Wednesday, July 26, 2023
City of Rialto
Council Chambers
150 S. Palm Ave.
Rialto, CA 92376
Rialto City Hall, Council Chambers, 150 S. Palm Ave. Rialto CA 92376 Water Subcommittee
Regular Meeting - Final
1 July 26, 2023Water Subcommittee Regular Meeting - Final
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMENTS
REVIEW/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
WS-23-684 Minutes from the June 28, 2023 Meeting
WS-23-684_Meeting Minutes 6-28-23.pdfAttachments:
PRESENTATIONS
REPORTS/DISCUSSION ITEMS
WS-23-686 CEQA Update on the “Rialto Habitat Nature Center” (formally named “Lake Rialto”)
RHNC WSC Presentation 07-20-23 CEQA Update NR.pptxAttachments:
WS-23-687 Present Additional Scenarios of Phase 1: Water/Wastewater Revenue Analysis of the Water and Wastewater Rate Study and provide staff recommendations.
(ACTION)
Rialto PowerPoint Presentation.pdfAttachments:
WS-23-688 Utilities Manager Update
UPCOMING MEETINGS/OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS
ADJOURNMENT
2 City of Rialto
Legislation Text
File #: WS-23-684, Version: 1, Agenda #:
For Water Subcommittee Meeting [ July 26, 2023]
TO: Water Subcommittee Members
FROM: Thomas J. Crowley, P.E., Utilities Manager
Minutes from the June 28, 2023 Meeting
City of Rialto Printed on 7/20/2023Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
3 1
CITY OF RIALTO
REGULAR MEETING OF THE WATER SUBCOMMITTEE
June 28, 2023 - 10:00 A.M.
MINUTES
The Regular meeting of the Water Subcommittee of the City of Rialto was held in the Civic Center Council Chambers located at 150 S. Palm Avenue, Rialto, California 92376, on Wednesday, June 28, 2023.
o0o
CALL TO ORDER Call to order at 10:01 A.M.
o0o
ROLL CALL The roll call was taken by Senior Executive Analyst, Nicole Hemmans.
Subcommittee Members / City Staff/Interns:
Mayor Deborah Robertson
Council Member Ed Scott
Arron Brown, Acting City Manager
Robert Messinger, Assistant City Attorney
Tom Crowley, Utilities Manager
Toyasha Sebbag, Assistant to the CM
Nicole Hemmans, Senior Administration Analyst
Katherine Stevens, Director of Finance
Owen Knapper, Intern to the Mayor
Genesis Ibrahim-Balogun, Intern to the Mayor
Other Attendees
Steve Dopudja, Consultant
Peter Lucetti, RWS/Table Rock
Megan Matson, RWS/Table Rock
Rolf Ohlemutz, Rialto Water Services
Art Griffith, FG Solutions
Dr. June Hayes, Public
Even Kominsky, Ullico
Zoom Attendees
Debbi Fortin, FG Solutions
o0o
PUBLIC COMMENTS None.
4 2
o0o
APPROVAL OF MINUTES-
Regular Meeting of March 08, 2023
March 08, 2023, Minutes Approved.
NEW BUSINESS ITEMS
o0o
WS-23-631 - Update and presentation
on Lake Rialto Habitat Management
Community Open Space Project (Lake
Rialto)
PowerPoint presentation provided by Steve Dopudja and Tom Crowley.
Questions & Comments
♦ Councilmember Ed Scott inquired on when the name change of Project would occur, as it has been discussed on several occasions that the name “Lake Rialto” was misleading.
♦ It was agreed that the name Lake Rial to will b e changed to “Rialto Habitat Nature Center” (RHNC).
♦ Councilmember Ed Scott asked if the grading that is taking place on- site will affect the Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission lights?
o Per Steve Dopudja, no, the grading is not affecting the SCE towers, and this was confirmed by SCE when they met in the field.
o Per Tom Crowley, the grading plan stabiliz es the slope; therefore, the grading plan will improve it.
♦ Mr. Dopudja asked for direction on the preferred building type of the education facility.
o Councilmember Scott requested a cost estimate of our options.
o Mayor Robertson suggested looking at some of our
neighboring areas, such as Fontana, and see what they are using for their building facilities at their conservation area. o Councilmember Scott suggested we w ork with our local manufacturing plant that builds premanufactured buildings.
♦ Mayor Robertson inquired on the run- off of storm water coming into the plant from the street of Santa Ana Ave. She stated that r un offs and storm d rains are starting to be intrusive and asked if our plan includes diverting the storm water directly to the Rialto Channel? o Per Dopudja, our solution would correct storm water drainage by pushing the storm water directly into the Channel.
o Mayor Robertson asked who would be taking car e of the project?
o Per Crowley, it will be a part of the Santa Ana Project.
5 3
♦ Mr. Dopudja asked for direction on the ADA component in the parking area and presented 2 options:
Plan A - We work with Flood Control; or
Plan B - We purchase a small section of our neighbor’s property.
o Councilmember Scott asked how far is the distance from the parking lot to the Lake? Per Dopudja, approximately 1 mile. o Councilmember Scott asked if we considered the area at the Northeast corner? Per Dopudja, that area was investigated, and it did not work out because it slopes down to the lake.
♦ Councilmember Scott commented that the current location for parking is going to be a safety issue with the homeless and asked if the parking lot will be secured at night.
o Per Dopudja, no, the parking lot will not be fenced due to the way the cars would park.
o Mayor requested a visit to the site to get a visualization on what we are discussing pertaining to the parking.
♦ Mr. Dopudja asked for direction regarding repairing Santa Ana .
Options are to have IEUA do the design and construction which will take 24 months; Or have the City design it and IEUA will pay for the cost, and it will probably be done quicker.
o Dopudja suggested having IEUA handle the design makes more sense unless there is a desire to improve Santa Ana sooner than 24 months.
o Mayor Robertson and Councilmember Scott agree to have IEUA proceed with handling the design and construction.
♦ Steve Dopudja received confirmation from DWR’s Division of Safety of Dams that this project does not fall under their jurisdiction.
♦ Rolf requested status of the CEQA documents.
o Per Crowley, Enplanners has completed all their studies and are in the final stage for us to give direction on the CEQA process.
o Mayor Robertson asked has the area been identified and preserved as protected?
o Per Crowley, the only protected area is the area described as the Fly Habitat.
The Lake area is not suitable for the fly
habitat. There is no significant impact due to the flies.
o0o
WS-23-623 – Amendment to San
Bernardino Basin Groundwater
Council Framework Agreement
Tom Crowley presented a First Amendment to the San Bernardino Basin Groundwater Council Framework Agreement extending the agreement through June 2024 providing sufficient time to conclude the productive discussions on additional refinements for a successful cooperative groundwater recharge program.
6 4
Tom Crowley requested the Water Subcommittee bring this item forward to the City Council and Rialto Utility Authority for discussion of the Amendment to San Bernardino Basin Groundwater Council Framework Agreement.
Questions & Comments
♦ Councilmember Scott asked is the water we purchase ours (the City)? o Per Crowley, no, the water is not purchased as an individual agency, but as a collective group.
♦ What percentage of the amount of water that we buy into are we using?
o Per Dr. June Hayes, the 6% we are contributing is based on the City’s production.
♦ Councilmember Scott asked Robert Messinger to put this item on the next closed session as potential litigation.
♦ Mayor Robertson asked who agreed on the strategy we are following?
o Per Crowley, Valley District preferred we discuss recharging Cactus Basin after the final agreement is approved.
o Per Dr. Hayes, the reason she was given for the approval of the non-Cactus was so that we would have a place to put all the water, given a wet year. It was either delay C actus, or delay everything and not make use of the surplus water by letting it go to the ocean.
o Councilmember Scott commented that everyone treats
Rialto as if it’s a stepchild. We have no water in our basin, no recharge, and are a disadvantaged community. Just like everything else done in San Bernardino Coun ty, Rialto is always on the bottom. We are tired of it and w e’re going to do something about it!
♦ Mayor Robertson asked why was this issue brought to the attention of Dr. Hayes, but not brought to the attention of the City of Rialto ? Has this been discussed with anyone at the City?
o Mr. Crowley advised that he was informed that this was the direction Valley District decided to go.
♦ Mayor Robertson asked who in the City is in daily co llaboration with San Bernardino County on the status of their project in our City – Public Works?
o Per Mr. Crowley, Public Works would be his guess, but he will confirm.
o Mayor Robertson suggested we need a Project Manager.
♦ Mr. Crowley asked if we would agree to extend the framework agreement for one more year , so that we can decide on what a 7 5
framework agreement would look like going forward if the agency still wants to participate?
o Councilmember Scott asked when does it need to be agreed by? Per Mr. Crowley, he would like to have it completed as soon as possible.
o Mayor Robertson asked how many meetings have we had
about this topic? Per Mr. Crowley, he has been meeting with the San Bernardino Basin Groundwater Council in reference to this item.
o Councilmember Scott asked who sits on that council? Per Mr. Crowley, staff from the different water agencies sit on the council.
o Councilmember Scott commented, “so no elected officials”. o Mayor Robertson asked if this council also buy-in to signing the agreement without Cactus Basin in the agreement ? Per Mr. Crowley, no, this Ground Council had nothing to do with that.
o Councilmember Scott asked if they were aware of it? Per Mr.
Crowley, yes, they were aware of the conversation that
Valley District was pursuing an agreement.
o Mayor Robertson and Councilmember Scott both asked if the Ground Council had any objections? Per Crowley,
Councilmember Scott commented that we keep letting the
water pass us by and we are about to let another wet season pass by again.
o Mayor Robertson asked if we will be buying water to put water into our basin. Per Mr. Crowley, when we go to buy water, Fontana will be putting in the first 61 -acre feet. After that, we will be accumulating additional funds of $6M that we will use to purchase State Water for developing projects. But that won’t happen until the 61K acre feet is purchased and recharged. However, we will not be able to do any recharge until the basins are done.
o Mayor Robertson asked when will the basins be done?
Council member Scott replied, “No one knows, they are in litigation.”
o Per Mr. Crowley, that is where the agreement comes in with Flood control.
♦ It was agreed that we will not move forward with considering the Amendment to San Bernardino Basin Groundwater Council Framework Agreement until after t he discussion on the Cactus Basin recharge goes to closed session in July.
o0o
WS-23-630 – Amendment No. 1 to the
Marketing License Agreement with
Service Line Warranty of America, Inc.
Tom Crowley presented a First Amendment to the Marketing License Agreement with Service Line Warranty of America changing the terms of 8 6
the contract so that the royalty is no longer calculated per service plan, but instead as a flat royalty-fee of $7,200 paid to the City of Rialto annually, with the first payment beginning in January 2024.
Crowley requested the Water Subcommittee bring this item forward to the City Council and Rialto Utility Authority for discussion of the Amendment Number No. 1 to the Marketing License Agreement with Service Line Warranty of America, Inc.
Questions & Comments
♦ Mayor Robertson asked where does the royalty go?
o Per Mr. Crowley, the money goes into a RUA misc. revenue account and is spent against O&M expenses accumulated
throughout the year. Currently, our revenue is under
expenses, so it’s been fully absorbed.
♦ Councilmember Scott commented that out of 13,000 sewer connections, we only got 800 policies and feels it is due to the marketing. If the mailer was in a n RWS/Veolia colored envelope, as oppose to the black & white mailer they send out, more residents would probably sign up. If it was marketed SLWA properly we could be above $28K in royalty revenue.
♦ Councilmember Scott asked what keeps RWS/Veolia from promoting SLWA? If RWS/Veolia are getting the money, then they should be involved in promoting the program.
o Per Mr. Crowley, we can consider having RWS/Veolia help promote the warranty.
o Per Dr. Hayes , she recalls th at this question coming up before and recall RWS/Veolia advising that they don’t do service line warranty, so they don’t market it.
♦ Mayor asked if service line warranty is the only product they sell? o Per Mr. Crowley, he will confirm if service line warranty is their only product they sell or if the re are other
services/product they provide that we can offer in addition to just service line warranty.
♦ Councilmember Scott advised that we need to find out the legality of having RWS/Veolia promoting SLWA through their programs.
o Per Mr. Crowley, he will work with RWS/Veolia in finding that out.
o Per Robert Messinger, the issue with RWS/Veolia promoting the program is that the insurance agency needs license d 9 7
agents promoting the insurance and RWS/Veolia does not
have a license to sell insurance. Mr. Messinger will confirm this.
o Councilmember Scott asked how do we get around that and can we suggest to our customers who they can use for the repair of their service line? Per, Mr. Messinger, he will investigate and confirm this.
o0o
WS-23-624 – 2022 Consumer
Confidence Report.
Tom Crowley requested the Water Subcommittee bring this item forward to the City Council and Rialto Utility Authority to receive and file the 2022 Consumer Confidence Report.
Questions & Comments
♦ Mayor Robertson asked if there is anything in the report that we should be concerned about?
o Per Mr. Crowley, he read the entire report and there is nothing we should be concerned about.
o0o
WS-23-607 – Present Findings of
Phase 1: Water/Wastewater
Revenue Analysis
Item presented by Toyasha Sebbag of Rialto Utility Authority. PowerPoint presentation provided by Art Griffith, consultant with FG Solutions , presenting the findings of Phase 1: Water/Wastewater Revenue Analysis of the Water and Wastewater Rate Study.
Questions & Comments
Q &A - Wastewater Revenue Analysis
♦ Art Griffith provided the following informa tion pertaining to RUA reserves for wastewater:
10 8
♦ Mayor Robertson asked if there is an amount associated with the Additional Restricted Reserves held in Trust?
o Mr. Griffith advised that there is an amount associated with the restricted reserves and he will provide that amount after the meeting.
♦ Art Griffith provided the following FY 23/24 RUA Budget for Wastewater:
Total: 29,006,018
♦ Councilmember Scott questioned why the lease payment for the FY23/24 Budget is 1.6M instead of 2M?
o Per Art Griffith, 1.6 represents the wastewater portion of the combined water/wastewater budget, so
the remaining
amount is in the water budget.
♦ Councilmember Scott asked i f the RUA lease payment is suddenly eliminated, how will it affect the outcome of the Budget? o Mr. Griffith advised that he show a demonstration on the change in scenario and how it affects the budget later on in the presentation.
o Later in the presentation Griffith provided a scenario on how much capital RUA wastewater revenue pays for:
11 9
o Based on the scenario above, which includes RUA lease payment, $1/month from each EDU would pay for either
$450,000 in annual cash spending, or Debt Service on 6-7M in loans.
o To Answer Councilmember Scotts questions pertaining to the elimination of the lease payment, If the RUA lease payment of 1.6M to the general fund is eliminated , RUA could borrow 20M and pay the Debt Service with what is being paid towards the lease payment right now.
o Per Mr. Crowley, the $450,000 per year cash in the scenario above would increase to 2M per year.
♦ Councilmember Scott advised Mr. Griffith that the City is being sued over the lease payment, therefore there needs to be a discussion on discontinuing the lease payment for water and wastewater.
♦ Mr. Griffith advised he can restructure how we communicate on this topic.
Q &A - Water Revenue Analysis
♦ Art Griffith provided the following information pertaining to the water reserves:
♦ Mayor Robertson asked if the rate stabilization held in trust of 2.785M will be used entirely in FY23/24.
12 10
o Per Mr. Griffith, approximately 4.5M was applied towards Rate Stabilization with a portion being applied in FY22/23 and the remaining will go towards FY23/24.
o Per Mr. Crowley, these are ARPA funds that were allocated towards RUA for rate stabilization.
♦ Mr. Griffith provided the following financial projection of RUA water fund:
♦ Mr. Griffith advised the Water Subcommittee that RUA has a contractual requirement to maintain the coverage calculation within the trust, however, that requirement is not being met. RUA has used revenue stabilization over the past couple of years and plan on using an additional amount next year, however, beyond that the contractual requirement doesn’t go away.
♦ Dr. Hayes asked what the impact would be if the City stops the lease payment to RUA?
o Per Griffith, the lease payment of $400K to RUA does not affect the coverage calculation, but affects the cashflow.
Therefore, there would be over 5 years of an additional 2M that would flow out of the water flow and possibly backfill the revenue stabilization needed. However, revenues right now are lower than expenses, therefore there is a need of money from somewhere to pay the bills.
♦ Mr. Griffith provided the following information on how much capital does $1 per month from each EDU pay for:
13 11
♦ Griffith stated that in his experience debt issuance agencies want to see that borrowers can pay their debt. In RUA’s current position, Griffith doesn’t believe RUA would be able to qualify for a loan, however RWS is in direct communication with the lending agencies can define a definitive answer based on actual conversation.
♦ Councilmember Scott asked Mr. Griffith if a performance on the life of the concession was completed by him at the beginning of the concession agreement?
o Per Mr. Griffith, a 5-year Schedule of Rates was completed.
To compare concession alternatives, Mr. Griffith went out over 30 years to compare the various bids received.
However, for the schedule of rates, it was a 5-year schedule.
♦ Councilmember Scott asked Mr. Griffith how RUA has lived up to the 5-year schedule?
o Griffith advised that he felt the 5-year schedule was a good outcome because within the 5 years, a rate increase was implemented and there wasn’t a need to do anything
different from what was planned. Also, one of the events that occurred was the 2015 drought that tanked water
consumption. One of the advantages w as that RUA’s fixed charges were comparatively high compared to other utilities.
What that did was stabilize the revenue so that when water consumption dropped by approx. 20%, water revenue
decreased less than 20%. Lastly, other agencies had to have the difficult conversation with their customers on why their rate will be increased, while RUA did not have that issue at all. Overall, the 5-year schedule was a good outcome.
♦ Councilmember Scott asked how was the $30M that the City received from the concession shown or recorded as on our accounting books?
o Per Mr. Dopudja, he believes it was an advance on the lease payments.
o Mr. Griffith doesn’t know the answer to how it was booked in the financial system, However, he confirmed that $25M was based on the wastewater side and $5M on the water side. o Katherine advised she would find out and provide an answer to the Water Subcommittee.
♦ Councilmember Scott asked when the money was transferred from the City general fund for the Renaissance project, how was the transaction recorded as? Was it shown as a loan or a capital improvement payment?
o Katherine advised she w ould verify this information; however, the standard accounting practice would have been a loan.
14 12
o Councilmember Scott advised Katherine that previous
people in the finance department described it as a gift, but it should have been a loan paid to the city.
♦ Councilmember Scott asked Griffith if he had any
recommendations, if we were status q uo, on what the
recommended rate would be?
o Per Mr. Griffith, per the status quo, there are no rate increases. Griffith advised that he has prepared many
scenarios that are not included in today ’s presentation, however, he will make them available to the Water
Subcommittee.
♦ Councilmember Scott asked that Griffith prepare th e following scenario’s:
(a) The elimination of the lease payment to the city; and (b) The repayment of $30M from the City to RUA.
♦ Mayor R obertson asked Stephen Dopudja, regarding the agreement between the City and IEUA, when is the revenue expected to be received and what will the amount be?
o Per Mr. Dopudja, he has been working with Nicole on the billing invoice to IEUA. The supply deposit fee was invoiced in June in the amount of $128K.
♦ Mayor Robertson asked if the revenue would go towards wastewater?
o Tom confirmed Yes.
♦ Councilmember Scott asked why would it go towards wastewater when the end result is drinking water?
o Per Mr. Crowley, this is because the expenses of developing the water are on the wastewater side, therefore, the revenue will be applied to the wastewater side as well.
♦ Councilmember Scott commented that due to the number of capital projects for wastewater there will need to be a rate increase because the capital projects will need to be paid for and the money will have to come from somewhere because the
projects can’t fund themselves.
♦ Mr. Dopudja shared that his council district has 2 years remaining before a rate increase, but they are not waiting because all the projects that they budgeted for have increased in cost due to inflation. If they wait 2 years they will be 4 times behind. Many other agencies are re-evaluating their rate structure now and not waiting till the end of the 5-year term to implement a rate increase.
15 13
♦ Mayor Robertson commented that to move forward we need to review the CIP list to determine what is essential, critical, and involved in additional operations. However, she didn’t see it being possible to achieve right now.
♦ Mayor Robertson asked if any of the projects on the CIP list below were on the original list of projects?
o Per Mr. Crowley, some of the projects were on the list within the 5-years.
♦ Advised that if you were to complete the high priority projects on the wastewater side, there would need to be a rate increase of
2.5% per year, at the most, but possibly a little less than that.
♦ Mayor Robertson asked Mr. Messinger what would the outcome be if we were to back out of the lease payments and what is the statute of limitations?
o Mr. Messinger advised that the maximum is 3 years that they can go back , however, he will consul t with his
colleagues and will provide and verify.
♦ It was confirmed that Mr. Griffith would return to provide the following scenarios:
a) Revisit s tatus que presented today of no rate
increase and no capital improvements;
b) Discontinuation of lease payment going forward;
c) Discontinuation of lease payment going forward,
with plan to repay the $30M , and no rate
increase;
d) Rate increase scenarios that don’t require
revenue sta bilization and support high priority
capital improvements only;
e) Conversation on the wastewater side that will
include what type of reserves will RUA want to
maintain.
f) Conversation on the water side on what type of
projects does RUA want to build.
♦ Mayor Robertson insured Dr. Hayes that she will not be looking at a 25% rate increase, in which Dr. Hayes thanked her.
♦ Mayor Robertson requested moving forward to phase two of the RUA rate analysis.
♦ Dr. June Hayes made an announcement that the City of Rialto will be receiving a check for $80K from San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District for the City’s water saving over the past year.
16 14
o0o
UTILITIES MANAGER’S UPDATES
WS-23-625 – Utilities Manager Update
Note: This item was not discussed due to time restraints:
Utilities Manager update by Tom Crowley.
Discussion items:
a) Conservation Projects/Rebates
b) Orangewood Mobile Home Park Agreement c) SAOU Site Visit by EPA - completion of project
o0o
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 12:22pm.
17 City of Rialto
Legislation Text
File #: WS-23-686, Version: 1, Agenda #:
For Water Subcommittee Meeting [July 26, 2023]
TO: Water Subcommittee Members
APPROVAL: Thomas J. Crowley, P.E., Utilities Manager
CEQA Update on the “Rialto Habitat Nature Center” (formally named “Lake Rialto”) PowerPoint presentation on the status of CEQA process provided by Enplanners, CEQA Consultants.
City of Rialto Printed on 7/20/2023Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
18 RIALTO HABITAT NATURE
CENTER (RHNC)
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION UPDATE
19 Project Purpose and Objectives
Project Description
Environmental Documentation (CEQA Plus)
Schedule
Environmental Impacts
Approvals & Permits
Questions / Comments
Agenda
20 Create an outdoor, passive recreational park with environmental education opportunities for Rialto residents, underserved DAC and SDAC communities, and neighboring community residents.
Provide surface water quality improvements, open space, and ecosystem and freshwater wildlife habitat by achieving the following basic objectives:
Creating Wetlands & Wildlife Habitat
Creating a Community Water Feature, Walking Trails, and Education Experience.
Present an opportunity for the City to provide these surrounding underserved communities and all City and nearby residents with additional public open space, passive recreational areas, and environmental education programs
Project Purpose and Objectives
21 Project Description
22 An environmental document and supporting technical studies are currently being prepared in accordance with CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.).
Specifically, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) will be prepared to evaluate potential environmental effects resulting from the RHNC.
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 , a “public agency shall prepare…a proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration…when: (a) The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence…that the Project may have a significant impact on the environment, or (b) The Initial Study identifies potentially significant effects but revisions to the Project plans or proposal are agreed to by the applicant and such revisions would reduce potentially significant effects to a less-than-significant level.” Environmental Documentation
(CEQA Plus)
23 Because the Project would be partially funded by state and federal grants, compliance with CEQA and NEPA is required. The Water Board requires preparation of necessary technical studies and documentation demonstrating that a project is in compliance with applicable federal cross-cutting
environmental authorities.
The SWRCB refers to such documentation as “CEQA-Plus.” Project must comply with CEQA, and
Applicable federal cross-cutting authorities (i.e. environmental protection acts, regulations, etc.).
The IS/MND expands beyond the typical content requirements of an initial study to include consideration of federal cross-cutting environmental review requirements.
Environmental Documentation
Cont.
24 Technical Studies
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gasses Assessment –Complete
Cultural Resources Assessment –Complete
Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration and Review of Conceptual Plan – Complete
Biological Resources Assessment –Pending
Draft complete pending CSLS final review –Completion 7-22-23 Tribal Consultation (AB 52) –Pending
Draft Consultation Letter pending review–Completion 7-22-23 Tribal Consultation – 30-day period
IS/MND –In Process
Admin Draft pending Enplanners internal review –Completion 7-26-23 CEQA Plus Progress Update
25 Based on the issues evaluated in the IS/MND, preliminary determination indicates the Project would have either no impact or a less-than- significant impact related to most of the following issue areas identified in the Environmental Checklist, included as Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Preliminary Environmental
Impacts
• Aesthetics
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources
• Air Quality
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Land Use and Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire
Potentially significant impacts were identified for biological resources, cultural resources, and tribal cultural resources; however , the following slide illustrates the mitigation measures included in the IS/MND of which would reduce all impacts to a less-than-significant level. 26 Biological Resources
Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey Mitigation
If grading or site disturbance is to occur between January 1 through August 15 for raptors and February 15 through August 31 for all other avian species, a nesting bird survey shall be conducted within all suitable habitat, on-site and within 300-feet surrounding the site (as feasible) to determine the presence of nests or nesting birds. Cultural Resources
Discovery of Unknown Cultural Resources Mitigation
Discovery of Unknown Human Remains Mitigation
Specific performance standards shall be met prior to implementing or continuing construction activities, which may result in damage to or destruction of unknown sensitive cultural resources or human remains.
Tribal Cultural Resources
Discovery of Unknown Tribal Cultural Resources Mitigation Specific performance standards shall be met prior to implementing or continuing construction activities, which may result in damage to or destruction of unknown sensitive tribal cultural resources.
Preliminary Mitigation Measures
27 For federal cross-cutting compliance, the federal laws and regulations that apply to the Project are addressed within the CEQA Plus document. Based on preliminary effect determinations, no project- related impacts would occur regarding compliance of the following :
Preliminary Federal Compliance
• Endanger Species Act
• Magnuson-stevens Fishery
Conservation And Management
Act, Essential Fish Habitat
• National Historic Preservation Act
• Clean Air Act
• Coastal Zone Management Act
• Coastal Barriers Resources Act
• Farmland Protection Act
• Floodplain Management EO 11988
• Migratory Bird Treaty Act
• Protection of Wetlands EO 11990
• Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
• Safe Drinking Water Act/ Source
Water Protection
• Environmental Justice E) 12898
• Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act
• Climate Change
28 Prepare & Submit Draft CEQA Plus IS/MND for City Review 2 weeks
Revise document as necessary (1 week)
Prepare & Submit CEQA Plus IS/MND for Public Review
File Notice of Completion (NOC) & Summary Form with SCH File and distribute Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt an MND Distribute CEQA Plus IS/MND to SCH and local agencies for public review (30 day review period)
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Review
Response to Public Review Comments (2 weeks)
Prepare and Submit Final CEQA Plus IS/MND
2 weeks
File Notice of Determination (NOD)
Schedule for CEQA Review
(Approx. 80 days)
29 CEQA Plus
City of Rialto
Water Board for NEPA/CEQA Approval
Department of Water Resources
California Department of Fish & Wildlife
US Fish & Wildlife
Permits
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
Approvals & Permits
30 Questions/Comments?
31 City of Rialto
Legislation Text
File #: WS-23-687, Version: 1, Agenda #:
FOR: Water Subcommittee Meeting [July 26, 2023]
TO: Honorable Water Subcommittee Members
APPROVAL: Thomas J. Crowley, P.E., Utilities Manager
Toyasha Sebbag, Assistant to the City Manager
Present Additional Scenarios of Phase 1: Water/Wastewater Revenue Analysis of the Water and Wastewater Rate Study and provide staff recommendations. (ACTION)
BACKGROUND:
In 2012, the City Council/Rialto Utility Authority adopted resolutions approving a Concession Agreement with Rialto Water Services (RWS). The Concession Agreement outsourced the operations and maintenance of the City’sWater and Wastewater enterprise to a private contractor for a term of thirty years.
Per the Concession Agreement, the City maintains ownership of all assets and the authority and responsibility for setting utility rates subject to contractual obligations and financial performance standards.
In 2012, the City adopted a five-year rate schedule through the Proposition 218 process. The water and wastewater rates were last adjusted on January 1, 2018. The multi-year rate adjustments approved in 2012 allowed for the financing and implementation of $41 million in improvements and repairs that improved system reliability and efficiencies for both the water and wastewater systems.
ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION
On April 11, 2023, the City Council authorized a Sole Source Professional Services Agreement Contract with F.G. Solutions, LLC to complete Phase 1: Water/Wastewater Revenue Analysis of the Water and Wastewater Rate Study. The Revenue Analysis was presented at the June 28, 2023, Water Subcommittee Meeting.
Staff was asked to return to the Water Subcommittee to discuss the following scenarios and how these scenarios may impact the water and wastewater rate design:
1. Status quo: no rate increases and no capital improvements.
2. Discontinue annual lease payments, no rate increases, and no capital improvements.
3. Discontinue annual lease payment, repayment of $30 Million that was deposited into an escrow account as authorized by the City Council on January 22, 2013, meeting back into the water and wastewater utility funds, and no rate increases.
4. Rate increases so that revenue stabilization is not required and high-priority capital improvements only.
City of Rialto Printed on 7/20/2023Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
32 File #: WS-23-687, Version: 1, Agenda #:
5. Staff recommendation to discuss microgrid project funding sources.
6. Depositing revenue from the term sheet with the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) relating to the long-term sale of wastewater effluent for recycled water purposes as authorized by the City Council on September 27, 2022, into the water fund.
Water and Wastewater Rate Study Timeline
Staff was directed to present the results of the Revenue Analysis before the Water Subcommittee for recommendations and then to the City Council for direction on whether Phase 2 of the Water and Wastewater Rate Study should be completed.
The completion of the water and wastewater rate analysis and the presentation of these results to the City Council in August 2023 will determine the assessment of the City's rate structure for the State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan application or California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (IBank) Loan and potential evaluation by the US EPA for the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) loan. The timeline for the SRF, IBank, and WIFIA loans aims to be finalized by January 2024, with some project costs eligible for reimbursement before the loan is issued.
Should the City not meet the following schedule, it is likely that the earmarked funding of $68 million from WIFIA will be put back into the general funding pool with the city eligible to start the process over by reapplying for funding and resubmitting a Letter of Interest (LOI). Therefore, an updated project timeline is provided below.
RECOMMENDATION:
Present Additional Scenarios of Phase 1: Water/Wastewater Revenue Analysis of the Water and City of Rialto Printed on 7/20/2023Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
33 File #: WS-23-687, Version: 1, Agenda #:
Present Additional Scenarios of Phase 1: Water/Wastewater Revenue Analysis of the Water and Wastewater Rate Study and provide staff recommendations. water Rate Study and provide staff recommendations.
City of Rialto Printed on 7/20/2023Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
34 City of Rialto
Water and Wastewater 2023 Revenue Analysis
July 2023 Water Subcommittee Meeting
35 2
Agenda
• Revenue Analysis Scenarios Presented Today
• Uncertainties: Debt Service Terms and Use of RUA Reserves • Draft Results
• Discussion
• Seek Direction:
• What Revenue Analysis scenarios, if any, can be brought to other Council members
• Identify Next Steps
36 3
Scenarios
1. Status quo: no rate increases. No CIP .
2. Discontinue annual lease payment. No rate increases. No CIP .
3. Discontinue annual lease payment. Repayment of $30M to water and wastewater utilities. No rate increases.
4. Rate increases so that revenue stabilization is not required.
High priority capital improvements only.
5. Discuss Microgrid project.
37 4
Changes Since June 2023 Meeting
1. Added revenue from sale of effluent to IEUA.
• 3,500 acre-feet per year @ $275/acre-foot
2. Removed RUA lease payment from most scenarios.
3. Modified interest rate for loans reflecting uncertainty over terms and financing source.
4. Revised “high priority” list of capital improvements. • Added Rialto Habitat Nature Center Operating Costs of $150,000/year.
• Remainder of operating costs not funded by RUA.
38 5
Uncertainty: Debt Issuance Terms
1. Debt issuance terms
A. Likely funding sources: WIFIA and I-Bank
B. Interest rate and debt service coverage requirement might depend on whether City or RWS issues debt.
C. RWS issuance: issued “on par” with existing RWS debt.
D. City issuance: RWS’s lenders could require WIFIA and I-Bank debt to be subordinate (Concession Agreement Section 6.10(g)(ii)).
A. Subordinate debt is typically more expensive. Like a second mortgage on your house.
39 6
Debt financing strategy: considerations
1. As a placeholder for new debt: use 5% interest rate, 30-year term, and 1.2 coverage factor in revenue projections.
2. Debt financing strategy is outside FG Solutions’s scope of work
3. City obtain confirmation from RWS that RWS lenders would require City-obtained debt to be subordinate (Concession Agreement Section 6.10(g)(ii)).
4. City to obtain effect on WIFIA and I-Bank debt terms associated with subordinate debt.
40 7
Uncertainty: Use of RUA Reserves
1. RUA Cash in Bank:
• Wastewater: approximately $21.5 million.
• Water: approximately $1.6 million.
2. No City policy exists regarding minimum fund balance
3. Today’s results:
• Water: use RUA reserves for revenue stabilization if needed; do not use RUA reserves for capital.
• Wastewater: use RUA reserves for revenue stabilization if needed; minimal use of RUA reserves for capital in results shown today. 41 8
Capital Improvements: High Priority
Infrastructure Upgrades (red = additions since June)
Wastewater:
• Sycamore Sewer Upsize: $3M
• Acacia Sewer Upsize: $2M
• Digester 1 Activation & Digester 2 Rehab: $1.8M
• Rialto Biosolids: $21.9M Remaining
• Agua Mansa Lift Station Upgrades: $2M
• Secondary Clarifier 1 and 2 Upgrades: $0.5M
• Ayala Lift Station Upgrade and Repair: $2M
• WWTP Electrical Upgrades: $8.8M
• Rialto Habitat Nature Center: $2.95M Remaining
Water:
• Etiwanda Avenue Water Main Replacement: $6.7M
• Well 3A Arsenic Treatment: $2.2M 42
9 1. Status Quo: no rate increases; no CIP
Monthly bill if rate increases are applied across the board to Monthly Service Charges and Commodity Charges.
Actual rate structure alternatives considered by the City may result in different monthly bill totals. • $13.2M in unfunded water revenue stabilization in next five years Revenue Increases W + WW Unfunded Revenue End of Year RUA Effective January 1 Monthly Bill Stabilization, $M Reserve Balance, $M Water WW 16 ccf/mo Water WW Water WW
2023 $116.55
2024 0.0% 0.0% $116.55 $0.0 $0.0 $1.9 $21.5
2025 0.0% 0.0% $116.55 $1.8 $0.0 $0.1 $21.3
2026 0.0% 0.0% $116.55 $3.5 $0.0 $0.3 $21.1
2027 0.0% 0.0% $116.55 $3.8 $0.0 $0.3 $20.9
2028 0.0% 0.0% $116.55 $4.2 $0.0 $0.3 $20.4
2029 0.0% 0.0% $116.55 $4.4 $0.0 $0.3 $19.8
2030 0.0% 0.0% $116.55 $4.7 $0.0 $0.3 $18.9
2031 0.0% 0.0% $116.55 $5.0 $0.0 $0.3 $17.7
2032 0.0% 0.0% $116.55 $5.3 $0.0 $0.2 $16.2
2033 0.0% 0.0% $116.55 $5.7 $0.0 $0.2 $14.3
43 10
2. Discontinue lease payment; no rate increases; no CIP Monthly bill if rate increases are applied across the board to Monthly Service Charges and Commodity Charges.
Actual rate structure alternatives considered by the City may result in different monthly bill totals. • $11.4M in unfunded water revenue stabilization in next five years Revenue Increases W + WW Unfunded Revenue End of Year RUA Effective January 1 Monthly Bill Stabilization, $M Reserve Balance, $M Water WW 16 ccf/mo Water WW Water WW
2023 $116.55
2024 0.0% 0.0% $116.55 $0.0 $0.0 $1.9 $21.5
2025 0.0% 0.0% $116.55 $1.4 $0.0 $0.1 $22.9
2026 0.0% 0.0% $116.55 $3.0 $0.0 $0.2 $24.3
2027 0.0% 0.0% $116.55 $3.4 $0.0 $0.2 $25.8
2028 0.0% 0.0% $116.55 $3.7 $0.0 $0.2 $23.1
2029 0.0% 0.0% $116.55 $4.0 $0.0 $0.1 $21.5
2030 0.0% 0.0% $116.55 $4.3 $0.0 $0.1 $19.6
2031 0.0% 0.0% $116.55 $4.6 $0.0 $0.1 $17.4
2032 0.0% 0.0% $116.55 $5.0 $0.0 $0.1 $14.8
2033 0.0% 0.0% $116.55 $5.3 $0.0 $0.1 $11.9
44 11
3. Discontinue lease payment; repay $30M; no rate
increases
• Repayment of $5M to water utility reduces unfunded water revenue stabilization by $5M
• Ability to pay for CIP limited to use of DIF funds held in trust. • Repayment of $25M to wastewater utility provides cash to pay for wastewater capital improvements
• ~$8M in DIF funds held in trust
• $25M repaid to Wastewater Fund
• Some use of RUA reserves possible
• Potential to fund the majority of high priority wastewater CIP without debt, depending on when $25M is repaid
45 12
4. No outside Revenue Stabilization; high priority CIP
Monthly bill if rate increases are applied across the board to Monthly Service Charges and Commodity Charges.
Actual rate structure alternatives considered by the City may result in different monthly bill totals. • Requires ongoing revenue stabilization from RUA reserves for wastewater • Funding strategy of using RUA reserves to meet trustee coverage requirement must be verified with lenders
• Does not incorporate repayment of $30M
Revenue Increases W + WW W + WW Unfunded Revenue End of Year RUA Effective January 1 Monthly Bill Monthly Bill Stabilization, $M Reserve Balance, $M Water WW 16 ccf/mo % Change Water WW Water WW
2023 $116.55
2024 11.0% 2.5% $124.08 6.5% $0.0 $0.0 $1.9 $21.5
2025 11.0% 0.0% $130.72 5.3% $0.0 $0.0 $1.6 $23.2
2026 4.0% 2.5% $134.99 3.3% $0.0 $0.0 $1.5 $25.5
2027 4.0% 0.0% $137.78 2.1% $0.0 $0.0 $1.5 $25.6
2028 4.0% 2.5% $142.31 3.3% $0.0 $0.0 $2.2 $24.6
2029 2.5% 0.0% $144.20 4.1% $0.0 $0.0 $2.9 $25.1
2030 2.5% 2.5% $147.80 3.0% $0.0 $0.0 $3.8 $26.0
2031 2.5% 0.0% $149.78 2.5% $0.0 $0.0 $5.0 $26.8
2032 2.5% 2.5% $153.52 2.1% $0.0 $0.0 $6.4 $27.8
2033 2.5% 0.0% $155.60 2.2% $0.0 $0.0 $7.9 $28.9
• Capital projects after 2029 are
not included.
• City should expect that new
capital needs will be identified
and 2029-2033 Revenue Impacts
will be larger than shown here
46 13
5. Effect of Microgrid Project
• Additional costs
• Debt service on additional capital funding
• O&M on microgrid equipment
• Allowance for future replacement of microgrid equipment • Savings
• Electricity at WWTP (RWS: 85% reduction)
• Gas at WWTP (RWS: 100% reduction)
• Gap: feasibility study
• Direction requested: include allowance for Microgrid in Revenue Analysis? 47 14
Feedback, Questions, Comments?
Thank you for your time.
48 City of Rialto
Legislation Text
File #: WS-23-688, Version: 1, Agenda #:
FOR: Water Subcommittee Meeting [July 26, 2023]
TO: Honorable Water Subcommittee Members
APPROVAL: Thomas J. Crowley, P.E., Utilities Manager
Utilities Manager Update
Discussion items:
a) Conservation Projects/Rebates:
California Growing Water Smart - Summer 2023 Workshop
The Sonoran Institute, Babbitt Center for Land and Water Policy, CivicWell, and Water Education for Latino Leaders (WELL) conducted a California Growing Water Smart Workshop on June 12th through 14th. There was a competitive grant to participate in the workshop.
Staff and elected officials from Rialto along with the cities of Baldwin Park, Indio, and El Monte attended. Rialto attendees included Mayor Robertson, Councilmember Trujillo, and staff from Utilities, Planning, Engineering, Maintenance & Facilities, and Parks/Recreating & Community Services.
This workshop was the first in California.
Modeling its 7 years of success in Colorado and Arizona to bridge the gap between Water and Land Use Policy, the workshop’sgoal was to educate participants about public engagement, planning, communication, and policy tools to ensure participants can realize their water conservation, watershed health, and community resilience goals.
Several Key strategic planning options promoting water and land use efficiency were discussed. One item staff would like input on better defining the City’sModel Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO).
Rialto Municipal Code: 12.50.065 - Landscape design plan.
Property owners or their building or landscape designers, including anyone requiring a building or planning permit, plan check, or landscape design review from the city, who are constructing a new project with a landscape area greater than five hundred square feet, or rehabilitating an existing landscape with a total landscape area greater than two thousand five hundred square feet, shall comply with Sections492.6(a)(3)(B) (C), (D), and (G) of the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, as amended September 15, 2015, and as it may be amended in the future.
(Ord. No. 1664, §4, 3-8-22)
City of Rialto Printed on 7/20/2023Page 1 of 4
powered by Legistar™
49 File #: WS-23-688, Version: 1, Agenda #:
Since the City Council approved the Landscape design plan Ordinance on March 8, 2022, staff implementation has yet to be undertaken for compliance with the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO).
MWELO Compliance: Any single-family or multi-family residential, public, institutional, or commercial project that requires a permit, plan review, or check from the local review agency AND meets one of these size thresholds:
· New construction project with a total landscape area greater than 500 sq. ft. · Rehabilitation of existing landscape with a total landscape area greater than 2,500 sq. ft.
The California Growing Water Smart Workshop help identify the need for coordination of staff to roll out standardized MWELO documentation kits for inspectors, and utilities, and submit the city’s annual reporting.
Once the documentation kits are created, the city will then be eligible for $10,000 in grant funds to proceed with a water and land use efficiency project. Any recommended projects will be brought before the Water Subcommittee to provide staff direction prior to going before the city council.
Prop 1, Round 1 Application for Turf Removal Program
In June 2020, the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) acting as the lead agency collaborated with Big Bear Lake Department of Water and Power, Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA), San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (Valley District), and Western Municipal Water District (WMWD) to be awarded $2.8 million from the state’sProp 1 Round 1 grant program to regionally save 2,697 acre-feet-per-year (AFY) through turf conversions and water efficient devices. Of the $2.8 million, Valley District grant allocation is $298,693 with a match of $314,414. As of March 2023, Valley District has only reported $41,369 of the $298,693 for grant-reimbursable costs and is at risk of funding loss. Ideally, MWDOC would like to complete the grant by December 31, 2023, but has until September 2025. Of all MWDOC’spartner agencies, Valley District is the only agency not meeting its benchmarks. Therefore, Valley District reached out to its service area agencies requesting a list of large turf conversion projects to fund that can be completed by December 2023. Staff is working on a project in Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 (LMD 1) to convert 1.5 miles of the landscape along the major arterial of North Riverside Avenue between the west side of the city limits (at about North Flame Tree Ave.) to Locust Ave. This encompasses converting approximately 23,760 sq. ft. of turf to drought-tolerant landscaping. This turf is currently irrigated by 34,986,393 gallons per year of potable water and the project will reduce watering in this area by 20% saving 7 million gallons per year. b) Orangewood Mobile Home Park Agreement:
This item was originally presented to the Water Subcommittee on May 25, 2022. Since then, Staff has been working with the City of Fontana (Fontana) and the Mobile Home Park owners to develop an agreement. The Mobile Home Park is an existing 136-unit mobile home park in the City of Fontana that abuts the City of Rialto on Maple Ave., see Vicinity Map and Existing City of Rialto Printed on 7/20/2023Page 2 of 4
powered by Legistar™
50 File #: WS-23-688, Version: 1, Agenda #:
the City of Fontana that abuts the City of Rialto on Maple Ave., see Vicinity Map and Existing Sewer System Map below.
The park is currently on septic and would like to connect to Rialto’s sewer system at the intersection of Maple Ave. and Wilson St. Their goal is to convert their septic system to an active sewer system without having to construct, own, and operate a sewer lift station. Their initial investigations showed that in order to connect to the Fontana’ssewer system it would require a sewer lift station and substantial amount of sewer lines. By connecting to the Rialto’s sewer system, it would allow for a gravity feed system.
Discussions between the Rialto and Fontana and Orangewood Mobil Home Park have concluded that the best alternative is to connect to Rialto’s sewer system.
To connect to the City’sWastewater system, the Park will be required to make a one-time Development Impact Fee payment at the Extraterritorial Rate of 1.3 times the standard rate.
The required connection fees are determined by the planned use of the facility and are estimated at $469,774.07 for both Wastewater Collection and Treatment fees.
Monthly sewer bill for the Mobile Home Park is approximately $11,075.
Currently finalizing the Agreement and would bring to the full Council for approval in August.
City of Rialto Printed on 7/20/2023Page 3 of 4
powered by Legistar™
51 File #: WS-23-688, Version: 1, Agenda #:
City of Rialto Printed on 7/20/2023Page 4 of 4
powered by Legistar™
52