79991Rcso Corrected7951 Developme t[ mpact Fees R25CI11d1ng Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 7907. dQCX155 of 728

5. Warehousing- Standard 11. 67

6. Warehousing- High Cube 1. 97

7. Manufacturing and Asseml ly 10. 09

8. IndustriallOtl er 9. 54

9. Institutional and Healtli Care I9. 26
Non- Residential Fee per room{ sin le guest roozza or suite) l. Hotel l Mo el 71
Section 7. The Transportation Syste n Ianprovements Fee is l ereby establisl ed in the following a no iits:

Residential Devela ment Pee per dwellin ui it

1. Accessory Dvc ellina LTnit ( more than 700 sq. ft.} 937. 54 Accessary Dwelliz g
Unit { less than or equal to 700 sn. ft.) 703. 1b

2. SingleFa nily 1, 12. 36

3. Multi-Family 1, 04832

4. Transit Oriented 1, 07. 63
Non- Residential Fee per 1, 000 square feet of buildin6 area

1. Retail 3, 438. 17

2. Com nercial 3, 331. 11

3. Food Service a d Entertainment 6, 977. 94

4. Office 2, 007. 94

5. Warehousing--- Standard 709. 44
b. Warehousing- Hi h CuUe 262. 62

7. Manufacturuig and AsseFnbly 385. 6

8. I idustriallOther 1, 271. 14

9. Institutional and Healt i Care 3, 009. 17
Nan- Resid ntial Fee per rooan( sln le Quest roorn or suite) Hotel/ Motel I, 049. 11
In lieu of uszng the San Bernardino County Congestion Manage aent Prograrn manual, the transportation system improvements fee for a non-residential project may be deteranined, at the discretion ofthe Municipal Utilities and EngineEring Director, by use of an approved engineering trat't'ic study to establish a more precise nuz ber of tri s generated by tliat specific nornresidentzal project to detertnine Transportatioii fees a the fee rate of$ 334. 29 per trip wllieh is the same per trip rate used zn the establisl nent of the specific transportation rates listed above.

Section S. The Sew r Capital Improvernez t Fee is l ereby establislied in the following amaunts Residential Fee per dwellin unit

1. Accessory Dwelling Unit ( mare than 700 sq. ft.) 82. 65 Accessory Dwelling Unit { less than ar equal to 70Q sq. ft.) 61$. 49 4 I: 1f2esalutionslRes 7900- 7999 12eso Corrected 7953 Development Gnpact Fees R25CIilf Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 ing 9. C OCX 156 of 728

2. Single Family 3, 130. 00

3. Multi-' amily 2, 295. OQ

4. Bt zlding Pern it issued prior 366. 00
To November 1, 1961

5. Senior Restricted dwelling unit 1, 774. 00
Non- Residential Fee er 100 allons er da estimated flaw

1. RetaiUCommercial 1, 4&2. 00
Note, the Sewer Capi al Improvemei2t Fee shall not be applicable to any accessory dwelling unit created within the existing space of a single family residence or accessory structure, includi a but not liinited to, a studio, poal house, oz' other siinilar structure.

Section 9. The Water Capital Iinpravement Fee is k ereby established in the following ainounts Residential Fee er dwellina unit
I. Accessory Dwelling Unit ( mare ti an 700 sq. f.) 1, 146. 08 Accessory Dwelling Unit ( less fihan or equai ta 700 sc. ft.) 859. Sb

2. Sin le Family( more than 1 acre) 9, 43I. 00
S it gle Family( inore than 21, OOQ sc. ft.) 6, 896. 00 Sin Ie Parnzly ( 11, 000 - 21, 000 sq. ft.) 5, 623. 00
Single Family{ less than 11, 000 sc. ft.) 4, 350A0

3. Multi- Family 2, 181. Od
Senior Restricted dwelling unit 1, 096. 00
Non- Residential Fee per 100 cubic ft. per i__n_onth estimated deinand

1. RetaillCommercial 18$. 00
Note, the Water Capital Improveinent Fee sliall not be applicable to any accessory dwellin unit created within the existi g space of a si igle family residence or accessory structure, includinb but nat limited to, a studio, pooi I ouse, ar other similar structure.
5ectifln 10. The Solid Waste Capital Impro ement Fee is hereby estabiished in the following amounts Residential Fee per dwellin unit

1. Accessory Dwelling Unit { rnore than 700 sc. ft.) 325. 00 Accessory Dwelling Unit{ less than or equal to 700 sq. ft.} 325. 00

2. Single Farr ily 550. 00

3. Multi- Family 323. 00
Non- Residential Fee PPD estimated waste stream

1. RetaillCommercial 52. 00
5 Redlands 1: 1Reso] ution5lRes Regular Meeting 790fl- 79991Reso of 12/20/22 Con-ected 7951 development Tmpact Fees R 5CI Ild 111g 7g 7. dOCX157 of 728 Section 11. The Acquisition of Water Stocks and Water Rights Fee is hereby estabIished in the foilowing amounts
Residential Fee per d ellin u it

1. Accessory Dwelliz Unit ( more tl an 700 sq. ft.) 206. 29 Accessory Dwelling Unit ( less than or equal tQ 700 sq. t.) 154. 72

2. Sin le Famiiy( zxao:re than 1 acre) 1, 701. 0
Si agle Family( more than 21, 000 sq. f.) 1, 242. 00
Single Family( I1, 000 - 2I, 000 sq. ft.) 1, 023. 00
Single Family( less than I 1, 000 sq. ft.) 783. 04

3. Multi- Family 347. 00

4. Seniar Restricted dwellina uaiit 167. 00
Non- Residen ial Feeper I00 cubic ft. per month estimated deznand

1. RetaiUCominercial 33. 00
Note, tlie Water Stocks and Water Rig[i#s Fee shall not be applicable to any accessory dwelling unit created vcritliiz the exzstin; space of a sinple family residence or accessory structure, including but not limited to, a studio, poal house, or ather similar structure.

Section 12. Notvvitlastanding any other section of this resolution, t e de elapment impact fees for Accessary Dwelling Units establisl ed I erein shall take effect t irty (30} days after tlae ef ective date of City af Redlands Ordinance No. 2880.

Section l 3. This resalutian shall take effect on Aprii 2, 2019. 6 Redlands
I: 1ResalutionslFtes Regular Meeting 790a- 79991Reso of 12/20/22 Corrected 7951 Development I npact 1= ees ReSCIIICjltlg 9fl. CjOCX 158 of 728
ADOPTED, SIGNED AND APPAOVED this 2nd day of April, 20l 9. auI W. Foster, Mayor
ATTEST:

J e Donaldson. Citv Glerk
7 Redlands 1:\ Aeso] utionslRes Regular Meeting 7900- 7999' of Reso 12/20/22 Corrected 7R51 Development lmpact Pees Re5C111dIClg 79O. dOCX 159 of 728 I, Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk of the City of Redlands, hereby certify that the fore oiaag Resolutian was duly adopted by the City C.ouncil at a regular ineetin thereof, held on the 2nd day of April, 2019, by the fallowing vote:

AYES: Councilinembezs Barich, Tejeda, Momberger, Davis; Mayor Foster NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Jea onaldson, City Clerk
8 f: ResolutionslRes 7900- 79991Reso Cun ected 79 1 Development[ npact Fees Resei nd i ng Redlands Regular Meeting
7907. doex
of 12/20/22 160 of 728
City Council Meeting J. 12.

DATE: 12/20/2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBJECT: Authorize an annual maintenance payment to Motorola Solutions, Inc. in the amount of $96,853.66 for the Police Department's Spillman Computer Aided Dispatch/Records Management System (Management Services/Finance Director Garcia)
MOTION(S):

If the City Council determines that staff’s recommendation is appropriate, the following motion is provided:

I move that the City Council authorize payment of the annual invoice for the Police Department's Spillman Computer Aided Dispatch/Records Management System to Motorola Solutions, Inc. in the amount of $96,853.66 RECOMMENDATION:

City staff recommends that the City Council authorize payment of the annual invoice for the Police Department's Spillman Technology or Computer Aided Dispatch/Records Management System to Motorola Solutions, Inc. in the amount of $96,853.66
DISCUSSION:

Motorola Solutions, Inc, is the vendor and owner of the Police Department's Spillman Computer Aided Dispatch/Records Management System (CAD/RMS).

Since it was installed and deployed over ten years ago, Spillman, the developer, has provided maintenance and support to City staff through the annual maintenance agreement which has been renewed every year since. As with many other software applications in use by the City (and is the case in all other jurisdictions for that matter), Motorola is the only provider of software maintenance and support for the Spillman CAD/RMS system and is, as such, a sole source. Payment of the annual invoice to Motorola Solutions ensures access to routine software updates and technical support.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 161 of 728
access to routine software updates and technical support.

ALTERNATIVES:

Not Applicable.

STRATEGIC PLAN:

Not Applicable.

SUBMITTED BY:

Danielle Garcia, Management Service/Finance Director
RECOMMENDED BY:

Charles M. Duggan Jr., City Manager
REVIEWED BY:

Yvette M. Abich Garcia, City Attorney
Janice McConnell, Assistant City Manager
Dana Abramovitz-Daniel, Procurement Manager
Christopher R. Catren, Chief of Police
PREPARED BY:

Valerie Abrego, Administrative Assistant II
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year: 2022-2023
Appropriation Required Y/N: No
Budgeted Y/N: Yes
Account No.: 604900
Discussion:

The annual maintenance for this system totals $96,853.66. Funding for this expense was included in the FY 2023 budget for Management Services/DoIT.

Attachments
Motorola Spillman FY 2022-2023 Renewal Invoice
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 162 of 728

Motorola Solutions, Inc.
500 West Monroe
Chicago IL 60661
United States
Federal Tax ID: 36-1115800

ORIGINAL INVOICE
Transaction Number Transaction Date Transaction Total
8230386303 07-OCT-2022 96,853.66 USD
P.O. Number P.O. Date Customer Account No
1011860485
Visit our website at www.motorolasolutions.com
Payment Terms Payment Due Date
Net Due in 30 Days 06-NOV-2022
Bill To Address Ship To Address

REDLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT
ATTN: Accounts Payable
P.O. BOX 1025
REDLANDS CA 92373
United States

REDLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT
30 CAJON STREET
1270 W PARK #C
REDLANDS CA 92373
United States

IMPORTANT INFORMATION
For all invoice payment inquiries contact
[email protected]
Telephone: 800-247-2346
Fax: +1(631)883-4238
Sales Order(s): USC000202163-R02-JUN-22 23:35:46

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS / COMMENTS
General Comment: Regular Invoice
Please detach here and return the bottom portion with your payment _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Payment Coupon
Transaction Number Customer Account No Payment Due Date Transaction Total Amount Paid 8230386303 1011860485 06-NOV-2022 96,853.66 USD
Please put your Transaction Number and your Customer Account Number on your payment for prompt processing.

REDLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT
ATTN: Accounts Payable
P.O. BOX 1025
REDLANDS CA 92373
United States
Payment Transfer Details

CHICAGO
WIRE Routing Transit Number: 026009593
ACH/EFT Routing Transit Number: 111000012
SWIFT: BOFAUS3N
Bank Account No: 3756319819
Send Payments To:

Motorola Solutions, Inc.
13104 Collections Center Drive
Chicago IL 60693
United States
Please provide your remittance details to:

[email protected]

DIVERSION CONTRARY TO EXPORT CONTROL LAW IS PROHIBITED
Line
Item #
Item Number Description Qty. Unit Price
(USD)
Amount
(USD)
Equipment at Site: 1862975
1011860485 30 CAJON STREET
1270 W PARK #C
REDLANDS CA 92373
United States
1 SSV00S00012A-SP CAD MAINTENANCE (ENHANCED) - STANDARD:01-OCT-2022:30- SEP-2023:

Service From: 01-OCT-2022 Service To: 30-SEP-2023
1 1,885.98 1,885.98
2 SSV00S00181A-SP E9-1-1 INTERFACE MAINTENANCE - STANDARD:01-OCT-2022:30- SEP-2023:

Service From: 01-OCT-2022 Service To: 30-SEP-2023
1 1,885.98 1,885.98
3 SSV00S00184A-SP EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE - STANDARD:01-OCT2022:30-SEP-2023:

Service From: 01-OCT-2022 Service To: 30-SEP-2023
1 0.00 0.00

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 163 of 728

Motorola Solutions, Inc.
500 West Monroe
Chicago IL 60661
United States
Federal Tax ID: 36-1115800

ORIGINAL INVOICE
Transaction Number Transaction Date Transaction Total
8230386303 07-OCT-2022 96,853.66 USD
P.O. Number P.O. Date Customer Account No
1011860485
Visit our website at www.motorolasolutions.com
Payment Terms Payment Due Date
Net Due in 30 Days 06-NOV-2022

DIVERSION CONTRARY TO EXPORT CONTROL LAW IS PROHIBITED
Line
Item #
Item Number Description Qty. Unit Price
(USD)
Amount
(USD)
4 SSV00S00262A-SP IMAGING MAINTENANCE - STANDARD:01-OCT-2022:30-SEP-2023:

Service From: 01-OCT-2022 Service To: 30-SEP-2023
1 5,305.89 5,305.89
5 SSV00S00301A-SP LICENSES AND PERMITS MAINTENANCE - STANDARD:01-OCT2022:30-SEP-2023:

Service From: 01-OCT-2022 Service To: 30-SEP-2023
1 907.11 907.11
6 SSV00S00331A-SP MOBILE ARREST FORM MAINTENANCE - STANDARD:01-OCT2022:30-SEP-2023:

Service From: 01-OCT-2022 Service To: 30-SEP-2023
1 3,579.52 3,579.52
7 SSV00S00334A-SP MOBILE FIELD REPORT WITH FIELD INTERVIEW MAINTENANCE - STANDARD:01-OCT-2022:30-SEP-2023:

Service From: 01-OCT-2022 Service To: 30-SEP-2023
1 2,789.02 2,789.02
8 SSV00S00352A-SP MOBILE STATE & NATIONAL QUERIES MAINTENANCE - STANDARD:01-OCT-2022:30-SEP-2023:

Service From: 01-OCT-2022 Service To: 30-SEP-2023
1 732.46 732.46
9 SSV00S00354A-SP MOBILE VOICELESS CAD MAINTENANCE - STANDARD:01-OCT2022:30-SEP-2023:

Service From: 01-OCT-2022 Service To: 30-SEP-2023
1 3,836.92 3,836.92
10 SSV00S00396A-SP NON-CUSTODIAL ARREST MAINTENANCE - STANDARD:01-OCT2022:30-SEP-2023:

Service From: 01-OCT-2022 Service To: 30-SEP-2023
1 0.00 0.00
11 SSV00S00015A-SP HUB MAINTENANCE (ENHANCED) - STANDARD:01-OCT-2022:30- SEP-2023:

Service From: 01-OCT-2022 Service To: 30-SEP-2023
1 32,108.89 32,108.89
12 SSV00S00432A-SP PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT MAINTENANCE - STANDARD:01-OCT2022:30-SEP-2023:

Service From: 01-OCT-2022 Service To: 30-SEP-2023
1 2,214.97 2,214.97
13 SSV00S00438A-SP PIN MAPPING MAINTENANCE - STANDARD:01-OCT-2022:30-SEP2023:

Service From: 01-OCT-2022 Service To: 30-SEP-2023
1 3,192.48 3,192.48
14 SSV00S00447A-SP PREMISES AND HAZMAT INFORMATION MAINTENANCE - STANDARD:01-OCT-2022:30-SEP-2023:

Service From: 01-OCT-2022 Service To: 30-SEP-2023
1 907.11 907.11
15 SSV00S00480A-SP SENTRYX GIS (GEOBASE) MAINTENANCE - STANDARD:01-OCT2022:30-SEP-2023:

Service From: 01-OCT-2022 Service To: 30-SEP-2023
1 0.00 0.00
16 SSV00S00527A-SP TRAFFIC INFORMATION MAINTENANCE - STANDARD:01-OCT2022:30-SEP-2023:

Service From: 01-OCT-2022 Service To: 30-SEP-2023
1 1,570.52 1,570.52
17 SSV00S00566A-SP XML ACCIDENT INTERFACE MAINTENANCE - STANDARD:01-OCT2022:30-SEP-2023:

Service From: 01-OCT-2022 Service To: 30-SEP-2023
1 3,132.90 3,132.90
18 SSV00S006026-SP MOBILE SERVER CAD SHARE - STANDARD:01-OCT-2022:30-SEP2023:

Service From: 01-OCT-2022 Service To: 30-SEP-2023
1 10,814.88 10,814.88
19 SSV00S00028A-SP FLEX TOUCH MAINTENANCE - STANDARD:01-OCT-2022:30-SEP2023:

Service From: 01-OCT-2022 Service To: 30-SEP-2023
1 1,439.19 1,439.19
20 SSV00S00033A-SP LAW RECORDS MAINTENANCE - STANDARD:01-OCT-2022:30-SEP2023:

Service From: 01-OCT-2022 Service To: 30-SEP-2023
1 1,483.86 1,483.86

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 164 of 728

Motorola Solutions, Inc.
500 West Monroe
Chicago IL 60661
United States
Federal Tax ID: 36-1115800

ORIGINAL INVOICE
Transaction Number Transaction Date Transaction Total
8230386303 07-OCT-2022 96,853.66 USD
P.O. Number P.O. Date Customer Account No
1011860485
Visit our website at www.motorolasolutions.com
Payment Terms Payment Due Date
Net Due in 30 Days 06-NOV-2022

DIVERSION CONTRARY TO EXPORT CONTROL LAW IS PROHIBITED
Line
Item #
Item Number Description Qty. Unit Price
(USD)
Amount
(USD)
21 SSV00S00036A-SP MOBILE AVL AND MAPPING MAINTENANCE - STANDARD:01-OCT2022:30-SEP-2023:

Service From: 01-OCT-2022 Service To: 30-SEP-2023
1 7,380.06 7,380.06
22 SSV00S00038A-SP MOBILE RECORDS MAINTENANCE - STANDARD:01-OCT-2022:30- SEP-2023:

Service From: 01-OCT-2022 Service To: 30-SEP-2023
1 2,214.97 2,214.97
23 SSV00S00052A-SP STATELINK MAINTENANCE - STANDARD:01-OCT-2022:30-SEP2023:

Service From: 01-OCT-2022 Service To: 30-SEP-2023
1 3,698.84 3,698.84
24 SSV00S00072A-SP CAD MAPPING MAINTENANCE - STANDARD:01-OCT-2022:30-SEP2023:

Service From: 01-OCT-2022 Service To: 30-SEP-2023
1 3,927.64 3,927.64
25 SSV00S00164A-SP DATA WAREHOUSE INTERFACE MAINTENANCE - STANDARD:01- OCT-2022:30-SEP-2023:

Service From: 01-OCT-2022 Service To: 30-SEP-2023
1 0.00 0.00
26 SSV00S00050A-SP IBR MAINTENANCE - STANDARD:01-OCT-2022:30-SEP-2023:

Service From: 01-OCT-2022 Service To: 30-SEP-2023
1 1,844.47 1,844.47
Site CA Tax at 0% 0.00
Site Total 96,853.66

Total Tax CA 0.00
USD Subtotal
USD Total Tax
USD Total
USD Amount Due
96,853.66

0.00 96,853.66
96,853.66
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 165 of 728
City Council Meeting J. 13.

DATE: 12/20/2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBJECT: Receive and file the Annual Reports for Community Facility District (CFD) No. 2001-1 and Community Facility District (CFD) No. 2003-1 pursuant to Local Agency Special Tax and Bond
Accountability Act (SB 165) (Management Services/Finance Director Garcia)
MOTION(S):

I move to receive and file the annual reports for CFD 2001-1 and CFD 2003-1 pursuant to the Local Agency Special Tax and Bond Accountability Act (SB 165).

RECOMMENDATION:

Not applicable.

DISCUSSION:

Government Code Section 53411 requires that on or after January 1, 2001, any local bond measure that is subject to voter approval that would provide for the sale of bonds by a local agency, provide accountability measures that include the issuance of an annual report from the chief fiscal officer to the governing body of the local agency. This report should include a description of the purpose of the bond, the amount of funds collected and expended, and the status of the authorized project. The reports cover the period from July 1, 2021, through June 30, 2022.

ALTERNATIVES:

Not applicable.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 166 of 728
STRATEGIC PLAN:

Not applicable.

SUBMITTED BY:

Danielle Garcia, Management Services/Finance Director
RECOMMENDED BY:

Charles M. Duggan, Jr., City Manager
REVIEWED BY:

Janice McConnell, Assistant City Manager
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year: 2021-2022
Discussion:

There is no fiscal impact associated with the motion to receive and file this report.

Attachments
SB 165 2001-1 Annual Report
SB 165 2003-1 Annual Report
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 167 of 728
11/7/2022

CITY OF REDLANDS
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2001-1
(NORTHWEST DEVELOPMENT PROJECT)
SPECIAL TAX BONDS, SERIES 2001

ANNUAL REPORT
The purpose of this report is to comply with the provisions of the Local Agency Special Tax and Bond Accountability Act (the “Act”). The Act provides that any local special tax measure that is subject to voter approval on or after January 1, 2001, that would provide for the imposition of a special tax by a local agency shall require the chief fiscal officer of the levying local agency to file a report with its governing body no later than January 1, 2002, and at least once a year thereafter. The annual report shall contain both of the following:  The amount of funds collected and expended.  The status of any project required or authorized to be funded as identified in subdivision (a) of Section 50075.1 and Article 1.5, Section 53410.

The City of Redlands issued $9,255,000 in Community Facilities District No. 2001-1 Special Tax Bonds in September 2001. The bonds were issued to finance the acquisition and construction of certain public facilities including streets, storm drain, traffic signals, potable water facilities, non-potable water facilities and sewer facilities required for the development of the property in the district.

Separate accounts have been established with a third party trustee to administer the receipt and subsequent disbursement of the bond proceeds as the City accepts completed improvements. A summary sheet showing the receipt of funds as well as all subsequent disbursements made during the reporting period (from July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022) is attached as a part of this report. All of the facilities to be funded by CFD No. 2001-1 bond proceeds have been completed.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 168 of 728
DTA 11/7/2022
CITY OF REDLANDS CFD NO. 2001-1

NORTHWEST DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
SB165 FUND SUMMARY
Beginning Balance Funds Received Funds Expended Ending Balance Fund as of 7/1/21 (7/1/21 through 6/30/22) (7/1/21 through 6/30/22) as of 6/30/22 Administrative Expense Fund $47,404 $23,003 ($15,424) $54,983 Bond Fund $19 $724,388 ($724,388) $19
Costs of Issuance Fund $0 $0 $0 $0
Escrow Fund $0 $0 $0 $0
Improvement Fund $0 $0 $0 $0
Rebate Fund $0 $0 $0 $0
Redemption Fund $0 $0 $0 $0
Reserve Fund $741,440 $37 ($45) $741,432
Special Tax Fund $654,984 $754,431 ($747,343) $662,072
Grand Total $1,443,847 $1,501,859 ($1,487,199) $1,458,506 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 169 of 728
11/7/2022

CITY OF REDLANDS
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2003-1
(REDLANDS BUSINESS CENTER)
SPECIAL TAX BONDS, SERIES 2004

ANNUAL REPORT
The purpose of this report is to comply with the provisions of the Local Agency Special Tax and Bond Accountability Act (the “Act”). The Act provides that any local special tax measure that is subject to voter approval on or after January 1, 2001, that would provide for the imposition of a special tax by a local agency shall require the chief fiscal officer of the levying local agency to file a report with its governing body no later than January 1, 2002, and at least once a year thereafter. The annual report shall contain both of the following:  The amount of funds collected and expended.  The status of any project required or authorized to be funded as identified in subdivision (a) of Section 50075.1 and Article 1.5, Section 53410.

The City of Redlands issued $9,545,000 in Community Facilities District No. 2003-1 Special Tax Bonds in March 2004. The bonds were issued to finance the acquisition and construction of certain street improvements, sewers, storm drains, water distribution facilities, and other public improvements to be owned and operated by the City of benefit to the property in the district. Separate accounts have been established with a third party trustee to administer the receipt and subsequent disbursement of the bond proceeds as the City accepts completed improvements. A summary sheet showing the receipt of funds as well as all subsequent disbursements made during the reporting period (from July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022) is attached as a part of this report. All of the facilities to be funded by CFD No. 2003-1 bond proceeds have been completed.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 170 of 728
DTA 11/7/2022
CITY OF REDLANDS CFD NO. 2003-1

REDLANDS BUSINESS CENTER
SB165 FUND SUMMARY
Beginning Balance Funds Received Funds Expended Ending Balance Fund as of 7/1/21 (7/1/21 through 6/30/22) (7/1/21 through 6/30/22) as of 6/30/22 Administrative Expense Fund $56,056 $20,503 ($13,932) $62,627 Bond Fund $956 $748,731 ($748,685) $1,002
Costs of Issuance Fund $0 $0 $0 $0
Escrow Fund $0 $0 $0 $0
Improvement Fund $0 $0 $0 $0
Reserve Fund $915,421 $46 ($46) $915,421
Special Tax Fund $562,818 $788,182 ($769,185) $581,816
Grand Total $1,535,251 $1,557,462 ($1,531,848) $1,560,865 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 171 of 728
City Council Meeting J. 14.

DATE: 12/20/2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBJECT: Reject all bids for the Security Fencing Installation Project (Municipal Utilities and Engineering Director Harris) MOTION(S):

If City Council determines the staff recommendation is appropriate, the following motion is provided:

I move that City Council reject all bids received for construction of the Security Fencing Installation Project.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends City Council reject all bids received for construction of the Security Fencing Installation Project.

DISCUSSION:

Carollo Engineers, Inc. recently completed a Risk and Resilience Assessment (RRA) and prepared an Emergency Response Plan (ERP) for the City's water utility infrastructure in accordance with requirements mandated by the America Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 (AWIA). The goal of the RRA was to identify potential security threats and opportunities to improve defense strategies against them. The RRA recommends the installation of perimeter security fencing at all water treatment facilities and groundwater well sites to improve physical security of the City's most critical water infrastructure assets.

MUED staff developed a construction plan and specifications for the replacement of chain link fencing with metal security fencing and issued a Request For Bids in late-October 2022. Bid items associated with the replacement of perimeter fencing at the Hinckley and Tate Water Treatment Plants were included in the base bid and similar items associated with the replacement of perimeter fencing at the Maguet Well and Lugonia Well #6 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 172 of 728
replacement of perimeter fencing at the Maguet Well and Lugonia Well #6 groundwater well sites were consolidated into two (2) alternate bid items. The following bids were received prior to the November 17, 2022 submittal deadline:

BIDDER BASE BID ALTERNATE
BID #1

ALTERNATE
BID #2
AB Fence Co. $1,511,963.65 $94,426.00 $79,314.00
Alcorn Fence $1,053,587.25 $45,762.00 $61,492.00
Econo Fence $1,213,225.00 $90,590.00 $77,616.00
Fence Corp. $1,167,859.26 $83,399.33 $78,023.11
Ferreira
Coastal
Construction
$1,067,787.50 $57,992.50 $51,146.40
J&A
Engineering $1,196,345.00 $56,780.00 $49,578.00
Perimeter
Security Group $1,697,861.00 $103,956.00 $92,364.00
Red Hawk
Services, Inc. $1,168,032.11 $78,525.48 $72,730.20
Valley Cities
Gonzales* $1,624,578.40 $153,833.66 $116,366.24
*An arithmetic error was discovered in the bid proposal. Total bid amount was corrected and is shown above.

All bids significantly exceed the approved project budget. Therefore, staff recommends rejecting all bids. Staff will reprioritize bid items and issue a new Request For Bids in the near future.

ALTERNATIVES:

City Council may deny the staff recommendation and provide alternate direction.

STRATEGIC PLAN:

N/A
SUBMITTED BY:

John R. Harris, Municipal Utilities and Engineering Director RECOMMENDED BY:

Charles M. Duggan Jr., City Manager
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 173 of 728
REVIEWED BY:

Yvette M. Abich Garcia, City Attorney
Janice McConnell, Assistant City Manager
Danielle Garcia, Management Services/Finance Director
PREPARED BY:

John R. Harris, Municipal Utilities and Engineering Director Fiscal Impact
Discussion:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.

Attachments
Bid Report
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 174 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 175 of 728
City Council Meeting J. 15.

DATE: 12/20/2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBJECT: Approve withdrawal from the Santa Ana River - Mill Creek Exchange Plan Agreement, and authorize the City Manager or his designee to issue a withdrawal notice to the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District (Municipal Utilities and Engineering Director Harris)
MOTION(S):

If City Council determines the staff recommendation is appropriate, the following motion is provided:

I move that City Council approve withdrawal from the Santa Ana River - Mill Creek Exchange Plan Agreement, and authorize the City Manager or his designee to issue a withdrawal notice to the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends withdrawal from the Santa Ana River - Mill Creek Exchange Plan Agreement.

DISCUSSION:

In 1976, the City of Redlands, San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (SBVMWD), San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District (SBVWCD), Bear Valley Mutual Water Company (BVMWC), Crafton Water Company (CWC), East San Bernardino County Water District, Lugonia Water Company (LWC), North Fork Water Company, Redlands Water Company (RWC), and Yucaipa Valley County Water District executed the Santa Ana River - Mill Creek Cooperative Water Project Agreement (Agreement). The Agreement outlined the roles and responsibilities for each Party related to the construction, operation, and maintenance of cooperative water project facilities, delivery of imported and local water, and the preservation, transfer, condemnation, and defense of water Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 176 of 728
local water, and the preservation, transfer, condemnation, and defense of water rights. The Agreement also established a Management Committee that established operating rules, regulations, and policies, approved/disapproved delivery requests, resolved disputes between the Parties, and offered engineering, construction, operations, and pricing policies.

Since then, the cooperative water project facilities have been constructed and the Parties are operating their own facilities. Recently, the Parties reconvened to update the Agreement. During several meetings, the Parties developed a Restated Santa Ana River - Mill Creek Exchange Plan Agreement (Restated Agreement) to replace the original Agreement entirely. The Restated Agreement removes language about the construction of cooperative water project facilities and the Management Committee, and generally requires the Parties to operate and maintain their own facilities responsibly. The Restated Agreement also allocates costs, estimated at approximately $40,000 annually, to each Party that receives the Conservation District's daily flow report.

Since the cooperative water project facilities have been constructed, each Party is operating and maintaining it's own facilities, the daily flow report is not significantly useful for the Redlands staff, and Redlands' water entitlements and interests are represented by the continued participation of SBVMWD, BVMWC, CWC, LWC, and RWC, staff recommends City Council approval to withdraw from the Agreement. Section 13 of the original Agreement requires the written consent of all other Parties in order for any Party to withdraw. The process requires a written notice from the withdrawing Party, which will be approved by each of the remaining Parties prior to adoption of the Restated Agreement. Staff recommends City Council approval for the City Manager or his designee to draft and issue this withdrawal notice to SBVWCD.

ALTERNATIVES:

City Council may deny the staff recommendation and provide alternative direction.

STRATEGIC PLAN:

N/A
SUBMITTED BY:

John R. Harris, Municipal Utilities and Engineering Director RECOMMENDED BY:

Charles M. Duggan Jr., City Manager
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 177 of 728
REVIEWED BY:

Yvette M. Abich Garcia, City Attorney
Janice McConnell, Assistant City Manager
Danielle Garcia, Management Services/Finance Director
PREPARED BY:

John R. Harris, Municipal Utilities and Engineering Director Fiscal Impact
Discussion:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.

Attachments
1977 SAR/MC Exchange Plan Agreement
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 178 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 179 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 180 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 181 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 182 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 183 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 184 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 185 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 186 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 187 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 188 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 189 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 190 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 191 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 192 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 193 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 194 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 195 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 196 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 197 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 198 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 199 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 200 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 201 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 202 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 203 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 204 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 205 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 206 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 207 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 208 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 209 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 210 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 211 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 212 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 213 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 214 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 215 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 216 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 217 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 218 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 219 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 220 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 221 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 222 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 223 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 224 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 225 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 226 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 227 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 228 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 229 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 230 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 231 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 232 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 233 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 234 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 235 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 236 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 237 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 238 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 239 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 240 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 241 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 242 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 243 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 244 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 245 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 246 of 728
City Council Meeting J. 16.

DATE: 12/20/2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBJECT: Approve the License Agreement with the California Department of Water Resources and the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (Municipal Utilities and Engineering Director Harris) MOTION(S):

If City Council determines the staff recommendation is appropriate, the following motion is provided:

I move that City Council approve the License Agreement with the California Department of Water Resources and the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that City Council approve the License Agreement with the California Department of Water Resources and the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District.

DISCUSSION:

The Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department (MUED) staff participates with multiple municipalities, agencies, and districts throughout the region to manage water resources for long-term beneficial use within two (2) groundwater basins - the Yucaipa Basin and the Bunker Hill Basin. This effort includes monitoring surface water flows, as well as groundwater recharge and extractions. Recently, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (SBVMWD) identified an ideal location to monitor stream flows along Live Oak Canyon Creek.

The project will install a small stream gauge station along the creek channel on property owned by the City of Redlands, which requires City Council approval of a non-exclusive License Agreement. This Agreement authorizes DWR to Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 247 of 728
a non-exclusive License Agreement. This Agreement authorizes DWR to construct, access, operate, and maintain a small stream gauge in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. The location is just downstream of the Live Oak Canyon Road bridge along the left bank of the channel and will not adversely affect nearby properties. DWR anticipates accessing the site very infrequently for scheduled maintenance and routine data collection. SBVMWD will pay to the City a $500 fee each year for use of the property. The License Agreement will remain in effect until terminated by any of the Parties.

ALTERNATIVES:

City Council may deny the staff recommendation and provide alternate direction.

STRATEGIC PLAN:

N/A
SUBMITTED BY:

John R. Harris, Municipal Utilities and Engineering Director RECOMMENDED BY:

Charles M. Duggan Jr., City Manager
REVIEWED BY:

Yvette M. Abich Garcia, City Attorney
Janice McConnell, Assistant City Manager
PREPARED BY:

John R. Harris, Municipal Utilities and Engineering Director Fiscal Impact
Discussion:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.

Attachments
DWR License Agreement
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 248 of 728
1 I:\cmo\Agreements\DWR_License_Agreement-Stream_Gauge FY22-0086.docx-jm

LICENSE AGREEMENT
This License Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this 20th day of December, 2022 (“Effective Date”), by and between the City of Redlands, a municipal corporation (“City”); the California Department of Water Resources (“DWR”); and the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (“SBVMWD”). City, DWR, and SBVMWD are sometimes individually referred to herein as a “Party” and, together, as the “Parties.”

RECITALS
WHEREAS, City is the owner of certain real property located in the City of Redlands and commonly identified asCounty of San Bernardino Assessor’s Parcel Number 0300-231-36-0000 ("Property"), the approximate location of which is shown on Exhibit “A,” titled “Site Maps and Photos,” which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, DWR has identified locations for the installation of stream gauge stations in key groundwater basins in Southern California pursuant to DWR’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Program; and
WHEREAS, the Yucaipa Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (“YBGSA”) is a groundwater sustainability agency formed and created pursuant to California law and SBVMWD is the lead agency of YBGSA; and
WHEREAS, DWR works in coordination with various groundwater sustainability agencies created under California law, including YBGSA to develop a comprehensive groundwater management plan; and
WHEREAS, the installation of a stream gauge station as provided for in this Agreement will provide YBGSA (and SBVMWD as the lead agency of YBGSA) and DWR data needed to improve water management of groundwaters within YBGSA’s geographic boundaries and help protect fish and wildlife; and
WHEREAS, City desires to grant DWR a non-exclusive license, subject to termination as set forth in Sections 8 and 14, to enter upon the Property and install a stream gauge station thereon, on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:

AGREEMENT
Section 1. Grant of License. City hereby grants to DWR a non-exclusive license (“License”), subject to termination as set forth in Sections 8 and 14, to enter upon, travel over and through, and use, as the case may be, subject to all of the terms and conditions hereof, the entirety Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 249 of 728
2 I:\cmo\Agreements\DWR_License_Agreement-Stream_Gauge FY22-0086.docx-jm of the Property for the installation, operation, and maintenance of a stream gauge station (“Project”), which stream gauge station shall be located on the Property within the approximate location shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. All activities of DWR undertaken in connection with the Project shall be performed in accordance with all applicable federal and state laws and regulations.

Section 2. Acknowledgment of License and Disclaimer of Tenancy.

A. Pursuant to this Agreement DWR holds only a license to use the Property as set forth herein. DWR acknowledges and agrees that it is not a tenant or lessee of City and holds no rights of tenancy or leasehold in relation to the Property.

B. In consideration of City’s grant of this License, DWR specifically and expressly waives, releases, and relinquishes any and all rights to assert any claim of right, privilege or interest in the Property other than the License expressly granted pursuant to this Agreement.

C. Any consideration paid pursuant to Section 5 of this Agreement is consistent with the value of the rights comprising the License privilege; the consideration is not consistent with the higher market value for a greater right, privilege or interest (such as a lease) in the Property.

D. DWR further acknowledges and agrees that without the representations and agreements set forth herein, City would not enter into this Agreement.

Section 3. Scope of Work. DWR shall furnish all materials and shall perform Project as more particularly described in Exhibit B, titled “Scope of Services,” which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, at its own expense.

Section 4. Use of Property.

A. The Property shall be used by DWR solely for the purpose of constructing, installing, operating, maintaining, and performing related activities for a stream gauge station, including travelling by vehicle and foot over, on and through the Property for such purposes. The Property is located in a key groundwater basin in Southern California and the installation and operation of a stream gauge station on the property is an important component of DWR’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Program.

B. Use of the Property shall not jeopardize or endanger the health, welfare, peace or safety of persons visiting, residing, working, or conducting business in the surrounding area.

C. During the term of this Agreement, DWR shall comply with all applicable federal and state laws and regulations.

D. DWR and its contractors shall not engage in, and shall not perform any acts- that result in, nuisance activities within the Property or in close proximity of the Property, including but not limited to disturbance of the peace, illegal drug activity, public drunkenness, drinking in public, harassment of passersby, gambling, prostitution, sale of stolen goods, public urination, theft, assaults, batteries, acts of vandalism, littering, loitering, graffiti, illegal parking, excessive Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 250 of 728
3 I:\cmo\Agreements\DWR_License_Agreement-Stream_Gauge FY22-0086.docx-jm loud noises especially in the late night or early morning hours, traffic violations, curfew violations, lewd conduct, or police detentions and arrests. Subject to the foregoing, the construction, installation, and maintenance of the Project shall be deemed not to be a nuisance activity.

E. DWR shall ensure that the Project’s upkeep and operating characteristics are compatible with, and will not adversely affect, the livability or appropriate development of abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood.

F. DWR will not impede the City’s access to the Property, except to the extent access is impeded by the construction, installation, maintenance, operation, or presence of the Project.

For avoidance of doubt, DWR hereby grants City immediate access to the Property in the event of an emergency; which is defined as any incidents that threaten loss of life or property, interruptions of public utilities, disaster, war, acts of terrorism, strikes or similar emergencies.

Section 5. License Fee. SBVMWD shall pay to City a license fee in the sum of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) per year (“Fee”) for use of the Property. The initial Fee shall be due and payable to City within ten (10) City business days of City’s approval of this Agreement. All subsequent annual Fee payments shall be made prior to the 5th day of each subsequent May during the term of this Agreement. All payments are to be made payable to the City of Redlands, Finance Department/Revenue Division, P.O. Box 3005, Redlands, California, 92373. In the consideration of SBVMWD’s agreement to pay the fee as set forth herein, DWR will provide SBVMWD access to all data generated by the Project.

Section 6. Notice of Entry. DWR anticipates the necessity to access the Property two to four times per year for scheduled maintenance and routine data collection, provided, however, DWR may access the Property more frequently as reasonably necessary for the use, operation, and maintenance of the stream gauge station. DWR shall provide at a minimum two (2) City business days prior written notice to City of each date on which DWR desires to enter upon the Property for scheduled maintenance and routine data collection. Should DWR need to access the stream gauge site for unscheduled maintenance and non-routine data collection, DWR shall call notify the City via phone call prior to mobilizing to the site.

Section 7. Possession and Condition of Property Not Warranted. City does not warrant or represent that the Property is suitable for DWR's entry upon the Property or DWR's installation of a stream gauging station, or for any other purpose, and DWR agrees to enter and use, as the case may be, the Property in its "as is" condition, and install a stream gauge station thereon at its own risk, and DWR may not look to City for any claim of damages, restitution or other relief in connection with such entry or restoration.

Section 8. Commencement; Termination. This Agreement shall commence upon its Effective Date and shall continue until terminated by any Party upon sixty (60) days prior written notice to the other Parties, or as otherwise provided for herein.

Section 9. Notice. Any notice or other communication required, or which may be given, pursuant to this Agreement, shall be in writing. Any such notice shall be deemed delivered (i) on the date of delivery in person; (ii) five (5) days after deposit in first class registered mail, Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 251 of 728
4 I:\cmo\Agreements\DWR_License_Agreement-Stream_Gauge FY22-0086.docx-jm with return receipt requested; (iii) on the actual delivery date if deposited with an overnight courier; or (iv) on the date sent by facsimile or electronic mail transmission (including PDF), if confirmed with a copy sent contemporaneously by first class, certified, registered or express mail; in each case properly posted and fully prepaid to the appropriate address set forth below, or such other address as a Party may provide notice in accordance with this section:

CITY: DWR:

City Clerk Abiodun Aderonmu
City of Redlands Sr. Engineer, Water Resources
35 Cajon Street 770 Fairmont Avenue, Suite 200
PO Box 3005 (mailing) Glendale, CA 91203
Redlands, CA 92373 [email protected]
[email protected] 818-549-2327
909-798-7631
SBVMWD:

Matthew Howard
Water Resources Senior Planner
380 East Vanderbilt Way
San Bernardino, CA 92408
[email protected]
909-387-9230
Section 10. Indemnification of City. DWR shall indemnify and hold City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, and employees free and harmless from and against all liability, loss, damage, costs or expenses (including attorneys' fees and court costs) resulting from the death of any person or any personal injury, accident, claim, loss or damage to any person or to the property of any person to the extent arising from DWR’s negligent or intentional acts or omissions in exercising the rights granted under this Agreement.

Section 11. Insurance. Throughout the term of this Agreement DWR shall self-insure against liability risk by participating in the State of California’s self-insurance program. In accordance with Government Code section 11007.4, the State of California has elected to be selfinsured for liability exposure. Under this self-insurance, the State and its employees acting in the course and scope of their employment are insured for tort liability arising out of official State business. All claims against the State of California based on tort liability should be presented as a government claim to the Government Claims Program, P.O. Box 989052 MS 414, West Sacramento, CA 95798-9052. (See Government Code Section 900, et. seq., internet link:
http://www.dgs.ca.gov/orim/Programs/GovernmentClaims.aspx. Evidence of the self-insurance program is attached hereto as Exhibit C. In the event DWR ceases in the future to participate in the State of California’s self-insurance program, it shall obtain the policy(ies) of insurance and comply with the requirements listed in paragraphs A-C, below, and provide certificate(s) of insurance and endorsements evidencing such insurance prior to DWR’s entry onto the Property.

Any such insurance policies shall include a provision prohibiting cancellation or modification of the policy except upon thirty (30) City business days prior written notice to City.

A. Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability insurance in the amount that Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 252 of 728
5 I:\cmo\Agreements\DWR_License_Agreement-Stream_Gauge FY22-0086.docx-jm meets statutory requirements with an insurance carrier acceptable to City ,together with a completed Exhibit “D,” titled “Workers’ Compensation Insurance Certification,” which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference..

B. Comprehensive general liability insurance with carriers acceptable to City.

Minimum coverage of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence and Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) aggregate for public liability, property damage and personal injury is required. City shall be named as an additional insured and such insurance shall be primary and non-contributing to any insurance or self-insurance maintained by City.

C. Business auto liability coverage, with minimum limits of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence, combined single limit bodily injury liability and property damage liability. This coverage shall include all DWR owned vehicles used in connection with DWR's provision of the services provided for the installation of a stream gauge station on the Property, hired and non-owned vehicles, and employee non-ownership vehicles. City shall be named as an additional insured and such insurance shall be primary and non-contributing to any insurance or self-insurance maintained by City.

Section 12. Public Work/Prevailing Wage. In performing the work associated with the removal or the installation of a stream gauge station on the Property, DWR shall comply with all applicable federal and state laws, including but not limited to any applicable provisions of the California Labor Code. City makes no representation to DWR as to whether the work associated with the installation of a stream gauge station constitutes a "Public Work" as that term is defined by California Labor Code section 1720, and DWR acknowledges and agrees that DWR shall be solely responsible and liable for the determination of whether such work constitutes a “Public Work.” DWR further acknowledges that City is not an awarding authority for any contract entered into by DWR for the work associated with the installation of a stream gauge station, nor is City otherwise undertaking any "Public Work" for purposes of California Labor Code section 1781.

DWR shall indemnify and hold harmless City and its elected officials, officers and employees from and against any and all losses, damages, costs, claims, causes of action and liability based upon the assertion that City or DWR has failed to comply with any applicable provision of the California Labor Code as a direct result of DWR's undertaking of work associated with the installation of a stream gauge station on the Property. This Section 12 shall survive any termination of this Agreement.

Section 13. Independent Contractor Status. DWR is for all purposes under this Agreement an independent contractor and shall perform the services for installation of a stream gauge station on the Property as an independent contractor. Neither City nor of its agents shall have control over the conduct of DWR or DWR's employees, except as herein set forth. DWR shall supply all necessary tools and instrumentalities required to perform the services for installation of a stream gauge station on the Property. Assigned personnel employed by DWR are for its account only, and in no event shall DWR or personnel retained by it be deemed to have been employed by City or engaged by City for the account of, or on behalf of City. DWR shall have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of City in any capacity whatsoever as an agent, nor shall DWR have any authority, express or implied, to bind City to any obligation.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 253 of 728
6 I:\cmo\Agreements\DWR_License_Agreement-Stream_Gauge FY22-0086.docx-jm Section 14. Assignment; Sub-Licenses. The license granted by this Agreement is personal to DWR. DWR shall not have the right to assign its rights under this Agreement except upon the prior written consent of City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Any attempt to assign the license granted by this Agreement without the prior written consent of City may, in the sole discretion of City, result in the immediate termination of this Agreement.

Section 15. Written Agreement as Entire Understanding of Parties. The making, execution and delivery of this Agreement by DWR has not been induced by any representations, statements, warranties or agreements other than those herein expressed. This Agreement embodies the entire understanding of the Parties, and there are no further or other agreements or understandings, written or oral, in effect between the Parties, relating to the grant of this License.

This Agreement may be amended or modified only by a written instrument signed by the Parties.

Section 16. Attorneys' Fees and Costs. In the event any action is commenced to enforce or interpret the terms or conditions of this Agreement, the prevailing Party in any such action in addition to costs and any other relief, shall be entitled to its reasonable attorneys' fees, including fees for use of in-house counsel by a Party.

Section 17. Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts or duplicate copies, and any signed counterpart or duplicate copy shall be equivalent to a signed original for all purposes.

Section 18. Electronic Signatures. This Agreement may be executed by electronic signature(s) and transmitted either by facsimile or in a portable document format (.pdf) version by email and such electronic signature(s) shall be deemed as original for purposes of this Agreement and shall have the same force and effect as a manually executed original.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of its Effective Date.

CITY OF REDLANDS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

WATER RESOURCES
______________________________ _________________________________ Paul T. Barich, Mayor Linus A. Paulus, Manager
Acquisition and Appraisal Section
ATTEST: Approved as to Legal Form and Sufficiency
______________________________ _________________________________ Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk Fritz Pahland, Attorney
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 254 of 728
7 I:\cmo\Agreements\DWR_License_Agreement-Stream_Gauge FY22-0086.docx-jm

SAN BERNARDING VALLEY

MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
_________________________________
Heather Dyer,
General Manager
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 255 of 728
8 I:\cmo\Agreements\DWR_License_Agreement-Stream_Gauge FY22-0086.docx-jm EXHIBIT “A”

SITE MAPS AND PHOTOS
APN 0300-231-36-0000

SITE MAPS
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 256 of 728
9 I:\cmo\Agreements\DWR_License_Agreement-Stream_Gauge FY22-0086.docx-jm

SITE PHOTOS
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 257 of 728
10 I:\cmo\Agreements\DWR_License_Agreement-Stream_Gauge FY22-0086.docx-jm EXHIBIT “B”

SCOPE OF WORK
The gauge station will consist of monitoring equipment housed in a 30in. x 30in. x 10in. steel National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) box on the left bank of the channel. The box is mounted on two 2 in. diameter galvanized iron pipes embedded in a hole approximately 8 inches in diameter by 2 feet deep, filled with concrete. A satellite antenna, transmitter and solar panels are attached to the NEMA box. A bubbler conduit will run from the NEMA box to a low point in the channel, just downstream of the bridge.

SAMPLE STATION PHOTOS
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 258 of 728
11 I:\cmo\Agreements\DWR_License_Agreement-Stream_Gauge FY22-0086.docx-jm EXHIBIT "C"

PROOF OF SELF-INSURANCE
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 259 of 728
12 I:\cmo\Agreements\DWR_License_Agreement-Stream_Gauge FY22-0086.docx-jm EXHIBIT "D"
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE CERTIFICATION
Every employer, except the State, shall secure the payment of compensation in one or more of the following ways:
(a) By being insured against liability to pay compensation by one or more insurers duly authorized to write compensation insurance in this State. (b) By securing from the Director of Industrial Relations, a certificate of consent to selfinsure, either as an individual employer, or as one employer in a group of employers, which may be given upon furnishing proof satisfactory to the Director of Industrial Relations of ability to self-insure and to pay any compensation that may become due to his or her employees.

CHECK ONE
_____I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for Workers’ Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work and activities required or permitted under this Agreement. (Labor Code §1861).
_____I affirm that at all times, in performing the work and activities required or permitted under this Agreement, I shall not employ any person in any manner such that I become subject to the workers’ compensation laws of California. However, at any time, if I employ any person such that I become subject to the workers’ compensation laws of California, immediately I shall provide the City with a certificate of consent to self-insure, or a certification of workers’ compensation insurance.

I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the information and representations made in this certificate are true and correct.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES

By: ______ Date: ___________________
Linus A. Paulus, Chief, Acquisitions and Appraisal Unit Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 260 of 728
City Council Meeting J. 17.

DATE: 12/20/2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution No. 8416 establishing an approved contractor list pursuant to the Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act and determination that approval of the Resolution is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State's guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (Municipal Utilities and Engineering Director Harris)
MOTION(S):

If City Council determines the staff recommendation is appropriate, the following motion is provided:

I move City Council adopt Resolution No. 8416
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends City Council determine approval of Resolution No. 8416 is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State's guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act, and approve Resolution No. 8416.

DISCUSSION:

The Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act (Act) was enacted in 1983 and allows alternative bidding procedures when an agency performs public project work by contract in accordance with the cost accounting procedures outlined in the Cost Accounting Policies and Procedures Manual (Manual) of the California Uniform Cost Accounting Commission. California law provides public agencies relief from the formal bid process on smaller projects if the agency establishes specific administrative procedures necessary to comply with the Act.

These procedures require the City to develop and annually update a qualified contractor list and adopt an ordinance providing alternative bidding procedures.

The Act provides that for public projects of $60,000 or less, the City may use its Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 261 of 728
The Act provides that for public projects of $60,000 or less, the City may use its own employees or negotiate contract terms. For public works projects valued at $200,000 or less, the City may issue a contract using informal bid procedures, typically through a notice inviting informal bids, issued to listed contractors for the category of work to be bid. Using these procedures, public agencies can complete projects in a more timely manner as a result of the streamlined award process and the reduction in paperwork related to advertising and report filing.

The City is a participating agency under the Act and the alternative bidding provisions of the Act are codified in Chapter 2.16 of the Redlands Municipal Code. As part of the Act, staff is required to develop and maintain a contractor list under Public Contract Code section 22034 (a)(1). Each calendar year, the City must provide a new or updated list of qualified contractors. In October 2022, a written notice inviting contractors to be included in the City's contractor list was emailed to all construction trade journals designated under Section 22036 of the Public Contract Code. The notice invited all licensed contractors to submit the name of their firm and other required information for inclusion on the City's list of qualified bidders. The attached contractor list has been updated for calendar year 2023 to include contractors who submitted the required information. Additionally, a contractor may request to be added to the City's contractor list at any time by providing the required information.

Approval of the contractor list is exempt from environmental review under section 15061(b)(3) of the State's guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act because adoption of the resolution will not result in any direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

ALTERNATIVES:

City Council may deny the staff recommendation and provide alternate direction.

STRATEGIC PLAN:

N/A
SUBMITTED BY:

John R. Harris, Municipal Utilities and Engineering Director RECOMMENDED BY:

Charles M. Duggan, Jr., City Manager
REVIEWED BY:

Yvette M. Abich Garcia, City Attorney
Janice McConnell, Assistant City Manager
Goutam K. Dobey, City Engineer
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 262 of 728
PREPARED BY:

Gerard Nepomuceno, Civil Engineer
Fiscal Impact
Discussion:

There is no fiscal impact associated with the approval of the Resolution.

Attachments
Resolution No. 8416
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 263 of 728
1 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8416 Establishing Contractor List.docx RESOLUTION NO. 8416

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS

ESTABLISHING A CONTRACTOR LIST PURSUANT TO THE UNIFORM

PUBLIC CONSTRUCTION COST ACCOUNTING ACT
WHEREAS, the City established Ordinance No. 2891 amending chapter 2.16 of the Redlands Municipal Code relating to contract value limits for the purposes of soliciting bids pursuant to the California Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act; and WHEREAS, at least once per calendar year, a list of qualified contractors shall be developed and maintained by those City departments undertaking public projects in accordance with the provisions of section 22034 of the Public Contract Code;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The City of Redlands’ Contractor List pursuant to Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act, attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” is hereby adopted for the calendar year 2023.

ADOPTED, SIGNED AND APPROVED this 20th day of December 2022. ________________________
Paul T. Barich, Mayor
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 264 of 728
2 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8416 Establishing Contractor List.docx ATTEST:
___________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
I, Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk of the City of Redlands, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 20th day of December 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
______________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 265 of 728
3 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8416 Establishing Contractor List.docx EXHIBIT “A”
Contractor List per California Uniform
Public Construction Cost Accounting Act
Above All Names Construction Services, Inc.

Alcorn Fence Company
Baker Electric, Inc.

Best Contracting Services, Inc.

Borden Excavating, Inc.

California Professional Engineering, Inc.

Color New Co.

CT&T Concrete Paving, Inc.

Deark E&C, Inc.

Econolite Systems, Inc.

Elecnor Belco Electric, Inc.

Fix Painting Company
F.M. Thomas Air Conditioning, Inc.

GCI Construction, Inc.

GM Sager Construction Co., Inc.

GSE Construction Co., Inc.

Humphrey Constructors
Integrated Demolition and Remediation Inc.

J.M. Olvera Engineering, Inc.

KASA Construction, Inc.

Kerns, Inc., A California Corp.

KSM Electric, Inc.

Layne Christensen Company
LC Paving and Sealing, Inc.

Legend Pump and Well Service, Inc.

Matich Corporation
Oakridge Energy
Oakview Constructors, Inc.

Osborne Painting Inc.

PTM General Engineering Services, Inc.

RND Contractors, Inc.

Roadway Engineering & Contracting, Inc.

S & H Civilworks
South West Pump & Drilling, Inc.

Sully-Miller Contracting Company
(Continued)
Three Peaks Corp.

Tony Painting
Tri-County Pump Company
Tryco General Engineering
TESCO Controls, Inc.

Universal Construction and Engineering
Urban Habitat
Valley Cities/Gonzales Fence, Inc.

Weber Water Resources
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 266 of 728
City Council Meeting J. 18.

DATE: 12/20/2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution No. 8419 approving the 2022 Water Systems Master Plan and determine this action is exempt from
environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State's guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (Municipal Utilities and Engineering Director Harris)
MOTION(S):

If City Council determines the staff recommendation is appropriate, the following motion is provided:

I move City Council adopt Resolution No. 8419
RECOMMENDATION:

MUNICIPAL UTILITIES AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION (MUPWC)

RECOMMENDATION
On October 3, 2022, the Municipal Utilities and Public Works Commission voted unanimously to recommend City Council adoption of the 2022 Water Systems Master Plan.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends City Council adopt Resolution No. 8419 approving the 2022 Water Systems Master Plan and determine that this action is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State's Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 267 of 728
DISCUSSION:

The Redlands 6-Year Strategic Plan, beginning July 1, 2022 through to June 2028, specifically sets as a Sustainability Objective (D-3) the development and implementation of a Water and Wastewater Utility Master plan to ensure that facilities are improved and maintained to meet the needs of the expanding community. A Citywide Water Systems Master Plan (Plan) is a valuable tool that City staff uses to ensure the sustainability of water infrastructure. The Plan includes short and long-term Capital Improvement Program (CIP) recommendations, as well as recommended implementation schedules. The City's last Plan update was completed in July 1998 by CH2M Hill. Since the last update, the City's population has increased significantly. The Plan will assist staff with CIP project prioritization to meet current and future customer demands. Staff completed the Plan in August 2022 and the Municipal Utilities and Public Works Commission (MUPWC) unanimously recommended City Council adoption on October 3, 2022.

Approval of Resolution No. 8419 is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State's guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act.

ALTERNATIVES:

City Council may deny the MUPWC and staff recommendations and provide alternate direction.

STRATEGIC PLAN:

Strategic Plan Priority D-3 Infrastructure: Develop and implement Water and Wastewater Utility Master Plans to ensure facilities are improved and maintained to meet the needs of our expanding community.

SUBMITTED BY:

John R. Harris, Municipal Utilities and Engineering Director RECOMMENDED BY:

Charles M. Duggan Jr., City Manager
REVIEWED BY:

Yvette M. Abich Garcia, City Attorney
Janice McConnell, Assistant City Manager
Goutam K. Dobey, City Engineer
PREPARED BY:

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 268 of 728
PREPARED BY:

Veronica Medina, Associate Engineer
Fiscal Impact
Discussion:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.

Attachments
Resolution No. 8419
Exhibit "A" 2022 Water Systems Master Plan
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 269 of 728
1 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8419 Water Systems Master Plan.docx RESOLUTION NO. 8419

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS ADOPTING 2022 WATER SYSTEMS MASTER PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Redlands (“City”) desires to plan for short and long term Capital Improvement Program (“CIP”) projects and establish an infrastructure improvement schedule for the following twenty (20) years; and
WHEREAS, the Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department was authorized by the City Council on September 1st, 2020, to enter into an agreement with Michael Baker International, Inc., a professional engineering services firm, to update and develop a Citywide Water Systems Master Plan (“Plan”); and
WHEREAS, the City’s consultant along with City staff has utilized the Water Master Plan prepared in 1998, and the City’s records of information, in developing a comprehensive master plan; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Plan will be used as the foundation for implementing structural CIP projects when funding is available; and
WHEREAS, the Plan is now complete and requires City Council adoption;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. That approval of this Resolution is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State’s Guidelines implementing CEQA.

Section 2. The City Council hereby adopts the City of Redlands’ 2022 Water Systems Master Plan attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”
ADOPTED, SIGNED AND APPROVED this 20th day of December, 2022. ________________________
Paul T. Barich, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 270 of 728
2 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8419 Water Systems Master Plan.docx I, Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk of the City of Redlands, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 20th day of December, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 271 of 728
3 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8419 Water Systems Master Plan.docx EXHIBIT “A”
2022 WATER SYSTEMS MASTER PLAN
[ATTACHED]
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 272 of 728

WATER SYSTEMS

MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 2022
Municipal Utilities and
Engineering Department
City of Redlands
35 Cajon Street
Redlands, CA 92373
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 273 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 274 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
i | P a g e

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................1 Section 1 – General Information...................................................................................................................1 Section 2 - Existing Infrastructure.................................................................................................................1 Section 3 - Historic Water Use ......................................................................................................................1 Section 4 - Water Supply...............................................................................................................................1 Section 5 - Design Criteria.............................................................................................................................1 Section 6 - Existing System Analysis..............................................................................................................2 Section 7 - Future System .............................................................................................................................2 Section 8 - Water Quality Analysis................................................................................................................2 Section 9 - Water System Operation and Maintenance ...............................................................................2 Section 10 - Capital Improvement Program .................................................................................................2 1 GENERAL INFORMATION........................................................................................................3

1.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION....................................................................................................................3

1.2 LAND USES .......................................................................................................................................3

1.3 WATER SERVICE AREA......................................................................................................................9

1.4 POPULATION....................................................................................................................................9 2 EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE .................................................................................................11

2.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION..................................................................................................................11

2.1.1 POTABLE WATER SYSTEM.................................................................................... 11

2.1.2 NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM........................................................................... 11

2.1.3 RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM .................................................................................. 11

2.2 PRESSURE ZONES ...........................................................................................................................11 POTABLE WATER PRESSURE ZONES............................................................................................... 11

2.2.1 ZONE 1350 ........................................................................................................... 11

2.2.2 ZONE 1570 ........................................................................................................... 12

2.2.3 ZONE 1750 ........................................................................................................... 12

2.2.4 ZONE 1900 ........................................................................................................... 12

2.2.5 ZONE 2100 ........................................................................................................... 12

2.2.6 ZONE 2340 ........................................................................................................... 13 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 275 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
ii | P a g e

2.2.7 ZONE 2600 ........................................................................................................... 13 NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEMS ................................................................................................... 13

2.2.8 SYSTEM 1 ............................................................................................................. 13

2.2.9 SYSTEM 2 ............................................................................................................. 13

2.2.10 SYSTEM 3 ............................................................................................................. 13

2.2.11 SYSTEM 4 ............................................................................................................. 13

2.2.12 SYSTEM 5 ............................................................................................................. 13

2.2.13 SYSTEM 6 ............................................................................................................. 14

2.2.14 SYSTEM 7 ............................................................................................................. 14

2.2.15 SYSTEM 8 ............................................................................................................. 14 RECYCLED WATER PRESSURE ZONES ............................................................................................. 14

2.2.16 ZONE 1 ................................................................................................................. 14

2.3 STORAGE RESERVOIRS ...................................................................................................................16 POTABLE WATER SYSTEM.............................................................................................................. 16 NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM..................................................................................................... 17

2.3.1 SYSTEM 1 ............................................................................................................. 17

2.3.2 SYSTEM 2 ............................................................................................................. 17

2.3.3 SYSTEM 3 ............................................................................................................. 17

2.3.4 SYSTEM 4 ............................................................................................................. 17

2.3.5 SYSTEM 5 ............................................................................................................. 17

2.3.6 SYSTEM 6 ............................................................................................................. 17

2.3.7 SYSTEM 7 ............................................................................................................. 17

2.3.8 SYSTEM 8 ............................................................................................................. 17 RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM ............................................................................................................ 17

2.4 WELLS.............................................................................................................................................17 POTABLE WATER SYSTEM WELLS .................................................................................................. 17 NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM WELLS ......................................................................................... 18

2.5 BOOSTER PUMPS ...........................................................................................................................19 POTABLE WATER SYSTEM.............................................................................................................. 19 NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM..................................................................................................... 21 RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM ............................................................................................................ 21

2.6 WATER TREATMENT PLANTS .........................................................................................................21

2.6.1 HORACE P. HINCKLEY WATER TREATMENT PLANT.............................................. 21

2.6.2 HENRY TATE WATER TREATMENT PLANT............................................................ 21

2.6.3 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT ..................................................................... 22

2.7 FACILITY SEISMIC ANALYSIS ...........................................................................................................22 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 276 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
iii | P a g e
3 WATER USE..........................................................................................................................24

3.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION..................................................................................................................24

3.2 WATER DEMAND ...........................................................................................................................24 POTABLE WATER SYSTEM.............................................................................................................. 24 NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM..................................................................................................... 25 RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM ............................................................................................................ 26

3.3 FIRE FLOW......................................................................................................................................26

3.4 CONSERVATION MEASURES ..........................................................................................................27

3.4.1 WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN ............................................................ 27

3.4.2 DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES ................................................................. 28

3.5 FUTURE WATER USE ......................................................................................................................28 POTABLE WATER SYSTEM.............................................................................................................. 28 NON-POTABLE WATER/RECYCLED WATER SYSTEMS..................................................................... 29

3.5.1 AREA-BASED DEMAND FACTORS......................................................................... 30

3.5.2 CONNECTION-BASED DEMAND FACTORS ........................................................... 31 4 WATER SUPPLY....................................................................................................................32

4.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION..................................................................................................................32 POTABLE WATER SYSTEM.............................................................................................................. 32 NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM..................................................................................................... 32 RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM ............................................................................................................ 32

4.2 WATER PRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................32 POTABLE WATER SYSTEM.............................................................................................................. 32 NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM & RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM...................................................... 34

4.3 DEMAND VARIATION.....................................................................................................................36

4.3.1 AVERAGE DAY DEMAND ...................................................................................... 36 POTABLE WATER SYSTEM.............................................................................................................. 36 NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM..................................................................................................... 36 RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM ............................................................................................................ 36

4.3.2 MAXIMUM DAY DEMAND.................................................................................... 36 POTABLE WATER SYSTEM.............................................................................................................. 36 NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM..................................................................................................... 37 RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM ............................................................................................................ 37

4.3.3 PEAK HOUR DEMAND.......................................................................................... 37 POTABLE WATER SYSTEM.............................................................................................................. 37 NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM..................................................................................................... 38 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 277 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
iv | P a g e
RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM ............................................................................................................ 38

4.4 EMERGENCY CONNECTIONS..........................................................................................................39

4.5 PRODUCTION-DEMAND PROJECTION............................................................................................39

4.5.1 PROJECTION......................................................................................................... 39 POTABLE WATER SYSTEM.............................................................................................................. 39 NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM..................................................................................................... 39 5 DESIGN CRITERIA .................................................................................................................41

5.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION..................................................................................................................41

5.2 DESIGN CRITERIA............................................................................................................................41

5.2.1 DEMAND .............................................................................................................. 41 POTABLE WATER SYSTEM.............................................................................................................. 41

5.2.2 SUPPLY ................................................................................................................. 41 POTABLE WATER SYSTEM.............................................................................................................. 41 NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM & RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM...................................................... 41

5.2.3 STORAGE VOLUME............................................................................................... 41 POTABLE WATER SYSTEM.............................................................................................................. 41 NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM..................................................................................................... 42 RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM ............................................................................................................ 43

5.2.4 PUMP STATIONS .................................................................................................. 43 POTABLE WATER SYSTEM.............................................................................................................. 43 NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM..................................................................................................... 43 RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM ............................................................................................................ 43

5.2.5 WATER TREATMENT ............................................................................................ 43

5.2.6 SYSTEM PRESSURE............................................................................................... 44 POTABLE WATER SYSTEM.............................................................................................................. 44 NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM & RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM...................................................... 44

5.2.7 PIPE VELOCITY...................................................................................................... 44

5.2.8 PIPELINE REDUNDANCY ....................................................................................... 44

5.2.9 SUMMARY OF DESIGN CRITERIA.......................................................................... 44 POTABLE WATER SYSTEM.............................................................................................................. 44 NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM & RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM...................................................... 45

5.3 PLANNING CRITERIA.......................................................................................................................46

5.3.1 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 46

5.3.2 AVERAGE SERVICE LIFE ........................................................................................ 46

5.3.3 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ............................................................................... 48 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 278 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
v | P a g e
6 EXISTING SYSTEM ANALYSIS.................................................................................................49

6.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION..................................................................................................................49

6.2 METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................................49

6.3 HYDRAULIC MODEL CALIBRATION.................................................................................................50

6.4 EXISTING SUPPLY ANALYSIS – POTABLE WATER SYSTEM..............................................................54

6.4.1 SCENARIO 1: EXISTING SYSTEM, ADD, EPS, MAX PRESSURE OVER 24 HOURS.... 54

6.4.2 SCENARIO 2: EXISTING SYSTEM, MDD, EPS, MAX PRESSURE OVER 24 HOURS... 54

6.4.3 SCENARIO 3: EXISTING SYSTEM, MDD, EPS, MAX VELOCITY OVER 24 HOURS.... 54

6.4.4 SCENARIO 4: EXISTING SYSTEM, MDD, FIRE FLOW, RESIDUAL PRESSURE DURING FIRE EVENT (Steady State) ............................................................................................................. 54

6.4.5 SCENARIO 5: EXISTING SYSTEM, PHD, STEADY-STATE SCENARIO, MIN PRESSURE 54 6.4.6 SCENARIO 6: EXISTING SYSTEM, PHD, STEADY-STATE SCENARIO, MAX VELOCITY 54 6.5 EXISTING SUPPLY ANALYSIS – NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM & RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM .....61

6.5.1 ZONE 1 SUPPLY .................................................................................................... 61

6.5.2 SYSTEM 2 SUPPLY ................................................................................................ 61

6.5.3 SYSTEM 3 SUPPLY ................................................................................................ 61

6.5.4 DETACHED SYSTEMS ............................................................................................ 61

6.5.5 SCENARIO 1, EXISTING SYSTEM, ADD, EPS, MAX PRESSURE OVER 24 HOURS.... 61

6.5.6 SCENARIO 2, EXISTING SYSTEM, MDD, EPS, MAX PIPE VELOCITY OVER 24 HOURS 61 6.5.7 OTHER AGENCIES................................................................................................. 62 7 FUTURE SYSTEM ..................................................................................................................66

7.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION..................................................................................................................66

7.2 FUTURE SUPPLY ANALYSIS – POTABLE WATER SYSTEM................................................................66

7.2.1 SCENARIO 1 FUTURE DEMAND, EXISTING SYSTEM, MDD, FIRE FLOW SCENARIO, RESIDUAL PRESSURE DURING FIRE HOURS. .................................................................................. 66

7.2.2 SCENARIO 2 FUTURE DEMAND, EXISTING SYSTEM, MDD, EPS SCENARIO, MAX PRESSURE OVER 24 HOURS. .......................................................................................................... 66

7.2.3 SCENARIO 3 FUTURE DEMAND, ADD, EPS SCENARIO, MAX PRESSURE OVER 24 HOURS 66

7.2.4 SCENARIO 4 FUTURE DEMAND, MDD, EPS SCENARIO, MIN PRESSURE OVER 24 HOURS 66

7.2.5 SCENARIO 5 FUTURE DEMAND, MDD, EPS SCENARIO, MAX VELOCITY OVER 24 HOURS 67
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 279 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
vi | P a g e

7.2.6 SCENARIO 6 FUTURE DEMAND, FUTURE SYSTEM, MDD, FIRE FLOW SCENARIO, RESIDUAL PRESSURE DURING FIRE HOURS. .................................................................................. 67

7.3 FUTURE SUPPLY ANALYSIS – NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM & RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM .......74

7.3.1 SCENARIO 1, FUTURE SYSTEM, ADD, EPS, MAX PRESSURE OVER 24 HOURS...... 74

7.3.2 SCENARIO 2, FUTURE SYSTEM, ADD, EPS, MAX PIPE VELOCITY OVER 24 HOURS 74 7.3.3 SCENARIO 3, FUTURE SYSTEM, MDD, EPS, MAX PRESSURE OVER 24 HOURS..... 74

7.3.4 SCENARIO 4, FUTURE SYSTEM, MDD, EPS, MAX PIPE VELOCITY OVER 24 HOURS 74 7.4 SUMMARY OF DEFICIENCIES..........................................................................................................79

7.4.1 POTABLE WATER SYSTEM.................................................................................... 79

7.4.2 NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM & RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM ........................... 80

7.5 MITIGATION OF DEFICIENCIES .......................................................................................................80

7.5.1 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 80

7.5.2 PROJECTS FOR FUTURE CONDITIONS – POTABLE WATER SYSTEM..................... 80

7.5.3 PROJECTS FOR FUTURE CONDITIONS – NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM & RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM ............................................................................................................ 81 8 WATER QUALITY ..................................................................................................................85

8.1 METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................................85

8.2 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................................................85

8.3 GOALS AND PREFERENCES.............................................................................................................85

8.4 ASBESTOS.......................................................................................................................................86

8.5 GROUNDWATER QUALITY..............................................................................................................86

8.5.1 BUNKER HILL SUBBASIN/SBB............................................................................... 86

8.6 SOURCE WATER QUALITY ..............................................................................................................86

8.7 DISINFECTION ................................................................................................................................87

8.8 WATER AGE....................................................................................................................................87

8.9 WATER AGE POTENTIAL HEALTH IMPACTS ...................................................................................87

8.10 WATER AGE DETERMINATION.......................................................................................................88

8.11 CITY OF REDLANDS WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM AGE .........................................................................88

8.12 INDICATORS OF HIGH WATER AGE ................................................................................................89 9 WATER SYSTEM OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ................................................................91

9.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION..................................................................................................................91

9.2 SCADA ............................................................................................................................................91 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 280 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
vii | P a g e

9.3 WORK ORDER PROCESS .................................................................................................................91

9.4 INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE..................................................................................................91

9.5 WATER SYSTEM STAFF AND MANAGEMENT.................................................................................91 10 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.....................................................................................94

10.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION..................................................................................................................94

10.1.1 APPROACH TO PLANNING LEVEL COSTS.............................................................. 94

10.2 OPINION OF PROBABLE COST ........................................................................................................96

10.2.1 CIP ITEM W1: POTABLE WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM..................................... 96

10.2.2 CIP ITEM W2: HINCKLEY TREATMENT PLANT ...................................................... 96

10.2.3 CIP ITEM W3: TATE TREATMENT PLANT.............................................................. 96

10.2.4 CIP ITEM W4: POTABLE WATER BOOSTER PUMP STATIONS............................... 97

10.2.5 CIP ITEM W5: POTABLE WATER STORAGE RESERVOIRS...................................... 97

10.2.6 CIP ITEM W6: GROUNDWATER WELLS ................................................................ 97

10.2.7 FUTURE WATER SUPPLY PLANNING .................................................................... 98

10.2.8 CIP NP1: NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS ................................ 98

10.2.9 CIP NP2: RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS........................................ 98

10.3 PROJECTS AND COSTS....................................................................................................................98

10.3.1 POTABLE WATER SYSTEM CIP PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS........................... 98

10.3.2 NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM CIP PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS................ 103

10.4 THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS......................................................................................105

10.4.1 POTABLE WATER SYSTEM CIP PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS .................................... 105

10.4.2 NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM CIP PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS ........................... 113 11 LIST OF APPENDICES...........................................................................................................116 12 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................123 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 281 of 728

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 282 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
viii | P a g e

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1: City of Redlands Land Use............................................................................................................5 Table 1-2: Redlands Population Growth (1960-2045) ..................................................................................9 Table 1-3: Water Service Area Predicted Population Growth ....................................................................10 Table 2-1: Existing Potable Water System Storage Reservoirs...................................................................16 Table 2-2: Potable Water System Wells......................................................................................................18 Table 2-3: Non-Potable Water System Wells.............................................................................................18 Table 2-4: Booster Pump Data....................................................................................................................19 Table 2-5: City of Redlands Typical Tertiary Treated Title 22 Recycled Water...........................................22 Table 3-1: Historical Water Production and Demand (AF/Year).................................................................24 Table 3-2: Historical Non-Potable Water Demand (AF/Year).....................................................................25 Table 3-3: 2021 Non-Potable Water Users.................................................................................................25 Table 3-4: Fire Flow Criteria........................................................................................................................26 Table 3-5: Potable Water Demand Projection (AF/Year)............................................................................29 Table 3-6: Potential Non-Potable Water Users..........................................................................................29 Table 3-7: Potential Non-Potable Water Users..........................................................................................30 Table 3-8: Future Water Use Projections by Land Use (AF/Year)...............................................................30 Table 3-9: Future Water Projections by Connection ..................................................................................31 Table 4-1: Potable Water Production Sources (AF/Year) ...........................................................................32 Table 4-2: Monthly Potable Water Production...........................................................................................33 Table 4-3: Monthly Non-Potable Water & Recycled Water Production/Distribution (MGD) ....................34 Table 4-4: Non-Potable Groundwater Well Production (MGD)..................................................................35 Table 4-5: Non-Potable Water System Losses...........................................................................................35 Table 4-6: Active Potable Water Production Facility Capacity ...................................................................38 Table 4-7: Potable Water Demand Projections (MGD)...............................................................................39 Table 4-8: Projected Production Demands Assuming Optional Expansion ...............................................39 Table 5-1: Storage Volume by Zone...........................................................................................................42 Table 5-2: Design Criteria Summary – Potable Water System....................................................................44 Table 5-3: Design Criteria Summary - Non-potable & Recycled Water System .........................................46 Table 5-4: Water Facility Average Service Life............................................................................................47 Table 5-5: Water Pipeline Average Service Life ..........................................................................................48 Table 6-1: Model Calibration Accuracy.......................................................................................................53 Table 6-2: Undersized Non-Potable Water System Pipelines.....................................................................62 Table 6-3: City-Owned Citrus Groves.........................................................................................................62 Table 7-1: Potable Water System Deficiencies...........................................................................................79 Table 7-2: Recommended CIP to Correct Deficiencies...............................................................................80 Table 8-1: Water Age Recommendations..................................................................................................87 Table 8-2: Potential Water Age Issues.......................................................................................................87 Table 8-3: Storage Reservoir Water Age....................................................................................................88 Table 10-1: CIP Project Recommendation OPC Assumptions.....................................................................94 Table 10-2: AACE Construction Cost Classes ..............................................................................................95 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 283 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
ix | P a g e
Table 10-3: 5-Year Potable Water CIP Recommendations ........................................................................99 Table 10-4: 20-Year Potable Water CIP Recommendations.....................................................................100 Table 10-5: 5-Year Non-Potable Water CIP Recommendations ..............................................................103 Table 10-6: 20-Year Non-Potable Water CIP Recommendations.............................................................103 Table 10-7: Pipeline Replacement ............................................................................................................105 Table 10-8: Meter Replacement...............................................................................................................106 Table 10-9: Meter Retro-Fit......................................................................................................................107 Table 10-10: Booster Pump Stations Rehabilitation................................................................................109 Table 10-11: Storage Tank Reservoirs......................................................................................................110 Table 10-12: Replacement per Seismic Study...........................................................................................111 Table 10-13: Groundwater Wells.............................................................................................................111 Table 10-14: Well Study and Treatment...................................................................................................112 Table 10-15: Non-Potable Pipeline Replacement.....................................................................................113 Table 10-16: Ground Water Well CIP list with the Cost Opinion..............................................................114

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1: City of Redlands City Limits.........................................................................................................4 Figure 1-2: 2017 General Plan Land Use.......................................................................................................8 Figure 2-1: Existing Conditions....................................................................................................................15 Figure 2-2: Potable Water System Hydraulic Profile...................................................................................23 Figure 6-1: Hydraulic Model Scenario 1 Results.........................................................................................55 Figure 6-2: Hydraulic Model Scenario 2 Results.........................................................................................56 Figure 6-3: Hydraulic Model Scenario 3 Results.........................................................................................57 Figure 6-4: Hydraulic Model Scenario 4 Results.........................................................................................58 Figure 6-5: Hydraulic Results Scenario 5 Results........................................................................................59 Figure 6-6: Hydraulic Model Scenario 6 Results.........................................................................................60 Figure 6-7: Existing System, ADD, EPS, Maximum Pressure Over 24 Hours...............................................64 Figure 6-8: Existing System, MDD, EPS, Maximum Pipe Velocity Over 24 Hours.......................................65 Figure 7-1: Hydraulic Model Future Scenario 1 Results..............................................................................68 Figure 7-2: Hydraulic Model Future Scenario 2 Results..............................................................................69 Figure 7-3: Hydraulic Model Future Scenario 3 Results..............................................................................70 Figure 7-4: Hydraulic Model Future Scenario 4 Results..............................................................................71 Figure 7-5: Hydraulic Model Future Scenario 5 Results..............................................................................72 Figure 7-6: Hydraulic Model Future Scenario 6 Results..............................................................................73 Figure 7-7: Future System, ADD, EPS, Maximum Pressure Over 24 Hours.................................................75 Figure 7-8: Future System, ADD, EPS, Maximum Pipe Velocity Over 24 Hours..........................................76 Figure 7-9: Future System, MDD, EPS, Maximum Pressure Over 24 Hours................................................77 Figure 7-10: Future System, MDD, EPS, Maximum Pipe Velocity Over 24 Hours.......................................78 Figure 7-11: Capital Improvement Locations..............................................................................................82 Figure 7-12: Future Conditions with Corrections, Velocity.........................................................................83 Figure 7-13: Future Conditions with Corrections, Pressure........................................................................84 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 284 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
x | P a g e
Figure 8-1: Water Age Analysis...................................................................................................................90 Figure 10-1: Remaining Pipe Service Life..................................................................................................102 Figure 10-2: Remaining Pipe Service Life..................................................................................................104

LIST OF CHARTS
Chart 1-1: Land Use Areas.............................................................................................................................6 Chart 3-1: Historical Potable Water Use by Category.................................................................................25 Chart 4-1: Water Production by Source......................................................................................................33 Chart 4-2: Historic Potable Water Production............................................................................................34 Chart 4-3: MDD Diurnal Curve for Potable Water, August 2019 ................................................................37 Chart 6-1: Composite Time-of-Day Demand Curve ....................................................................................51 Chart 6-2: Calibration Results for 1350 PZ Tank Levels – 1.........................................................................52 Chart 6-3: Calibration Results for 1350 PZ Tank Levels – 2.........................................................................53 Chart 9-1: Maintenance and Operations Organization Chart........................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

Chart 10-1: Potable Water System 5-Year CIP Cost Summary....................................................................99 Chart 10-2: Potable Water System 20-Year CIP Cost Summary................................................................101 Chart 10-3: Potable Water Pipeline Remaining Service Life.....................................................................106 Chart 10-4: Recycled/Non-potable Water Pipeline Remaining Service Life.............................................115 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 285 of 728

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 286 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
xi | P a g e

ABBREVIATIONS
2020 UWMP
2021 WSCP
2022 WSMP
AACE
AF
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
2021 Water Shortage Contingency Plan
2022 Water System Master Plan
Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering
Acre-Feet
Acre-ft/d
Acre-ft/yr.

Acre-Feet per Day
Acre-Feet per Year
ADD Average Day Demand
AMI
AMR
ASL
Advanced Metering Infrastructure
Automated Meter Reader
Above Sea Level
AWWA
BOD
Brady
BVMWC
CalOSHA
CalWARN
CCR
American Water Works Association
Biological Oxygen Demand
Richard Brady and Associates, Inc.

Bear Valley Mutual Water Company
California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Agency California’s Water/Wastewater Agency Response Network
Consumer Confidence Report
CIP Capital Improvement Program
City City of Redlands Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department CWC
DU
Crafton Water Company
Dwelling Unit
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPS Extended Period Simulation
ERNIE
ES
Fps
Emergency Response Network of the Inland Empire
Equalizing Storage
Feet Per Second
FSS
FY
GIS
Fire Suppression Storage
Fiscal Year
Geographical Information System
Gpcd Gallons per capita day
GPD Gallons per day
GPM Gallons per minute
HAA5
Hinckley
HP
Haloacedic Acid
Horace P. Hinckley Water Treatment Plant
Horsepower
I-10
I-210
MCL
MDD
Interstate 10
Interstate 210
Maximum Contaminate Level
Maximum Day Demand
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 287 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
xii | P a g e
MG Million Gallons
MGD Million Gallons per day
mg/L
MUED
NPW
NPWMP
Milligrams per Liter
Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department
Non-Potable Water
2005 Non-Potable Water System Master Plan
NTU
O&M
OPC
Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
Operations and Maintenance
Opinion of Probable Cost
OS
PHD
Operational Storage
Peak Hour Demand
PPM Parts Per Million
PRS
PSI
PW
PWMP
RW
Pressure Reducing Stations
Pounds per Square Inch
Potable Water
1998 Potable Water System Master Plan
Recycled Water
SAR Santa Ana River
SB Stand-by Storage
SBBA
SCADA
SCE
San Bernardino Basin Area
Supervisor Control and Data Acquisition
Southern California Edison
SOC
SOP
SWP

SWRCB-DDW
Synthetic Organic Compounds
Standard Operating Procedure
State Water Project
State Water Resources Control Board – Division of Drinking Water Tate Henry Tate Water Treatment Plant
TBD
TDS
TSS
TTHM
U.S.

VOC
WD
WP
WTP
WWTP
To be determined
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Trihalomethanes
United States
Volatile Organic Compounds
Water Distribution
Water Production
Water Treatment Plant
Wastewater Treatment Plan
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 288 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
1 | P a g e

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
In 2021, the City of Redlands (City) initiated to prepare an update to the 1998 Potable Water System Master Plan (PWMP) and the 2005 Non-Potable Water System Master Plan (NPWMP). Both the PWMP and NPWMP, as well as other relevant documents were reviewed and referenced to prepare the 2022 Water Systems Master Plan (2022 WSMP). The 2022 WSMP includes the City’s three (3) water systems:

Non-Potable Water (NPW), Potable Water (PW), and Recycled Water (RW) Systems. The most critical outcome of the 2022 WSMP is the development of comprehensive five-year and twenty-year capital improvement program (CIP) recommendations to improve distribution efficiency, reduce non-revenue water, and accommodate growth within the City water service areas. A hydraulic model using Innovyze InfoWater software was developed to analyze existing systems, as well as the impacts of various system improvements. The City’s Water Distribution and Water Production staff supplemented these efforts with decades of relative historic knowledge.

The ultimate goal for all three (3) water production and distribution systems is to ensure long-range sustainability for each of these water resources. The City intends to use recommendations developed and identified through this Master Planning process to reduce non-revenue water in each system, maximize the use of non-potable wells to extract contaminants from groundwater resources, and eventually hopes to serve all significant users with non-potable and/or recycled water for landscape irrigation and industrial uses.

The 2022 WSMP is divided into ten (10) Sections, each of which is summarized below.

Section 1 – General Information
This Section provides general information about the City and its water service area.

Section 2 - Existing Infrastructure
This Section details the City’s existing NPW, PW, and RW Systems.

Section 3 - Historic Water Use
This Section quantifies and characterizes annual and seasonal water use patterns based on demand data included in the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (2020 UWMP). This information was used to calibrate each hydraulic model, with particular emphasis on maintaining minimum fire protection pressure and flow under several modeling scenarios. It was also used to validate the positive impact of water conservation programs. Water demand projections through the 2045 planning horizon are provided as well.

Section 4 - Water Supply
This Section describes and quantifies the water sources for each system, and identifies various threats and production challenges associated with each system.

Section 5 - Design Criteria
This Section identifies specific water infrastructure planning and design criteria used to evaluate existing infrastructure and to develop CIP project recommendations. These include minimum storage requirements, pumping capacity, and system hydraulics for various demand scenarios.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 289 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
2 | P a g e
Section 6 - Existing System Analysis
This Section summarizes development, calibration, and use of the hydraulic model to analyze the existing systems. Scenarios including historic Average Day Demands (ADD), Maximum Day Demands (MDD) with and without fire flow, and Peak Hour Demands (PHD) were modeled to identify deficiencies within each system.

Section 7 - Future System
This Section summarizes additional hydraulic modeling to identify deficiencies as project demands within each system are applied through the planning horizon. The results were used to develop CIP project recommendations for each system.

Section 8 - Water Quality Analysis
This Section summarizes regulatory requirements relative to each system, and identifies potential contamination sources, groundwater basin characteristics, and imported water quality. A distribution system water age analysis was hydraulically modeled to evaluate the potential for taste and odor complaints related to the reduction of disinfection residual over time.

Section 9 - Water System Operation and Maintenance
This Section summarizes findings of an Operation and Maintenance (O&M) practices analysis for each system, and includes recommended improvements.

Section 10 - Capital Improvement Program
This Section identifies recommended short-term (5-Years) and long-term (20-Years) CIP projects based on discussions with City staff and 2022 WSMP analyses. An Opinion of Probable Cost (OPC), in current year dollars, is provided for each CIP project recommendation. Each OPC is developed based on estimated construction quantities, actual construction costs for regional projects of similar scope and size, and vendor quotes. Finally, the OPC for each CIP project was adjusted to account for specific site conditions.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 290 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
3 | P a g e
1 GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The City of Redlands is located in Southern California in the southwestern portion of the County of San Bernardino, and includes approximately 37.5 square miles of land area. The City is approximately sixty (60) miles east of the City of Los Angeles, adjacent to the eastern borders of the cities of San Bernardino and Loma Linda, adjacent to the southern border of the City of Highlands, and adjacent to the western border of the City of Yucaipa. The unincorporated areas of Mentone and Crafton, located just east of the City. The City limits are shown in Figure 1-1.

Several major transportation corridors transverse the City: Interstate 210 (I-210) crosses the western portion of the City, Interstate 10 (I-10) transverses east/west through the middle of the City, and State Route 38 begins within the City limits and transverses east through the City. The Santa Ana River and Mill Creek watersheds are located in the northern and eastern sections of the City, respectively. These watersheds are the source of approximately half of the City's total water supply.

The topography of the City generally slopes downward in the northwesterly direction. The San Bernardino Mountain range is situated to the northeast, Zanja Peak to the east, and the San Jacinto Mountain range to the south. Elevations within the City limits varies between 1,100 feet above sea level (ASL) in the northwest, to 3,300 feet ASL in the east. The City's water service area reaches 2,500 feet ASL. This broad variation in elevation requires multiple pressure zones to distribute water within accepted industry standards throughout each system.

1.2 LAND USES
Although the City is home to large employers such as ESRI, Redlands Community Hospital, and the University of Redlands, the south and east portions of the City are primarily residential communities, with undeveloped land and recreational areas in the San Jacinto foothills. The City's northwestern area is primarily comprised of industrial, commercial, and office developments. The center of the City is primarily residential communities, with small agricultural areas to the east. Most undeveloped areas are in the southern portion of the City and south of the Santa Ana River.

City's current General Plan (2017) was developed to responsibly manage residential, industrial, and commercial growth. The General Plan also considers the City's “Sphere of Influence,” which includes the unincorporated areas of Crafton and Mentone, including large Rural Living and agricultural tracts. Of the two (2), Mentone is more heavily developed, with residential communities and light industrial uses in the west, and agricultural regions in the northwest. It should be noted that the City’s sphere of influence includes small portions in the cities of San Bernardino, Loma Linda, Yucaipa, and the County of San Bernardino and are within Redlands' water service area.

The City provides potable and non-potable water to a retail sales area, commonly referred to as the “Donut Hole”, northwest of the intersection of I-10 and I-210. This area is not within the City of Redlands jurisdiction, but is an unincorporated part of the County of San Bernardino. This area is primarily developed for commercial and industrial use.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 291 of 728
!"`$
!"`$
A³E
AðE

SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY

RIVERSIDE
COUNTY

CITY OF REDLANDS

WATER MASTER PLAN
Site Map
Figure 1.1
° 0 5,000 10,000
Feet
10/21/2021 JN H:\pdata\180437\GIS\MXD\Fig 01 Regional Vicinity.mxd Source: ArcGIS Online
Project Location
)
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 292 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
5 | P a g e
Table 1-1 shows land use designations by area as identified in the General Plan. The comparative use of each category is shown graphically in Chart 1-1. The land use from the City’s General Plan is shown in Figure 1-2.

Table 1-1: City of Redlands Land Use
Land Use City of Redlands
(Acres)
Sphere of
Influence (Acres) Total
Residential 6,343 4,042 10,385
Rural Living 9 2,115 2,124
Very Low Density Residential 2,694 861 3,555
Low Density Residential 2,643 574 3,217
Low Medium Density Residential 63 469 532
Medium Density Residential 520 23 543
High-Density Residential 414 - 414
Office, Commercial, Industrial 2,626 147 2,773
Office 206 - 206
Commercial 866 55 921
Commercial/Industrial 1,249 - 1,249
Light Industrial 305 92 397
Agricultural and Hillside 5,122 1,322 6,444
Agricultural 308 220 528
Hillside Conservation 23 1,102 1,125
Resource Preservation 4,791 - 4,791
Public/Institutional 1,271 130 1,401
Open Space 5,111 510 5,621
Parks & Golf Courses 600 - 600
Open Space 4,511 510 5,021
City ROW 2,881 418 3,299
Total 42,556 12,590 55,146
Note: Data from 2017 General Plan
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 293 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
6 | P a g e
Chart 1-1: Land Use Areas
Residential development areas comprise approximately thirty-five percent (35%) of the City’s total land use, and is divided into six (6) sub-categories: Rural Living, Very Low-Density Residential, Low-Density Residential, Low-Medium Density Residential, Medium-Density Residential, and High-Density Residential.

Most Rural Living areas are within Crafton and allow a maximum of one (1) dwelling unit (DU) per five (5) acres of land area. These areas offer an opportunity to expand non-potable water service for agricultural uses, thereby reducing demand for potable water resources.

Office, Commercial and Industrial development areas are consolidated into a single category, and comprise approximately nine percent (9%) of the City’s total land use. The General Plan considers maintenance and growth of these areas as essential to striking a balance between residential and employment areas. Office land uses include traditional office spaces and medical offices. Commercial land uses include neighborhood-serving convenience stores, retail centers, and commercial recreational areas.

Industrial land use ranges from light industries such as automotive services, to research and development and heavy industry manufacturing facilities. These areas offer an opportunity to expand non-potable and recycled water service, thereby reducing demand for potable water resources.

Agricultural land uses include traditional agricultural areas, as well as areas designed for preservation and conservation of natural resources. This category comprises approximately twenty-one percent (21%) of the City’s total land use. Most of this category is in mountain areas and is designated as Resource Preservation, which includes wildlife preservation and activities such as water conservation, open space recreation, and agriculture. These areas offer an opportunity to expand non-potable water service for agricultural uses, thereby reducing demand for potable water resources.

Public/Institutional land uses include developments used for public services, schools, government facilities, airports, public utilities, and facilities used or owned by the City. This category comprises approximately five percent (5%) of the City’s total land use.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 294 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
7 | P a g e
Open Space land uses comprise approximately nineteen percent (19%) of the City’s total land use. This category is divided into parks or miscellaneous open spaces that are primarily unimproved with no immediate plans for development. These areas offer an opportunity to expand non-potable and recycled water service for outdoor irrigation, thereby reducing demand for potable water resources.

City Rights-of-Way (ROW) category is predominantly public streets, and comprises approximately eleven percent (11%) of the City’s total land use.

It is important to note that there appear to be some exceptions to the generalization of the categories.

For example, the City owns and maintains approximately 184 acres of Citrus Groves. These groves are surrounded by industrial and residential areas and appear to be considered in the nearby corresponding category and are not included in the Open Space category. Additionally, most of the Rural Living subcategorized land is used for agriculture, but is classified as residential.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 295 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 296 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
9 | P a g e

1.3 WATER SERVICE AREA
The City’s water system serves multiple areas within and beyond the City limits, which includes eastern portions of the cities of San Bernardino and Loma Linda, western portions of the City of Yucaipa, and the unincorporated areas of Mentone, Crafton, and the “Donut Hole”. The City distributes potable water within seven (7) pressure zones, non-potable water within three (3) pressure zones, and recycled water within one (1) pressure zone to provide appropriate water pressure throughout each system. These pressure zones are detailed in Section 2. Although the recycled water distribution system is currently limited to a small area in the northwest portion of the City, the non-potable water distribution provides service to a much larger portion of the City and is separated into eight (8) detached systems.

1.4 POPULATION
The City’s population has grown at a consistent pace for the last twenty (20) years. In 2020, the City population was 73,168 (2020 Unites States Census data). The General Plan predicts the population will rise to 79,000 by 2035, when the City expects to reach built-out conditions. Table 1-2 provides reported population data and growth rates since 1960.

Table 1-2: Redlands Population Growth (1960-2045)
Year Population Annual Growth
Rate
1960 27,000 --
1970 35,000 3.0%
1980 42,000 2.0%
1990 61,000 4.5%
2000 63,591 0.4%
2005 66,342 0.9%
2010 68,747 0.7%
2015 70,112 0.4%
2020 73,168 0.9%
Note: Based on Chart 3-1 from the 2017 General Plan
The water service area extends beyond the City limits to serve residents and businesses within the municipalities and unincorporated areas described in Section 1.3. The 2020 UWMP estimates that the portions of the water service area beyond the City limits serve an additional 10,000 residents currently, and is anticipated to increase to 16,000 by 2045 when these areas are built out. At that time, the City will serve a total population of 95,000. This projection anticipates uniform population growth. Table 1-3 shows the projected population growth of the total water service area through 2045.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 297 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
10 | P a g e
Table 1-3: Water Service Area Predicted Population Growth Year 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Population Served 83,000 85,400 87,900 90,300 92,700 95,153 Note: From Table 4-1 in the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 298 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
11 | P a g e
2 EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE

2.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION

2.1.1 POTABLE WATER SYSTEM
The City receives surface water and groundwater from several sources. Two (2) surface water treatment plants, the Horace P. Hinckley Water Treatment Plant (Hinckley) and Henry Tate Water Treatment Plant (Tate), receive surface water primarily from the Santa Ana River (Hinckley) and Mill Creek (Tate). Both sources can also be supplemented by the State Water Project (SWP). Additionally, seventeen (17) active groundwater wells that include four (4) active wellhead treatment systems are strategically located throughout the service area to diversify the City’s potable water production sources. Historically, surface water treatment accounts for approximately fifty-one percent (51%) of total annual potable water production, and groundwater treatment accounts for approximately forty-nine percent (49%) of total annual potable water production.

Potable water is stored in eighteen (18) reservoirs, and is distributed through approximately 450 miles of pipelines within seven (7) pressure zones to provide uniform service pressures. Thirty-eight (38) booster pumps and thirty (30) zone transfer control valves distribute water throughout the system while maintaining each zone's desired hydraulic grade line.

2.1.2 NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM
The non-potable water distribution system is limited in service area, and provides untreated groundwater primarily for outdoor landscape irrigation.

2.1.3 RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM
The recycled water distribution system is limited in service area, and provides treated effluent from the City Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) to customers within a small area in the northwest portion of the City. The largest recycled water customer is the Southern California Edison (SCE) Mountain View Power Plant, which uses recycled water through a “Take-or-Pay” agreement to cool equipment. The recycled water volume in this agreement is 3,000 AF/Year.

2.2 PRESSURE ZONES

POTABLE WATER PRESSURE ZONES
The City’s potable water pressure zone distribution system was first developed in 1975 and later updated in 1981. Figure 2-1 shows the seven potable water pressure zones and the locations of existing reservoirs, wells, booster pumps, and water treatment plants. The overall system hydraulic profile is shown in Figure 2-2. Each pressure zone is described in detail below.

2.2.1 ZONE 1350
Pressure Zone 1350 serves the western portion of the City’s water service area. It is located west of Alabama Street, north and south of the I-10 Freeway, and west of New Jersey Street. The terrain slopes downward northwesterly, and its elevation ranges from 1,050 feet to 1,250 feet. Two (2) reservoirs are used to service this zone: Texas Street and Texas Grove Reservoirs. In addition, two (2) potable wells supply water to this pressure zone: Orange Street 1 and Orange Street 2. These wells provide groundwater directly into the Texas Street and Texas Grove Reservoirs. In addition, four (4) booster pumps labeled Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 299 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
12 | P a g e
1550, 1551, 1552, and 1553 are located at the Texas Street reservoir site to lift water from Zone 1350 to Zone 1570.

2.2.2 ZONE 1570
Pressure Zone 1570 is bounded by the I-10 Freeway between Alabama Street and University Street and south of I-10 Freeway between New Jersey Street and Cypress Avenue. The terrain slopes downward northwesterly, and its elevation ranges from 1,190 feet to 1,470 feet. Three (3) reservoirs are used to service this zone: Dearborn, Highland Avenue, and Smiley Heights Reservoirs. Six (6) groundwater wells supply water to this pressure zone: Well No. 10, Well No. 13, Well No. 38, Well No. 39, Church Street Well, and Orange Street Well. Well No. 10 and Well No. 13 are able to supply groundwater directly into the Highland Avenue Reservoir. However, both have been idle over the last five (5) years. Ten (10) booster pumps are used to service this zone. Two (2) booster pumps, 1783 and 1784, are located at the Smiley Reservoir and lift water into Zone 1750. Pumps 1761 and 1931 are located at the Dearborn Reservoir, where Pump 1761 lifts water to Zone 1750 and Pump 1931 lifts water to Zone 1900. Booster pumps 1720, 1721, 1722, 2174, 2176, and 2177 are located at the Highland Reservoir and lift water to Zones 1750 and 2100.

2.2.3 ZONE 1750
Pressure Zone 1750 serves the downtown area of the City of Redlands. It is bounded on the southwest by Cypress Avenue, on the northwest by University Street, and on the northeast by Bear Valley Canal and Wabash Avenue. Highland Avenue and adjoining streets cover the southeast boundary of this pressure zone. The terrain slopes downward in a northwesterly direction, and its elevation ranges from 1,390 feet to 1,661 feet. Three (3) reservoirs are used to service this zone: Agate Avenue, South Avenue, and Arroyo Reservoirs. The Hinckley Water Treatment Plant (WTP) supplies water directly into the Agate Reservoir.

In addition, six (6) groundwater wells provide water to this zone: Agate 2 Well, Airport 1 Well, Airport 2 Well, Mentone Acres 2 Well, Rees Well, and Muni Well. There are ten (10) booster pumps that are located within this zone. Situated at South Reservoir, booster pumps 1927 and 1928 lift water to Zone 1900 and booster pumps 2124, 2125, and 2126 lift water to Zone 2100. Located at Agate Reservoir, booster pumps 1951, 1952, and 1953 lift water to Zone 1900. Booster pumps 1723 and 1724 are used to move water within this zone.

2.2.4 ZONE 1900
Pressure Zone 1900 is bounded to the west by Highland Avenue and Wabash Avenue, King Street south of Colton Avenue, and Crafton Avenue north of Colton Avenue on the north side of the I-10 Freeway.

South of the I-10 Freeway, the zone is bordered by Highland Avenue, Sunset Drive, Center Street, Elizabeth Street, Sunridge Way, Lynne Court, and Ford Street. The terrain slopes downward in a northwesterly direction, and its elevation ranges from 1,470 feet to 1,800 feet. Two (2) reservoirs are used to service this zone: Fifth Avenue and Margarita Reservoirs. In addition, one (1) groundwater well, the Madeira Well, supplies water to this pressure zone. Booster pumps 2131, 2132, 2310, and 2311 are located at the Fifth Avenue Reservoir. Pumps 2131 and 2132 are used to lift water to Zone 2100. Pumps 2310 and 2311 are used to lift water to Zone 2340.

2.2.5 ZONE 2100
Pressure Zone 2100 is bounded by King Street south of Colton Avenue, Crafton Avenue north of Colton Avenue, Reservoir Road, and Highland Avenue, and extends southwesterly towards the I-10 Freeway.

South of the I-10 Freeway, the zone is bordered by Center Street, Elizabeth Street, Sunridge Way, Lynne Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 300 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
13 | P a g e
Court, Ford Street, Wabash Avenue, and the Redlands Country Club. The terrain slopes downward northwesterly, and its elevation ranges from 1,640 feet to 2,060 feet. Three (3) reservoirs are used to service this zone: County Club 1, Country Club 2, and Ward Way Reservoirs. Three (3) wells supply groundwater to this pressure zone: Lugonia 3 Well, Lugonia 6 Well, and Maguet 2 Well. Booster pumps 2384, 2385, 2386, and 2387 are located at the Country Club Reservoir and lift water to Zone 2340. Booster pumps 2381 and 2382 are situated at the Ward Way Reservoir and lift water to Zone 2600.

2.2.6 ZONE 2340
Pressure Zone 2340 is bounded by Sunset Drive, the Redlands Country Club, and Wabash Avenue, south of I-10 Freeway. North of the I-10 Freeway, Zone 2340 extends southeast along Sand Canyon Road from Crafton Avenue to Colorado Street and extends along Mill Creek Road, east of Orange Lane. The terrain slopes downward northwesterly, ranging from about 1,890 feet to 2,340 feet in elevation. Two (2) reservoirs are used to service this zone: Sand Canyon and Sunset Reservoirs. The Tate WTP is located within this zone and supplies water into the Ward Way Reservoir in Zone 2100. Pumps 2610 and 2611 are located at the Sand Canyon Reservoir and lift water to Zone 2600.

2.2.7 ZONE 2600
Pressure Zone 2600 extends along Mill Creek Road, east of the Mill Creek Reservoir and Crafton Hills Reservoir, to Crafton Hills College. The terrain slopes downward northwesterly, and its elevation ranges from 2,270 feet to 2,480 feet. The Crafton, Mill Creek 1, and Mill Creek 2 Reservoirs are located in this pressure zone. Booster Pumps 2510 and 2511 A/B are situated at the Mill Creek Reservoir and transfer water within Zone 2600.

NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEMS

2.2.8 SYSTEM 1
This non-potable water system is located in the 1350 pressure zone. The system receives recycled water from the WWTP and untreated groundwater from the California Street Well hydro pneumatic system.

2.2.9 SYSTEM 2
This non-potable water system is located in the 1570 pressure zone. Well No. 30A, Well No. 31A, and Well No. 32 provide untreated groundwater to this system. System pressure is maintained by two (2) package skid booster pumps.

2.2.10 SYSTEM 3
This non-potable water system is a gravity fed located in the 1570 pressure zone. Well No. 41 and New York Street Well provide untreated groundwater to this system. This system is a weir box gravity fed system also known as the “B” Contract system.

2.2.11 SYSTEM 4
This non-potable water system is located in the 1570 pressure zone. Well No. 11 provides untreated groundwater for landscape irrigation to Ford Park. System pressure is maintained by a hydro pneumatic tank.

2.2.12 SYSTEM 5
This non-potable water system is located in the 1570 pressure zone. Well No. 16 is a gravity fed system that provides untreated groundwater to Bear Valley Mutual Water Company (BVMWC) for non-potable deliveries within their distribution network.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 301 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
14 | P a g e

2.2.13 SYSTEM 6
This non-potable water system is located in the 1750 pressure zone. Agate Well No. 1 and Crafton Well is a gravity fed system that provides untreated groundwater to BVMWC for non-potable deliveries within their distribution network.

2.2.14 SYSTEM 7
This non-potable water system is located in the 1900 pressure zone. Redland Heights Well is a gravity fed system that provides untreated groundwater for landscape irrigation to Redlands Country Club.

2.2.15 SYSTEM 8
This non-potable water system is located in the 1900 pressure zone. Well No. 36 is a closed loop system that provides untreated groundwater for landscape irrigation to Hillside Memorial Park.

RECYCLED WATER PRESSURE ZONES

2.2.16 ZONE 1
This recycled water pressure zone is bounded by the Santa Ana River to the north, Mountain View Avenue to the west, Citrus Avenue and I-10 to the south, and Alabama Street and New Jersey Street to the east.

Treated effluent from the City WWTP is provided to customers within this small area in the northwest portion of the City. The largest recycled water customer is the SCE Mountain View Power Plant, which uses recycled water through a “Take-or-Pay” agreement to cool equipment. Although this system is capable of blending flow with untreated groundwater provided by the California Street Well, only recycled water can serve the SCE Mountain View Avenue power plant. Mountain View Power Plant has their own well that can make up to fifty percent (50%) of their cooling water needs.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 302 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 303 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
16 | P a g e

2.3 STORAGE RESERVOIRS

POTABLE WATER SYSTEM
The current storage system includes eighteen (18) potable reservoirs. Treated surface water from Hinckley and Tate is supplemented by treated groundwater to supply the potable water reservoirs through a series of booster pumps. These reservoirs can store a cumulative maximum of 54.3 million gallons (MG). Table 2-1 provides the storage capacity, pressure zone served, material type, construction year, minimum water surface elevation, and maximum water surface elevation for each potable water reservoir.

Table 2-1: Existing Potable Water System Storage Reservoirs No.

Designation
Capacity
(MG)
(1)
Primary
Zone Served
(2)
Type of
Construction
(2)
Year
Installed
(2)
Min. Water
Elev. (FT)
(2)
Max. Water
Elev. (FT)
(2)
1 Texas Grove 3.9 1350 Steel 2004 1331 1350
2 Texas Street 1 1350 Steel 1956 1315.25 1350
Zone 1350 Total 4.9
3 Dearborn 10.6 1570 Concrete 1972 1552.5 1578
4 Highland 10 1570 Concrete 1976 1556.9 1584.83
5 Smiley 3 1570 Steel 1964 1538 1570
Zone 1570 Total 23.6
6 Agate 3 1750 Steel 1968 1725 1746.83
7 Arroyo 0.5 1750 Steel 1965 1710 1750
8 South 2 1750 Steel 1964 1724 1750
Zone 1750 Total 5.5
9 Fifth Avenue 5 1900 Concrete 1974 1882.5 1905
10 Margarita 2.4 1900 Concrete 1964 1878.62 1895
Zone 1900 Total 7.4
11 Country Club 1 1 2100 Steel Inside
Concrete
2010 2096.67 2111
12 Country Club 2 2 2100 Concrete 1969 2101.37 2120
13 Ward Way 2 2100 Steel 1958 2068.5 2100
Zone 2100 Total 5
14 Sand Canyon 3.5 2340 Steel 1973 2314 2353.62
15 Sunset 3 2340 Steel 1967 2277 2340
Zone 2340 Total 6.5
16 Mill Creek 1 0.2 2600 Steel 1962 2375 2390
17 Mill Creek 2 0.2 2600 Steel 1987 2375 2390
18 Crafton 1 2600 Steel 1970 2560.25 2590
Zone 2600 Total 1.4
Total Storage
Capacity

54.3 Note: (1) Reservoir Data Information 2018-2021; (2) Facilities Data Information 2018-2021 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 304 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
17 | P a g e

NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM
The current storage system includes two (2) small poly tanks and three (3) cement lined open air reservoir throughout the distribution system.

2.3.1 SYSTEM 1
This non-potable system provides no storage.

2.3.2 SYSTEM 2
This non-potable system utilizes two (2) 12,150-gallon poly storage tankslocated at the Texas St. Reservoir site used to supply the on-site booster pump station.

2.3.3 SYSTEM 3
This non-potable system provides no storage.

2.3.4 SYSTEM 4
This non-potable system utilizes two (2) cement lined open air reservoir used for recreation within Ford Park.

2.3.5 SYSTEM 5
This non-potable system provides no storage.

2.3.6 SYSTEM 6
This non-potable system provides no storage.

2.3.7 SYSTEM 7
This non-potable system utilizes one (1) cement lined, open air reservoir used as a water feature within the Redlands Country Club golf course.

2.3.8 SYSTEM 8
This non-potable system provides no storage.

RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM
Currently, no recycled water storage reservoirs exist, which prevents the City from expanding the recycled water distribution system beyond the existing customer base. However, two (2) 1.5 MG recycled water storage reservoirs are currently being engineered for construction in the future at the City WWTP.

2.4 WELLS

POTABLE WATER SYSTEM WELLS
The City operates seventeen (17) active groundwater wells that supply treated water to the potable water distribution system. Five (5) of these wells operate seasonally during peak demand periods. Well No. 10 and Well No. 13 have not been used for several years due to elevated levels of Nitrate, Perchlorate and 1,2 Dibromo-3chloropropane. Both wells are scheduled for rehabilitation within the next three (3) years.

Table 2-2 provides the discharge zone, capacity, ground elevation, and water surface elevation for each potable water system well.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 305 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
18 | P a g e
Table 2-2: Potable Water System Wells
No.

Well Name
(1)
Discharge
to Zone
(1)
Capacity
(GPM)
(1)
Ground
Elev. (FT)
(1)
Water
Surface
Elev. (FT)
(1)
Efficiency
(%) (1)
Testing
Date (1)
1 North Orange Street 1 1350 2900 3050 293 72% 4/24/2018 2 North Orange Street 2 1350 2900 3105 288 68% 4/24/2018 3 10 1570 1400 1650 80 N/A N/A
4 13 1570 3000 1630 62 N/A N/A
5 38 1570 1600 1634 520 75% 6/12/2018
6 39 1570 1250 1255 535 72% 9/19/2018
7 Church Street 1570 2000 2136 485 N/A N/A
8 Orange Street 1570 1500 1165 459 68% 4/24/2018
9 Airport 1 1750 1500 1316 498 73% 4/30/2018
10 Airport 2 1750 1000 119 545 78% 4/9/2018
11 Mentone Acres 2 1750 1600 1787 491 72% 6/12/2018
12 Rees 1750 550 1964 544 76% 4/30/2018
13 Muni 1750 2200 1570 335 N/A N/A
14 Madeira 1900 600 697 399 57 4/30/2018
15 Lugonia 3 2100 250 500 35 58% 9/19/2018
16 Lugonia 6 2100 250 1970 59 58% 9/19/2018
17 Maguet 2 2100 400 249 253 50% 10/2/2018
Note: (1) Facilities Data Information from SCE pump efficiency tests dated 2018 - 2020

NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM WELLS
The City operates twelve (12) wells that supply untreated groundwater to the non-potable water distribution systems, although the Agate 1 Well and Well No. 41 have not been used for several years.

Additionally, untreated groundwater from the Crafton Well can be used to supplement the non-potable water system. Table 2-3 provides the discharge pressure system, flow rate, head, pumping efficiency, and most recent pump efficiency testing date for each non-potable well.

Table 2-3: Non-Potable Water System Wells
No. Name Discharge
System
Flow
(GPM)
Head
(ft)
Efficiency
(%) Testing Date
1 California 1 1,344 462.8 52% 3/4/2016
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 306 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
19 | P a g e
No. Name Discharge
System
Flow
(GPM)
Head
(ft)
Efficiency
(%) Testing Date
2 30A 2 1,296 295.4 57% 5/18/2018
3 31A 2 878 258.6 32% 4/20/2016
4 32 2 1,555 285.7 55% 5/18/2018
5 New York
Street 3575 230 57% 3/4/2016
6 41 3 1,575 N/A N/A N/A
7 11 4 345 176.7 54% 6/25/2018
8 16 5 680 84.7 39% 6/11/2018
9 Agate 1 6 1,075 160.1 78% 5/18/2018
10 Crafton 6 1,841 254.6 60% 10/30/2018
11 Redlands
Heights
7 468 394.6 57% 6/18/2018
12 36 8 648 N/A N/A N/A
Note: Information from 2016-2018 Testing Data

2.5 BOOSTER PUMPS

POTABLE WATER SYSTEM
The potable water distribution system includes twelve (12) pump stations with thirty-eight (38) individual booster pumps that transfer water between pressure zones. Table 2-4 provides the pump name, pump station, approximate elevation, pump design head, and pump design flow, and source (suction) and destination (discharge) pressure zones for each booster pump.

Table 2-4: Booster Pump Data
No.

Pump
Name
(1)
Pump
Station
(1)
Pump
Elevation
(FT)
(1)
Design
Head
(FT)
(1)
Design
Flow
(GPM)
(1)
Zone (1) Efficiency
(%)
(1)
Testing
Date
(1) Source Destination
1 1550 Texas 1320 325 2000 1350 1570 28% 5/8/2018
2 1551 Texas 1320 325 2000 1350 1570 23% 5/8/2018
3 1552 Texas 1320 280 1800 1350 1570 28% 5/8/2018
4 1553 Texas 1320 320 2000 1350 1570 75% 12/4/2018
5 1761 Dearborn 1570 150 1200 1570 1750 108% 4/25/2018
6 1931 Dearborn 1570 447 860 1570 1900 77% 4/25/2018
7 2174 HAWC 1572 810 700 1570 2100 74% 4/13/2018
8 2176 HAWC 1572 575 740 1570 2100 66% 4/13/2018
9 2177 HAWC 1572 550 700 1570 2100 58% 4/13/2018
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 307 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
20 | P a g e
No.

Pump
Name
(1)
Pump
Station
(1)
Pump
Elevation
(FT)
(1)
Design
Head
(FT)
(1)
Design
Flow
(GPM)
(1)
Zone (1) Efficiency
(%)
(1)
Testing
Date
(1) Source Destination
10 1720 HAWC 1572 230 170 1570 1750 45% 4/13/2018
11 1721 HAWC 1572 150 1250 1570 1750 73% 4/13/2018
12 1722 HAWC 1572 230 2300 1570 1750 96% 4/13/2018
13 1783 Smiley
Heights
1548 230 300 1570 1750 51% 9/4/2018
14 1784 Smiley
Heights
1552 245 420 1570 1750 53% 9/4/2018
15 1927 South 1748 185 2050 1750 1900 51% 6/19/2018
16 1928 South 1748 196 1750 1750 1900 51% 6/19/2018
17 2124 South 1748 550 980 1750 2100 48% 6/19/2018
18 2125 South 1749 410 1050 1750 2100 N/A N/A
19 2126 South 1749 425 766 1750 2100 N/A N/A
20 1951 Agate 1732 180 1010 1750 1900 68% 4/9/2018
21 1952 Agate 1732 193 960 1750 1900 70% 5/9/2018
22 1953 Agate 1732 191 1623 1750 1900 71% 4/9/2018
23 1724 Ford Park 1555 N/A N/A 1750 1750 N/A N/A
24 1723 Ford Park 1555 N/A N/A 1750 1750 53% 12/4/2018
25 2131 Fifth
Avenue
1905 250 890 1900 2100 60% 8/31/2018
26 2132 Fifth
Avenue
1905 246 850 1900 2100 60% 9/4/2018
27 2310 Fifth
Avenue
1909 257 463 2100 2340 52% 8/31/2018
28 2311 Fifth
Avenue
1909 260 1580 2100 2340 68% 8/31/2018
29 2384 Country
Club
2100 231 1038 2100 2340 N/A N/A
30 2385 Country
Club
2100 340 800 2100 2340 65% 10/2/2018
31 2386 Country
Club
2105 290 357 2100 2340 68% 10/2/2018
32 2387 Country
Club
2105 241 1232 2100 2340 67% 10/2/2018
33 2381 Ward Way 2076 394 150 2100 2340 58% 9/11/2018
34 2382 Ward Way 2076 420 160 2100 2340 66% 9/11/2018
35 2610 Sand
Canyon
2332 284 513 2340 2600 N/A N/A
36 2611 Sand
Canyon
2332 260 1093 2340 2600 N/A N/A
37 2510 Mill Creek 2375 N/A N/A 2600 2600 N/A N/A
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 308 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
21 | P a g e
No.

Pump
Name
(1)
Pump
Station
(1)
Pump
Elevation
(FT)
(1)
Design
Head
(FT)
(1)
Design
Flow
(GPM)
(1)
Zone (1) Efficiency
(%)
(1)
Testing
Date
(1) Source Destination
38 2511 Mill Creek 2375 N/A N/A 2600 2600 N/A N/A
Note: (1) Booster Pump Data: Information from SCE pump efficiency tests dated 2018 to 2020

NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM
Non-potable system 2 utilizes two (2) small package skid booster pump systems to maintain system pressure within the zone.

RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM
The recycled water system is treated water through the City’s WWTP Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) System and is permitted for six (6) million gallons per day (MGD) with future plans in the WWTP Phase 2 improvement project to take the total to 9.1 MGD. This system has limits imposed on phosphate levels for the SCE Mountain View Power Plant and has to maintain a minimum of 0.5 parts per million (ppm) chlorine residual. There are three (3) booster pumps that pump from the chlorine contact basin at the WWTP. The pumps are seventy-five (75) horsepower (hp) with a flow of 1,500 gallon per minute (GPM) each at 154 feet head that operate on a variable frequency drive based on demand.

2.6 WATER TREATMENT PLANTS
Hinckley and Tate WTP are both conventional treatment plants. Tate treats water from Mill Creek, while Hinckley treats water primarily from the Santa Ana River. Both can blend treated effluent with water from potable groundwater wells when necessary to meet drinking water standards and system demands. Tate is permitted for maximum daily potable water production of twenty (20) MGD, while Hinckley is permitted for maximum daily potable water production of 14.5 MGD. A condition assessment was prepared by evaluating O&M practices and identifying infrastructure needs for both plants. A summary information is provided below, and a detailed assessment report with the associated photos is included in Appendix A.

2.6.1 HORACE P. HINCKLEY WATER TREATMENT PLANT
Hinckley is a conventional WTP utilizing continuous rapid mix flocculation, sedimentation, filtration, and disinfection. The nominal plant treatment capacity istwelve (12) MGD, which is sustainable even with one (1) filter out of service. The peak flow rate through the plant is limited to 14.5 MGD, as permitted by California State Water Resource Control Board Division of Drinking Water (SWRCB-DDW). The treatment plant capacity is expandable to a maximum ultimate capacity of thirty-six (36) MGD. Hinckley primarily treats raw water from the Santa Ana River (SAR) and is capable of receiving and treating water from the SWP. Up to 100 percent (100%) of the plant's raw water can be supplied from the SAR, when available, during the winter. During hot-weather periods in the summer, twenty to forty percent (20%-40%) of the Hinckley’s raw water can be supplemented with water from the SWP.

2.6.2 HENRY TATE WATER TREATMENT PLANT
The Tate WTP is a conventional WTP utilizing continuous rapid mix flocculation, sedimentation, filtration, and disinfection. The nominal plant treatment capacity is twenty (20) MGD. The peak flow rate through the plant is limited to twenty (20) MGD, as permitted by SWRCB-DDW. Tate was initially commissioned Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 309 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
22 | P a g e
in 1967 to treat surface water from Mill Creek, and has received several process upgrades, the latest of which installed upgrades to the chemical feed applications, clarifier, filter, backwash and sludge processes (2005). Historically, Tate received raw water exclusively from Mill Creek. However, the Mill Creek source is not typically reliable during drought periods and high turbidity events. Therefore, to increase the raw water supply reliability, the City obtained a permit amendment from the SWRCB-DDW to treat SWP and SAR source-water at Tate.

2.6.3 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Approximately 4,480 AF of recycled water is produced annually at the City WWTP, however approximately 1,835 AF of recycled water is delivered to customers annually. This facility was constructed in 1960 to produce 9.5 MGD of secondary wastewater treatment, and was upgraded with Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) technology in early 2000 to produce six (6) MGD of high-quality recycled water. WWTP influent is screened, clarified, and settled before being divided between the MBR and the conventional treatment systems. The treated effluent typically contains less than five (5) milligrams per liter (mg/l) of biological oxygen demand (BOD), less than five (5) mg/l of total suspended solids (TSS), less than ten (10) mg/l of total nitrogen, and less than 0.2 nephelometric turbidity unit (NTU) for turbidity. Table 2-5 provides the typical tertiary treated wastewater result.

Table 2-5: City of Redlands Typical Tertiary Treated Title 22 Recycled Water Parameter Influent Effluent
BOD (mg/L) 160 <5
TSS (mg/L) 130 <5
TotalNitrogen (mg/L) 24 <10
Turbidity (NTU) NA <0.2
Note: Data from Water Recycling/Power Generation Reuse Project

2.7 FACILITY SEISMIC ANALYSIS
Due to the potential for seismic activity in southern California, it is essential for water facilities to be designed, equipped, and prepared for potential seismic movement. Richard Brady and Associates, Inc. (Brady) completed a Condition, Seismic, and Structural Assessment of all essential water facilities to identify potential facility risks, located in Appendix F.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 310 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 311 of 728

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 312 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
24 | P a g e
3 WATER USE

3.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION
This section reviews the water use characteristics for the City’s water systems. The information presented in this section was used in the hydraulic models to evaluate system reliability and the ability of each system to provide sustainable water delivery service to customers. This information was also used to project future water demands and requirements to predict future operational needs.

3.2 WATER DEMAND

POTABLE WATER SYSTEM
From 2016 to 2020, the City produced an average of 22,821 AF of potable water and delivered an average of 20,770 AF of potable water each year (2020 UWMP). Table 3-1 provides annual and summary demand data within several use categories. In the table below, if the meter service does not fit in any of the general categories, it is defined as “Other”. Average annual system water loss, calculated as the percentage of water delivered to water produced, was relatively high (nearly 9%) during this period. This is likely caused by system leaks and meter inaccuracies. Approximately seventy-three percent (73%) of the total demand was from residential customers, and the average per capita water usage was approximately 222.9 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) (18.5 MGD/83,000 capita). This demand data was used for water accounting and calibration of the hydraulic model, which was used to project future potable water demands through the planning horizon. The comparative use of each category is shown graphically in Chart 3-1.

Table 3-1: Historical Water Production and Demand (AF/Year) Category 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Average
Single Family Residential 11,340 12,275 12,866 11,624 12,949 12,211 Multi-Family Residential 2,835 2,913 2,934 2,750 2,901 2,867 Commercial/Industrial 3,180 3,142 3,159 2,705 2,640 2,965 Landscape Irrigation 1,924 2,155 2,340 2,228 2,220 2,173 Agriculture 556 387 326 283 276 366
Other 183 253 179 174 151 188
Total Demand 20,018 21,125 21,804 19,764 21,137 20,770
Total Production 20,919 23,303 23,442 21,975 24,464 22,821 Water Loss (AF) 837 2178 1638 2211 3227 2051
Water Loss (%) 4.0% 9.3% 7.0% 10.1% 13.6% 9.0%
Note: Based on Table 4-3 in 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 313 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
25 | P a g e
Chart 3-1: Historical Potable Water Use by Category

NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM
The City of Redlands produces and distributes approximately 1,868 AF of non-potable water annually.

Table 3-2 provides non-potable water demands for the previous four (4) years. The non-potable water system primarily serves warehouses and commercial facilities in the northwest portion of the City. Table 3-3 provides non-potable water demand for several larger customers. Water demand for Ford Park and Hillside Memorial Park are provided as municipal use references.

Table 3-2: Historical Non-Potable Water Demand (AF/Year) 2017 2018 2019 2020 Average
Commercial/Industrial 1,456.5 2,512.9 1,051.6 2,212.2 1,808.3 Landscape Irrigation 81.2 179.4 89.7 185.1 133.9
Agriculture 193.2 16.1 74.5 3.7 71.9
Non-Potable Demand 1,730.9 2,708.4 1,215.8 2,400.8 2,014.0 Table 3-3: 2021 Non-Potable Water Users
Users GPD
Warehouses 396,731
Commercial Plazas 96,850
Crafton College 67,397
Park Irrigation 44,324
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 314 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
26 | P a g e
Users GPD
Redlands Country Club 35,893
Agricultural 31,479
Kaiser Permanente Medical Center 15,258
Ford Park 2,167
Hillside Memorial Park 40
Note: Data Analyzed with Meter Information Provided by the City

RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM
Recycled water is treated effluent from the City WWTP and is primarily used for equipment cooling at the SCE Mountain View Power Plant, dust control at the City landfill, and for landscape irrigation customers.

The power plant generates approximately 1,056 megawatts of power, and uses a 50:50 blend of recycled and non-potable water produced by their own non-potable well. This blending is necessary because of a “Take-or-Pay” agreement that requires the power plant to use or pay for 3,000 AF of water. Currently, the City WWTP is only capable of producing approximately 4,480 AF of recycled water. Actual power plant demand varies with energy production, and averaged approximately one (1) MGD annually between 2017 and 2019. A small amount of recycled water is also used for dust control at the landfill site adjacent to the WWTP. It is anticipated that the WWTP will be able to produce approximately 6,720 AF recycled water when plant improvements are constructed in the near future and be permitted to treat up to 10,193 AF.

Annual recycled water demand from 2017 through 2020 was 2,427.5 AF, 1,976 AF, 1,905.2 AF, and 1,806 AF, with an annual average of 2,028.7 AF.

3.3 FIRE FLOW
The Fire Marshall establishes minimum fire protection water requirements, including storage, pressure, and flow, within the City. These requirements were used as minimum standards when analyzing the potable water distribution system. Table 3-4 shows the minimum fire flow requirements for water delivery pressure and duration based on a Type V building construction type (wood frame). These requirements vary based on the total size of the facility and the building construction type, as defined by the California Fire Code. The storage for the highest single fire event is expected to be two (2) MG. This storage volume assumption was used to develop design criteria for the City’s storage requirements.

Table 3-4: Fire Flow Criteria
Land Use Criteria
Minimum Fire
Flow
(GPM)
Minimum
Pressure
(PSI)
Duration
(HR)
Residential Less than 3600 SqFt 1,000 20 2
Residential Greater than 3600 SqFt 1,500 20 2
Commercial/ Industrial Less than 11,300 1,500 – 2,750 20 2 Commercial/ Industrial 11,301 SqFt - 20,601 SqFt 3,000 – 3,750 20 4 Commercial/ Industrial 20,601 SqFt – 85,100 SqFt 4,000 – 7,750 20 4 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 315 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
27 | P a g e
Land Use Criteria
Minimum Fire
Flow
(GPM)
Minimum
Pressure
(PSI)
Duration
(HR)
Commercial/ Industrial Greater than 85,101 SqFt 8,000 20 4 Note: Data provided in 2021 by the City of Redlands Fire Marshal for Type V Construction

3.4 CONSERVATION MEASURES
The 2021 Water Shortage Contingency Plan (2021 WSCP) was developed to ensure long term sustainability of water resources.

3.4.1 WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN
The City encourages and incentivizes year-round water conservation practices. Voluntary and mandatory water conservation measures for various water shortage conditions, which may be caused by climate change, infrastructure failure, source contamination, or other supply issues, are identified in 2021 WSCP, and comply with minimum California Water Code requirements. The 2021 WSCP is codified by ordinance, and includes six (6) stages, each corresponding to a specific supply shortage condition. These stages are:

Stage I: Voluntary Conservation Measures
Issued when a slight decrease in the water supply is expected Stage II: Mandatory Compliance; Water Alert
Issued when a moderate decrease in the water supply is expected Stage III: Mandatory Compliance; Water Warning
Issued when a significant decrease in the water supply is expected Stage IV: Mandatory Compliance; Water Emergency
Issued when a forty percent (40%) decrease in the water supply is expected Stage V: Mandatory Compliance; Water Emergency
Issued when a fifty percent (50%) decrease in the water supply is expected Stage VI: Mandatory Compliance; Water Emergency
Issued when water supplies are in danger of being depleted to a point where uses such as human consumption, sanitation, and fire protection would be endangered. This would be in response to a more than fifty percent (50%) decrease in supply, most likely associated with a natural disaster.

Implementation of each stage is declared by the City Council when water demands cannot be satisfied without depleting the water supply for consumption, sanitation, and fire protection. If the City Council is unable to meet, the City Manager or his/her designee can implement the plan on an emergency basis.

This implementation will be reviewed and ratified or revoked by the City Council at its next scheduled Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 316 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
28 | P a g e
meeting. In case of a catastrophic interruption, such as an earthquake, fire, and other emergency, the City Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department (MUED) will implement an existing emergency plan, which requires designated personnel to meet at a predefined reporting time and location for task assignments. Those who cannot reach their designated area are to offer their services to other local water providers if they are also experiencing an emergency.

3.4.2 DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES
The City has achieved its 2020 water use reduction targets, and will continue efforts to reduce water waste. To minimize water waste, the City has implemented water waste prevention programs, metering programs, conservative pricing, assessed and managed distribution losses, and has increased both public education and outreach. In addition to the 2021 WSCP water use restrictions for various water supply shortage conditions, the City manages several other water conservation programs.

The City’s water systems are metered to ensure accurate demand measurement. Meters are maintained routinely, and a replacement schedule was developed in 2008. Meters smaller than two inches (2”) are replaced every fifteen (15) to twenty (20) years, while larger meters are periodically calibrated to ensure accuracy. In 2021, the first year of a five (5) year project to replace all water meters was initiated.

The City prices water using a tiered rate structure. This tiered system includestwo (2) pricing components.

The first component is a fixed service charge based on the meter size, and the second is a variable commodity charge based on the amount of water delivered. The commodity charge unit rate increases at specific use thresholds.

The City also manages comprehensive public education and outreach programs, focusing on customer accountability while incentivizing water conservation practices. Examples include:

1. Water Efficiency Rebate Program Financial Incentives:
a. Weather-Based Irrigation Controllers
b. Drought Tolerant Lawn Conversions
c. Synthetic Turf Replacement
d. Water Efficient Clothes Washers
e. High-Efficiency Sprinkler Nozzles
f. Low Flow Toilets

2. Design and Construction of four (4) demonstration gardens;

3. Participation in regional marketing campaign;

4. Educational outreach events;

5. Offering free water-saving products including hose nozzles, toilet leak detection tablets, lawn/plant moisture meters, low water use plants, shower timers, faucet aerators, and water efficiency educational materials.

3.5 FUTURE WATER USE

POTABLE WATER SYSTEM
The 2020 UWMP projected future potable water demand, based on expected population growth, land use development, and new connections, to be 21.53 MGD in 2040 and 22.17 MGD in 2045. These demand increases are expected to be primarily from new development within the unincorporated portions of the City water service area. Table 3-5 provides potable water demand projections through 2045 for each land Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 317 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
29 | P a g e
use category. Potable water demand is projected to increase by three to four percent (3%-4%) annually through 2045.

Table 3-5: Potable Water Demand Projection (AF/Year)
Land Use 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Single Family
Residential
12,943 13,470 13,997 14,461 14,925
Multi-Family
Residential
3,036 3,160 3,284 3,393 3,501
Commercial/Industrial 3,081 3,145 3,209 3,265 3,321
Landscape Irrigation 2,292 2,385 2,478 2,560 2,643
Agriculture 206 206 206 206 206
Other 206 214 223 230 238
Total Demand 21,764 22,580 23,397 24,115 24,834
Total Demand (MGD) 19.42 20.14 20.87 21.51 22.16
Demand Increase (%),
2020 base

3.0% 3.7% 3.6% 3.1% 3.0%
Note: Data in this table is from the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan table 4.5. Data for the water demand was linearly scaled for 2022 - 2042.

NON-POTABLE WATER/RECYCLED WATER SYSTEMS
The most likely opportunity to expand the non-potable water and recycled water systems is to consolidate them into a single system capable of putting approximately four (4) MGD of excess recycled water to beneficial use. This would require the construction of additional storage reservoirs and booster pumps to convey water efficiently throughout the system. Approximately forty-five (45) water meters within pressure system 1 that include commercial areas, parks, agricultural areas, schools, and residential areas with heavy irrigation use could be connected to this expanded system. Another 200-300 water meters within pressure system 2 could also be connected to this expanded system.

Table 3-6 provides use data for various water meter billing classifications, and shows the potential for relieving pressure from the potable water system by transitioning customers to the expanded nonpotable/recycled water system where possible. The residential classification includes rural agricultural areas within Crafton. Transitioning these areas to the expanded system would be difficult due to the distance from the expanded system. It is recommended that the City focuses on commercial and industrial customers clustered in pressure systems 1 and 2 to maximize the benefit of the expanded system.

Selective parks and City-owned citrus groves with significant water use should also be prioritized for connection to the expanded system.

Table 3-6: Potential Non-Potable Water Users
Land Use Water Use (GPD)
Residential 638,636
Commercial 416,113
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 318 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
30 | P a g e
Land Use Water Use (GPD)
Parks 281,336
Agricultural 172,025
Public Institutions 145,143
Other 55,604
Note: Data Analyzed with Meter Information Provided by the City Table 3-7 provides typical water use within each system. System 1 and 2 are the most developed and are located close to the wastewater treatment facility, and transitioning customers within pressure system 2 offers the greatest opportunity to relieve pressure from the potable water system. Most of these customers are located north of Fern Avenue and south of I-10.

Table 3-7: Potential Non-Potable Water Users
System
Water Use
(GPD)
Number of Meters
1 79,865 114
2 762,176 211
3 346,777 77
5 through 8 520,039 91
Total 1,708,857 413
Note: Data Analyzed with Meter Information Provided by the City It is likely that water demand within the expanded system will nearly double from 2.2 MGD to 3.9 MGD.

The demand can be supplied from the WWTP recycled water system and non-potable water groundwater wells when customers are transitioned from the potable water system, and non-potable groundwater could supplement demand during peak periods. Expanding and improving this system could reduce potable water use by as much as 2,606 AF each year, with annual cost savings of $1M-$2M. Future developments within these pressure zones could be served by this system as well.

3.5.1 AREA-BASED DEMAND FACTORS
Table 3-8 provides the 5-year average water demand and projected potable water demand through 2045 by land use category. Assuming the demand remains constant, the City can anticipate total annual demand of approximately 25,547 AFY (22.7 MGD).

Table 3-8: Future Water Use Projections by Land Use (AF/Year) Land Use 5-year avg
(AFY)
Area in 2017
(Acre) AFY/Acre Area in 2045 (Acre)
2045 Water
Demand
Single Family Residential 12,211 8,332 1.466 9,428 13,821 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 319 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
31 | P a g e
Land Use 5-year avg
(AFY)
Area in 2017
(Acre) AFY/Acre Area in 2045 (Acre)
2045 Water
Demand
Multi-Family Residential 2,867 681 4.210 958 4,033
Commercial/Industrial 2,965 2,017 1.470 2,773 4,076
Landscape Irrigation 2,173 4,138 0.525 5,622 2,952
Agriculture 366 2,180 0.168 2,180 366
Other 188 2,004 0.094 2,441 229
Total 20,770 19,352 8 23,402 25,477
Note: Information based on 2020 Urban Water Management Plan & 2017 General Plan

3.5.2 CONNECTION-BASED DEMAND FACTORS
The City’s potable water system currently includes approximately 23,545 connections. Table 3-9 provides potable water demand by connections in each land use category, and projects total system demand in year 2045. Landscape irrigation and agriculture are the most intensive uses, with 4.077 AFY per connection and 21.53 AFY per connection, respectively. The 2045 potable water system demand is projected based on linear growth projections identified in the 2020 UWMP and 2017 General Plan, and is estimated to be 23,996 AFY (21.4 MGD).

Table 3-9: Future Water Projections by Connection
Land Use
5-Year
Average
(AFY)
2020
Connections
Connection
Demand
(AFY)
2045
Connections
2045
Demand
(AFY)
Single Family Residential 12,211 19,922 0.613 22,922 14,050 Multi-Family Residential 2,867 980 2.926 1,180 3,452
Commercial/Industrial 2,965 1,397 2.122 1,647 3,496
Landscape Irrigation 2,173 533 4.077 573 2,336
Agriculture 366 17 21.53 17 366
Other 188 696 0.270 1,096 296
Total 20,770 23,545 32 27,435 23,996
Note: Information based on 2020 Urban Water Management Plan & 2017 General Plan Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 320 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
32 | P a g e
4 WATER SUPPLY

4.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION

POTABLE WATER SYSTEM
The primary sources of potable water supply to the City of Redlands are groundwater (48.8%) and treated surface water (51.1%). The City may also receive raw water (0.1%) from the SWP, when it is available, and blend it with SAR and Mill Creek surface water if additional raw water is needed to meet demands. The City operates two (2) surface treatment plants that could be expanded to meet future demands. Current annual potable water production from all sources is 22,907 AF (20.45 MGD). Potable water production during the summer months is approximately three (3) times higher than in the winter months.

Potable water demand was calculated using Supervisor Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system data to calibrate the water model and provide a basis for future planning. The MDD is 1.7 times the ADD, and the PHD is 2.75 times the ADD. Currently, the average demand of the City's potable water system is 18.5 MGD, with a peak hour demand of almost fifty-two (52) MGD.

NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM
The primary non-potable water source is groundwater extracted from the Bunker Hill Basin.

RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM
The City WWTP produces approximately six (6) MGD of treated effluent through a MBR system that supplies the recycled water system.

4.2 WATER PRODUCTION

POTABLE WATER SYSTEM
Table 4-1 provides potable water production by source from 2017 to 2020. The comparative production of each source is shown graphically in Chart 4-1.

Table 4-1: Potable Water Production Sources (AF/Year)
Potable Water
Source
2017
(AFY)
2018
(AFY)
2019
(AFY)
2020
(AFY)
Average
(AFY)
Groundwater 11,214 12,468 9,900 12,088 11,418
Santa Ana River 4,634 6,367 5,038 5,796 5,459
Mill Creek 7,455 4,607 7,003 6,045 6,278
State Water Project - - 35 535 285
Total Production 23,303 23,442 21,976 24,464 23,296
Note: Data from 2017-2020 Annual Production Report
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 321 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
33 | P a g e
Chart 4-1: Water Production by Source
Table 4-2 provides monthly potable water production data from the 2017-2020 Annual Production Reports. The comparative production of each month and year is shown graphically in Chart 4-2. During that period, production averaged approximately 20.8 MGD from all sources. Monthly production varies seasonally, with summer season production of approximately thirty (30) MGD, and winter season production of approximately eleven (11) MGD. Annual potable water demand averages approximately

18.5 MGD. Reducing potable water system losses by replacing aging and leaking pipelines, replacing and repairing aging water meters, and implementing other improvements is a City priority.

Table 4-2: Monthly Potable Water Production
Month 2017
(MGD)
2018
(MGD)
2019
(MGD)
2020
(MGD)
Average
(MGD)
January 8.2 14.0 11.4 13.1 11.7
February 8.6 16.1 8.6 16.8 12.5
March 14.7 11.8 10.4 11.4 12.1
April 21.8 20.2 20.7 13.4 19.0
May 22.9 21.4 17.9 24.6 21.7
June 26.8 25.9 25.1 27.2 26.3
July 29.4 29.7 28.8 29.8 29.4
August 27.4 29.9 29.8 31.2 29.6
September 26.0 27.5 28.4 29.4 27.8
October 24.5 22.1 24.5 26.2 24.3
November 20.0 19.9 19.4 20.1 19.9
December 18.5 12.6 9.8 18.0 14.7
Average 20.7 20.9 19.6 21.8 20.8
Note: Data from the 2017-2020 Annual Production Report
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 322 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
34 | P a g e
Chart 4-2: Historic Potable Water Production

NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM & RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM
Table 4-3 provides monthly non-potable water and recycled water production in 2020. Although the WWTP produces approximately 4.5 – 5.0 MGD of recycled water, only 1.6 MGD is being sent to customers, which could be tripled with system improvements. Similar to potable water production, non-potable water production varies significantly during the summer season (2.57 MGD) and winter season (1.11 MGD). The combined annual production average is approximately three (3) MGD, and varies seasonally from 1.5 MGD in January to 4.5 MGD in July.

Table 4-3: Monthly Non-Potable Water & Recycled Water Production/Distribution (MGD) Month 2017-2020 Average
Well Production (MGD)
Average Recycled Water
Production/Distributed to
Customers (MGD)
TOTAL Average
Production (MGD)
January 0.5 1.0 1.5
February 0.6 1.2 1.8
March 0.6 1.4 2.0
April 1.6 1.3 2.9
May 1.8 1.2 2.0
June 2.6 1.3 3.9
July 2.7 1.8 4.5
August 2.6 1.8 4.4
September 2.4 1.6 4.0
October 2.2 1.7 3.9
November 1.5 1.3 2.8
December 0.8 1.0 1.8
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 323 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
35 | P a g e
Month 2017-2020 Average
Well Production (MGD)
Average Recycled Water
Production/Distributed to
Customers (MGD)
TOTAL Average
Production (MGD)
Average 1.7 1.4 3.0
Table 4-4 provides annual average production from each non-potable groundwater well from 2017-2020.

The City's non-potable groundwater wells produce a combined average of 7.3 MGD. The two (2) highest producing wells, Well No. 30A and the New York Street Well serve Systems 2 and 3. These systems account for approximately thirty percent (30%) of total groundwater extractions.

Table 4-4: Non-Potable Groundwater Well Production (MGD) Groundwater Well Average Water
Production (GPD)
Average Water
Production (MGD)
Agate 1 0 0
California 85,301 0.085
Crafton 51,779 0.052
New York 282,329.9 0.282
Redlands Heights 32,792.7 0.033
Well 11 92,912.2 0.093
Well 16 65,593.3 0.066
Well 30 A 572,337.2 0.572
Well 31A 0 0
Well 32 11,025 0.011
Well 36 134,380.1 0.134
Well 41 21,961.5 0.022
Total Non-Potable 1,350,412 1.350
Note: Data from the 2017 – 2020 Annual Production Reports This production data was compared to demand data for 2017-2020 to identify significant water losses of approximately forty percent (40%) within the non-potable water system. Table 4-5 summarizes that analysis.

Table 4-5: Non-Potable Water System Losses
2017 2018 2019 2020 Average
Average Production (MGD) 4.2 3.6 3.2 3.2 3.6
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 324 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
36 | P a g e
2017 2018 2019 2020 Average
Average Demand (MGD) 1.6 2.4 1.1 2.1 2.1
Water Loss (MGD) 2.6 1.2 2.1 1.1 1.4
Water Loss (%) 62% 33% 66% 34% 39%
The design on the City’s non-potable water system does not alleviate the water loss issue. The non-potable water wells operate on pressure using a ClaValve. Since the non-potable water system does not include storage tanks, the excess water releases into the storm drain system when the pressure exceeds a set point. The need for the system to be operated this way results in loss of water.

It is recommended that the City investigate other potential causes of this water loss, which may include a review of record drawings and specifications, analysis of operations, site visits, and interviews with the maintenance staff before CIP projects are implemented. The City should target system water losses of approximately four to six percent (4%-6%) annually. It is estimated that reducing water losses within the non-potable water system could increase revenues by approximately $750,000 to $ 1.5M annually.

The non-potable water meters are in the process of being replaced, which is expected to be completed by June 30, 2022. Resolving this issue will further reduce water loss and contribute to the targeted system water loss.

4.3 DEMAND VARIATION

4.3.1 AVERAGE DAY DEMAND

POTABLE WATER SYSTEM
Based on 2021 meter-data provided by the City, the potable water system ADD is approximately 18.5 MGD. When accounting for losses in the system, the production needed to supply this demand is approximately 20.4 MGD.

NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM
The ADD from non-potable groundwater wells is approximately 2.1 MGD. Approximately ninety percent (90%) of this demand is for outdoor landscape irrigation. The remainder is used for agricultural irrigation and commercial/industrial uses.

RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM
The ADD for the recycled water system, which is exclusively used by the SCE Mountain View Power Plant, for landfill dust control adjacent to the WWTP, and irrigation customers is 1.64 MGD, and can increase periodically to 2.2 MGD. Unused recycled water is blended with non-potable water produced by the California Street Well, to supplement the non-potable water distribution system.

4.3.2 MAXIMUM DAY DEMAND

POTABLE WATER SYSTEM
The potable water system MDD was determined using 2019 SCADA information provided by the City, and was found to be 1.7 times the ADD, with a peak of approximately 2.75 times the ADD. Chart 4-3 shows Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 325 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
37 | P a g e
the diurnal curve for the MDD case. The maximum day typically occurs in mid-August, with peak hour demands occurring at approximately 5:30 a.m. and 11:00 p.m.

Chart 4-3: MDD Diurnal Curve for Potable Water, August 2019

NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM
Based on 2021 meter-data provided by the City, the non-potable water system ADD is approximately 2.1 MGD. When accounting for losses in the system, the production needed to supply this demand is approximately 3.2 MGD. The maximum day typically occurs between June and October, with peak hour demands occurring at approximately 4:30 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. when irrigation is typically applied.

RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM
Based on 2021 meter-data provided by the City, the recycled water system ADD is approximately 1.67 MGD. The maximum day of 2.2 MGD, typically occurs between June and October, with peak hour demands occurring at approximately 4:30 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. when irrigation is typically applied.

4.3.3 PEAK HOUR DEMAND

POTABLE WATER SYSTEM
Understanding the PHD is critical for sizing water mains and other facilities. During PHD, the system experiences high velocities and low service pressures in areas with undersized mains or areas that lack looped distribution pipelines. The PHD was determined using the peak water use during the peak hour of the MDD, and was found to be approximately 2.75 times the ADD, or approximately 50.9 MGD. Hinckley and Tate have a combined maximum treatment capacity of 34.5 MGD. In addition, the City’s fourteen (14) active groundwater wells can produce approximately 18,350 GPM (26.4 MGD) of potable water.

Therefore, the maximum potable water production capacity from all sources is approximately 58.4 MGD, which exceeds the PHD. However, existing potable water production facilities are not capable of meeting the projected 2045 PHD of sixty-one (61) MGD. It is likely that this will not become an issue until the early 2030s, and the City is currently rehabilitating several potable groundwater wells, including six (6) that are inactive due to water quality issues. Bringing these wells back into service will increase potable water production capacity to 67.2 MGD, which will provide sufficient water to meet the projected 2045 PHD and Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 326 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
38 | P a g e
provide additional capacity as reserve production. The inactive wells include Agate 2, Lugonia 4, Well No. 10, Well No. 13, and the Crafton Well. Table 4-6 provides the maximum potable water production capacity for each facility.

Table 4-6: Active Potable Water Production Facility Capacity Well Capacity (GPM) Capacity (MGD)
Airport 1 1500 2.2
Airport 2 1000 1.4
Church Street 2000 2.9
Lugonia 3 250 0.4
Lugonia 6 250 0.4
Madeira 900 1.3
Maguet 2 325 0.5
Mentone Acres 2 1600 2.3
Muni 1700 2,4
North Orange Street 1 2900 4.2
North Orange Street 2 2900 4.2
Orange Street 1500 2.2
Rees 1200 1.7
38 1500 2.2
39 1250 1.8
10 1400 2.0
13 3300 4.8
Hinckley WTP 10,070 14.5
Tate WTP 13,888 20
Total 49,158 70.8

NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM
Understanding the PHD is critical for sizing water mains and other facilities. During PHD, the system experiences high velocities and low service pressures in areas with undersized mains or areas that lack looped distribution pipelines. The PHD was determined using the peak water use during the peak hour of the MDD, and was found to be approximately 5.3 times the ADD, or approximately 11.2 MGD.

RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM
Understanding the PHD is critical for sizing water mains and other facilities. During PHD, the system experiences high velocities and low service pressures in areas with undersized mains or areas that lack looped distribution pipelines. The PHD was determined using the peak water use during the peak hour of the MDD, and was found to be approximately 6.1 times the ADD, or approximately 10.2 MGD.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 327 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
39 | P a g e

4.4 EMERGENCY CONNECTIONS
The City maintains emergency water connections with the City of Loma Linda and Western Heights Water Company. In addition, the City is a member of the Emergency Response Network of the Inland Empire (ERNIE) and California’s Water/Wastewater Agency Response Network (CalWARN). The intent of these programs and connections is to ensure that the City is able to provide water service to its customers during emergencies.

4.5 PRODUCTION-DEMAND PROJECTION

4.5.1 PROJECTION

POTABLE WATER SYSTEM
Table 4-7 provides projected potable water system demands (ADD, MDD, and PHD) through year 2042.

The current peaking factors identified in Section 4.3.3 are assumed to remain constant through the planning horizon. The ADD is expected to increase by 3.2 MG to 21.7 MGD, MDD will increase by approximately 5.5 MGD to thirty-seven (37) MGD, and the PHD will increase by 9.3 MGD to 60.2 MGD.

The projected daily production is determined by the daily demand and anticipated system water loss, which was 12.8% in 2020. This is relatively high for a typical water distribution system. Reducing water loss within the distribution system will reduce the difference between water produced and water distributed, resulting in significant cost savings, estimated to be approximately $2M-$3M each year. This savings over the planning horizon will significantly offset CIP expenditures.

Table 4-7: Potable Water Demand Projections (MGD)
2022 2027 2032 2037 2042
Projected ADD 18.5 19.2 20 20.8 21.7
Projected MDD 31.5 33.5 34.8 35.9 37.0
Projected PHD 50.9 54.2 56.3 58.1 60.2
Expected Inefficiencies 12.8% 8% 6% 4% 4%
Projected Average Daily Production
Demand 20.7 20.7 21.2 21.6 22.5
Note: Projected ADD was interpolated using Table 3.3: Projected Demand for Potable Water. 2022 potable water demand was assumed to be equal to the 2020 potable water demand.

NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM
As demand increases, the City will need to expand, and perhaps consolidate, the non-potable water and recycled water systems. Transitioning potable water connections to this expanded system will reduce potable water system demands by approximately 1.7 MGD. Table 4-8 shows how the decreasing water loss within the system over time reduces production necessary to meet increasing demands. This table assumes expansion and consolidation of the non-potable water and recycled water systems.

Table 4-8: Projected Production Demands Assuming Optional Expansion 2022 2027 2032 2042
Average Projected Demand (MGD) 2.2 2.5 2.8 3.1
Assumed Water Loss (%) 40% 28% 16% 5%
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 328 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
40 | P a g e
2022 2027 2032 2042
Projected Average Production (MGD) 3.7 3.5 3.3 3.3
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 329 of 728

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 330 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
41 | P a g e
5 DESIGN CRITERIA

5.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION
This section presents industry-standard guidelines for water infrastructure used to determine replacement or repair needs for the City’s water distribution systems. The design criteria also outlines recommendations for the design and construction of infrastructure to ensure reliability, safety, and functionality. In addition, the criteria establish conditions that include but are not limited to water supply, treatment facilities, storage capacity, pressure, pipe velocity, and other hydraulic parameters. These criteria served as a benchmark to evaluate the City’s existing infrastructure and identify potential projects for the City’s future CIP projects. Data from previous sections including demand factors, water supply, existing infrastructure, and industry standards were evaluated against the design criteria to identify recommended infrastructure upgrades in the CIP. System pressures, pipeline flow velocity, and age were primary criteria of concern.

5.2 DESIGN CRITERIA

5.2.1 DEMAND

POTABLE WATER SYSTEM
Three important demand factors were used when evaluating the City’s water system: ADD, MDD, and PHD. The City’s potable water ADD is approximately 18.5 MGD, or approximately 222.9 gpcd, which is typical for this region. Due to very effective conservation measures, the current consumption per capita has been reduced from approximately 285 to 222.9 gpcd in the past ten (10) years. The MDD is estimated to be 1.7 times the ADD, or 31.5 MGD. The PHD is estimated to be 2.75 times ADD, or 50.9 MGD. The 1.7 MDD and 2.75 PHD peaking factors are calculated from the City's 2017-2021 SCADA information.

5.2.2 SUPPLY

POTABLE WATER SYSTEM
The City relies on groundwater wells and surface WTP for potable water production. The City supplies approximately half of its demand through groundwater wells. The other half is supplied through its surface WTP. Collectively, these facilities can meet the PHD. However, demand is expected to increase over the next few decades due to growth and further development. As the service areas and demands grow, the City may need an additional five to six (5 – 6) MGD of supply capacity to meet sixty-one (61) MGD of peak hour demand in 2045.

NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM & RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM
The City relies on groundwater wells and it’s WWTP to supply non-potable and recycled water. However, the City does not utilize the entirety of its WWTP effluent. Therefore, any expansion of the recycled/nonpotable water system should use this excess water. The groundwater wells are also used to supply nonpotable water to small, detached systems throughout the City. These areas are primarily large parks and open spaces within the City.

5.2.3 STORAGE VOLUME

POTABLE WATER SYSTEM
Fire flow during peak demands was modeled, and water storage was found to be adequate for existing and future hydraulic conditions. Based on the EPA’s Effect of Water Age on Distribution System Water Quality Report, Office of Water (4601M), the water distribution system requires enough operational Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 331 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
42 | P a g e
storage (OS) for variation in demand, equalizing storage (ES), stand by and/or fire suppression storage (SB and FSS) and dead storage. The emergency outage storage is evaluated based on the MDD and fire flow requirements. The currently available storage of 54.3 MG is higher than the 2022 storage requirement of

38.9 MG and 2042 storage requirement of forty-five (45) MG. Since current storage is larger than the current and future emergency demand, fire protection and diurnal fluctuations can be met during the emergencies.

For operational variation during emergencies, it is recommended that the City have enough storage to store the MDD (31.5 MG) to allow fluctuating demands throughout the day. Each zone will also need to maintain fire flow capacity to fight fires. California’s Fire Code Fire Flow Requirements table was used to estimate the fire flow requirements. The City’s maximum fire demand is 8,000 GPM for 4 hours for one zone. This is equivalent to 1.92 MG of storage capacity. Due to the commercial/industrial areas in Zones 1350 and 1570, the required fire flow storage demand is 1.92 MG. Zones 1750, 1900, and 2100 have several large commercial sites that would require approximately 4,000 GPM for 4 hours (0.96 MG). The remaining zones are primarily residential areas with some commercial zoning. These zones require 3,000 GPM for 3 hours (0.54 MG). Emergency Storage will vary by region as it depends on the possible disaster to each water agency. Table 5-1 shows the operation and fire flow and/or emergency storage required for each zone. The overall required storage is sufficient for the City’s current production.

Table 5-1: Storage Volume by Zone
Storage
Volume
(MG)
2022
Operational
Storage
(MG)
Fire Flow
Required
(MG)
Zone 1350 4.9 2.46 1.92
Zone 1570 23.6 12.14 1.92
Zone 1750 5.5 7.24 0.96
Zone 1900 7.4 5.40 0.96
Zone 2100 5.0 3.14 0.96
Zone 2340 6.5 1.02 0.54
Zone 2600 1.4 0.10 0.54
Total 54.3 31.50 7.38
Also, it is essential to note that during emergencies, water could be brought from the WTP, wells, emergency connections with other systems, allowable supply that can be taken from nearby lakes and canals during the fire, and fire trucks from the Fire Department supply. Therefore, it may be difficult to estimate all emergency supply sources accurately. However, with the two (2) emergency interconnections, two (2) WTP, and natural water storage reservoirs, the 54.3 MG of total reservoir capacity is sufficient storage capacity for the planning horizon.

NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM
The current storage system includes two (2) small poly tanks and three (3) cement lined open air reservoir throughout the distribution system.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 332 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
43 | P a g e

RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM
The City does not have any storage capacity for recycled water, but is currently engineering two (2) 1.5 MG reservoirs to be constructed at the WWTP in the future. This will allow the WWTP to store water until needed, instead of the demand-based system operation that is currently in place. The capacity of the reservoirs will be needed to maintain the operational variations that will exist as demand increases. The recycled water system only services two (2) fire hydrants located at the SCE Mountain View Power Plant and at California Street Well. Since the recycled water system does not service any other fire hydrants for firefighting or require emergency storage in case of a natural disaster, the City will only need storage capacity for its operational flow. The storage capacity is recommended to be equal to the ADD of the recycled water system, which is approximately 2.1 MG for the existing system and three (3) MG for future storage. This excludes the recycled water storage needed for the Mountain View Power Plant.

5.2.4 PUMP STATIONS

POTABLE WATER SYSTEM
Pump Stations are an essential component of the City’s potable water distribution system and are required to lift water and maintain the hydraulic grade. The City must maintain emergency power equipment, capacity, and redundancy for the pump stations within the system. The list of booster stations can be found in Table 2-4. The City must maintain a flow capacity equivalent or greater than the MDD, with a three (3)-day fire flow recharge for its system. It is also recommended that the system's redundancy be able to supply the PHD when a pump station has its largest pump offline. In case of a power outage, it is recommended that there is standby power for all pumping stations.

NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM
Non-potable system 2 utilizes two (2) small package skid booster pump systems to maintain system pressure within the zone.

RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM
Booster pumps pump recycled water from the wastewater treatment plant’s chlorine contact basin into the recycled water system. There are no booster pumps in the City’s recycled water systems. The WWTP is constructed in the lowest area of the City in Zone 1. If the City expands and consolidates the non-potable water and recycled water systems, booster pumps will be necessary to transfer water to higher pressure zones. Each pump stations should provide the MDD for the zone it serves. Backup pumps must replace the single largest pump within a pump station facility. Backup power is suggested for each pump station.

5.2.5 WATER TREATMENT
Potable water must meet maximum contaminate level (MCL) standards mandated by the United States (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and California’s Department of Water Resources. The surface water the City utilizes needs to be treated for potential contaminants at the City’s treatment plants. Groundwater wells meeting the same MCL standards can also supply potable water. Otherwise, the groundwater must be treated through onsite treatment facilities, or by blending the water with water from other sources to meet the MCL standard. Specific requirements for WTP are dependent on the purpose of the facility. The City owns and operates two surface WTP, Hinckley and Tate. The field report attached in Appendix A provides a detailed description of these facilities.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 333 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
44 | P a g e

5.2.6 SYSTEM PRESSURE

POTABLE WATER SYSTEM
Based on American Water Works Association (AWWA) standards, the pressure for the water system is recommended to be between forty (40) and 150 pounds per square inch (psi). The variation within a pressure zone should be no more than twenty (20) psi, as a significant variation in pressure could lead to fatigue within the system due to repeated cycles in hydraulic stress. For example, the residual pressure for a fire hydrant is required to be at twenty (20) psi for effective firefighting. Pressure-reducing valves are required between pressure zones to maintain reliable pressure between each zone.

NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM & RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM
Pressure within the non-potable water system should remain between forty (40) psi and 150 psi with a target range between forty five (45) psi to eighty (80) psi. The variation within each pressure zone should not vary by more than twenty (20) psi.

5.2.7 PIPE VELOCITY
Based on AWWA standards, the pipe velocity for the water system should not exceed ten (10) feet per second (fps) under all conditions with a desirable velocity of five (5) fps during normal operations.

Pipelines should be sized to provide head losses that do not exceed 3.5 feet per 1,000 feet of pipeline under PHD or five (5) feet per 1,000 of pipeline under MDD conditions. This criteria applies to all three (3) water systems.

5.2.8 PIPELINE REDUNDANCY
Pipeline redundancy involves both avoiding dead-end pipelines and avoiding disruption in the entire system if a pipeline segment needs to be shut down. Avoiding dead ends also helps prevent water stagnation, deterioration, corrosion, and may improve water quality. In some cases, dead ends may be the best or only option to service some areas due to the cost of constructing and maintaining redundant pipelines. Therefore, it is recommended that dead-ends be looped whenever possible, or flushed annually.

New water mains must be installed ten feet (10’) horizontally and one foot (1’) vertically from treated and untreated sewage, and recycled water, as outlined in the State of California Code of Regulations: Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 16 Article 4 Section § 64572, Water Main Separation. The City can request an exemption to this standard if a condition meets specific requirements outlined in the same sections.

Distribution system pipelines should be a minimum diameter of eight inches (8”) and sized appropriately.

Fire hydrant laterals should be six inches (6”) in diameter. This criteria applies to all three (3) water systems.

5.2.9 SUMMARY OF DESIGN CRITERIA

POTABLE WATER SYSTEM
A summary of the potable water system design criteria is provided in Table 5-2, including typical industry standards and current City standards.

Table 5-2: Design Criteria Summary – Potable Water System Demand Typical Industry Standards City Standard
Maximum Day Demand1,2 Typical 1.5-2 times ADD 1.7 times ADD Peak Hour Demand1,2 Typical 2-4 times ADD 2.75 times ADD Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 334 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
45 | P a g e
Demand Typical Industry Standards City Standard
Storage
Reservoir Capacity1 Combined Operational, Fire, and
Emergency Storage
Combined Operational, Fire, and
Emergency Storage
Operational Capacity2 Maintain operation during peak
demands through the day
50% of MDD
50% of MDD
Fire Storage1Largest Single Fire Flow event Largest Single Fire Flow event Emergency Storage1 Dependent on Region, Typically 0.5
to 2 times the MDD
50% of MDD, with emergency
connection the City maintains
Pump Station
Pump Station Capacity1 Pump Station must supply MDD
Booster Pumps must supply MDD
and Fire Flow
Pump Station
Configuration1
Stand-by pump equal in size to the
largest duty pump
Pump Station Backup
Power1
Previsions for emergency Power at
all Stations
Pipelines Industry Standards
Minimum Diameter Pipe N/A 8” Diameter for Mainline
6” for hydrant laterals.

Maximum Pipe Velocities1 10 fps under all Conditions 10 fps under all Conditions Maximum Pipe Head Loss1 3.5 ft per 1000 ft at PHD
5 ft per 1000 ft at MDD
System Pressure
Minimum Static Pressure1 40 psi at PHD 40 psi at PHD
Maximum Static Pressure1 150 psi at PHD 150 psi at PHD
Minimum Fire Hydrant
Residual Pressure1
20 psi 20 psi
Maximum Dynamic
Pressure Variation1
20 psi 20 psi
Note: 1Industry Standards are based on the AWWA manuals for water distribution systems that include but are not limited to M22 Sizing Water Service Lines and Meters, M31 Distribution System Requirements for Fire Protection and M42 Steel Water Storage Tanks
2 Analysis of Eastern Municipal Water District: Water System Planning & Design, and Western Municipal Water District: Design Criteria for Water Distribution Systems were used for comparison to City Standards, due to limited information provided in AWWA manuals

NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM & RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM
A summary of the non-potable water system and recycled water system design criteria is provided in Table 5-3, including recommended City standards for these water systems.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 335 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
46 | P a g e
Table 5-3: Design Criteria Summary - Non-potable & Recycled Water System Storage Recommended City Standards
Operational Storage Equal to ADD
Fire Flow Storage N/A
Emergency Storage N/A
Pump Station Recommended City Standards
Pump Station Capacity Pump Station must supply MDD
Pump Station Configuration Stand-by pump equal in size to the largest duty pump
Pump Station Backup Power Previsions for emergency Power at all Stations Pipelines Recommended City Standards
Maximum Velocity 10 fps peak
Preferred Maximum Velocity 5 fps under ADD and MDD
Maximum Distribution Pipe Velocity 5 fps under all Conditions System Pressure Recommended City Standards
Minimum Static Pressure 40 psi at PHD
Maximum Static Pressure 150 psi at ADD
Maximum Dynamic Pressure Variation 20 psi
Note: Industry Standards are based on the AWWA manuals for water distribution systems that include but are not limited to M22 Sizing Water Service Lines and Meters, M31 Distribution System Requirements for Fire Protection and M42 Steel Water Storage Tanks

5.3 PLANNING CRITERIA

5.3.1 METHODOLOGY
The design criteria outlined in this section will be used in determining what facilities need to be repaired, replaced, or constructed. The CIP also considers the age of the City’s facilities and includes those facilities that exceed the average service life. Age is not necessarily an indication of current performance issues, but is an indicator that the asset’s future performance is expected to deteriorate.

5.3.2 AVERAGE SERVICE LIFE
The age of each pipeline and facility was considered when evaluating service life replacement schedules.

The typical service life for various water facilities and pipeline materials are provided in 5-4 and Table 5-

5. This information was used to develop CIP recommendations for each water system. If a structure exceeds its average service life, it is expected to deteriorate and increase the chance of failure. The State Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 336 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
47 | P a g e
of California Water Board recommends replacing mainline pipelines every forty (40) years. However, pipeline service life can vary depending on the pipeline material.

Table 5-4: Water Facility Average Service Life
Equipment State of California Water Board 1 NMT Asset Management 2 Source of Supply
Wells (including appurtenances) 25 – 35
Intake Structures 35 – 45
Transmission Mains 35 – 40 65 - 95
Pumping Plants
Pumping Equipment 10 – 15 15 - 25
Structures 30 – 60 50 - 100
Treatment Plants
Chlorination Equipment 10 – 15
Equipment 10 – 15 15 - 25
Structures 30 – 60 60 - 70
Transmission/Distribution
Structures 30 – 60 50
Reservoirs and Tanks 30 – 60 50 - 80
Main & Distribution Pipes 35 – 40 65 - 95
Services 30 – 50
Valves 35 – 40
Backflow Prevention Valves 35 – 40
Blow-off Valves 35 – 40
Meters 10 – 15
Hydrants 40 – 60
General
Structures 30 – 40 50
Electrical Systems 7 – 10 15 - 25
Equipment 10 – 15 15 - 25
Transportation Equipment 10
Computers 5 5 - 10
Store Equipment 10
Lab/Monitoring Equipment 5 – 7
Tools and Shop Equipment 10 – 15
Landscaping/Grading 40 – 60
Power Operated Equipment 10 – 15
Communication Equipment 10
Note: (1) California State Water Resources: Table 1: Typical Equipment Life Expectancy; (2) Environmental Finance Center NMT-Asset management guide for water and wastewater The life expectancy of mechanical equipment and pumps is assumed to be 20 years, and the Electrical equipment 15 years for CIP purposes
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 337 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
48 | P a g e
Table 5-5: Water Pipeline Average Service Life
Standard
Abbreviation Material Service Life(Years)
ACP Asbestos Concrete Pipe 80
CIP Cast Iron Pipe 120
CMLC Cement Mortar Lined and Steel Coated 100
CON Concrete 100
DIP Ductile Iron Pipe 100
DW Dipped and Wrapped Steel 40
PVC Polyvinyl Chloride 70
STL Steel 70
Note: Based on MASC Life Expectancy of Water Distribution Lines

5.3.3 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
The primary performance indicators used for pipelines are the flow velocities and pressures predicted by the hydraulic model. The updated hydraulic model was used to identify pipe segments and conveyance facilities that require upgrades to meet the performance metrics presented in Section 5.2.9. Additional repair and replacement considerations include the age of water facilities and whether the City has indicated a performance issue with a specific facility.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 338 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
49 | P a g e
6 EXISTING SYSTEM ANALYSIS

6.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION
This Section discusses the hydraulic model development and calibration for the existing water systems to meet the current and future needs of the City’s service area. The hydraulic model runs inside of a computer Geographic Information System (GIS) that manages and maps the individual components of the City’s water infrastructure. The physical components of the hydraulic model include water pipelines, valves, storage tanks, pumping facilities, source water supplies, and water demands.

The model was calibrated with operational data used to set boundary conditions. Extended period simulations were performed using demand and supply data, along with demand patterns developed in previous sections. Settings were adjusted to calibrate the model to a reasonable representation of the system performance, and the model was considered calibrated when its output matched the collected instrumentation data.

Once calibrated, several scenarios were analyzed to evaluate operating pressure and pipeline flow velocity. Each scenario was chosen to represent the different operational conditions of the system. These scenarios included:
• Existing System operating under Average Day Demands
• Existing System operating under Maximum Day Demands with and without Fire Flow • Existing System operating under Peak Hour Demands
Because the size of the non-potable water system and recycled water system is small, with only a well pump into the distribution pipe, the existing system will not be modeled. However, since the City is planning to construct recycled water reservoirs at the WWTP, the current system was modeled with these future reservoirs.

The results of these scenario analyses are presented in subsection 6.4. The results are summarized in color-coded maps to identify out-of-range pressure nodes and/or pipeline segments quickly. In addition, the results of these analyses are used to identify improvements to the system that will become recommended capital improvement projects.

6.2 METHODOLOGY
A detailed hydraulic model is a valuable tool used to analyze the complex operation of a water system.

The general steps of a model formulation are:

1. Inputting the system’s physical data in GIS format

2. Obtaining meter data to set boundary conditions in the model

3. Translating the physical data into a network of nodes and links

4. Inputting accurate water demands

5. Calibrating the model to simulate actual field conditions and system performance

6. Performing model runs based on current and future system conditions to predict performance.

The physical data required for a hydraulic model includes the geographic network of pipes, nodes, tanks, pump stations, valves, and supply sources representing the City’s potable water system. The connectivity Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 339 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
50 | P a g e
of the pipes and nodes in GIS allows the system components in the model to be hydraulically linked. Pipe information includes the pipe diameter, length, pipe material, and associated roughness coefficient. The roughness coefficient function, known as the Hazen-Williams “C” factor (when the Hazen-Williams head loss formula is used), estimates friction losses in the system. The “C” factor is assigned based on the diameter, material, and when known, pipe age. However, “C” factors are subjective, and also based on industry best practices and operations input. Node information contains the node elevation and water demand or supply at that point in the system.

Initial hydraulic boundary conditions must be entered into the model database. Of particular importance is the initial water level for tanks and the initial open/closed setting for control valves. City water supply sources, such as pumped sources from groundwater wells and treatment plants, can be modeled as either varied or constant supplies into the water system. Understanding and adequately simulating these boundary conditions is critical to the successful calibration of the model.

Determining accurate water demands is crucial to developing an accurate hydraulic model. Metered demands, water supplies, pumped flows, and changes in tank volumes are reviewed over a given period to determine actual daily demand patterns. Annual consumption by metered account provides a spatial distribution of demand and average system usage.

Node elevations were updated using current topographic maps. Where available, as-built information was used to update the model to match existing conditions. Storage tanks were annotated with ground elevation, diameter, and height. Operational settings in the model were verified during workshops with the City staff and through a detailed review of SCADA operational data. These settings were updated in the hydraulic model. The locations of normally closed valves were also confirmed and identified in the model.

The current operational status and functionality for the City’s potable water system pressure reducing stations (PRS) were obtained from City staff and updated in the hydraulic model. Settings provided by City staff represent typical conditions and may vary depending on the season, system demands, and storage conditions. For example, operations staff may change the settings to allow more water into a particular system to fill a tank or less water to turn over the tank.

6.3 HYDRAULIC MODEL CALIBRATION
The final step in developing a reliable hydraulic model is calibration. For the 2021 Master Plan, SCADA information was evaluated to provide the City with a reliable and accurate overview of its potable water system. This was necessary to analyze the water distribution system correctly. A properly calibrated model provides the confidence needed to make significant capital planning decisions and delivers a planning tool to guide operational decisions.

Macro-level calibration procedures use continuous monitoring to obtain data points to simulate system operations over an extended period. Actual field data can be obtained using SCADA records or by placing monitoring equipment in the system. For the City’s potable model calibration, a week of data from August 2019 was obtained from SCADA for tank levels, pump station flows and/or status, and pressures, where available. The data was used to establish boundary conditions for the calibration period.

The hydraulic model was calibrated for an extended period simulation (EPS). EPS calibration was performed to ensure the model accurately reflects how the overall system operates over time concerning Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 340 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
51 | P a g e
transmission mains, pumps, tanks, and reservoir operations under normal operating conditions. A preliminary review of the model data was conducted before EPS calibration. It was believed to provide a reasonably accurate representation of actual system characteristics in water main geometry, spatial demand allocation, and pipe roughness. Precise duplication of the data recorded at all locations within the water distribution system during extended period calibration is not realistic due to many factors influencing the results. Model calibration aims to minimize the error between the SCADA and the model simulations and create a “best fit” at all locations. Some error between the SCADA and model simulations is expected; however, limits to the amount of allowable error must be made to ensure the calibrated model accurately represents the existing potable water distribution system. Based upon the size and number of facilities in the developed model, the desired accuracies of the extended period calibration for the hydraulic model are:

1. Minimum of twenty-four (24) hours is performed.
2 Tank levels must be within five feet (5’) between field data and model simulations at least eighty percent (80%) of the time.

3. Tank levels must be within eight feet (8’) between field data and model simulations the entire time.

A composite time-of-day demand curve was determined for each pressure zone within the potable water system for extended period calibration based on available SCADA data and plant production rates. The time-of-day diurnal demand curve is a series of 24-hour demand factors that define how water usage varies over a day. Each demand factor is defined as the ratio of the hourly demand to the daily average.

The composite time-of-day calibration demand curve corresponding to each potable water pressure zone is provided in Chart 6-1.

Chart 6-1: Composite Time-of-Day Demand Curve
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 341 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
52 | P a g e
The diurnal curves developed for model calibration closely resemble the traditional “double hump” pattern of water use throughout the day, with morning and evening peak demands. The morning peak hour demand, which occurs from 3:00 - 6:00 a.m., was 2.2 - 4.8 times the average use for the day, which represents the peak water use for the day for most of the system, with the exception for Pressure Zone 1900, where peak water use occurs during the evening.

Extended period simulations were performed on the potable water system using the demand curves developed above. In general, the tanks and SCADA points exhibited similar trending patterns in the model compared to the field data collected. Tank and pump station trending graphs resulting from the extended period calibration are included in Appendix B.

Examples of the calibration results are shown in Chart 6-2 and Chart 6-3, illustrating some of the variations between the field data and model simulations. The calibration results for these two tanks are examples of the level of accuracy between actual tank water levels observed and the model predictions throughout the system. In summary, the extended period simulation satisfies the calibration goals discussed with City staff.

Chart 6-2: Calibration Results for 1350 PZ Tank Levels – 1 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 342 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
53 | P a g e
Chart 6-3: Calibration Results for 1350 PZ Tank Levels – 2 During the extended period model calibration, adjusting valve and pump settings slightly to simulate accurate tank levels was necessary. Table 6-1 includes the calibration results after localized adjustments to improve the model's accuracy. Typically, this information would include pumped flows and discharge pressures. Actual pump flows were estimated based on pump status for all sites except the Country Club Booster pump station, which was not available. The modeled flows are within ten percent (10%) of the total anticipated flow presented in SCADA. Discharge pressures were only provided for this site as well.

While they are consistently less than SCADA (approximately 7 – 10%), this could be due to an elevation discrepancy, pump losses, location of the gage, and other factors.

Table 6-1: Model Calibration Accuracy
Parameter
Allowable
Deviation
Minimum
Acceptance
Required
Acceptance
Level Achieved
Tank Level Differential between field and
model
2 feet 80% 70%
Tank Level Differential between field and
model
5 feet 100% 97%
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 343 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
54 | P a g e

6.4 EXISTING SUPPLY ANALYSIS – POTABLE WATER SYSTEM

6.4.1 SCENARIO 1: EXISTING SYSTEM, ADD, EPS, MAX PRESSURE OVER 24 HOURS This scenario models the average daily demand for the system, primarily looking at the pressure within the system. As described in the design criteria, the preferred pressures will be between forty (40) psi and 150 psi. Figure 6-1 shows the results of the analysis. Most high-pressure areas that exceed the 150 psi pressure limit are in the western portions of each pressure Zone 1570, 1700, 1900, 2100, and 2340 near the zone boundaries, which can be expected. In addition, higher pressure was also identified downstream of booster stations P-2381 and P-2382, which pump water from Ward Way Reservoirs to higher pressure zones.

6.4.2 SCENARIO 2: EXISTING SYSTEM, MDD, EPS, MAX PRESSURE OVER 24 HOURS This scenario models the maximum daily demand for the system, primarily looking at the pressure within the system. The model as calibrated used the peak day on the maximum month for the year and is therefore considered to be the MDD. The pressure range, less than forty (40) psi and greater than 150 psi, was used to locate areas are of concern. Figure 6-2 shows the results of this analysis, with similar results as Scenario 1—a few areas with high pressure in the western portion of Zone 1900.

6.4.3 SCENARIO 3: EXISTING SYSTEM, MDD, EPS, MAX VELOCITY OVER 24 HOURS The MDD Scenario was used to analyze the pipe velocities within the system. The maximum velocity design criteria was used to identify pipeline projects for the CIP to alleviate high system velocities. Figure 6-3 shows that very few areas exceed the maximum recommended velocity. The areas with high velocities are near pumping stations, which is expected.

6.4.4 SCENARIO 4: EXISTING SYSTEM, MDD, FIRE FLOW, RESIDUAL PRESSURE DURING FIRE EVENT (Steady State)
This scenario analyzed the residual pressure at fire hydrants during a fire flow event. To provide adequate fire flow pressure, the residual pressure should not fall below twenty (20) psi. The minimum required fire flow was generated utilizing information supplied by the City. Figure 6-4 shows the residual pressures from the fire flow scenario.

6.4.5 SCENARIO 5: EXISTING SYSTEM, PHD, STEADY-STATE SCENARIO, MIN PRESSURE This scenario analyzed the system pressures under peak hour demand. The maximum day demand and peaking factors were used for the simulation. The pressure range used to determine adequate pressure was between forty (40) psi and 150 psi. Figure 6-5 shows the results of this analysis. The results are similar to results from Scenarios 1 and 2. The high-pressure area is located in the western portion of Zone 1900 and the west portion of the City’s service area.

6.4.6 SCENARIO 6: EXISTING SYSTEM, PHD, STEADY-STATE SCENARIO, MAX VELOCITY This scenario analyzed the velocity conditions under peak hour demand. Although a few isolated areas exceed the maximum recommended velocity, there are no significant areas with excess velocity.

Generally, locations with high velocity are near pumping stations which is expected. The results are shown in Figure 6-6.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 344 of 728
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
#
#
#
#
#
#
" " " "
"
"
" "
"
" "
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
" "
" " " "
""
"
%%
% % %
%
%
% % %% %
%
%%
%
UT
UT
UT
UT UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UTUT
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Figure 6-1
Hydraulic Capacity Evaluation
Existing System, ADD, EPS, Maximum Pressure Over 24 Hours ±
0 1 0.5
Miles
Junction
AVE_PRESS
less than 40.00

40.00 ~ 150.00
greater than 150
Tank
TYPE
UT Active
UT Domain
Well
TYPE
% Active
% Domain
Pump
TYPE
" Active
" Domain
Valve
TYPE
# Active
# Domain
Pipe
TYPE
Active
Domain
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 345 of 728
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
#
#
#
#
#
#
" " " "
"
"
" "
"
" "
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
" "
" " " "
""
"
%%
% % %
%
%
% % %% %
%
%%
%
UT
UT
UT
UT UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UTUT
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Figure 6-2
Hydraulic Capacity Evaluation
Existing System, MDD, EPS, Maximum Pressure Over 24 Hours ±
0 1 0.5
Miles
Junction
MAX_PRESS
less than 40.00

40.00 ~ 150.00
greater than 150
Tank
TYPE
UT Active
UT Domain
Well
TYPE
% Active
% Domain
Pump
TYPE
" Active
" Domain
Valve
TYPE
# Active
# Domain
Pipe
TYPE
Active
Domain
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 346 of 728
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
#
#
#
#
#
#
" " " "
"
"
" "
"
" "
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
" "
" " " "
""
"
%%
% % %
%
%
% % %% %
%
%%
%
UT
UT
UT
UT UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UTUT
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Figure 6-3
Hydraulic Capacity Evaluation
Existing System, MDD, EPS, Maximum Pipe Velocity Over 24 Hours ±
0 1 0.5
Miles
Tank
TYPE
UT Active
UT Domain
Well
TYPE
% Active
% Domain
Pump
TYPE
" Active
" Domain
Valve
TYPE
# Active
# Domain
Pipe
MAX_VELOC
less than 7.50

7.50 ~ 10.00
greater than 10.00
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 347 of 728
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
#
#
#
#
#
#
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
" "
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
%%
% % %
%
%
% % %% %
%
%
%%
%
UT
UT
UT
UT UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UTUT
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Figure 6-4
Hydraulic Capacity Evaluation
Existing System, MDD, Fireflow Scenario, Residual Pressure During Fire Event ±
0 1 0.5
Miles
Junction

RESIDPRESS
less than 20.00

20.00 ~ 30.00
greater than 30.00
Tank
TYPE
UT Active
UT Domain
Well
TYPE
% Active
% Domain
Pump
TYPE
" Active
" Domain
Valve
TYPE
# Active
# Domain
Pipe
TYPE
Active
Domain
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 348 of 728
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
#
#
#
#
#
#
" " " "
"
"
" "
"
" "
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
" "
" " " "
""
"
%%
% % %
%
%
% % %% %
%
%%
%
UT
UT
UT
UT UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UTUT
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Figure 6-5
Hydraulic Capacity Evaluation
Existing System, PHD, Steady State Scenario, Maximum Pressure ±
0 1 0.5
Miles
Junction
MAX_PRESS
less than 40.00

40.00 ~ 150.00
greater than 150
Tank
TYPE
UT Active
UT Domain
Well
TYPE
% Active
% Domain
Pump
TYPE
" Active
" Domain
Valve
TYPE
# Active
# Domain
Pipe
TYPE
Active
Domain
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 349 of 728
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
#
#
#
#
#
#
" " " "
"
"
" "
"
" "
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
" "
" " " "
""
"
%%
% % %
%
%
% % %% %
%
%%
%
UT
UT
UT
UT UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UTUT
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Figure 6-6
Hydraulic Capacity Evaluation
Existing System, PHD, Steady State Scenario, Maximum Velocity ±
0 1 0.5
Miles
Tank
TYPE
UT Active
UT Domain
Well
TYPE
% Active
% Domain
Pump
TYPE
" Active
" Domain
Valve
TYPE
# Active
# Domain
Pipe
MAX_VELOC
less than 7.50

7.50 ~ 10.00
greater than 10.00
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 350 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
61 | P a g e

6.5 EXISTING SUPPLY ANALYSIS – NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM & RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM

6.5.1 ZONE 1 SUPPLY
Zone 1 currently contains a single well and the WWTP that primarily produces water for the SCE Mountain View Power Plant. However, some of this water is blended with the California Street Well to service Zone

1. Typically, the recycled water from the WWTP supplies Zone 1. However, when the power plant needs more water or the WWTP decreases its water production, the California Street Well increases its water production to supply this zone. It should be noted that the system does not have any storage capacity and requires the pumps to turn on and off depending on the current demand of the system. The City is currently engineering two (2) recycled water reservoirs for construction at the WWTP in the future to resolve this issue.

6.5.2 SYSTEM 2 SUPPLY
System 2 is currently supplied by five (5) wells: Well No. 30A, Well No. 31, Well No. 32, Well No. 41, and the New York Street Well, although Well No. 30A and the New York Street Well are the primary supply wells. Well No. 30A is typically the primary yearly source. The New York Street Well supplements production during spring and summer months and decreases production during autumn. It should be noted that the system does not have any storage capacity and requires the pumps to turn on and off depending on the current demand of the system. In addition to on and off control of pumps the pressure is regulated with the use of Cla-Valves. There will be instances where water will be discharged to the storm drain while maintaining the system pressure for end users.

6.5.3 SYSTEM 3 SUPPLY
There are no existing non-potable sources in this system. However, BVMWC does supply some parts of the northern part of this system, which include the University of Redlands and Redlands Sports Park. This is provided through the open-air BVMWC Reservoir at Agate.

6.5.4 DETACHED SYSTEMS
The detached systems typically include a well, a single pipeline, and the end-user. The purpose of these wells is to provide groundwater to a specific single end-user, such as a park or golf course.

6.5.5 SCENARIO 1, EXISTING SYSTEM, ADD, EPS, MAX PRESSURE OVER 24 HOURS This scenario looks at the pressure of the existing system and the future reservoirs. As Figure 6-7 shows, the existing system operates with some low-pressure areas in the east part of Zone 1. These areas are primarily due to low demand within the system.

6.5.6 SCENARIO 2, EXISTING SYSTEM, MDD, EPS, MAX PIPE VELOCITY OVER 24 HOURS This scenario looks at the MDD for the existing system modeled with the future reservoirs to check for excess velocity. Velocity below ten (10) fps is acceptable, with a preferred velocity of five (5) fps. As Figure 6-8 shows, four (4) areas exceed ten (10) fps and should be upsized. These projects are shown and explained further in Table 6-2.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 351 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
62 | P a g e
Table 6-2: Undersized Non-Potable Water System Pipelines Street From To
Existing
Material
Length
(ft)
Existing
Diameter
(in)
Proposed
Diameter
(in)
New
Material
NP-CIP-1
Pioneer
Ave
Nevada St Alabama
St
DIP 2608 6 12 DIP
Alabama
St
Pioneer
Ave
625’
South of
Pioneer St
DIP/PVC 624 6 12 DIP
Subtotal 3232
NP-CIP-2
Orange
Tree Ln
California
St
Oregon St PVC 1900 6 8 DIP
Orange
Tree Ln
Oregon St
240' East
of Plum Ln PVC 1468 6 10 DIP
Subtotal 3368
NP-CIP-3
Texonia
Park N//A N//A DIP 1006 10 & 12 16 DIP
W Lugonia
Ave
Texas St Lawton St STL/PVC 1200 6,8, & 10 12 DIP
Subtotal 2206

6.5.7 OTHER AGENCIES
Currently, three (3) other agencies operate non-potable water sources within the City water service area and its sphere of influence. The Crafton Water Company (CWC), BVMWC, and Western Height Water agencies. These water agencies primarily irrigate City-owned agricultural and landscape areas within the City and its sphere of influence. The City has partial ownership of these and several other local water companies. Additional water stock information is available on the City website. The City owns 184 acres of citrus groves divided into twenty-three (23) separate groves. BVMWC provides irrigation water for seven (7) of these groves and some nearby parks. CWC provides irrigation water for two (2) groves and parts of Crafton. These groves and the water providers are listed in Table 6-3.

Table 6-3: City-Owned Citrus Groves
No. Name1 Water Provider2 Acres1
1 Mullin Bear Valley 8.5
2 Judson Bear Valley 13.1
3 Lugonia Bear Valley 18
4 Pioneer & Judson East Bear Valley 2.7
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 352 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
63 | P a g e
No. Name1 Water Provider2 Acres1
5 Pioneer & Judson West Bear Valley 4.3
6 Dearborn & Pioneer Bear Valley 8.6
7 Granite Bear Valley 2.7
Subtotal 57.9
8 Fifth Ave C.W.C. 10.6
9 Jacinto Memorial C.W.C. 4.2
Subtotal 14.8
10 Riverview Groves on Wells 5.9
11 University Grove Groves on Wells 23.5
Subtotal 29.4
12 Ramirez Recycled Water 4.6
13 Daniels Recycled Water 4.9
Subtotal 9.5
14 Beal Park City 0.4
15 California City 4.8
16 Fire Station 262 City 0.04
17 Mountain View City 13.9
18 Olive City 3.7
19 Prospect City 25
20 Texas City 12.5
21 Wabash City 1.4
22 West Redlands Gateway City 6.4
23 West Riverview City 4.3
Subtotal 72.44
Total 184.04
Note: (1) From City Owned Citrus Grove Map provided by the City; (2) Provided by the City.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 353 of 728
^
^
>
>
>
>
>>
>
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
±
0 0.7 0.35
Miles
Junction
MAX_PRESS
less than 40.00

40.00 ~ 150.00
greater than 150
> <all other values>
TYPE
> Active
> Domain
> Inactive
Tank
^ <all other values>
TYPE
^ Active
^ Domain
^ Inactive
Pipe
<all other values>
TYPE
Active
Domain
Inactive
Figure 6-7
Hydraulic Capacity Evaluation
Existing System, ADD, EPS, Maximum Pressure Over 24 Hours Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 354 of 728
>
>
>
>
>>
>
^
^
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
±
0 0.7 0.35
Miles
Tank
^ <all other values>
TYPE
^ Active
^ Domain
^ Inactive
Reservoir
> <all other values>
TYPE
> Active
> Domain
> Inactive
Pipe
MAX_VELOC
less than 7.50

7.50 ~ 10.00
greater than 10.00
Figure 6-8
Hydraulic Capacity Evaluation
Existing System, MDD, EPS, Maximum Pressure Over 24 Hours Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 355 of 728

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 356 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
66 | P a g e
7 FUTURE SYSTEM

7.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Several additional potable water system scenarios were analyzed to evaluate future operating conditions and evaluate pressure and pipeline flow velocity under these conditions. The future conditions were selected to represent 2042 projected water demands, assuming that all improvements identified in Section 6 are completed. Five (5) scenarios were analyzed, including ADD, MDD, PHD, and fire flow conditions. The results are summarized in color-coded maps to quickly identify out-of-range pressure nodes and/or undersized pipeline segments. Additional CIP project recommendations were developed based on this analysis.

The City's existing non-potable water system was analyzed to develop a future water system to decrease potable water use and better serve the City's existing recycled/non-potable water system. Scenarios were modeled to evaluate system pressure and velocity under various conditions, and evaluated against the design criteria. Utility billing data was used to identify potential customers for expansion of the system.

When possible, meters providing agricultural or landscape irrigation water were read to supplement the utility billing data. New pipelines are assumed to be eight inches (8”) in diameter, and the hydraulic model assumed construction of the WWTP recycled water storage reservoirs was complete.

7.2 FUTURE SUPPLY ANALYSIS – POTABLE WATER SYSTEM

7.2.1 SCENARIO 1 FUTURE DEMAND, EXISTING SYSTEM, MDD, FIRE FLOW SCENARIO, RESIDUAL PRESSURE DURING FIRE HOURS.

This scenario used the predicted future MDD of approximately thirty-seven (37) MGD to analyze fire flow and used the minimum of twenty (20) psi of residual pressure for fire hydrants. Figure 7-1 shows areas of concern that appear similar to the existing demand analysis. The pipe sections with deficiencies are included in the CIP list in Table 7-1.

7.2.2 SCENARIO 2 FUTURE DEMAND, EXISTING SYSTEM, MDD, EPS SCENARIO, MAX PRESSURE OVER 24 HOURS.

This scenario used the existing system under the future MDD of approximately thirty-seven (37) MGD to predict the distribution of pressure within the system. Figure 7-2 shows the results of this analysis. Areas of high pressure were identified primarily in the west sized of Zone 1570, portions of Zone 1750, and in the western portions of Zone 2100.

7.2.3 SCENARIO 3 FUTURE DEMAND, ADD, EPS SCENARIO, MAX PRESSURE OVER 24 HOURS This scenario analyzed the future ADD and the maximum pressure in the system. The simulation identified pressures higher than 150 psi within the western portion of Pressure Zones 1570, 1900, and 2340. The results are shown in Figure 7-3.

7.2.4 SCENARIO 4 FUTURE DEMAND, MDD, EPS SCENARIO, MIN PRESSURE OVER 24 HOURS This scenario analyzed the future MDD to locate minimum pressures. It shows that the low-pressure system area is primarily in the western portion of Pressure Zone 2100. The western parts of Pressure Zone 1570 and 2340 still have high pressures. The results are shown in Figure 7-4.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 357 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
67 | P a g e

7.2.5 SCENARIO 5 FUTURE DEMAND, MDD, EPS SCENARIO, MAX VELOCITY OVER 24 HOURS This scenario analyzed the future MDD velocities within the existing system. It shows isolated areas where velocities are above 10 feet per second. These pipelines are included in the CIP list in Table 7-1. The results are shown in Figure 7-5.

7.2.6 SCENARIO 6 FUTURE DEMAND, FUTURE SYSTEM, MDD, FIRE FLOW SCENARIO, RESIDUAL PRESSURE DURING FIRE HOURS.

This scenario analyzed the future MDD of the system during a fire flow event. The low residual pressures are included in the CIP list in Table 7-1. The results are shown in Figure 7-6.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 358 of 728
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
#
#
#
#
#
#
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
" "
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
%%
% % %
%
%
% % %% %
%
%
%%
%
UT
UT
UT
UT UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UTUT
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Figure 7-1
Hydraulic Capacity Evaluation
Future Demand, Existing System, MDD, Fireflow Scenario, Residual Pressure During Fire Event ±
0 1 0.5
Miles
Junction

RESIDPRESS
less than 20.00

20.00 ~ 30.00
greater than 30.00
Tank
TYPE
UT Active
UT Domain
Well
TYPE
% Active
% Domain
Pump
TYPE
" Active
" Domain
Valve
TYPE
# Active
# Domain
Pipe
TYPE
Active
Domain
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 359 of 728
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
#
#
#
#
#
#
" " " "
"
"
" "
"
" "
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
" "
" " " "
""
"
%%
% % %
%
%
% % %% %
%
%%
%
UT
UT
UT
UT UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UTUT
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Figure 7-2
Hydraulic Capacity Evaluation
Future Demand, Existing System, MDD, EPS, Maximum Pressure Over 24 Hours ±
0 1 0.5
Miles
Junction
MAX_PRESS
less than 40.00

40.00 ~ 150.00
greater than 150
Tank
TYPE
UT Active
UT Domain
Well
TYPE
% Active
% Domain
Pump
TYPE
" Active
" Domain
Valve
TYPE
# Active
# Domain
Pipe
TYPE
Active
Domain
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 360 of 728
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
#
#
#
#
#
#
" " " "
"
"
" "
"
" "
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
" "
" " " "
""
"
%%
% % %
%
%
% % %% %
%
%%
%
UT
UT
UT
UT UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UTUT
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Figure 7-3
Hydraulic Capacity Evaluation
Future Demand, Future System, ADD, EPS, Maximum Pressure Over 24 Hours ±
0 1 0.5
Miles
Junction
AVE_PRESS
less than 40.00

40.00 ~ 150.00
greater than 150
Tank
TYPE
UT Active
UT Domain
Well
TYPE
% Active
% Domain
Pump
TYPE
" Active
" Domain
Valve
TYPE
# Active
# Domain
Pipe
TYPE
Active
Domain
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 361 of 728
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
#
#
#
#
#
#
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
" "
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
%%
% % %
%
%
% % %% %
%
%
%%
%
UT
UT
UT
UT UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UTUT
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Figure 7-4
Hydraulic Capacity Evaluation
Future Demand, Future System, MDD, EPS Scenario, Minimum Pressure Over 24 Hours ±
0 1 0.5
Miles
Junction
MIN_PRESS
less than 40.00

40.00 ~ 120.00
greater than 120
Tank
TYPE
UT Active
UT Domain
Well
TYPE
% Active
% Domain
Pump
TYPE
" Active
" Domain
Valve
TYPE
# Active
# Domain
Pipe
TYPE
Active
Domain
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 362 of 728
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
#
#
#
#
#
#
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
" "
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
%%
% % %
%
%
% % %% %
%
%
%%
%
UT
UT
UT
UT UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UTUT
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Figure 7-5
Hydraulic Capacity Evaluation
Future System, MDD, EPS Scenario, Maximum Velocity Over 24 Hours ±
0 1 0.5
Miles
Tank
TYPE
UT Active
UT Domain
Well
TYPE
% Active
% Domain
Pump
TYPE
" Active
" Domain
Valve
TYPE
# Active
# Domain
Pipe
MAX_VELOC
less than 7.50

7.50 ~ 10.00
greater than 10.00
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 363 of 728
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
#
#
#
#
#
#
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
" "
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
%%
% % %
%
%
% % %% %
%
%
%%
%
UT
UT
UT
UT UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UTUT
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Figure 7-6
Hydraulic Capacity Evaluation
Future System, Future System, MDD, Fireflow Scenario, Residual Pressure During Fire Hours ±
0 1 0.5
Miles
Junction

RESIDPRESS
less than 20.00

20.00 ~ 30.00
greater than 30.00
Tank
TYPE
UT Active
UT Domain
Well
TYPE
% Active
% Domain
Pump
TYPE
" Active
" Domain
Valve
TYPE
# Active
# Domain
Pipe
TYPE
Active
Domain
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 364 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
74 | P a g e

7.3 FUTURE SUPPLY ANALYSIS – NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM & RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM

7.3.1 SCENARIO 1, FUTURE SYSTEM, ADD, EPS, MAX PRESSURE OVER 24 HOURS As Figure 7-7 shows, the expanded system is within the forty (40) psi and 150 psi pressure design criteria.

This will prevent loud noise and fatigue due to high water pressure, and will provide adequate water pressure to the City's customers.

7.3.2 SCENARIO 2, FUTURE SYSTEM, ADD, EPS, MAX PIPE VELOCITY OVER 24 HOURS This scenario looks at the ADD for the expanded system to check for high velocities. As Figure 7-8 shows, the developed system will result in a few pipelines that will exceed the maximum acceptable velocity of ten (10) fps.

7.3.3 SCENARIO 3, FUTURE SYSTEM, MDD, EPS, MAX PRESSURE OVER 24 HOURS The maximum pressure scenario was run to determine the system's pressure during the MDD. Figure 7-9 shows that most of the system will have adequate demand, with a few areas that slightly exceed the recommended pressure range of forty (40) psi and 150 psi.

7.3.4 SCENARIO 4, FUTURE SYSTEM, MDD, EPS, MAX PIPE VELOCITY OVER 24 HOURS This scenario looks at the PHD for the expanded system to check for high velocities, and assumes a MDD peaking factor of 2.7. As Figure 7-10 shows, the developed system will result in a few pipelines that will exceed the maximum acceptable velocity of ten (10) fps. However, these pipelines are the same as those in the existing system analysis.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 365 of 728
^
^
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
±
0 1 0.5
Miles
Junction
MAX_PRESS
less than 40.00

40.00 ~ 150.00
greater than 150
Tank
^ <all other values>
TYPE
^ Active
^ Domain
^ Inactive
Pipe
Pipe
Reservoir
Reservoir
Figure 7-7
Hydraulic Capacity Evaluation
Proposed Future System, ADD, EPS, Maximum Pressure Over 24 Hours Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 366 of 728
>>>>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>
^
^
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
±
0 1 0.5
Miles
Reservoir
> <all other values>
TYPE
> Active
> Domain
> Inactive
Pipe
MAX_VELOC
less than 7.50

7.50 ~ 10.00
greater than 10.00
Tank
^ <all other values>
TYPE
^ Active
^ Domain
^ Inactive
Figure 7-8
Hydraulic Capacity Evaluation
Existing System, ADD, EPS, Maximum Pipe Velocity Over 24 Hours Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 367 of 728
^
^
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
±
0 1 0.5
Miles
Junction
MAX_PRESS
less than 40.00

40.00 ~ 150.00
greater than 150
Tank
^ <all other values>
TYPE
^ Active
^ Domain
^ Inactive
Pipe
<all other values>
TYPE
Active
Domain
Inactive
Reservoir
Reservoir
Figure 7-9
Hydraulic Capacity Evaluation
Proposed Future System, MDD, EPS, Maximum Pressure Over 24 Hours Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 368 of 728
>>>>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>
^
^
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
±
0 1 0.5
Miles
Reservoir
> <all other values>
TYPE
> Active
> Domain
> Inactive
Pipe
MAX_VELOC
less than 7.50

7.50 ~ 10.00
greater than 10.00
Tank
^ <all other values>
TYPE
^ Active
^ Domain
^ Inactive
Figure 7-10
Hydraulic Capacity Evaluation
Existing System, MDD, EPS, Maximum Pipe Velocity Over 24 Hours Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 369 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
79 | P a g e

7.4 SUMMARY OF DEFICIENCIES

7.4.1 POTABLE WATER SYSTEM
Twelve (12) potable water system deficiencies were identified, and each were recommended a CIP project to resolve the issue. These deficiencies are related to high velocities, low fire flow pressure, and undersized pipelines. The list of deficiencies discovered is shown in Table 7-1.

Table 7-1: Potable Water System Deficiencies
CIP Location Reason Comments
CIP-1 San Bernardino Ave from
Agate Ave to Crafton Ave
Maximum velocity > 10
fps
Replace with larger pipe
CIP-2 Mill Creek Rd near Mill
Creek Reservoir
Maximum velocity > 10
fps
Dead ends removed from CIP due to no
demand. Extended Pipeline replacement
to Mill Creek Rd.

CIP-3
Jasper Ave from Mentone
Blvd to Nice Ave
Fire Flow Pressure
Issues
Looping dead-end to Nice St to fix issue. Opal Way from Naples Ave to Mentone Blvd
Naples Ave from Jaspar Ave
to Opal Way
CIP-4
Opal Ave from 6th Ave to
end of Pipeline
Fire Flow Pressure
Issues
Complex Project, Changing contingency of
project from 30% to 40%.
6 th Ave from Opal Ave to
Marion Rd
Marion Rd/Marvin Ave from
Camelot Dr to Pleasantview
Dr
Wabash Ave from 6th Ave to
end of Pipeline
CIP-5
Pennsylvania Ave from
Lassen St to Church St
Fire Flow Pressure
Issues
Replace with larger pipe
CIP-6
University Station/ Orange
Blossom Trail from
University St to Grove St Pipe Diameter Size too
small Replace with larger pipe
Cook St from University
Station to Sylvan Blvd
CIP-7
End of Pipeline from St
Catherine St to Valencia
Drive
Maximum velocity > 10
fps
Assumed to be a Lateral due to the pipe
being a dead-end and small diameter
CIP-8
San Bernardino Ave from
Nelson St to Judson St
Maximum velocity > 10
fps
Small Diameter Size causing high velocity,
assumed to be error
CIP-9
Park Ave from City limits to
Essex Ct
Fire Flow Pressure
Issues
Fire flow was determined to be lower
than assumed
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 370 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
80 | P a g e
CIP Location Reason Comments
Amigos Dr from Park Ave to
Rancho Dr
Rancho Dr from end of
Pipeline to New Jersey St
New Jersey St from Park Ave
to Redlands Blvd
CIP-10
Emerald Ave from Newport
Ave to Tres Lagos St Fire Flow Pressure
Issues
Low pressure due to elevation. A subzone
Newport Ave from Garnet St may be needed to fix issue
to Emerald Ave
CIP-11
Fairmont Dr from Sunset Dr
to end of Pipeline Fire Flow Pressure
Issues
Low pressure due to elevation. A subzone
Manzanita Rd from end of may be needed to fix issue
Pipeline to Fairmont Dr

7.4.2 NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM & RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM
Currently, no storage reservoirs exist within the recycled water system. The City is currently engineering two (2) 1.5 MG recycled water reservoirs for future construction at the WWTP. Additional system storage will be necessary as demand increases. Also, the detached non-potable water systems are not efficient and should be connected in the future. Doing so allows additional connections to be transitioned to the non-potable water system, which will reduce potable water system demand.

7.5 MITIGATION OF DEFICIENCIES

7.5.1 METHODOLOGY
The primary method of correcting high velocity or low pressure associated with fire flow demand is to increase the pipe diameter or loop dead ends, where possible. The issues found in the potable water system modeling can be corrected by increasing pipe diameters or looping in some areas. The non-potable water system and recycled water system can be improved by adding storage capacity and joining disconnected systems.

7.5.2 PROJECTS FOR FUTURE CONDITIONS – POTABLE WATER SYSTEM Deficient pipeline segments are listed in Table 7-2 along with the recommended replacement pipeline diameter, the segment length, and the estimated cost for each. The cost estimate includes labor, equipment, materials, for each project, and a budget for unanticipated construction issues. The approach to developing cost estimates is explained in Section 10. The total length of all projects is five (5) miles and is estimated to cost approximately $3.7M. Figure 7-11 shows the locations of each deficient pipeline segment. Figure 7-12 and Figure 7-13 show the anticipated system hydraulic improvements if all deficiencies are resolved.

Table 7-2: Recommended CIP to Correct Deficiencies
CIP
New
Diameter (in)
Replacement
Material
Length
(LF) Cost Estimate
CIP-1 24 DIP 2046 $654,720
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 371 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
81 | P a g e
CIP
New
Diameter (in)
Replacement
Material
Length
(LF) Cost Estimate
CIP-2 8 DIP 203 $33,000
CIP-3 8 DIP 649 $104,000
CIP-4 12 DIP 11979 $2,395,800
CIP-5 8 DIP 1142 $183,000
CIP-6 8 DIP 1569 $251,000
CIP-7 N/A DIP TBD TBD
CIP-8 N/A DIP TBD TBD
CIP-9 N/A DIP TBD TBD
CIP-10 N/A DIP TBD TBD
CIP-11 N/A DIP TBD TBD
Totals 27,193 $ 3,621,520

7.5.3 PROJECTS FOR FUTURE CONDITIONS – NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM & RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM
Currently, no storage reservoirs exist within the recycled water system. The City is currently engineering two (2) 1.5 MG recycled water reservoirs for future construction at the WWTP. It is recommended that another reservoir be constructed in Zone 1. The specific location for this reservoir requires additional analysis. It is recommended that the minimum storage capacity for the expanded system be three (3) MG.

It is also recommended that detached systems be connected where practical. Connecting all detached systems would require approximately sixty (60) miles of eight inch (8”) diameter pipelines, and a small amount of twelve inch (12”) pipelines, throughout the west and southwest portions of the City.

Connecting the Redlands Country Club, Hillside Memorial Park, and Redlands Dog Park systems would allow additional connection transitions to the Pressure System 2 of the non-potable water system, potentially reducing potable water system demand by 0.9 MGD.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 372 of 728
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
#
#
#
#
#
#
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
" "
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
%%
% % %
%
%
% % %% %
%
%
%%
%
UT
UT
UT
UT UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UTUT
CIP-16
CIP-6
CIP-9
CIP-2
CIP-8
CIP-11
CIP-19 CIP-13
CIP-7
CIP-15
CIP-17
CIP-5 CIP-3
CIP-12
CIP-10
CIP-14
CIP-4
CIP-18
CIP-1
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Figure 7-7
Capital Improvement Programs
±
0 1 0.5
Miles
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 373 of 728
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
#
#
#
#
#
#
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
" "
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
%%
% % %
%
%
% % %% %
%
%
%%
%
UT
UT
UT
UT UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UTUT
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Figure 7-8
Capital Improvement Programs
Future System, MDD, EPS Scenario, Maximum Velocity Over 24 Hours ±
0 1 0.5
Miles
Tank
TYPE
UT Active
UT Domain
Well
TYPE
% Active
% Domain
Pump
TYPE
" Active
" Domain
Valve
TYPE
# Active
# Domain
Pipe
MAX_VELOC
less than 7.50

7.50 ~ 10.00
greater than 10.00
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 374 of 728
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
#
#
#
#
#
#
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
" "
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
%%
% % %
%
%
% % %% %
%
%
%%
%
UT
UT
UT
UT UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UTUT
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Figure 7-13
Capital Improvement Programs,
Future System, Future System, MDD, Fireflow Scenario, Residual Pressure During Fire Hours ±
0 1 0.5
Miles
Junction

RESIDPRESS
less than 20.00

20.00 ~ 30.00
greater than 30.00
Tank
TYPE
UT Active
UT Domain
Reservoir
TYPE
% Active
% Domain
Pump
TYPE
" Active
" Domain
Valve
TYPE
# Active
# Domain
Pipe
TYPE
Active
Domain
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 375 of 728

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 376 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
85 | P a g e
8 WATER QUALITY

8.1 METHODOLOGY
A common water quality concern in potable water distribution systems is water age. Water quality degrades over time and the loss of disinfection residual often leads to customer taste and odor complaints. Though not as strict as the requirements for potable water, the non-potable and recycled water systems must meet specific state and federal regulatory requirements for irrigation, agricultural, and commercial/industrial uses. Due to the lack of storage reservoirs in the existing non-potable water system and recycled water system, water age is not a good indicator of water quality, and should be analyzed when reservoirs are added to the systems.

8.2 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
The State of California and the U.S. EPA require potable water to meet rigid water quality standards prior to distribution. The City obtains water from surface and groundwater sources. Groundwater sources typically contain more microbial contaminants, inorganic contaminants, pesticides, herbicides, and industrial chemical byproducts. As a result, wells are closely monitored to make sure that the water being pumped from the Bunker Hill groundwater basin meets all regulatory requirements.

Recycled water regulations are identified in the California Code of Regulations 2018 Title 22 – Division 4 Chapter 3. Because the WWTP process includestertiary treatment and disinfection, the following recycled water common uses are allowed:

1. Irrigation of food crops, including all edible root crops, where the recycled water comes into contact with the edible portion of the crop;

2. Irrigation of parks and playgrounds;

3. Irrigation of school yards;

4. Irrigation of residential landscaping;

5. Irrigation of golf courses;

6. Any other irrigation uses not specified in this section and not prohibited by different areas of the California Code of Regulations.

Tertiary water is also allowed for industrial and commercial cooling, and is used at the SCE Mountain View Power Plant. Groundwater extracted by the non-potable water wells is typically classified as undisinfected secondary water, and can be used for surface irrigation. However, more rigid water quality standards may apply when this groundwater may be reasonably expected to contact the edible portion of food crops.

8.3 GOALS AND PREFERENCES
The City must not exceed potable water MCL established by the state and federal regulatory agencies for coliform bacteria, turbidity, metals like aluminum and lead, nitrates, fluoride, and other contaminants.

State and federal regulatory agencies also establish Primary Drinking Water Standards to regulate other pollutants. Finally, the U.S. EPA has established secondary standards for drinking water aesthetics. The City has not violated any of these regulations or standards. Disinfected tertiary recycled water standards are identified in the State of California Code of Regulations.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 377 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
86 | P a g e

8.4 ASBESTOS
The City water distribution systems include approximately 200 miles of asbestos cement pipelines, which can release asbestos fibers into the water supply if the pipeline has deteriorated. Asbestos is a known carcinogen that can cause breathing problems, lung cancer, Mesothelioma, and a host of other health problems when certain exposure conditions exist. State regulatory agencies have established a limit of seven (7) million asbestos fibers per liter of water. It is recommended that these pipelines are evaluated for replacement if they exceed their service life or are found to have integrity issues that could cause asbestos to enter the water system.

8.5 GROUNDWATER QUALITY
The Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin is an alluvial groundwater basin fed by multiple tributaries, including the Santa Ana River and Mill Creek, which are located within the City’s water service area. The Bunker Hill Sub-basin, also known as the San Bernardino Basin Area (SBBA), lies within a portion of the Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin and has a surface area of approximately 89,600 acres and a groundwater storage capacity of 5,976,000 acre-feet.

8.5.1 BUNKER HILL SUBBASIN/SBB
Based on the State’s Department of Water Resources, Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin, Bunker Hill Sub-basin Report, the SBBA is part of the northeastern portion of the Upper Santa Ana Valley Basin.

The Santa Ana River, Mill Creek, and Lytle Creek are the main tributaries for this sub-basin, which is bordered by the San Gabriel Mountains, San Bernardino Mountains, and Crafton Hills. The Banning fault, Redlands Fault, San Andrea Fault, San Jacinto Fault, and the Glen Helen fault are located within the SBBA as well. The total dissolved solids (TDS) of the SBBA groundwater is typically 155 mg/l - 1,140 mg/l, and some portions of the SBBA frequently exceed MCL standards for nitrates, perchlorates, volatile organic compounds (VOC), and Synthetic Organic Compounds (SOC).

The City is located in the southern portion of the SBBA, and extracts SBBA groundwater for potable water and non-potable water production. SBBA water meeting state and federal water quality standards does not need additional treatment or disinfection for potable use. Alternatively, extracted groundwater exceeding nitrate or perchlorate MCLs may be distributed for non-potable use.

8.6 SOURCE WATER QUALITY
When available, the Hinckley and Tate raw water influent may be supplemented with SWP water for treatment and potable water distribution. The City has ownership in various private and mutual water companies to supply water to the City’s Tate and Hinckley WTP. SWP water is not always available, and is only used as a last resort. SWP water often includes organics and sediment that are difficult to treat, so it is typically blended with raw water influent from other sources prior to treatment.

The quality of non-potable water varies depending on the extraction location. Groundwater extracted from one (1) location may be blended with groundwater extracted from another location to improve water quality within the non-potable water distribution system.

The City WWTP typically produces recycled water with less than five (5) mg/l BOD, five (5) mg/l TSS, ten (10) mg/l total nitrogen, and 0.2 NTU turbidity. This water can be blended with non-potable water to further improve water quality. Constructing recycled water storage reservoirs will create additional opportunities to improve water quality.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 378 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
87 | P a g e

8.7 DISINFECTION
The City disinfects water with Sodium Hypochlorite and chlorine gas to prevent microbial contaminant migration into the potable water system. The disinfectant residual typically ranges from 0.8 mg/l -1.2 mg/l.

8.8 WATER AGE
The water age in water supply systems depends primarily on maintaining an efficient demand and supply balance through the use of SCADA, providing adequate water storage volume, and operation and maintenance practices. The potable water system is designed to provide storage reserve to support emergency relief efforts such as fire suppression and earthquake damage.

The Water Industry Database (AWWA and AWWA RF 1992) indicates an average potable water distribution system retention time of 1.3 days and a maximum retention time of twenty-four (24) days based on a survey of more than 800 U.S. utilities. In addition, the literature cites examples of both “short” (less than three days) and “long” (greater than three days) water ages. Several water age recommendations published in the literature are summarized below in Table 8-1.

Table 8-1: Water Age Recommendations
Population
Served
Water Main
Length (mi)
Water Ages
(Days) Method of Determination
800,000 2,750 3 to 7 Hydraulic Model
300,000 1,100 1 to 3 Fluoride tracer
80,000 358 More than 16 Chloramine Conversion
24,000 86 12 to 24 Hydraulic Model
Note: Source is USEPA Effects of Water Age on Distribution System Water Quality, August 15, 2002 Several smaller cities with populations between 50,000 - 100,000 report water age of three (3) to sixteen (16).

8.9 WATER AGE POTENTIAL HEALTH IMPACTS
Potential health impacts associated with the water age-related chemical and biological issues are identified in Table 8-2.

Table 8-2: Potential Water Age Issues
Chemical Issues Biological Issues Physical Issues
Disinfection By-Product Formation Disinfection By-Product Biodegradation Temperature Increase
Disinfectant Decay Nitrification Sediment Deposition
Corrosion Control Effectiveness Microbial Regrowth/Recovery/Shielding Color Taste and Odor Taste and Odor
Note: (1) The source is USEPA Effects of Water Age on Distribution System Water Quality, August 15, 2002; (2) The Chemical Health Effects Tables (U.S. EPA, 2002a) summarizes potential adverse health effects from high/long-term exposure to hazardous chemicals in drinking water.

The Microbial Health Effects Tables (U.S. EPA, 2002b) summarizes potential health effects from exposure to waterborne pathogens, the most concerning of which are the formation of disinfection by-products, presence of haloacedic acid (HAA5) and trihalomethanes(TTHM), and nitrification and microbial regrowth after disinfectant depletion.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 379 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
88 | P a g e

8.10 WATER AGE DETERMINATION
Water age can be predicted by conducting hydraulic modeling and analysis, mathematical modeling and fluid dynamics computations, and tracer studies using fluoride, sodium chloride, calcium chloride, lithium chloride, pulsed chlorine, and coagulants. Mathematical modeling is arguably the least accurate of these methods.

8.11 CITY OF REDLANDS WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM AGE
An ADD potable water age analysis was conducted using the hydraulic model, as shown in Figure 8-1, and indicated typical water age is three (3) days, and increases to twelve (12) days at the edges of the water system and in the potable water storage reservoirs. More specifically, water age within the potable water system distribution system piping is typically one to three (1 – 3) days, and storage reservoir water age is typically seven to twelve (7 – 12) days.

Water age is primarily a function of the system size, operation, SCADA automation, and design. As water demand increases, the amount of residence time in the distribution system decreases. Demand is related to land use patterns, types of commercial-industrial activity present in a community, weather, the general living conditions (pandemic, work from home, etc.), and community water use habits (water conservation practices, reuse practices, etc.). Cities with effective water conservation programs typically experience greater water age when all other factors are constant, due to reduced demands.

The water age analysis, water quality data review, and site visits did not indicate water quality issues within the City potable water supply system. This finding is consistent with the annual Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) prepared and distributed to all potable water customers to provide specific water quality characteristics. The CCR complies with state and federal regulatory agency requirements.

The installation of mechanical mixers in potable water storage reservoirs is recommended to prevent water quality issues related to longer retention times. Table 8-3 summarizes the storage reservoir hydraulic model water age evaluation.

Table 8-3: Storage Reservoir Water Age
Reservoir
Percent
Full
(%)
Level
(ft)
Water Age
(days)
5th Ave 53 11.92 11.3
Agate 72 18.04 7.0
Arroyo 59 23.74 11.0
Country Club Reservoirs 66 12.6 11.1
Crafton 19 5.63 11.7
Dearborn 31 7.9 11.7
Highland 68 18.91 11.3
Margarita 85 11.96 11.7
Mill Creek 58 11.57 11.2
Sand Canyon 29 11.37 11.7
Smiley 32 7.12 10.1
South Ave 75 19.53 10.7
Sunset 39 24.5 11.6
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 380 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
89 | P a g e
Reservoir
Percent
Full
(%)
Level
(ft)
Water Age
(days)
Texas Grove 77 15.32 11.4
Texas St 84 29.45 11.5
Ward Way Reservoirs 51 15.92 11.7

8.12 INDICATORS OF HIGH WATER AGE
Aesthetic issues such as discoloration, poor taste, and noxious odors may be caused by water age, deteriorating pipeline materials, treatment and disinfection practices, and turbidity. No aesthetic issues were noted during the site visits and contacts with the Operations staff.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 381 of 728
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
#
#
#
#
#
#
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
" "
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
%%
% % %
%
%
% % %% %
%
%
%%
%
UT
UT
UT
UT UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UTUT
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Figure 8-1
Hydraulic Capacity Evaluation
Existing System, ADD, Water Age Analysis Scenario WQ- A ±
0 1 0.5
Miles
Tank
TYPE
UT Active
UT Domain
Well
TYPE
% Active
% Domain
Pump
TYPE
" Active
" Domain
Valve
TYPE
# Active
# Domain
Pipe
AVE_QUAL
less than 24.00

24.00 ~ 72.00

72.00 ~ 240.00
greater than 240.00
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 382 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
91 | P a g e
9 WATER SYSTEM OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

9.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Operations and maintenance practices for all water systems were reviewed to develop improvement recommendations. This included a review of available records and operating procedures during several site visits and MUED staff workshops.

9.2 SCADA
Water Production Operators monitor and operate the water system through a comprehensive SCADA system. SCADA is used to gather and analyze real-time or near real-time sensor data, which is used for monitoring treatment plants, transmission, and distribution processes. The system monitors pressure and flow, storage reservoir levels, and treatment processes. SCADA is also useful for collecting regulatory reporting data, obtaining operational information for planning purposes, optimizing energy and chemical use, identifying water loss, and improving various maintenance practices. The City is developing Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for the operation, security, and long-term maintenance of the SCADA system.

9.3 WORK ORDER PROCESS
The City is currently implementing an electronic asset management system to improve work order processing efficiency. This system populates a database that will be used to accurately determine operation and maintenance resource needs and associated costs, including labor, equipment, materials, price, date, and location tracking.

9.4 INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
The MUED staff inspects water production and distribution facilities routinely and has inspection and maintenance protocols in place for treatment plants, storage reservoirs, wells, booster pumps, and other equipment. Preventive maintenance activities are conducted in accordance with manufacturer recommendations. The CIP project recommendations include regularly scheduled mechanical and electrical equipment maintenance and replacement, storage reservoir inspection and maintenance, and other routine practices to ensure the water systems continue to function efficiently.

9.5 WATER SYSTEM STAFF AND MANAGEMENT
The MUED organization includes Water Distribution (WD), Water Production (WP), and WWTP Divisions to operate and maintain the water systems. The Utilities Operations Manager oversees all water and wastewater production, distribution, operation, and maintenance practices, and is supported by a Regulatory Compliance Officer and an Administrative Assistant.

The WD Division includes Water Distribution System Operators and Field Technicians. The Field Technicians are primarily responsible for servicing and reading water meters for water utility billing. Most water meters are read manually or with an Automated Meter Reader (AMR) system, both of which are labor intensive. This group includes the following staff positions:
• Senior Customer Service Field Technician (1)
• Customer Service Field Technician (1)
• Meter Readers (3)
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 383 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
92 | P a g e
The Water Distribution Operators maintain the water distribution systems. This group includes the following staff positions:
• Water Distribution Superintendent (1)
• Cross Connection Control Inspector (1)
• Water Distribution Supervisor (1)
• Water Distribution Crew Leaders (4)
• Water Distribution Operators (12)
The Water Production Division operates and maintains all water production facilities, including WTP, storage reservoirs, groundwater wells, pressure reducing valves, and booster pumps. This group includes the following staff positions:
• Water Production Superintendent (1)
• Administrative Assistant (1)
• Water Production Supervisor (1)
• Water Maintenance Supervisor (1)
• Maintenance Foreperson (1)
• Water Treatment Operator (8)
• Water Quality Technician (3)
• Plant Mechanic (3)
• Maintenance Worker (3)
• Electrical & Instrumentation Technician (2)
The WWTP Division is responsible for recycled water production from the City WWTP effluent. This group includes the following staff positions:
• Wastewater Operations Superintendent (1)
• Administrative Assistant (1)
• Wastewater Operations Supervisor (1)
• Wastewater Collections Supervisor (1)
• Maintenance Foreperson (1)
• Wastewater Facilities Operator (6)
• Plant Mechanic (3)
• Maintenance Worker (2)
• Line Maintenance Worker (7)
• Laboratory Manager (1)
• Laboratory Analyst (4)
MUED staffing for operation and maintenance of the potable water system, non-potable water system, and recycled water system is appropriate for the size and complexity of each system, and meets general Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 384 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
93 | P a g e
guidance provided in the U.S. EPA Public Water System Classification and Staffing Requirements and AWWA M5 manual.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 385 of 728

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 386 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
94 | P a g e
10 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

10.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION
This section presents the proposed capital improvements for the next five (5) years and a general description of the improvements recommended through 2042. This section also recommends recurring annual capital expenditures to repair or replace aging and outdated infrastructure, including meter and pipeline replacements. The water systems analysis described in sections 6 and 7 was used as the basis for identifying CIP project recommendations. The CIP project recommendations are based on a review of the existing City CIP, as well as deficiencies predicted by the hydraulic model in the existing infrastructure for current conditions and projected future growth conditions.

The CIP projects were evaluated based on the following:
• Hydraulic analysis of existing and projected water supply systems requirements; • Condition assessment based on the visual inspection of the Hinckley and Tate WTP, reservoir sites with booster pumps, and associated electrical and mechanical equipment; • Risk-based asset register database evaluation.

The hierarchy of projects is established using several methodologies. The first methodology employed is a hydraulic analysis of existing and future water supply systems. The highest priority projects are those with hydraulic deficiencies and/or regulatory compliance issues. These are planned for the first five-year period. The following criticality methodology relies on the well and booster pump efficiency analysis and the distribution systems age. The third methodology uses condition assessment based on the site visits.

10.1.1 APPROACH TO PLANNING LEVEL COSTS
Each CIP project recommendation includes an OPC based on planning level quantity estimates. Unit costs are based on vendor quotes and actual bid prices for projects of similar scope and size. In some cases, the OPC was adjusted to account for specific site conditions. Each OPC includes standard mark-ups for contingencies, engineering fees, legal fees, administrative costs, and other soft costs to provide a complete budget level prediction of project costs. Table 10-1 summarizes OPC assumptions for each CIP project recommendation.

Table 10-1: CIP Project Recommendation OPC Assumptions
OPC Item Markup Assumption
Construction Contingency 10%-25% 1
Engineering 15%
Legal & Administration 5%
TOTAL 1.30x-1.45x Construction Cost 1
Note: (1) Varies based on the complexity of the project.

Many of the recommended projects consist of replacing water pipelines, rehabilitation of existing well sites and equipment, booster pump repair or replacement, or rehabilitation of reservoir facilities.

Modifications and upgrades to existing pumping facilities tend to be more complex than pipeline replacement projects, and higher contingency and soft cost factors were used for these facilities. All cost Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 387 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
95 | P a g e
opinions are shown in 2022 dollar values, and should be escalated for project implementation in future years. Each OPC is considered a Class 5 Construction Cost Opinion as defined by the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) International Recommended Practice No. 18R-97. Table 10-2 below defines the various cost opinion classes defined by AACE International.

Table 10-2: AACE Construction Cost Classes
COST

OPINION
CLASS
Primary
Characteristic Secondary Characteristic
Level of
Project
Definition
End Usage Methodology Expected
Accuracy Range
Preparation
Effort
Expressed as
% of
Complete
Definition
Typical
Purpose of
Cost Opinion
Typical
Estimating
Method
Typical Variation
in Low and High
ranges (a)
Typical
Degree of
effort
relative To
Least Cost
Index of
1(b)
Class 5 0% to 2% Concept
Screening
Capacity
Factored.

Parametric
Models.

Judgment or
Analogy
L: -20% to -50%
H: +30% to
+100%
1 Class 4 1% to 15% Study or
Feasibility
Equipment
Factored or
Parametric
Model
L: -15% to -30%
H: +20% to +50%
2 to 4
Class 3 10% to 40% Budget
Authorization
, or Control
Semi-Detailed
Unit Costs with
Assembly Level
Line Items
L: -10% to -20%
H: +10% to +30%
3 to 10
Class 2 30% to 70% Control or
Bid/ Tender
Detailed Unit
Cost with Forced
Detailed TakeOff
L: -5% to -15%
H: +5% to +20%
4 to 20
Class 1 50% to 100% Check
Estimate or
Bid/Tender
Detailed Unit
Cost with
Detailed Take-Off
L: -3% to -10%
H: +3% to +15%
5 to 100
Note: (1) The state of process technology and applicable reference cost data availability affects the range markedly. The +/- value represents typical percentage variation of actual costs from the cost estimate after applying contingency (typically at a 50% level of confidence) for a given scope. (2) If the range index value of "1" represents 0.005% of project costs, then an index value of 100 represents

0.5%. Estimate preparation effort depends on the size of the Project and the quality of estimating data and tools.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 388 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
96 | P a g e

10.2 OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
The CIP projects consist of specific project recommendations to repair, replace, or upgrade existing facilities. Recurring consumable replacement and preventive maintenance requirements are generally excluded and not considered a capital improvement. The CIP projects for potable water have been divided into six (6) broad categories, sorted by the facility type. Each category is described below.

10.2.1 CIP ITEM W1: POTABLE WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
CIP item W1 includes projects that are part of the potable water distribution system, including pipelines, pipeline appurtenances, and metering infrastructure.

The potable water system elements are proposed for replacement because of the 12.8% water loss reported in 2020. The losses include meter inaccuracies and other possible contributors such as unaccounted connections. Reductions in water loss after successfully implementing the proposed CIP could significantly offset the initial investment. The City has replaced aging pipelines annually since 2010, totaling to more than eighty-nine (89) miles of replaced pipeline. In 2015, the City developed a funding plan that included revenue increases to continue this practice annually. Metering of the distribution system is also included in the W1 project list. The potable water distribution system is fully metered and the City has a meter replacement and maintenance plan in place. Meters smaller than 2" are replaced every fifteen to twenty (15 – 20) years, and all meters over two inches (2") are calibrated and repaired if necessary to ensure accuracy. In 2021, the City began a five year project to replace all water meters within its service area.

Additionally, from 2014 to 2015, MUED staff conducted an audit on all commercial properties/accounts to ensure all connections were accounted for in the City's billing system. This allowed the City to decrease unaccounted for water loss and the associated loss in revenue. The City is currently implementing Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) system to improve efficiency in the meter readings.

10.2.2 CIP ITEM W2: HINCKLEY TREATMENT PLANT
CIP item W2 includes projects located at the Hinckley WTP. As Hinckley ages, equipment will need to be repaired, replaced, and upgraded. CIP project recommendations are related to the following:
• Sludge Presses
• Generators
• MCC Installations
• Aging Mechanical Equipment

10.2.3 CIP ITEM W3: TATE TREATMENT PLANT
CIP item W3 includes projects identified at the Tate WTP. As Tate ages, equipment will need to be repaired, replaced, and upgraded. CIP project recommendations are related to the following:
• Raw Water Influent Line
• Clarifier Coating Systems
• Clarifier Covers
• Influent Flash Mixer
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 389 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
97 | P a g e
• NaOCl Disinfection System
• EIMCO Settlers
• MCC Installations
• Aging Mechanical Equipment

10.2.4 CIP ITEM W4: POTABLE WATER BOOSTER PUMP STATIONS CIP item W4 includes projects located at the City’s potable water booster pump stations. These projects primarily focus on station refurbishment or rehabilitation but may require other capital improvements.

Maintaining and improving these booster stations can increase energy and water treatment efficiency.

Booster pump stations will require rehabilitation as equipment ages and efficiency declines. CIP project recommendations assume a typical service life of twenty (20) years. Projects should be scheduled on a rotating basis to distribute the financial impact over the planning horizon. Brady completed a condition, seismic, and structural assessment of all water facilities, which should be used to supplement these CIP project recommendations. The executive summary of the assessment can be found in Appendix F.

10.2.5 CIP ITEM W5: POTABLE WATER STORAGE RESERVOIRS
CIP item W5 includes projects related to both the concrete and steel potable water storage reservoirs, including refurbishment and upgrades to meet current standards. Also included are projects to increase facility reliability, correct known deficiencies, and improve water quality within the tank. Brady completed a condition, seismic, and structural assessment of all water facilities, which should be used to supplement these CIP project recommendations. The executive summary of the assessment can be found in Appendix F.

Corrosion is visible on some equipment and steel storage reservoir exterior walls. Although the cathodic protection cabinets at some reservoirs are showing signs of aging, they are still functional and in working condition but are nearing the end of their service life. Steel storage reservoirs should be inspected, maintained, and retrofitted with corrosion protection or replaced. Steel storage reservoirs typically require recoating and corrosion repairs every twenty (20) years. After recoating, the steel tanks must be dewatered, inspected, and minor coating repairs made at regular intervals during the coating life.

Concrete storage reservoirs typically require less frequent replacement and maintenance.

10.2.6 CIP ITEM W6: GROUNDWATER WELLS
CIP item W6 includes project recommendations related to groundwater wells. As groundwater wells age, they need to be repaired, replaced, and upgraded. In addition to physical wear, some wells may require improvements to resolve groundwater contaminant issues. Perchlorate has been detected at some groundwater wells, and the City will need to assess the need for perchlorate treatment at several well sites. This evaluation will determine the level and type of treatment necessary at each site. Currently Perchlorate levels at Well No. 38 and Well No. 39 will require design of a wellhead treatment system beginning in 2022.

By 2030 – 2035, additional potable water supply will be needed to meet demands. The use of groundwater wells will be less costly than the expansion of surface WTP. It is recommended that inactive well sites be assessed for rehabilitation, including measures to mitigate groundwater contamination where necessary, and returned to active status to increase potable water supply.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 390 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
98 | P a g e

10.2.7 FUTURE WATER SUPPLY PLANNING
The City may need to increase water treatment capacity at Hinckley and/or Tate to meet future demands unless potable water use is decreased, or groundwater wells are refurbished and reactivated. However, to increase capacity at the Tate WTP will require an assessment and improvement to the distribution system to eliminate the bottleneck presently existing at the discharge from the Tate WTP. The extent of these capacity upgrades will be determined based on the expansion of the recycled water system and future demands. The need to increase treatment capacity will also be affected by the future availability of surface water and the number of active groundwater sources. CIP project recommendations that affect water supply and production should be scheduled and implemented before planning year 2035, when potable water demand could exceed available supply.

10.2.8 CIP NP1: NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
CIP item NP1 includes project recommendations related to the repair, replacement, and improvement of non-potable wells, non-potable meter replacements, and general system deficiencies. Non-potable groundwater well sites should be inspected and maintained regularly, and rehabilitated every ten (10) years. Meters should be inspected and maintained regularly, including periodic accuracy verification, and replaced in accordance with manufacturer recommendations. The non-potable water system could be improved by implementing an AMI system to reduce operating costs. Three (3) CIP project recommendations will improve system hydraulics. These projects are recommended for completion within the next five (5) years.

Also included in NP1 are recommendations to expand and consolidate the non-potable water system at the City’s discretion. This would include construction of new pipelines, along with associated booster stations and other necessary equipment.

10.2.9 CIP NP2: RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
CIP NP2 includes project recommendations related to the repair, replacement, improvement, and expansion of the recycled water system. This includes the construction of two (2) storage reservoirs and several pipeline additions and replacements, and assumes all pipelines will be replaced within seventy (70) years
Also included in NP2 are recommendations to expand and consolidate the recycled water system at the City’s discretion. This would include construction of new pipelines, including a transmission line from the WWTP’s proposed storage reservoirs located in System 1 to System 2 at the Texas St. non-potable pumping station. It will also be necessary to construct a new non-potable reservoir or repurpose the existing potable water reservoir at this site. Improvements are also needed for other pipelines, associated booster stations, and other necessary equipment.

10.3 PROJECTS AND COSTS

10.3.1 POTABLE WATER SYSTEM CIP PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS Potable water system 5-year CIP project recommendations and estimated costs are provided in Table 10- 3, and summarized by category in Chart 10-1.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 391 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
99 | P a g e
Chart 10-1: Potable Water System 5-Year CIP Cost Summary Table 10-3: 5-Year Potable Water CIP Recommendations
W1 Water Distribution System FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 5-year Total W1-1 Pipeline Replacement $4,500,000 $4,500,000 $4,500,000 $4,500,000 $4,500,000 $22,500,000 W1-2 Water Meter Replacements $1,815,000 $1,815,000 $1,815,000 $1,815,000 $1,815,000 $9,075,000 CIP W1 Subtotal $6,315,000 $6,315,000 $6,315,000 $6,315,000 $6,315,000 $31,575,000 W2 Hinckley Treatment Plant FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 5-year Total W2-1 Hinckley Sludge Press $355,000 $345,000 $0 $0 $0 $700,000 W2-2
Replace Aging Mechanical & MCC
Equipment $0 $90,000 $470,000 $470,000 $470,000 $1,500,000 CIP W2 Subtotal $355,000 $435,000 $470,000 $470,000 $470,000 $2,200,000 W3 Tate Treatment Plant FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 5-year Total W3-1 Tate Transmission Line Replacement $835,549 $1,900,000 $1,900,000 $0 $0 $4,635,549 W3-2 Tate Clarifier Recoating $0 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,000,000 W3-3 Tate Clarifier Covers $0 $1,560,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,560,000 W3-4 Tate Influent Flash Mixer $0 $0 $180,000 $0 $0 $180,000 W3-5 Tate NaOCl Disinfection System $0 $0 $360,000 $0 $0 $360,000 W3-6
Replace Aging Mechanical & MCC
Equipment $0 $90,000 $470,000 $470,000 $520,000 $1,550,000 CIP W3 Subtotal $835,549 $4,550,000 $2,910,000 $470,000 $520,000 $9,285,549 W4 Booster Stations FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 5-year Total W4-1 1750 Blend Manifold Replacement $120,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $120,000 W4-2 Booster Pump Station Rehabilitation $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $1,500,000 CIP W4 Subtotal $420,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $1,620,000 W5 Reservoirs - Potable FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 5-year Total W5-1 Reservoir Sites Fixed Generators $0 $750,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $1,650,000 W5-2 Sunset Reservoir Replacement $2,000,000 $6,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $8,000,000 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 392 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
100 | P a g e
W5-4 Seismic Assessment Improvements $1,000,000 $2,891,000 $0 $1,571,333 $0 $5,462,333 W5-5
Texas Grove Reservoir Stair
Installation $0 $0 $0 $90,000 $0 $90,000
CIP W5 Subtotal $3,000,000 $9,641,000 $300,000 $1,961,333 $300,000 $15,202,333 W6 Groundwater Wells FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 5-year Total W6-1
Groundwater Well Equipping
Rehabilitation $514,000 $506,000 $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 $2,820,000 W6-2 East Lugonia Well 3 Replacement $0 $0 $3,000,000 $0 $0 $3,000,000 W6-3
Groundwater Contamination
Mitigation $575,000 $575,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $2,150,000 W6-4 Entrained Air Treatment Assessment $0 $0 $600,000 $0 $0 $600,000 CIP W6 Subtotal $1,089,000 $1,081,000 $5,200,000 $600,000 $600,000 $8,570,000 Potable water system 20-year CIP project recommendations and estimated costs are provided in Table 10-4, and summarized by category in Chart 10-2. Annually recurring projects are assumed to have the same costs each year. Figure 10-1 provides a map depicting the remaining service life of the potable water system facilities.

Table 10-4: 20-Year Potable Water CIP Recommendations
Project 2022-2026 2027-2031 2032-2036 2037-2041 20-year Total W1 - Water Distribution
System $31,575,000 $31,575,000 $31,575,000 $31,575,000 $126,300,000 W2 - Hinckley Treatment
Plant1 $2,200,00 N/A N/A N/A $2,200,00
W3 - Tate Treatment
Plant1 $9,285,549 N/A N/A N/A $9,285,549
W4 - Booster Stations -
Potable $1,620,000 $3,883,690 $1,620,000 $1,620,000 $8,743,690 W5 - Reservoirs - Potable $15,202,333 $5,198,000 $180,000 $180,000 $20,760,333 W6 - Groundwater Wells2 $8,570,000 $7,912,500 $5,487,500 $6,750,000 $28,720,000 Total $68,452,882 $48,569,190 $38,862,500 $40,125,000 $196,009,572 Note: (1) A condition assessment was performed in 2021 on the Hinckley and Tate Treatment Plants based on current conditions. Hinckley is 36-year-old, and Tate is 55 years old. The mechanical and electrical equipment may need to be replaced in the future, but the information is not included and is labeled as Optional. The cost opinion for replacing mechanical and electrical equipment was based on the 2022 economic indices. The potential cost for each plant's electrical and mechanical replacement is estimated at 1-2 million dollars per year in the CIP planning horizon. Therefore, a detailed conditional mechanical and electrical equipment assessment is needed to determine accurate mechanical and electrical CIP elements. (2) The 20-year cost for W6 - Wellhead Treatment is dependent on the Wellhead Evaluation.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 393 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
101 | P a g e
Chart 10-2: Potable Water System 20-Year CIP Cost Summary Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 394 of 728
Redlands Potable Water Pipes Remaining Service Life °
0 0.5 1
Miles
Source: ESRI, USGS, City of Redlands
Riverside
County
San
Bernardino
County
Yucaipa
Yucaipa
Sphere Of
Influence
Loma Linda
Loma Linda
Sphere Of
Influence
Highland
San
Bernardino
Redlands
Sphere Of
Influence
Redlands
Sphere Of
Influence
Redlands
Remaining Service Life
Over Service Life
Remaining Service Life: 0-5 Years
Remaining Service Life: 6-10 Years
Remaining Service Life: 11-15 Years
Remaining Service Life: 16-20 Years
Remaining Service Life: 21-50 Years
Remaining Service Life: 50+ Years
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 395 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
103 | P a g e

10.3.2 NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM CIP PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS Non-potable water system 5-year CIP project recommendations and estimated costs are provided in Table 10-5.

Table 10-5: 5-Year Non-Potable Water CIP Recommendations NP 1 Non-potable Water Improvements FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 5-year Total NP 1.1 Pipeline Replacement and Expansion $0 $0 TBD TBD TBD TBD NP 1.2 Groundwater Well Equipment
Rehabilitation $267,000 $136,000 $375,000 $375,000 $375,000 $1,528,000 CIP NP 1 Subtotal $267,000 $136,000 $375,000 $375,000 $375,000 $1,528,000 NP 2 Recycled Water Improvements FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 5-year Total NP 2.1 Recycle Water Reservoirs - design
two & build in phases $734,839 $0 $3,000,000 $0 $3,000,000 $6,734,839 NP 2.2 Pipeline Replacement and Expansion $0 $0 $750,000 $750,000 $3,000,000 $1,500,000 CIP NP 2 Subtotal $734,839 $0 $3,750,000 $750,000 $3,000,000 $8,234,839 Non-potable water system 20-year CIP project recommendations and estimated costs are provided in Table 10-6. Annually recurring projects are assumed to have the same costs each year. Figure 10-2 provides a map depicting the remaining service life of the non-potable and recycled water systems facilities.

Table 10-6: 20-Year Non-Potable Water CIP Recommendations NP 1 Non-potable Water Improvements 2022-2026 2027-2031 2032-2036 2037-2041 20-year Total NP 1.1 Pipeline Replacement and Expansion TBD $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $3,000,000 NP 1.2 Groundwater Well Equipment
Rehabilitation $1,528,000 1,007,800 $1,108,600 $1,219,500 $4,863,900 NP 1.3 Meter Replacement $0 $0 $55,000 $55,000 $110,000 CIP NP 1 Subtotal $1,528,000 $2,007,800 $2,163,600 $2,274,500 $7,973,900 NP 2 Recycled Water Improvements 2022-2026 2027-2031 2032-2036 2037-2041 20-year Total NP 2.1 Recycle Water Reservoirs - design
two & build in phases $6,734,839 $0 $0 $0 $6,734,839
NP 2.2 Pipeline Replacement and Expansion $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $4,500,000 CIP NP 2 Subtotal $8,234,839 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $11,234,839 CIP NP Total $9,762,839 $3,007,800 $3,163,600 $3,274,500 $19,208,739 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 396 of 728
Redlands Recycled Water Pipes Remaining Service Life °
0 0.5 1
Miles
Source: ESRI, USGS, City of Redlands
Riverside
County
San
Bernardino
County
Yucaipa
Yucaipa
Sphere Of
Influence
Loma Linda
Loma Linda
Sphere Of
Influence
Highland
San
Bernardino
Redlands
Sphere Of
Influence
Redlands
Sphere Of
Influence
Redlands
Remaining Service Life
Over Service Life
Remaining Service Life: 1-20 Years
Remaining Service Life: 21-40 Years
Remaining Service Life: 41-60 Years
Remaining Service Life: 61+ Years
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 397 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
105 | P a g e

10.4 THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
The CIP project recommendations assume that projects that meet regulatory compliance requirements and resolve hydraulic deficiencies will be constructed first. Project priorities are likely to change as economic conditions and community demographics change. A comprehensive analysis of each project is necessary prior to implementation. Cost estimates are provided in 2022 dollars, and assume no property acquisition is necessary.

10.4.1 POTABLE WATER SYSTEM CIP PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
CIP W1-1: Water Pipeline Replacements - Hydraulics
5-Year Budget Allocation: $22,500,000
Priority: High
It is recommended that the City consider an annual project to replace pipelines to resolve hydraulic deficiencies as provided in Table 10-7. The first three (3) years should focus on replacing existing pipes with deficiencies that create high velocities and/or low pressures within the system. This project replaces approximately 27,193 LF of existing undersized pipelines with new eight inch (8”), twelve inch (12”), and twenty-four inch (24”) diameter pipelines at twelve (12) locations.

Table 10-7: Pipeline Replacement
CIP
New
Diameter (in)
Length
(ft) Location Issue Budget Year
CIP-1 24 2046 San Bernardino Ave/Agate Ave High Velocity $654,720 2024 CIP-2 8 203 Mill Creek Rd High Velocity $33,000 2022
CIP-3 8 649 Naples Ave/Jasper Ave Fire Flow $104,000 2023 CIP-4 12 11979 Wabash Ave/6th Ave Fire Flow $2,395,800 2024 CIP-5 8 1142 Pennsylvania Ave/De Anza St Fire Flow $183,000 2022 CIP-6 8 1569 Park Ave/Cook St Under-Sized $251,000 2023 CIP-7 N/A TBD Valencia Dr High Velocity TBD TBD
CIP-8 N/A TBD San Bernardino Ave High Velocity TBD TBD
CIP-9 N/A TBD Park Ave/New Jersey St Fire Flow TBD TBD
CIP-10 N/A TBD Emerald Ave/Newport Ave Fire Flow TBD TBD CIP-11 N/A TBD Sunset Dr/Fairmont Dr Fire Flow TBD TBD
Approximately 34,320 LF (6.5 miles) of the City's 382 miles of water distribution pipelines are currently beyond the expected service life of the pipe material. It is recommended that the City continue to proactively replace aging pipelines once the material service life is reached. Chart 10-3 shows the service life distribution remaining in the City's pipelines.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 398 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
106 | P a g e
Chart 10-3: Potable Water Pipeline Remaining Service Life Most of the City's pipelines have twenty to fifty (20-50) years of remaining service life, with about seventy (70) miles of pipeline service life ending in the next twenty (20) years. The City should continue to replace a portion of these lines each year, with a replacement goal of approximately 28,000 LF each year, which will replace all pipelines within seventy (70) years. Pipeline segments with hydraulic deficiencies are recommended to be replaced first, followed by aging asbestos-cement pipelines. All new pipelines should a minimum of eight inches (8”) in diameter. Replacement pipeline segments should be selected yearly based on age and maintenance history, and coordinated with other projects, such as scheduled street rehabilitation projects.

CIP W1-2: Water Meter Replacement
5-year Budget Allocation: $9,075,000
Priority: Medium
In 2021, the City began a five (5) year annual project to replace all water meters. Table 10-8 provides the meter size and number of meters being replaced and Table 10-9 provides the number of meter size and number of meters being retro-fitted. It is recommended that this project be continued to reduce water loss within the system, and significantly increase revenue. After completion of the project, water meter accuracy testing should be conducted annually, meters will be replaced based on the test results, not on a predetermined length of time.

In 2022, the City began to update its meters to Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) to maintain accurate billing and analysis data. AMI will encourage water conservation and reap benefits for business and residential customers by allowing them the ability of real time water consumption.

Table 10-8: Meter Replacement
Meter Size (in) Number of Meters
5/8" 117
3/4" 4,682
1" 7,415
1 1/2" 521
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 399 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
107 | P a g e
Meter Size (in) Number of Meters
2" 497
3" 50
4" 30
6" 13
8" 8
12" 1
Total 13,334
Table 10-9: Meter Retro-Fit
Meter Size (in) Number of Meters
5/8" 60
3/4" 3,417
1" 4,346
1 1/2" 233
2" 259
3" 27
4" 22
6" 14
8" 6
Total 8,384
CIP W2-1: Hinckley Sludge Press
5-Year Budget Allocation: $700,000
Priority: Medium
This project engineers and installs a sludge press at Hinckley to reduce labor, equipment, and disposal costs associated with processing sludge residual to the treatment process.

CIP W2-2: Replace Aging Mechanical & MCC Equipment
5-Year Budget Allocation: $1,500,000
Priority: Medium
This project replaces and upgrades electrical and mechanical equipment at Hinckley as necessary. A comprehensive condition assessment should be completed annually to identify the remaining service life of equipment in order to prepare for replacement.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 400 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
108 | P a g e
CIP W3-1: Tate Transmission Line Replacement
5-Year Budget Allocation: $4,635,549
Priority: High
A Condition, Structural, & Seismic Assessment completed by Brady identified this as a top-priority project.

The City selected a consultant to engineer the replacement of this raw water influent line, with the goal of constructing the project in the near-future.

CIP W3-2: Tate Clarifier Recoating
5-Year Budget Allocation: $1,000,000
Priority: Medium
The Tate Clarifier Recoating project is on the City's CIP list. Therefore, it is recommended that this project remains in the CIP. The recommended budget for this CIP is $1,000,000.

CIP W3-3: Tate Clarifier Covers
5-Year Budget Allocation: $1,560,000
Priority: Medium
The Tate Clarifier Covers project is on the City's CIP list. Therefore, it is recommended that this project remains in the CIP. The recommended budget for this CIP is $1,560,000.

CIP W3-4: Tate Influent Flash Mixers
5-Year Budget Allocation: $180,000
Priority: Low
The Tate Influent Flash Mixers project is on the City's CIP list. Therefore, it is recommended that this project remains in the CIP. The recommended budget for this CIP is $180,000.

CIP W3-5: Tate NaOCl Disinfection System
5-Year Budget Allocation: $360,000
Priority: Low
The Tate NaOCl Disinfection System project is on the City's CIP list. Therefore, it is recommended that this project remains in the CIP. The recommended budget for this CIP is $360,000.

CIP W3-6: Replace Aging Mechanical & MCC Equipment
5-Year Budget Allocation: $1,550,000
Priority: Medium
This project replaces and upgrades electrical and mechanical equipment at Tate, as necessary. A comprehensive condition assessment should be completed annually to identify the remaining service life of equipment in order to prepare for replacement.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 401 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
109 | P a g e
Coating loss and corrosion are present on the EIMCO settlers at the plant. To maintain the equipment from metal loss and eventual failure from corrosion, the ferrous surfaces should be abrasively blasted and recoated.

CIP W4-1: 1750 Blend Manifold Replacement
5-Year Budget Allocation: $120,000
Priority: High
The 1750 Blend Manifold Replacement project is on the City's CIP list. Therefore, it is recommended that this project remains in the CIP. The recommended budget for this CIP is $120,000.

CIP W4-2: Booster Pump Station Rehabilitation
5-Year Budget Allocation: $1,500,000
Priority: Medium
The booster pump stations will need rehabilitation and refurbishment once they approach the end of their service life. Their typical service life is based on 20-year equipment life. It is recommended the City rehabilitate a single pump station each year, and the station refurbishments can be placed on a 15-year cycle. It is recommended the station priority be based on efficiency, condition, and age. Table 10-10 provides a list prioritized on efficiency from SCE pump tests.

Table 10-10: Booster Pump Stations Rehabilitation
Name
Total Num.

Pumps
Cumulative
HP
Average
Efficiency
South 5 800 49.8
Fifth Avenue 4 450 59.2
HAWC 6 975 66.6
Sand Canyon 2 200 66.7
Country Club 4 550 68.1
Agate 3 300 68.7
Dearborn 2 300 69.9
Texas 4 1000 73.5
Smiley Heights 2 80 52.0
Ford Park 2 N/A N/A
Ward Way 2 100 56
Mill Creek 2 125 56.0
CIP W5-1: Reservoir Sites Fixed Generators
5-Year Budget Allocation: $1,650,000
Priority: High
The Reservoir Sites Fixed Generators project is on the City's CIP list. Therefore, it is recommended that this project remains in the CIP. The recommended budget for this CIP is $1,650,000 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 402 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
110 | P a g e
CIP W5-2: Sunset Reservoir Replacement
5-Year Budget Allocation: $8,000,000
Priority: High
This project engineers and replaces a three (3) MG potable water storage reservoir that is seismically deficient.

CIP W5-4: Seismic Assessment Improvements
5-Year Budget Allocation: $5,462,333
Priority: Medium
The City currently owns and operates eighteen (18) storage tanks ranging from 0.2 to 10.6 MG, provided in Table 10-11. The total budget varies every year based on the recommendations from Brady.

In the first year, the City should conduct a preliminary inspection of each reservoir to assess the interior and exterior coating conditions and determine if additional upgrades are required to meet current seismic design standards and California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Agency (CalOSHA) requirements. The priority of the projects should be based on the recommendations from Brady.

Table 10-11: Storage Tank Reservoirs
Priority Name
Capacity
(MG) Type
Year
Constructed
1 Texas Grove 3.9 Steel 2004
2 Ward Way 2 Steel 1958
3 Mill Creek 1 0.2 Steel 1962
4 Smiley 3 Steel 1964
5 South 2 Steel 1964
6 Arroyo 0.5 Steel 1965
7 Sunset 3 Steel 1967
8 Agate 3 Steel 1968
9 Crafton 3.5 Steel 1970
10 Sand Canyon 3.5 Steel 1973
11 Mill Creek 2 0.2 Steel 1987
12 Texas Street 1 Steel 1956
13 Highland 10 Concrete 1976
14 Country Club 1 1 Concrete 1924
15 Country Club 2 2 Concrete 1969
16 Margarita 2.4 Concrete 1964
17 Dearborn 10.6 Concrete 1974
18 Fifth Avenue 5 Concrete 1974
Table 10-12 provides the reservoirs Brady proposes need replacing.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 403 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
111 | P a g e
Table 10-12: Replacement per Seismic Study
Priority Name
Capacity
(MG) Type
Year
Constructed
Seismic
Replacement
Budget
Replacement
Year
1 Sunset 3 Steel 1967 $8,000,000 2023
CIP W5-5: Texas Grove Reservoir Stair Installation
5-Year Budget Allocation: $90,000
Priority: TBD
The Texas Grove Reservoir Stair project is on the City's CIP list and scheduled for 2022. Therefore, it is recommended that this project remains in the CIP, and the cost be escalated twenty percent (20%) to bring the prices to the year 2022 dollars. The recommended budget in this CIP is $90,000.

CIP W6-1: Groundwater Well Equipping Rehabilitation
5-Year Budget Allocation: $2,820,000
Priority: High
The groundwater well pumping equipment will need rehabilitation and refurbishment once they approach the end of their service life. Their typical service life is based on 20-year equipment life. It is recommended the City rehabilitate one or more groundwater well-pumping equipment each year, provided in Table 10-

13. Once all wells are rehabilitated, the City should evaluate the oldest wells to determine when the next rehabilitation should start. It is recommended the station priority be based on efficiency, condition, and age. The list below is prioritized on efficiency from SCE pump tests. The costs below represent aboveground equipment only and do not include subsurface improvements.

Table 10-13: Groundwater Wells
Name
Capacity
(GPM)
Status in
2019
Efficiency HP
Rehab
Budget Rehab Year
Well 10 1400 IDLE 0.27 75 $120,000 2025
Maguet 2 400 IN USE 0.35 25 $50,000 2025
Rees 550 IN USE 0.43 250 $112,640 2024
Lugonia 3 250 IN USE 0.43 25 $35,010 2022
Madeira 600 IN USE 0.62 150 $119,058 2023
Crafton 1700 IDLE 0.65 200 $280,000 2026
Airport 2 1000 IN USE 0.68 300 $133,760 2024
Airport 1 1500 IN USE 0.70 350 $124,907 2022
Mentone Acres 2 1600 IN USE 0.71 300 $138,502 2023
Orange Street 1500 IN USE 0.74 300 $280,000 2027
North Orange Street 1 2900 IN USE 0.77 350 $128,460 2022 Church Street 2000 IN USE 0.77 400 $139,304 2024
Well 39 1250 IN USE 0.78 250 $133,030 2023
North Orange Street 2 2900 IN USE 0.78 350 $275,000 2031 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 404 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
112 | P a g e
Name
Capacity
(GPM)
Status in
2019
Efficiency HP
Rehab
Budget Rehab Year
Well 38 1600 IN USE 0.78 300 $123,230 2023
Agate 2 1750 IDLE 0.79 200 $175,000 2023
Lugonia 6 1300 IDLE UNK 75 $67,850 2022
Muni 2200 IN USE UNK 300 $314,000 2022
Well 13 3300 IDLE UNK 300 $120,000 2025
Mill Creek 2 - Surface Water 850 IN USE 0.64 75 $225,000 2025 Mill Creek 2A - Surface Water 600 IN USE .49 50 $67,200 2024 Note: (1) UNK-Un known; (2) Mill Creek 2 and 2A are detached potable wells used to deliver water to the Mill Creek Mutual Water System located on Highway 38.

CIP W6-2: East Lugonia Well 3 Replacement
5-Year Budget Allocation: $3,000,000
Priority: Low
The East Lugonia Well 3 Replacement project is on the City's CIP list. Therefore, it is recommended that this project remains in the CIP. The recommended budget for this $2,600,000.

CIP W6-3: Groundwater Contaminate Mitigation
5-Year Budget Allocation: $2,150,000
Priority: Medium
The City currently has wells with contaminates that exceed or are close to exceeding mandated MCLs.

Although these wells are not currently used for potable water production, they will eventually be needed.

It is recommended that the City implement a study to determine the water quality and the most appropriate treatment process for the specific contaminants identified, provided in Table 10-14. The project's first phase would be implementing a study, followed by treatment implementation for one set of wells each year. This approach would complete all projects by 2035 to meet future demands. The costs assume blending treatment could not be used to meet MCLs. Typically, SWRCB-DDW no longer permits blending as an alternative, but requires best available technology to achieve MCL regulation limits.

Furthermore, many emerging constituents of concern could most likely become regulated as a MCL.

Therefore, the budget costs should be revisited once the study is complete.

Table 10-14: Well Study and Treatment
Study and Evaluation Cost
Wellhead Treatment Design for Wells 38, 39, Church St, and Orange $575,000 Wellhead Treatment Design for Agate 1 and 2, Crafton, Wells 10 and 13 $575,000 Wellhead Treatment and Implementation for Wells 38 and 39 $1,000,000 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 405 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
113 | P a g e
CIP W6-4: Entrained Air Treatment Assessment
5-Year Budget Allocation: $600,000
Priority: Low
The Entrained Air Treatment Assessment project is on the City's CIP list. Therefore, it is recommended that this project remains in the CIP. The recommended budget for this $600,000. It is recommended that the City elaborates the entrained air issue further to capture the urgency and cost estimate better.

10.4.2 NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM CIP PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS CIP NP1-1 Pipeline Replacement and Expansion
5-Year Budget Allocation: TBD
Priority: Low
It is recommended that the City budget for hydraulically deficient pipeline replacements, provided in Table 10-15. The NPW CIP should be focused heavily on replacing existing pipes with deficiencies that create high velocities or pressures as predicted by the hydraulic model performed for this Master Plan.

The replacement of this pipeline is divided into 4 separate areas, grouped by segments in the exact physical location.

Table 10-15: Non-Potable Pipeline Replacement
CIP New
Diameter (in)
Length
(ft) Street Issue Budget
NP-CIP-1 12 2,608 Pioneer Ave High Flow Velocity $610,000 12 624 Alabama St High Flow Velocity $146,000
Subtotal 3,232 $756,000
NP-CIP-2 8 1,900 Orange Tree Ln High Flow Velocity $296,000 10 1,468 Orange Tree Ln High Flow Velocity $286,000
Subtotal 3,368 $582,000
NP-CIP-3 16 1,006 Texonia Park High Flow Velocity $314,000 12 1,200 W Lugonia Ave High Flow Velocity $281,000
Subtotal 2,206 $595,000
Total 8,806 $1,933,000
This NPW CIP includes the expansion of the City's non-potable water system. This would include expanding non-potable water in System 2 and the connection of the Hillside Memorial Park, Ford Park, and Redlands Country Club to the system. This will also leave the potential for the City to connect to the Bear Valley non-potable water system if the City chooses.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 406 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
114 | P a g e
CIP NP1-2 Groundwater Well Equipping Rehabilitation
5-Year Budget Allocation: $1,528,000
Priority: Medium
The City has eleven (11) non-potable wells. These wells will need rehabilitation and refurbishment once they approach the end of their service life, provided in Table 10-16. Their typical service life is based on 20-year equipment life. It is recommended the City rehabilitate at least one pump each year. Once all wells are rehabilitated, the City should evaluate the oldest wells to determine when the subsequent rehabilitation should start. It is recommended the stations priority be based on efficiency, condition, and age. The list below is prioritized on efficiency from SCE pumps tests. The cost below represents aboveground equipment only and does not include subsurface improvements.

Table 10-16: Ground Water Well CIP list with the Cost Opinion Name Capacity
(gpm)
Status in 2019 Efficiency HP Rehab Budget NPW CIP Year
Well 31A 850 Idle 31.9% 450 $195,230 2022
Well 11 300 In Use 47.9% 60 $64,180 2023
California 500 In Use 52.0% 100 $100,000 2024
Well 16 1500 In Use 53.2% 150 $280,000 2025
New York Street 1500 In Use 54.9% 150 $111,050 2023
Well 41 800 In Use Unknown 100 $280,000 2027
Well 14 2200 In Use Unknown 125 $280,000 2028/2029
Crafton 1750 idle 59.8% 200 $280,000 2030/2031
Well 32 1850 In Use 60.5% 200 $119,122 2022
Well 30A 1500 In Use 61.2% 150 $280,000 2034/2035
Agate 1 1800 Idle 77.5% 200 $350,000 2038
CIP NP2-1: Recycle Water Reservoirs
5-Year Budget Allocation: $6,734,839
Priority: Medium
This NPW CIP was included in the City's NPW CIP list and focuses on designing two steel reservoirs to improve the management and operation of the City's recycled water system. In addition, the City plans to construct one reservoir near the WWTP to store reclaimed water from the treatment facility. These reservoirs could significantly increase the efficiency of the recycled/non-potable water system.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 407 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
115 | P a g e
CIP NP2-2: Pipeline Replacement and Expansion
5-Year Budget Allocation: $1,500,000
Priority: Medium
Approximately 10,000 LF of the City's recycled/non-potable pipelines are over the service life. Another 9,200 LF of the pipeline will reach the end of their service life within 20 years. There is also another 31,300 LF of pipeline that material or installation data is unknown and may need to be replaced. The figure below shows the remaining service life based on the material and age of the pipe. Chart 10-4 shows the service life distribution remaining in the City's pipelines.

Chart 10-4: Recycled/Non-potable Water Pipeline Remaining Service Life Most of the City's recycled/non-potable pipelines have a remaining service life of forty to sixty (40-60) years left. To replace all pipelines in 70 years, the City would need to replace approximately 3,100 LF of pipelines. However, due to the number of pipelines with unknown service age, a pipeline over the service life, and pipeline found during the hydraulic modeling, the first five years increase funding to $1,500,000 to replace these pipelines. For the following 15 years, the funding needed is $2,000,000. It is recommended that the City first replace the short pipelines identified in CIP NP1-1 and then prioritize replacing aging pipelines. Pipelines less than 8 inches in diameter should be replaced with 8-inch diameter pipelines. Replacement of pipeline segments should be selected yearly based on age breakage history and coordinated with other CIP projects, such as street improvements or pavement replacement. As a result, the City can benefit from upcoming pavement replacement or avoid replacement in freshly paved streets.

This NPW CIP includes the expansion of the City's recycled water system. The construction of the new pipelines in the first five-year period would primarily include the 8-inch pipelines, with a few pipeline segments more significant than 8 inches where needed.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 408 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan
116 | P a g e
11 LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
City of Redlands’ Hinckley and Tate Water Treatment Plants, Agate and Sunset reservoirs and site booster pumps, wells and ancillary equipment Condition Assessment

APPENDIX B
Hydraulic Model Calibration Results

APPENDIX C
CIP Cost Tables

APPENDIX D
Water System Inefficiency Cost Opinion

APPENDIX E
CIP Projects Remaining After Quality Control

APPENDIX F
Condition, Seismic, and Structural Assessment Executive Summary Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 409 of 728

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 410 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan

APPENDIX A
Condition Assessment: City of Redlands’ Water Treatment Plants
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 411 of 728

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 412 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 413 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 4 2 The Horace P. Hinckley Water Treatment Plant .................................................................. 4

2.1 Treatment Process ....................................................................................................... 4

2.2 CIP Recommendations ................................................................................................ 8

2.2.1 CIP 1 .................................................................................................................... 8

2.2.2 CIP 2 .................................................................................................................... 8

2.2.3 CIP 3 .................................................................................................................... 8

2.2.4 CIP 4 .................................................................................................................... 8

2.2.5 CIP 5 .................................................................................................................... 8

2.3 Hinckley Water Treatment Plant Facilities .................................................................... 9

2.3.1 Agate Reservoir ...................................................................................................19 3 The Tate Water Treatment Plant ........................................................................................30

3.1 Treatment Process ......................................................................................................31

3.2 CIP Recommendations ...............................................................................................32

3.2.1 CIP 1 ...................................................................................................................32

3.2.2 CIP 2 ...................................................................................................................32

3.3 Tate Water Treatment Plant Facilities .........................................................................33 4 Sunset reservoir .................................................................................................................49

4.1 CIP Recommendations ...............................................................................................49

4.1.1 CIP 1 ...................................................................................................................49 Figures
Figure 1 The Wash Water Recycled Water Treatment Plant ...................................................... 6 Figure 2 Hinckley WTP .............................................................................................................. 7 Figure 3 The City of Redlands Hinckley WTP SCADA ............................................................... 9 Figure 4 The City of Redlands Water Supply System Supervisory and Data Control System ....10 Figure 5 Hinckley WTP Flocculation and Sedimentation Basin Inlet ..........................................11 Figure 6 Hinckley WTP Filters ...................................................................................................12 Figure 7 Hinckley WTP Filters Layout .......................................................................................13 Figure 8 Hinckley WTP Flocculation/Sedimentation/Settling .....................................................14 Figure 9 Hinckley WTP Flocculation/Sedimentation/Settling .....................................................15 Figure 10 Settler Sludge Lagoons .............................................................................................16 Figure 11 Hinckley WTP Filter Backwash Basin ........................................................................17 Figure 12 Hinckley WTP Generator Building .............................................................................18 Figure 13 Agate Reservoir SCADA Layout ................................................................................19 Figure 14 Agate Reservoir and Booster PS ...............................................................................20 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 414 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
Figure 15 Cla-Valve Flow Control Valve at Agate Reservoir......................................................21 Figure 16 Agate Reservoir Seismic Expansion Unit Supported Off the Concrete Slab ..............22 Figure 17 Agate Reservoir Roof ................................................................................................23 Figure 18 Agate Access Stairway with Partial Enclosure Safety Cage ......................................24 Figure 19 MCC Center for Agate Reservoir PS .........................................................................25 Figure 20 Agate Reservoir Pre-Treatment .................................................................................26 Figure 21 Disinfectant Storage at Agate Site .............................................................................27 Figure 22 Chemical Storage ......................................................................................................28 Figure 23 Booster PS Discharge Valves and Pressure Gauges ................................................29 Figure 24 Tate WTP SCADA Screen ........................................................................................30 Figure 25 Historical Artifact Wooden Pipeline Used at the District in the 19th Century ..............33 Figure 26 MCC and Communications Equipment ......................................................................34 Figure 27 Control Room-Excellent Working Condition...............................................................35 Figure 28 Onsite Lab-In Excellent Working Condition ...............................................................36 Figure 29 Two Chlorinators in Duty Mode, With Safety Enclosure.............................................37 Figure 30 Safety Enclosure of the Chlorinators .........................................................................38 Figure 31 Chlorine Cylinders Stored Onsite ..............................................................................39 Figure 32 Safety Cylinder Operation .........................................................................................40 Figure 33 Standby Diesel Generator Set ...................................................................................41 Figure 34 Effluent Reservoir Onsite ..........................................................................................42 Figure 35 Chemical Storage Area with Concrete Containment-In Good Working Condition ......43 Figure 36 Eimco Settler (Signs of Aging and Corrosion of Mechanical Equipment) ...................44 Figure 37 Eimco Settler (Signs of Aging and Corrosion of Mechanical Equipment) ...................45 Figure 38 Filter Equipment (Seems to be an Excellent Working Condition) ...............................46 Figure 39 Filter Equipment (Seems to be in Excellent Working Condition) ................................47 Figure 40 Washwater Reservoir (seems to be in excellent working condition) ..........................48 Figure 41 Signs of Aging and Corrosion are Evident .................................................................50 Figure 42 Communication Antenna of Service Provider Erected Onsite ....................................51 Figure 43 Steel Shell is Spot Corroded-Attached Ladders are Rusted Beyond Repair ..............52 Figure 44 Reservoir Corrosion Protection Cabinet (seems antiquated) .....................................53 Figure 45 Close-Up of Corrosion Detail .....................................................................................54 Figure 46 Reservoir Base (surrounding asphalt is cracking and evidence of deterioration) .......55 Figure 47 Reservoir Control Wires are Dangling on the Side of the Reservoir ..........................56 Figure 48 Access Manhole Valve is Corroded ...........................................................................57 1 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 415 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 416 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
The second step is coagulation, and flocculation is when suspended solids get together to form larger particles called the "floc." Flocculation is achieved through two flocculation basins, each designed for a flow of 9 mgd. Each flocculation basin has three stages and contains vertical shaft flocculation rotated by an external gear reducer powered by electric motors. The electric motors can run at various speeds using six variable frequency drives (VFDs). Cationic polymer C308 can be added to the third-stage flocculation basin, as needed, to increase the efficiency of the flocculation process.

The third step is sedimentation. In this step, larger particulates settle to the floor of the sedimentation basin. The chemicals added in the first step assist the sedimentation process in helping the particulates settle at the floor of the settling tank. Solids separation is achieved through the sedimentation basins located close to the flocculation basins. Each sedimentation basin is designed for a flow of 9 mgd and includes inclined plate settlers and an aluminumsupported fabric cover to reduce the disinfection dose being affected by sunlight.

The fourth step is filtration. The media filtration system consists of three media filters (anthracite over sand and gravel) equipped with an automated backwash system. The individual filters are designed for a 2.4 mgd (6 gpm per sq. ft) flow and are equal-loading, declining-rate, selfbackwashing types with an air scour system and a filter-to-waste system. However, usually, backwashes are manually initiated by the operators.

The fifth step is post-disinfection. We add chlorine to treated water to complete disinfection before it is discharged into the distribution system.

The sixth step is the backwash. The particulates and polymer in the filters are attached to media and then clog them up. The backwash process starts by draining the filters to pre-set point and then air scouring for approximately ten minutes, breaking down any particulates stuck in the system. Finally, backwashing is performed to clean the filters to keep their continuous operation and prevent water from overflowing. The recycled wash water system consists of a waste wash water basin, recycle pump station, recycle wash water treatment plant, and a polymer feed room.

The recycled wash water system receives flow primarily from the waste wash water discharged during filter backwashing. A smaller fraction of flow is obtained intermittently from the flocculation and sedimentation basins drainage and overflows lines, from chemical feed room drainage lines, sludge decant pond, and water quality sample pump discharge (grab samples from the laboratory sink). Spent filter backwash wash water flows by gravity from each filter to the waste wash water recovery basin located at the west end of the plant site. The waste wash water basin has a concrete bottom with concrete and soil cement sidewall and a capacity of 0.15 MG. The basin can hold wash water from three consecutive filter backwashes (based on a volume per backwash of 46,500 gallons). A sump on the basin floor located at the north end removes the sludge that settles in the basin. The sump pump in the floor of the basin discharges into the sludge drying ponds. Sludge is removed from the wash water recovery basin as needed, and no less than annually, to prevent large amounts of sludge buildup.

The operation of the filtration process determines flows into the wash water basin. When a filter is backwashed, the basin receives the backwash flow. Decanted supernatant water from the sludge lagoons is pumped from the decant structures to the wash water recovery basin. On occasions when the wash water package treatment plant is out of service, the wash water is sent to a series of percolation ponds located to the north of the sludge drying ponds.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 417 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
The recycle treatment plant system can treat 1,000 gpm (1.5 mgd) if the influent flow rate permits.

The recycle treatment plant system consists of a single-impeller flash mixer first stage and a twinimpeller second stage flocculation mixer followed by an incline plate settler to enhance sludge removal. Anionic polymer A6320 (A6320) is used as the primary coagulant. Anionic polymer A210 (A210) is used for the dewatering of sludge. Anionic polymer is stored and prepared in the utility building. Jar tests are performed to set the optimum dose. Typical dose rates of 0.5 to 2.0 milligrams per liter (mg/L) for the primary coagulant A6320. The SCADA system sends an alarm to the operator when effluent turbidity from the recycle wash water treatment plant is 2.0 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) or higher. Flow and turbidity are monitored and recorded continuously.

Figure 1 The Wash Water Recycled Water Treatment Plant
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 418 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
The recycle treatment plant effluent is continually monitored by SCADA and grab samples are pulled daily for comparison. The effluent of the recycling plant is returned to the influent structure ahead of the chemical feed application. The recycle treatment plant is shown in the above Figure.

The SCADA system enables the operator to:
• Adjust the operating condition of the three washwater return pumps. • Control and monitor the recycle flow rate.
• Control and monitor the flocculator (mixer) drive.
• Control and monitor the polymer feed system.
• Control and monitor the waste discharge valve and related instrumentation monitoring • and online analysis results.

The chlorine is injected after combined filter effluent before going to the Agate storage reservoir.

Solids removed from the sedimentation basin flow by gravity to four sludge lagoons located at the northwest end of the plant site. Each lagoon has a capacity of 40,000 cubic feet and provides one hundred thirty-one days of sludge storage at a nominal plant capacity of 12 MGD. Sludge production at a plant flow rate of 12 MGD is estimated to be approximately 305 cu ft of dry sludge per day. On a monthly basis, the sludge in each lagoon is dried and removed by mechanical means for off-site disposal to a landfill. The supernatant from the sludge ponds flows by gravity to a collection box.

From the collection box, the supernatant is pumped to the wash water basin influent. A process schematic of the Hinckley WTP is presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2 Hinckley WTP
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 419 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants

2.2 CIP Recommendations

2.2.1 CIP 1
The package wash water treatment plant is installed to treat the filter wash water effluent. The operator shared the concern with the age of installed equipment, the installed capacity, and operation complexity. The replacement unit (s) may be furnished with the new technology to provide adequate capacity. The operator thought that a dissolved air flotation or filter technology might be applicable. The cost of the proposed replacement technology could be $2M for the 1.5 mgd capacity. The final capacity would be 4.5 mgd with a refurbishment price tag of $6 M.

2.2.2 CIP 2
Capacity upgrade. The current plant capacity is sufficient for the current demand. However, with the population increase in the future, the demand increase would require additional plant capacity.

Therefore, the capacity could be increased in 12 mgd increments in phases 1 and Phase 2. The Phase 1 increase could cost $25M, with a similar estimate for Phase 2.

2.2.3 CIP 3
Remove provisional support of seismic flex tend at the reservoir and provide permanent support.

The cost of this upgrade maybe $25,000.

2.2.4 CIP 4
Upgrade MCC and replace dated electrical equipment at the cost of $500,000.

2.2.5 CIP 5
Replace dated mechanical equipment at the cost of $1M.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 420 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants

2.3 Hinckley Water Treatment Plant Facilities
Figure 3 The City of Redlands Hinckley WTP SCADA
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 421 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
Figure 4 The City of Redlands Water Supply System Supervisory and Data Control System Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 422 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
Figure 5 Hinckley WTP Flocculation and Sedimentation Basin Inlet Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 423 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
Figure 6 Hinckley WTP Filters
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 424 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
Figure 7 Hinckley WTP Filters Layout
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 425 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
Figure 8 Hinckley WTP Flocculation/Sedimentation/Settling Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 426 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
Figure 9 Hinckley WTP Flocculation/Sedimentation/Settling Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 427 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
Figure 10 Settler Sludge Lagoons
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 428 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
Figure 11 Hinckley WTP Filter Backwash Basin
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 429 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
Figure 12 Hinckley WTP Generator Building
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 430 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants

2.3.1 Agate Reservoir
Filtered water is discharged to the 3-million-gallon (MG) Agate Reservoir before entering the utility distribution system. The Agate Reservoir includes a baffle system to increase detention time. An engineered blending plan was added to blend three wells' water with the Hinckley WTP effluent.

These blending wells are Agate No. 1, Agate No. 2, and the Crafton, well as combining sources.

Agate reservoir is a 3 mg steel tank with an average detention time of 7.2 hrs, a nominal detention time of 5 hours, and an ultimate detention time of 3.6 hrs.

Figure 13 Agate Reservoir SCADA Layout
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 431 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
Figure 14 Agate Reservoir and Booster PS
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 432 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
Figure 15 Cla-Valve Flow Control Valve at Agate Reservoir Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 433 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
Figure 16 Agate Reservoir Seismic Expansion Unit Supported Off the Concrete Slab Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 434 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
Figure 17 Agate Reservoir Roof
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 435 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
Figure 18 Agate Access Stairway with Partial Enclosure Safety Cage Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 436 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
Figure 19 MCC Center for Agate Reservoir PS
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 437 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
Figure 20 Agate Reservoir Pre-Treatment
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 438 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
Figure 21 Disinfectant Storage at Agate Site
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 439 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
Figure 22 Chemical Storage
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 440 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
Figure 23 Booster PS Discharge Valves and Pressure Gauges Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 441 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
3 The Tate Water Treatment Plant
The Tate Water Treatment Plant (Tate WTP) was initially commissioned in 1967 to treat surface water from Mill Creek. Since then, several process upgrades have been implemented, with the latest being completed in June 2005. Tate WTP consists of chemical treatment, chemical mixing through an inline static mixer, flocculation, and sedimentation through two EIMCO reactor clarifiers (each equipped with four adjustable speed, vertical turbine flocculation), filtration with four dual media gravity filters (anthracite over sand), and chlorine disinfection. The maximum plant flow rate is 20 MGD with all filters online and 14.9 MGD with one filter offline for backwashing.

A process schematic of the Tate WTP is presented on a SCADA screen in the Figure below.

Figure 24 Tate WTP SCADA Screen
Historically, Tate WTP had received its raw water supply exclusively from Mill Creek. However, the availability of the Mill Creek supply had been reduced during drought periods and is subject to interruptions during high turbidity events. To increase the raw water supply reliability, the City obtained a permit amendment from the CDPH to treat State Water Project (SWP) and Santa Ana River (SAR) water at Tate WTP.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 442 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants

3.1 Treatment Process
The first step in the conventional water treatment is the pre-treatment. Flow is conveyed and controlled through off-site piping and valving, influent flowmeter and control valve, influent sampling system, influent static mixer, and flow splitter box. Chemical mixing of primary coagulant, aluminum chlorohydrate (ACH), and coagulant aid (C-308P) are achieved by the static mixer before reactor clarifiers. Chlorine is also added for disinfection.

The second step is coagulation, and flocculation is when suspended solids get together to form larger particles called the "floc." Flocculation and sedimentation are achieved through two EIMCO reactor clarifiers, each equipped with four adjustable speed vertical turbine flocculation that operates in a continuous operation mode.

The third step is sedimentation. In this step, larger particulates settle to the floor of the sedimentation basin. The chemicals added in the first step assist the sedimentation process in helping the particulates settle at the floor of the settling tank. Solids separation is achieved through the sedimentation basins located close to the flocculation basins. There are two settlers, ten mgd in capacity each, 106 ft in dia, four flocculation, vertical turbine type, adjustable frequency drive, 5 HP motor, 30 min detention time, 50 ft in dia with 3.2 hr detention time.

The fourth step is filtration. The media filtration system consists of dual media filters (anthracite over sand), a filter backwash system, and an air scour system operated continuously. During normal operations, the total flow rate is equally distributed across the four online filters, and filters are only taken offline for backwash and maintenance. The filtered air scours system and backwash system operate during the filter backwash process. ClariFloc A-6320 anionic polymer (filter aid) is added upstream of dual media filters and chlorine for disinfection as needed. There are four filters, each five mgd in capacity, with a six mgd design loading rate, 13.75x41.8 ft with

9.5 side water depth. Media surface area is 575 sqft, with 30 inches of anthracite and 8 inches of sand depth.

The fifth step is post-disinfection. Again, the chlorine is added to treated water to complete disinfection before discharge into the distribution system.

The sixth step is the backwash. The particulates and polymer in the filters are attached to media and then clog them up. The backwash process starts by draining the filters to pre-set point and then air scouring for approximately ten minutes, breaking down any particulates stuck in the system. Finally, backwashing is performed to clean the filters to keep their continuous operation and prevent water from overflowing. The recycled wash water system consists of a waste wash water basin, recycle pump station, recycle wash water treatment plant, and a polymer feed room.

The recycled wash water system receives flow primarily from the waste wash water discharged during filter backwashing.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 443 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants

3.2 CIP Recommendations

3.2.1 CIP 1
EIMCO settlers could be refurbished, and corrosion of the mechanical equipment could be addressed. Just sandblasting and repainting both using would be appx $50,000. The replacement cost would be $1M.

3.2.2 CIP 2
Capacity upgrade. The current plant capacity is sufficient for the current demand. However, with the population increase in the future, the demand increase would require additional plant capacity.

Therefore, the capacity could be increased in 10 mgd increments in phases 1 and Phase 2. The Phase 1 increase could cost $20M, with a similar estimate for Phase 2.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 444 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants

3.3 Tate Water Treatment Plant Facilities
Figure 25 Historical Artifact Wooden Pipeline Used at the District in the 19th Century Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 445 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
Figure 26 MCC and Communications Equipment
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 446 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
Figure 27 Control Room-Excellent Working Condition
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 447 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
Figure 28 Onsite Lab-In Excellent Working Condition
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 448 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
Figure 29 Two Chlorinators in Duty Mode, With Safety Enclosure Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 449 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
Figure 30 Safety Enclosure of the Chlorinators
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 450 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
Figure 31 Chlorine Cylinders Stored Onsite
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 451 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
Figure 32 Safety Cylinder Operation
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 452 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
Figure 33 Standby Diesel Generator Set
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 453 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
Figure 34 Effluent Reservoir Onsite
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 454 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
Figure 35 Chemical Storage Area with Concrete Containment-In Good Working Condition Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 455 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
Figure 36 Eimco Settler (Signs of Aging and Corrosion of Mechanical Equipment) Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 456 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
Figure 37 Eimco Settler (Signs of Aging and Corrosion of Mechanical Equipment) Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 457 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
Figure 38 Filter Equipment (Seems to be an Excellent Working Condition) Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 458 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
Figure 39 Filter Equipment (Seems to be in Excellent Working Condition) Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 459 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
Figure 40 Washwater Reservoir (seems to be in excellent working condition) Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 460 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
4 Sunset reservoir
The reservoir is located in a remote location on the southwest side of the City. The reservoir does not have a backup, and it has not been Inspected since it was erected in the 1970s. The reservoir is of welded steel construction; it is 60 ft tall and 90 ft in diameter and has 3 mg capacity. The seismic safety provisions are not visible and likely not provided. Also, corrosion is visible on equipment and reservoir shells. The corrosion protection cabinet is antiquated but is functional and in working condition. The inspection of the tank inside is not possible since the reservoir does not have a backup capacity. However, the diver could inspect by completing the videotaping and establishing the condition baseline without the reservoir operation interruption.

4.1 CIP Recommendations

4.1.1 CIP 1
Increase water supply system reliability by providing reservoirs with redundancy. Depending on the system hydraulic analysis, the pool may be replaced with a reservoir of the same volume at the exact location or similar location. The replacement cost is estimated at $6M.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 461 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
Figure 41 Signs of Aging and Corrosion are Evident
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 462 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
Figure 42 Communication Antenna of Service Provider Erected Onsite Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 463 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
Figure 43 Steel Shell is Spot Corroded-Attached Ladders are Rusted Beyond Repair Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 464 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
Figure 44 Reservoir Corrosion Protection Cabinet (seems antiquated) Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 465 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
Figure 45 Close-Up of Corrosion Detail
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 466 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
Figure 46 Reservoir Base (surrounding asphalt is cracking and evidence of deterioration) Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 467 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
Figure 47 Reservoir Control Wires are Dangling on the Side of the Reservoir Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 468 of 728
Condition Assessment
City of Redlands
Water Treatment Plants
Figure 48 Access Manhole Valve is Corroded
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 469 of 728

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 470 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan

APPENDIX B
Hydraulic Model Calibration Results
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 471 of 728

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 472 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 473 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 474 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 475 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 476 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 477 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 478 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 479 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 480 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 481 of 728
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 482 of 728
City of Redlands
2022 Water Systems Master Plan

APPENDIX C
CIP Cost Tables
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 483 of 728

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 484 of 728
5-Year CIP 20-year CIP
W1 Water Distribution System 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 5-year Total 2022-2026 2027-2031 2032-2036 2037-2041 20-year Total W1-1 Water Pipeline Replacement Due to Hydraulic Deficiencies - DIP $2,158,000 $1,122,000 $3,019,000 $0 $0 $6,299,000 6,299,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 6,299,000 $ W1-2 Reoccuring Water Pipeline Replacement Over Lifespan $3,942,000 $4,978,000 $3,081,000 $6,100,000 $6,100,000 $24,201,000 24,201,000 $ 30,500,000 $ 30,500,000 $ 30,500,000 $ 115,701,000 $ W1-3 Citywide Pavement Repair for Water Facilities $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $2,500,000 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 10,000,000 $ W1-4 2-inch and Smaller Meter Replacement $645,000 $645,000 $645,000 $645,000 $645,000 $3,225,000 3,225,000 $ 3,225,000 $ 3,225,000 $ 3,225,000 $ 12,900,000 $ W1-5 Greater than 2-inch Meter Refurbishment $55,000 $55,000 $55,000 $55,000 $55,000 $275,000 275,000 $ 275,000 $ 275,000 $ 275,000 $ 1,100,000 $ W1-6 Dead End Bypass and Hydrant Flushing $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ W1-7 Automated Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Optional $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $7,300,000 $7,300,000 $7,300,000 $7,300,000 $7,300,000 $36,500,000 36,500,000 $ 36,500,000 $ 36,500,000 $ 36,500,000 $ 146,000,000 $ W2 Hinckley Treatment Plant 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 5-year Total 2022-2026 2027-2031 2032-2036 2037-2041 W2-1 Hinckley Transmission Line Replacement $0 $4,800,000 $0 $0 $0 $4,800,000 4,800,000 $ 4,800,000 $ W2-2 Hinckley/Tate Roof Repair $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 - $ - $ W2-3 Hinckley WTP Safety Fencing $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 - $ - $ W2-4 Hinckley Sludge Press $360,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $360,000 360,000 $ 360,000 $ W2-5 Hinckley Generator Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 - $ - $ W2-6 Hinckley WTP Paving $0 $180,000 $0 $0 $0 $180,000 180,000 $ 180,000 $ W2-7 Wash Water treatment plant replacement $0 $0 $0 $6,000,000 $0 $6,000,000 6,000,000 $ 6,000,000 $ W2-8 Flexible joint support replacement $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $0 $50,000 50,000 $ 50,000 $ W2-9 Upgrade MCC and replace dated electrical installations $0 $50,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $500,000 500,000 $ 500,000 $ W2-10 Replace aging mechanical equipment $0 $40,000 $320,000 $320,000 $320,000 $1,000,000 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ W2-11 Capacity upgrade 12MGD+12MGD - Not Included in CIP $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 - $ - $ $360,000 $5,070,000 $470,000 $6,520,000 $470,000 $12,890,000 12,890,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 12,890,000 $ W3 Tate Treatment Plant 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 5-year Total 2022-2026 2027-2031 2032-2036 2037-2041 W3-1 Tate Transmission Line Assessment $0 $0 $4,800,000 $0 $0 $4,800,000 4,800,000 $ 4,800,000 $ W3-2 Tate ACH Tank Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 - $ - $ W3-3 Tate Clarifier Recoating $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 - $ - $ W3-4 Tate Clarifier Covers $1,560,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,560,000 1,560,000 $ 1,560,000 $ W3-5 Tate Influent Static Mixer $0 $0 $180,000 $0 $0 $180,000 180,000 $ 180,000 $ W3-6 Tate NaOCl Disinfection System $360,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $360,000 360,000 $ 360,000 $ W3-7 Tate PLC Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 - $ - $
W3-8 PRV Station Replacement (Redlands Blvd. & New Jersey) $120,000 $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $420,000 420,000 $ 420,000 $ W3-9 Settler equipment corrosion refurbishment $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 50,000 $ 50,000 $ W3-10 Upgrade MCC and replace dated electrical installations $0 $50,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $500,000 500,000 $ 500,000 $ W3-11 Replace aging mechanical equipment $0 $40,000 $320,000 $320,000 $320,000 $1,000,000 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ W3-12 Capacity upgrade 12 mgd - Not Included in CIP $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 - $ - $ $2,040,000 $390,000 $5,450,000 $470,000 $520,000 $8,870,000 8,870,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 8,870,000 $ W4 Booster Stations - Potable 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 5-year Total 2022-2026 2027-2031 2032-2036 2037-2041 W4-1 1750 Blend Manifold Replacement $120,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $120,000 120,000 $ - $ - $ 120,000 $ W4-2 Booster Pump Station Rehabilitation $3,270,000 $1,960,000 $2,125,000 $2,125,000 $870,000 $10,350,000 10,350,000 $ 9,580,000 $ 5,900,000 $ 10,350,000 $ 36,180,000 $ $3,390,000 $1,960,000 $2,125,000 $2,125,000 $870,000 $10,470,000 10,470,000 $ 9,580,000 $ 5,900,000 $ 10,350,000 $ 36,300,000 $ W5 Reservoirs - Potable 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 5-year Total 2022-2026 2027-2031 2032-2036 2037-2041 W5-1 Reservoir Sites Fixed Generators $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ W5-2 Sunset Reservoir Seismic Rehab $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $6,000,000 6,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 6,000,000 $ W5-3 Texas St. Reservoir & booster station $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ W5-4 Crafton Hills & Property-One Reservoir $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ W5-5 Agate Reservoir TTHM Treatment System $900,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $900,000 900,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 900,000 $ W5-6 Reservoir Mixing System $0 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
W5-7 Texas Grove Reservoir stair installation $90,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $90,000 90,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 90,000 $ W5-8 Emerald Main Line Isolation $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 - $ - $ W5-9 Steel Reservoir Rehabilitation $100,000 $2,891,000 $1,568,000 $1,225,000 $1,470,000 $7,254,000 7,254,000 $ 4,998,000 $ 12,252,000 $ W5-10 Steel Reservoir Inspection and Minor Repairs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 - $ 110,000 $ 180,000 $ 180,000 $ 470,000 $ W5-11 Concrete Reservoir Inspection and Minor Repairs $44,000 $45,000 $34,000 $56,000 $50,000 $229,000 229,000 $ 90,000 $ 319,000 $ $4,134,000 $5,936,000 $1,602,000 $1,281,000 $1,520,000 $14,473,000 14,473,000 $ 5,198,000 $ 180,000 $ 180,000 $ 20,031,000 $ W6 Groundwater Wells 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 5-year Total 2022-2026 2027-2031 2032-2036 2037-2041 W6-1 Groundwater Well Equipping Rehabilitation $1,350,000 $1,050,000 $1,275,000 $1,875,000 $1,200,000 $6,750,000 6,750,000 $ 7,912,500 $ 5,487,500 $ 6,750,000 $ 26,900,000 $ W6-2 East Lugonia Well 3 Repalcement $0 $0 $3,000,000 $0 $0 $3,000,000 3,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,000,000 $ W6-3 Groundwater Contamination Mitigation $150,000 $575,000 $575,000 $575,000 $575,000 $2,450,000 2,450,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 2,450,000 $ W6-4 Entrained Air Treatment Assessment $0 $0 $600,000 $0 $0 $600,000 600,000 $ $1,500,000 $1,625,000 $5,450,000 $2,450,000 $1,775,000 $12,800,000 12,200,000 $ 7,912,500 $ 5,487,500 $ 6,750,000 $ 32,350,000 $ W7 Water Use Improvements 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 5-year Total 2022-2026 2027-2031 2032-2036 2037-2041

REDLANDS CIP ROLLUP CALCULATION SUMMARY
CIP W1 Subtotal
CIP W2 Subtotal
CIP W3 Subtotal
CIP W4 Subtotal
CIP W5 Subtotal
CIP W7 Subtotal
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 485 of 728
W7-1 Brookside Median-Water Efficient Landscape Improvements $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 - $ - $ W7-2 WBIC/Smart Irrigation Controllers-City facilities $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 - $ - $ W7-3 Water Efficiency Upgrades- City Facility Landscaping $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $1,500,000 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $1,500,000 1,500,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,500,000 $ 19,024,000 $ 22,581,000 $ 22,697,000 $ 20,446,000 $ 12,755,000 $ 97,503,000 $ 5 year CIP Totals 20 year CIP Totals
W1 - Water Distribution System 36,500,000 $ Project 2022-2026 2027-2031 2032-2036 2037-2041 20-year Total W2 - Hinckley Treatment Plant 12,890,000 $ W1 - Water Distribution System $36,500,000 $36,500,000 $36,500,000 $36,500,000 $146,000,000 W3 - Tate Treatment Plant 8,870,000 $ W2 - Hinckley Treatment Plant $12,890,000 $0 $0 $0 $12,890,000 W4 - Booster Stations - Potable 10,470,000 $ W3 - Tate Treatment Plant $8,870,000 $0 $0 $0 $8,870,000 W5 - Reservoirs - Potable 14,473,000 $ W4 - Booster Stations - Potable $10,470,000 $9,580,000 $5,900,000 $10,350,000 $36,300,000 W6 - Groundwater Wells 12,800,000 $ W5 - Reservoirs - Potable $14,473,000 $5,198,000 $180,000 $180,000 $20,031,000 W7 - Water Use Improvements 1,500,000 $ W6 - Groundwater Wells $12,200,000 $7,912,500 $5,487,500 $6,750,000 $32,350,000 W7 - Water Use Improvements $1,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,500,000 Total $96,903,000 $59,190,500 $48,067,500 $53,780,000 $257,941,000 Note: 1) the 20-year cost for W6 - Wellhead Treatment is dependant on the Wellhead Evaluation CIP W8 Subtotal
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 486 of 728
Materials CIP Replacement Diameter (in) Length (ft) Probable Cost Calculation Issue Location Year DIP CIP-1 0 $0 High Flow Velocity Center St. & Crecent Ave.

DIP CIP-2 0 $0 High Flow Velocity Valencia Dr.

DIP CIP-3 24 2,046 $982,195 High Flow Velocity San Bernardino Ave. & Agate Ave. 2022 DIP CIP-4 8 203.37 $32,539 High Flow Velocity Mill Creek Rd. 2022 DIP CIP-5 0 0 $0 High Flow Velocity San Bernaridino Ave DIP CIP-6 0 0 $0 Fire Flow Defecient Park Ave. & New Jersey ST.

DIP CIP-7 8 242 $38,723 Fire Flow Defecient University St. & Colton Ave 2023 DIP CIP-8 8 1,267 $202,776 Fire Flow Defecient Highland Ave. & Walnut St. 2022 DIP CIP-9 0 0 $0 Fire Flow Defecient Emerald Ave & Newport Ave.

DIP CIP-10 8 649 $103,814 Fire Flow Defecient Naples Ave. & Jasper Ave. 2023 DIP CIP-11 12 11,979 $3,018,731 Fire Flow Defecient Wabash Ave. & 6th Ave. 2024 DIP CIP-12 0 0 $0 Fire Flow Defecient Sunset Dr. Fairmont Dr.

DIP CIP-13 8 503 $80,530 Fire Flow Defecient Sierra Vista Ave. & Escondido Rd. 2022 DIP CIP-14 8 4,217 $674,698 Fire Flow Defecient Pacific St. ,Center Crest Dr. & Benita Marie Crest 2022 DIP CIP-15 8 1,142 $182,685 Fire Flow Defecient Pennsylvania Ave. De Anza St 2022 DIP CIP-16 0 0 $0 Small Diameter Monterey Ave
DIP CIP-17 8 1,569 $250,998 Small Diameter Park Ave & Cook ST. 2023 DIP CIP-18 8 1,045 $167,250 Small Diameter Madeira Ave. & Agate Ave 2023 DIP CIP-19 12 2,330 $559,140 Small Diameter Sunset Dr. 2023 27,193 6,294,079

REPORT FORMAT
CIP Replacement Diameter (in) Length (ft) Location Issue Budget Cost Calculation Year CIP-1 N/A - Center St. & Crecent Ave. High Flow Velocity N/A N/A CIP-2 N/A - Valencia Dr. High Flow Velocity N/A N/A
CIP-3 24 2,046 San Bernardino Ave. & Agate Ave. High Flow Velocity $983,000 2022 CIP-4 8 203 Mill Creek Rd. High Flow Velocity $33,000 2022 CIP-5 N/A - San Bernaridino Ave High Flow Velocity N/A N/A CIP-6 N/A - Park Ave. & New Jersey ST. Fire Flow Defecient N/A N/A CIP-7 8 242 University St. & Colton Ave Fire Flow Defecient $39,000 2023 CIP-8 8 1,267 Highland Ave. & Walnut St. Fire Flow Defecient $203,000 2022 CIP-9 N/A - Emerald Ave & Newport Ave. Fire Flow Defecient N/A N/A CIP-10 8 649 Naples Ave. & Jasper Ave. Fire Flow Defecient $104,000 2023 CIP-11 12 11,979 Wabash Ave. & 6th Ave. Fire Flow Defecient $3,019,000 2024 CIP-12 N/A - Sunset Dr. Fairmont Dr. Fire Flow Defecient N/A N/A CIP-13 8 503 Sierra Vista Ave. & Escondido Rd. Fire Flow Defecient $81,000 2022 CIP-14 8 4,217 Pacific St. ,Center Crest Dr. & Benita Marie Crest Fire Flow Defecient $675,000 2022 CIP-15 8 1,142 Pennsylvania Ave. De Anza St Fire Flow Defecient $183,000 2022 CIP-16 N/A - Monterey Ave Small Diameter N/A N/A
CIP-17 8 1,569 Park Ave & Cook ST. Small Diameter $251,000 2023 CIP-18 8 1,045 Madeira Ave. & Agate Ave Small Diameter $168,000 2023 CIP-19 12 2,330 Sunset Dr. Small Diameter $560,000 2023 W1-1 CALCUALTION SUMMARY TABLES
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 487 of 728
Diameter ---> This row acrosss ERROR CHECK TOTAL LF 1 1.5 2 3 4 4.5 6 8 10 12 14 15 16 18 20 24 30 32 36 Unknown Error (lower than -100) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Less than 0 Greater or equal to -100 34,567 34,567 1,317 2,696 2,748 184 7,869 - 5,602 7,991 - 4,064 - 89 1,994 - 14 - - - - - Less than or equal to 5 and greater than or equal to 0 14,734 14,734 - - 3,630 - 862 - 3,500 4,979 - 1,546 - - 216 - - - - - - - Greater than 5 less than or equal to 10 89,411 89,411 - - 2,971 317 2,418 - 37,925 21,435 1,758 21,431 - - 748 220 188 - - - - - Greater than 10 less than or equal to 15 118,997 118,997 - - - - 3,326 - 48,932 50,107 - 16,632 - - - - - - - - - - Greater than 15 less than or equal to 20 151,992 151,992 - 215 1,082 - 1,981 1,809 20,295 58,570 3,920 46,596 - - 5,080 - - 12,444 - - - - Greater than 20 less than or equal to 25 137,680 137,680 215 - 3,050 - 3,823 - 44,735 63,839 438 15,651 - - 5,212 718 - - - - - - Greater than 25 less than or equal to 30 277,802 277,802 291 944 3,118 2,165 6,830 - 86,603 112,749 2,873 57,560 - - 4,670 - - - - - - - Greater than 30 less than or equal to 35 165,927 165,927 511 - 1,407 - 8,477 - 44,321 80,313 1,067 29,258 - - 456 - 102 15 - - - - Greater than 35 less than or equal to 40 195,763 195,763 - 629 3,965 - 5,509 - 13,206 93,760 2,322 41,717 - 4,761 18,186 - 10,815 43 850 - - - Greater than 40 less than or equal to 45 68,593 68,593 - - 434 - 215 - 9,950 12,056 44 12,626 - - 11,462 - 13,458 5,175 2,306 867 - - Greater than 45 less than or equal to 50 155,063 155,063 21 778 3,904 - 1,162 - 3,808 45,871 60 56,532 5,195 360 17,147 - 6,462 9,845 2,744 47 1,125 - Greater than 50 less than or equal to 55 163,129 163,129 - - 1,082 - 691 - 2,471 103,090 - 44,865 - - 616 - 3,321 1,162 5,831 - - - Greater than 55 less than or equal to 60 38,506 38,506 - - 2,137 - 203 - 1,876 13,952 - 6,891 - - 156 - 443 12,849 - - - - Greater than 60 less than or equal to 65 18,343 18,343 413 - - - 1,298 - 147 3,023 - 2,684 - - 3,236 - 6,845 140 - - 556 - Greater than 65 less than or equal to 70 58,093 58,093 - - 77 214 9 - 1,201 3,594 749 14,380 63 - 1,315 - 4,825 16,835 14,833 - - - Greater than 70 less than or equal to 75 21,516 21,516 - - - - - - 354 7,153 - 11,804 - - 2,204 - - - - - - - Greater than 75 less than or equal to 80 9,277 9,277 - - 12 2 2,334 - 649 2,386 132 3,752 - - 12 - - - - - - - Greater than 80 less than or equal to 90 137,929 137,929 - - 70 - 132 - 991 53,709 165 38,937 5,536 - 17,079 197 - 8,520 12,592 - - - Greater than 90 less than or equal to 100 158,822 158,822 - - 73 12 16 - 1,337 116,632 - 18,559 - - 3,622 - 23 17,121 - - - 1,428 Error (greater than 100) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Total 2,016,144 2,016,144 2,768 5,262 29,761 2,893 47,154 1,809 327,903 855,208 13,528 445,486 10,794 5,211 93,410 1,135 46,494 84,149 39,155 914 1,682 1,428 Error Check - 2,768 8,030 37,790 40,683 87,838 89,647 417,550 1,272,758 1,286,286 1,731,772 1,742,566 1,747,777 1,841,187 1,842,322 1,888,816 1,972,965 2,012,120 2,013,034 2,014,716 2,016,144 Pipe Diameter LENGTH (LF) TOTALCOST 1 1.5 2 3 4 4.5 6 8 10 12 14 15 16 18 20 24 30 32 36 Unknown Pipe Replacement Diameter 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 12 14 15 16 18 20 24 30 32 36 16 Error (lower than -100) - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Less than 0 Greater or equal to -100 34,567 4,643,000.25 $ 157,982 $ 323,559 $ 329,768 $ 22,025 $ 944,301 $ - $ 672,260 $ 958,915 $ - $ 731,606 $ - $ 20,038 $ 478,443 $ - $ 4,104 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Less than or equal to 5 and greater than or equal to 0 14,734 1,886,804.31 $ - $ - $ 435,633 $ - $ 103,403 $ - $ 419,958 $ 597,523 $ - $ 278,361 $ - $ - $ 51,927 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Greater than 5 less than or equal to 10 89,411 12,224,515.88 $ - $ - $ 356,525 $ 38,007 $ 290,168 $ - $ 4,551,030 $ 2,572,159 $ 263,719 $ 3,857,635 $ - $ - $ 179,572 $ 59,369 $ 56,332 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Greater than 10 less than or equal to 15 118,997 15,277,503.62 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 399,153 $ - $ 5,871,840 $ 6,012,834 $ - $ 2,993,677 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Greater than 15 less than or equal to 20 151,992 24,748,544.16 $ - $ 25,811 $ 129,869 $ - $ 237,661 $ 217,108 $ 2,435,436 $ 7,028,436 $ 587,977 $ 8,387,227 $ - $ - $ 1,219,206 $ - $ - $ 4,479,813 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Greater than 20 less than or equal to 25 137,680 18,206,819.05 $ 25,797 $ - $ 365,982 $ - $ 458,802 $ - $ 5,368,229 $ 7,660,676 $ 65,633 $ 2,817,167 $ - $ - $ 1,250,765 $ 193,768 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Greater than 25 less than or equal to 30 277,802 37,436,442.00 $ 34,954 $ 113,224 $ 374,203 $ 259,749 $ 819,604 $ - $ 10,392,408 $ 13,529,862 $ 430,910 $ 10,360,749 $ - $ - $ 1,120,779 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Greater than 30 less than or equal to 35 165,927 21,775,328.54 $ 61,362 $ - $ 168,882 $ - $ 1,017,214 $ - $ 5,318,479 $ 9,637,604 $ 160,009 $ 5,266,415 $ - $ - $ 109,485 $ - $ 30,450 $ 5,429 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Greater than 35 less than or equal to 40 195,763 30,983,881.69 $ - $ 75,507 $ 475,793 $ - $ 661,136 $ - $ 1,584,731 $ 11,251,141 $ 348,234 $ 7,509,098 $ - $ 1,071,277 $ 4,364,551 $ - $ 3,244,370 $ 15,587 $ 382,456 $ - $ - $ - $ Greater than 40 less than or equal to 45 68,593 15,103,151.17 $ - $ - $ 52,057 $ - $ 25,829 $ - $ 1,193,979 $ 1,446,701 $ 6,624 $ 2,272,621 $ - $ - $ 2,750,993 $ - $ 4,037,341 $ 1,863,163 $ 1,037,590 $ 416,253 $ - $ - $ Greater than 45 less than or equal to 50 155,063 29,485,391.72 $ 2,508 $ 93,355 $ 468,439 $ - $ 139,447 $ - $ 456,946 $ 5,504,539 $ 9,066 $ 10,175,831 $ 1,091,027 $ 81,070 $ 4,115,350 $ - $ 1,938,609 $ 3,544,328 $ 1,234,599 $ 22,616 $ 607,661 $ - $ Greater than 50 less than or equal to 55 163,129 25,142,080.18 $ - $ - $ 129,895 $ - $ 82,917 $ - $ 296,523 $ 12,370,819 $ - $ 8,075,667 $ - $ - $ 147,789 $ - $ 996,251 $ 418,256 $ 2,623,963 $ - $ - $ - $ Greater than 55 less than or equal to 60 38,506 8,216,305.91 $ - $ - $ 256,479 $ - $ 24,301 $ - $ 225,114 $ 1,674,189 $ - $ 1,240,419 $ - $ - $ 37,378 $ - $ 132,890 $ 4,625,536 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Greater than 60 less than or equal to 65 18,343 4,250,010.14 $ 49,511 $ - $ - $ - $ 155,796 $ - $ 17,661 $ 362,784 $ - $ 483,209 $ - $ - $ 776,569 $ - $ 2,053,560 $ 50,526 $ - $ - $ 300,394 $ - $ Greater than 65 less than or equal to 70 58,093 17,823,429.06 $ - $ - $ 9,202 $ 25,645 $ 1,080 $ - $ 144,066 $ 431,265 $ 112,415 $ 2,588,384 $ 13,156 $ - $ 315,485 $ - $ 1,447,546 $ 6,060,462 $ 6,674,723 $ - $ - $ - $ Greater than 70 less than or equal to 75 21,516 3,554,639.30 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 42,482 $ 858,356 $ - $ 2,124,760 $ - $ - $ 529,042 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Greater than 75 less than or equal to 80 9,277 1,343,722.34 $ - $ - $ 1,399 $ 240 $ 280,026 $ - $ 77,836 $ 286,325 $ 19,812 $ 675,311 $ - $ - $ 2,772 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Greater than 80 less than or equal to 90 137,929 27,670,155.40 $ - $ - $ 8,431 $ - $ 15,804 $ - $ 118,875 $ 6,445,081 $ 24,800 $ 7,008,650 $ 1,162,608 $ - $ 4,099,050 $ 53,243 $ - $ 3,067,247 $ 5,666,366 $ - $ - $ - $ Greater than 90 less than or equal to 100 158,822 24,869,779.95 $ - $ - $ 8,718 $ 1,484 $ 1,880 $ - $ 160,471 $ 13,995,795 $ - $ 3,340,667 $ - $ - $ 869,276 $ - $ 6,805 $ 6,163,453 $ - $ - $ - $ 321,230.51 $ Error (greater than 100) - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Total 2,016,144 324,641,504.68 $ 332,113.70 $ 631,456.41 $ 3,571,275.52 $ 347,150.07 $ 5,658,522.08 $ 217,107.78 $ 39,348,323.17 $ 102,625,005.48 $ 2,029,199.41 $ 80,187,453.47 $ 2,266,790.54 $ 1,172,384.89 $ 22,418,430.32 $ 306,380.26 $ 13,948,258.95 $ 30,293,800.93 $ 17,619,696.51 $ 438,869.63 $ 908,055.04 $ 321,230.51 $ Error Check -

SERVICE LIFE
(YEARS)
ACP 70
CIP 120
CMLC 100
CMLDIP 100
CMLSTL 100
CON 100
COP 50
DIP 100
DW 40
HDPE 50
OTH 40
PVC 70
RCP 100
STL 100
Unk 40
VCP 50
Material Average Service Life
Total
LF of pipe, diameter, and when it reaches end service life W1-2 CALCUALTION SUMMARY TABLES
Cement Mortar Lined Steel Pipe
Concrete
Copper
Ductile Iron Pipe
Dipped and Wrapped
High Density Polyethylene
Other
Polyvinyl Chloride
Reincforced Concrete Pipe
Steel
Unknown
Vitrified Clay Pipe
Length (ft) (columns below)
Asbestos Concrete Pipe
Length (ft)
Asbestos Concrete Pipe
Cast Iron Pipe
Cement Mortar Lined and Coated
Cement Mortar Lined Ductile Iron Pipe
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 488 of 728
Assume they want to repalce all meters less than 2" and including 2" over 20 years METER REPALCEMENT Meter Repalce Unit Cost
Qty of meters looked up in GIS Rounded
Size (in) Number of meters Unit Cost Total Cost
5/8" 169 428.47 $ 72,411
3/4" 7,938 459.51 $ 3,647,598
1" 12,493 545.00 $ 6,808,673
1 1/2" 833 1,298.10 $ 1,081,319
2" 859 1,495.60 $ 1,284,721 Yearly Cost over 20 years
Total 22,292 12,894,722 644,736.10 per year when done over 20 years 645000 Assume $515,000 when rounded up
1,114.60 About 1,100 meter per year
Assume a Recalibrate Every 10 Years 586.36 approx unit cost per meter METER CALIBRATION Cost taken from City
Size (in) Number of meters Rehab Costs Total

2.5" 1
3" 66 550 36,300
4" 182 550 100,100
6" 154 550 84,700
8" 174 550 95,700
10" 115 550 63,250
Unknown 265 550 145,750 Yearly Cost
Total 957 525,800.00 52,580.00 Per year when done over 10 years 55000 Assume $55,000 when rounded up

95.70 About 100 meters per year

REFERENCE INFORMAIOTN ON METER REPLACEMENT COSTS REFERENCE INFORMATION ON METER REHAB COSTS FROM CITY BIDS Cost to rehab, form the City
Total Cost Qty Unit Cost Meter Size Total Cost Qty Unit Cost Assumed Unit Cost 5/8" 4,614.26 $ 14 428.47 $ 3" 7997.1 19 420.9 550
3/4" 182,743.99 $ 517 459.51 $ 4" 12627 30 420.9 550
1" 206,680.39 $ 493 545.00 $ 6" 7997.1 19 420.9 550
1 1/2" 108,840.86 $ 109 1,298.10 $ 8" 2104.5 5 420.9 550 2" 197,879.51 $ 172 1,495.60 $
3 13 21585.33 1660.41
3 59 197879.51 3353.89
4 13 26670.41 2051.57
4 17 69042.1 4061.3
6 1 4446.69 4446.69
6 15 114734.25 7648.95
8 1 6258.35 6258.35
6x8 0 12064.93 12064.93
4 0 11635.46 11635.46
6 0 16221.78 16221.78
8 8 157530 19691.25
10 0 22987.57 22987.57
Meter Replacement Costs from City Not used
Meter Replacement Costs from City
W1-4 & W1-5 CALCUALTION SUMMARY TABLES
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 489 of 728
Station
Count (13
Stations)
Pump
Count (39
Pumps) Pump Station (1)
Pump
Name (1) Test # HP Head Capacity Overall Eff
Improved
Eff Total KwH Kw Input
Cost per
Kwh
Average cost
per Acre Ft
Estimated cost of
Rehab ($1,000 per
HP)
Total per
Station for
Mechanical
For Elec. and
civil/coatings
Instalaltion
Labor Soft Costs Total
1 Texas 1550 1 250 252 2805 74 175200 180 0.16 55.76 $250,000 1551 1 250 387.4 1780 72.6 522096 178.8 0.16 87.28 $250,000 2 250 335 2260 73.5
3 250 231.5 2706 62
1552 $250,000
1553 1 250 267.3 3143 80.7 608388 196 0.17 57.57 $250,000 2 250 249.2 3240 78.4 $1,000,000 $1,000,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $1,350,000.00 $4,350,000 Texas 4 1000 73.53333333
5 Dearborn 1761 1 100 161.2 1490 54.2 70 65052 83.5 0.2 59.96 $100,000 1 200 373.8 1516 76.5 108588 139.4 0.2 98.38 $200,000
2 200 397.1 1380 75.2
3 200 420 1244 73.7 $300,000 $300,000.00 $300,000.00 $405,000.00 $1,305,000 Dearborn 2 300 69.9
7 HAWC 2174 1 200 544.2 1103 73.6 44088 153.6 0.16 118.74 $200,000 8 HAWC 2176 1 200 539.6 875 65.8 35796 135.1 0.16 161.65 $200,000 9 HAWC 2177 1 150 534.8 691 58.1 70 106776 119.7 0.16 147.7 $150,000 10 HAWC 1720 1 75 166.3 525 44.9 65 30120 36.6 0.16 59.44 $75,000 1 150 185.5 2130 73.4 143640 101.3 0.16 40.55 $150,000
2 150 205.4 2000 78
1 200 183.4 2045 69 76368 102.3 0.16 42.65 $200,000
2 200 179.7 2115 69.6 $975,000 $975,000.00 $975,000.00 $1,316,250.00 $4,241,250 HAWC 6 975 66.55
13 Smiley Heights 1783 $150,000
14 Smiley Heights 1784 $150,000 $300,000 $300,000.00 $300,000.00 $405,000.00 $1,305,000 Smiley Heights 2 UNK UNK
15 South 1927 1 100 200.5 1103 50.7 70 57336 82.2 0.18 73.66 $100,000 16 South 1928 1 150 163.5 1780 51.2 70 177876 107 0.18 59.42 $150,000 17 South 2124 1 200 389.9 980 47.6 70 36540 151.2 0.18 152.5 $200,000 18 South 2125 200 $150,000
19 South 2126 150 $150,000 $750,000 $750,000.00 $750,000.00 $1,012,500.00 $3,262,500 South 5 800 49.83333333
1 100 155.2 1780 67.6 29532 77 0.16 36.41 $100,000
2 100 186.6 1519 68.3
3 100 204 1335 65.3
1 100 157.1 1870 70.4 171948 78.6 0.16 35.38 $100,000
2 100 176.7 1684 70.9
3 100 213.7 1305 66.3
1 100 153.6 1905 71 55440 77.6 0.16 34.29 $100,000
2 100 181.6 1623 71.1
3 100 205.4 1362 67.6 $300,000 $300,000.00 $300,000.00 $405,000.00 $1,305,000 Agate 3 300 68.72222222
23 Rees 1724 $150,000
24 Rees 1723 $150,000 $300,000 $300,000.00 $300,000.00 $405,000.00 $1,305,000 Rees 2 UNK UNK
25 Fifth Avenue 2131 1 125 225.1 1018 59.9 72 148644 72 0.21 79.48 $125,000 1 125 236.7 1020 61.9 72 43369 110.97 0.24 93.79 $125,000 2 125 263.3 775 54.1
1 50 204.2 520 51.9 65 39240 38.5 0.21 83.2 $50,000
2 50 224.5 465 55.4
3 50 238.4 401 52.8
1 150 239.5 2337 68 21096 155 0.21 74.53 $150,000
2 150 262.6 2129 69.7 $450,000 $450,000.00 $450,000.00 $607,500.00 $1,957,500 Fifth Avenue 4 450 59.2125
29 Country Club 2384 100 $150,000
1 100 214.8 1134 65.4 42636 70.1 0.15 51.59 $100,000
2 100 234.5 1071 68.3
3 100 259.2 956 69.3
1 150 233.5 1777 68.1 244224 114.7 0.15 53.94 $150,000
2 150 259.9 1603 69.9
1 200 258.3 2264 67.4 57972 163.4 0.15 60.24 $200,000
2 200 281.6 2109 68.4
3 200 306.6 1932 68 $600,000 $600,000.00 $600,000.00 $810,000.00 $2,610,000 Counrty Club 4 550 68.1
33 Ward Way 2381 $150,000
34 Ward Way 2382 $150,000 $300,000 $300,000.00 $300,000.00 $405,000.00 $1,305,000 Ward Way 2 UNK UNK
35 Sand Canyon 2610 1 50 253.9 539 66.2 $50,000
36 Sand Canyon 2611 1 150 318.5 1362 67.2 $150,000 $200,000 $200,000.00 $200,000.00 $270,000.00 $870,000 Sand Canyon 2 200 66.7
37 Yucaipa 2330 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000.00 $150,000.00 $202,500.00 $652,500 Yucaipa 1 UNK UNK
38 Mill Creek 2510 $150,000
39 Mill Creek 2511 $150,000 $300,000 $300,000.00 $300,000.00 $405,000.00 $1,305,000 Mill Creek 2 UNK UNK
Name Num. PumpsTotal HP Eff. Rehab Cost Rounded Year
1 South 5 800 49.8 $3,262,500 $3,270,000 2022
2 Fifth Avenue 4 450 59.2 $1,957,500 $1,960,000 2023
3 HAWC 6 975 66.6 $4,241,250 $4,250,000 2024/2025
4 Sand Canyon 2 200 66.7 $870,000 $870,000 2026
5 Counrty Club 4 550 68.1 $2,610,000 $2,610,000 2027
6 Agate 3 300 68.7 $1,305,000 $1,310,000 2028
7 Dearborn 2 300 69.9 $1,305,000 $1,310,000 2029'
8 Texas 4 1000 73.5 $4,350,000 $4,350,000 2030/2031
9 Smiley Heights 2 UNK UNK $1,305,000 $1,310,000 2032
10 Rees 2 UNK UNK $1,305,000 $1,310,000 2033
11 Ward Way 2 UNK UNK $1,305,000 $1,310,000 2034
12 Yucaipa 1 UNK UNK $652,500 $660,000 2035
13 Mill Creek 2 UNK UNK $1,305,000 $1,310,000 2036
Country Club 2387
W4-2 CALCUALTION SUMMARY TABLES
Country Club 2385
31 Country Club 2386
Fifth Avenue 2310
28 Fifth Avenue 2311
22 Agate 1953
26 Fifth Avenue 2132
20 Agate 1951
21 Agate 1952
10 11
12 13
2 3
4 6
11 12
27 30
32 5
6 7
8 9
1 2
3 4
Texas
Texas
Texas
Dearborn 1931
HAWC 1721
HAWC 1722
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 490 of 728
Name Capacity (MG) Type Year Budget
Texas Grove 3.9 Steel 1956 30,000 $
Agate 3 Steel 1968 30,000 $
Arroyo 0.5 Steel 1965 30,000 $
South 2 Steel 1964 30,000 $
Ward Way 2 Steel 1958 30,000 $
Sunset 3 Steel 1967 30,000 $
Mill Creek 1 0.2 Steel 1962 30,000 $
Mill Creek 2 0.2 Steel 1987 30,000 $
Crafton 3.5 Steel 1970 30,000 $
Texas Street 1 TBD TBD 30,000 $
Dearborn 10 Concrete 1972 30,000 $
Highland 10 Concrete 1976 30,000 $
Country Club 1 1 Concrete 1969 30,000 $
Country Club 2 2 Concrete 1924 $ 30,000
Total 420,000 $
over 5 years$ 84,000 per year
Smiley 3 Steel 1964 Complete 2021
Sand Canyon 3.5 Steel 1973 Complete 2021
Fifth Avenue 5 Concrete 1974 Complete 2021
Margarita 2.4 Concrete 1964 Complete 2021
W5-6 CALCUALTION SUMMARY TABLES
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 491 of 728
Priority ID Name
Capacity
(MG) Type Year Rehab Budget
Rehab
Year Rehab Year
Inspection
Budget
Inspection
Year
Inspection
Year
Inspection
Year
Rehab
Again Year
1 1 Texas Grove 3.9 Steel 1956 1,911,000 $ 2023 2043 20,000 $ 2028 2033 2038 2043 2 13 Ward Way 2 Steel 1958 980,000 $ 2023 2043 15,000 $ 2028 2033 2038 2043 3 16 Mill Creek 1 0.2 Steel 1962 98,000 $ 2024 2044 10,000 $ 2029 2034 2039 2044 4 5 Smiley 3 Steel 1964 1,470,000 $ 2024 2044 20,000 $ 2029 2034 2039 2044 5 8 South 2 Steel 1964 980,000 $ 2025 2045 15,000 $ 2030 2035 2040 2045 6 7 Arroyo 0.5 Steel 1965 245,000 $ 2025 2045 10,000 $ 2030 2035 2040 2045 7 15 Sunset 3 Steel 1967 1,470,000 $ 2026 2046 20,000 $ 2031 2036 2041 2046 8 6 Agate 3 Steel 1968 1,470,000 $ 2027 2047 20,000 $ 2032 2037 2042 2047 9 18 Crafton 3.5 Steel 1970 1,715,000 $ 2028 2048 20,000 $ 2033 2038 2043 2048 10 14 Sand Canyon 3.5 Steel 1973 1,715,000 $ 2029 2049 20,000 $ 2034 2039 2044 2049 11 17 Mill Creek 2 0.2 Steel 1987 98,000 $ 2029 2049 10,000 $ 2034 2039 2044 2049 Tank Rehabilitation
CIP Budget per year 2022 $0 1
2023 2,891,000 $ 2
2024 1,568,000 $ 3
2025 1,225,000 $ 4
2026 1,470,000 $ 5
2027 1,470,000 $ 6
2028 1,715,000 $ 7
2029 1,813,000 $ 8
CONCRETE TANKS Designation
Capacity
(MG) Type Year Cost
1 Country Club 2 2 Concrete 1924 44,000 $
2 Margarita 2.4 Concrete 1964 45,000 $
3 Country Club 1 1 Concrete 1969 34,000 $
4 Dearborn 10 Concrete 1972 56,000 $
5 Fifth Avenue 5 Concrete 1974 50,000 $
6 Highland 10 Concrete 1976 56,000 $
7 Texas Street 1 TBD 34,000 $
Total 319,000 $
W5-9, W5-10, W5-11 CALCUALTION SUMMARY TABLES
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12/20/22 492 of 728