Water Subcommittee
July 24, 2025

Thursday, July 24, 2025
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
Mayor Joe Baca
Mayor Pro Tem Ed Scott
Regular Meeting - Final
CLOSED SESSION TIME: 10:00 A.M.

OPEN SESSION TIME: 10:30 A.M.

Water Subcommittee Meeting
The City Council creates Subcommittees as needed to accomplish the work of the Council .

Subcommittees are categorized as either, Standing or Ad Hoc. Subcommittees do not replace the work or decision -making process of the City Council as a whole and are used to provide feedback to staff .

Subcommittees enable City staff to obtain early feedback from representative members of the City Council on issues affecting public policy prior to their presentation, as necessary, to the full City Council.

Any discussion or feedback expressed or received at a Subcommittee meeting should not be construed or understood to be a decision by or for the City Council. Further, any feedback the Subcommittee may make to the City Council is based on information possessed by the Subcommittee at the time the feedback is made and may be revised or amended upon receipt by the Subcommittee of additional or newer information.
1 July 24, 2025Water Subcommittee Regular Meeting - Final HOW TO REVIEW THE AGENDA. ALL AGENDAS ARE POSTED IN THE CITY HALL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING (150 SOUTH PALM AVENUE, RIALTO) AT LEAST 72 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING. ALL WRITINGS THAT RELATE

TO AN OPEN SESSION AGENDA ITEM AT A REGULAR SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING DISTRIBUTED TO ALL OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE AT THE SAME TIME BUT AT LEAST 72 HOURS BEFORE A REGULAR MEETING, FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION ON THE CITY ’S WEBSITE AT www .rialtoca.gov AND IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK LOCATED AT 290 WEST RIALTO AVENUE, RIALTO, CALIFORNIA (909-820-2519) FROM 7:00 A.M. TO 6:00 P.M., MONDAY THROUGH THURSDAY. ANY PERSON HAVING A QUESTION CONCERNING ANY AGENDA ITEM MAY CALL ADMINISTRATION /UTILITIES DIVISION AT (909-820-2689) TO MAKE INQUIRY CONCERNING THE NATURE OF THE ITEM DESCRIBED ON THE AGENDA.

ITEMS ADDED TO THE AGENDA. CONSISTENT WITH THE RALPH M. BROWN ACT, ADDITIONAL ITEMS MAY BE

ADDED TO THE AGENDA AND ACTED UPON BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE ONLY IF IT IS CONSIDERED TO BE A “SUBSEQUENT NEED” OR “EMERGENCY” ITEM AND IS ADDED BY A MAJORITY VOTE. MATTERS RAISED UNDER ORAL COMMUNICATIONS MAY NOT BE ACTED UPON AT THAT MEETING OTHER THAN AS PROVIDED ABOVE.

NEED ADA ASSISTANCE? IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, IF YOU NEED SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING, PLEASE CONTACT THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR AT (909) 421-7279. NOTIFICATION 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING WILL ENABLE THE CITY TO MAKE REASONABLE ARRANGEMENTS TO ENSURE ACCESSIBILITY TO THIS MEETING (28 CAR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II).

HOW TO ATTEND THE MEETING.
(1) Members of the public may attend the meeting in person.

HOW TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT.
(1) Appear at the meeting and speak during the public comment period. There is a 5-minute time limit. (2) You may submit a public comment in writing to the Rialto Utility Authority by email at [email protected].

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL
CLOSED SESSION:

REPORTS/DISCUSSION ITEMS
WS-25-0494 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED

LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(2) Significant Exposure to Litigation Number of Matters: one (1)
OPEN SESSION:

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL

CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION

PUBLIC COMMENTS

2 July 24, 2025Water Subcommittee Regular Meeting - Final

APPROVAL OF MINUTES
WS-25-0478 Minutes from the June 23, 2025 Meeting
Minutes of the 06 23 2025 Water Subcommittee meetingAttachments:

PRESENTATIONS

REPORTS/DISCUSSION ITEMS
WS-25-0479 Update on the Rialto Biosolids Handling Upgrades Project at the Wastewater Treatment Plant.

Rialto Biosolids Project Assessment_TM_20250718Attachments:

WS-25-0499 Staff request that the Water Subcommittee provide feedback on the proposed Water and Wastewater/Sewer Rate Study Schedule. (ACTION)
WS-25-0502 Staff Request that the Water Subcommittee Provide Feedback on a Contract Amendment with Soto Resources in the Amount of $ 62,100 for the Preparation of the Cal OES Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). (ACTION)
Soto Resources_RUA Cal OES Subapplication ProposalAttachments:

UTILITY DIRECTOR

3 July 24, 2025Water Subcommittee Regular Meeting - Final WS-25-0483
Utilities Director Update:

1. Future Extraterritorial Agreements:
a. 19010 Valley Blvd., Bloomington, CA - Single Family
Residence
b. 9330 S. Linden Ave., Bloomington, CA - Single Family Residence
c. 10701 Cedar Ave., Bloomington, CA - Mobile Home Park

2. Update on Electric Rate Savings Analysis.

3. Update on Total Maximum Daily Limit (TMDL) Water Sampling at the Rialto Wastewater Treatment Plant.

4. Veolia’s Monthly Operations Reports (MOR): July 2025 (reporting period May 2025)
Veolia/RWS Monthly Operation Report_Reporting Period_May 2025_JULY REPORTAttachments:

UPCOMING MEETING

ADJOURNMENT

4 City of Rialto
Legislation Text
File #: WS-25-0494, Version: 1, Agenda #:

For Water Subcommittee Meeting July 24, 2025
TO: Water Subcommittee Members
APPROVAL: John Rossi, Interim Utilities Director

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(2) Significant Exposure to Litigation Number of Matters: one (1)
City of Rialto Printed on 7/18/2025Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
5 City of Rialto
Legislation Text
File #: WS-25-0478, Version: 1, Agenda #:

For Water Subcommittee Meeting July 24, 2025
TO: Water Subcommittee Members
APPROVAL: John Rossi, Interim Utilities Director
FROM: Nicole Hemmans, Senior Administrative Analyst
Minutes from the June 23, 2025 Meeting
City of Rialto Printed on 7/21/2025Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
6 1

CITY OF RIALTO

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE WATER SUBCOMMITTEE
June 23, 2025 - 2:00 P.M.

MINUTES

The Special 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 Monday, June 23, 2025.

o0o

CALL TO ORDER Call to order at 2:01 P.M.

o0o

ROLL CALL Senior Administrative Analyst Nicole Hemmans took the roll call.

Subcommittee Members / City Staff:

Mayor Joe Baca
Mayor Pro Tem Ed Scott
Tanya Williams, City Manager
Robert Khuu, Assistant City Attorney
John Rossi, Interim Utilities Director
Dr. Toyasha Sebbag, Assistant to the City Manager
Nicole Hemmans, Senior Administrative Analyst

Additional Attendees:

Stephen Dopudja, Dopudja & Wells Consulting, Inc.

Peter Luchetti, RWS/Table Rock
Megan Matson, RWS/Table Rock
Evan Kopinski, Ullico
Soheil Sadighi, RWS/Veolia
Marlon Brosco, RWS/Veolia

o0o

PUBLIC COMMENTS Public comment received on June 23, 2025:

♦ None.

o0o

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Mayor Baca asked if there were any comments pertaining to the minutes.

♦ None.
7 2

o0o

NEW BUSINESS ITEMS
WS-25-0429 – Request for Feedback
on t he Rialto Biosolids Handling
Upgrade at the Wastewater Treatment
Plant.
(ACTION)

Staff requested for Feedback on the Rialto Biosolids Handling Upgrade at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. (ACTION)

Questions & Comments
♦ Mr. Luchetti and Ms. Matson with RWS/Table Rock requested to distribute a PowerPoint presentation update of the Biosolids project.

o Staff asked if they could share the PowerPoint as it was not in the packet. It had been received after the packet was posted.

o The Water Subcommittee agreed that the document
could be shared at the meeting.

♦ Mayor Baca asked Mr. Luchetti to clarify what the difference is between revenue and expense.

o Mr. Luchetti explained that the utility operates at an annual operating deficit of $1.5 million, which is currently being covered by reserve funds.

♦ Mayor Pro Tem Scott asked whether the $2 million payment was included in the total.

o Mr. Luchetti confirmed that the $2 million payment is not included.

♦ Major Pro Tem Scott inquired whether the $10 million shown as going into reserves had been confirmed with the City’s Finance Department.

o Mr. Rossi indicated that he has not yet confirmed the amount with the Finance Department; however, the Treasury report reflects $16 million in RUA reserves. Staff will follow up to confirm.

♦ Mayor Pro Tem asked whether the report under review had been shared with the City’s Finance Department for their input.

o Mr. Rossi explained that the document was just received within the past hour and will be forwarded to the Finance Department following the meeting.
8 3

♦ Mr. Rossi confirmed that the original 5-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) included additional projects, but the scope was reduced to prioritize funding for three key projects: the Biosolids Project, the Sycamore Trunk Line, and a minor paving project.

♦ Mayor Baca asked Mr. Luchetti to specify which reserve the $10 million referenced in the report is coming from.

o Mr. Luchetti advised that the $10 million is allocated from the City’s wastewater reserves account, which currently holds a balance of $16 million.

♦ City Manager, Tanya Williams, inquired whether a proposed rate has been established to cover this cost.

o Mr. Luchetti advised that t he report he provided outlines the total operating expenses (OPEX) required. The preliminary estimate indicates an overall increase of approximately 22– 25% over the next five years. Mr. Luchetti noted that the new rates consultant will verify the accuracy
of the model
presented.

♦ Mayor Pro Tem requested a detailed breakdown of the 25.7% allocated to soft costs, noting that the amount appears unusually high.

o Mr. Luchetti provided a summary of the cost with a detailed breakdown.

o Mayor Pro Tem requested a more detailed breakdown of the soft costs. He noted that while it is not needed today, it will be required for the upcoming internal meeting. He also requested that the soft Cost breakdown be shared with the City’s finance team to ensure their involvement.

♦ Mayor Pro Tem expressed concern that, despite the $30 million returned to RUA, there remains insufficient funding to support the projects.

♦ Mayor Pro Tem inquired about the increase in Veolia’s labor costs since the start of the Concession Agreement, seeking to compare them with the City’s labor costs.

♦ Mr. Dopudja advised that he will review the labor component of the report and provide the updated information to the Water Subcommittee.

♦ CM Williams asked what the unused/approved credit amount of $1,835,293 represents for the Biosolids Project?
9 4

o Mr. Soheil confirmed that it represents the available funds for the FCWA that was approved by Council on 5/26/22 for
Digesters 1 & 2 at the wastewater treatment plant.

♦ CM Williams asked whether the funds have been allocated and where they are being accounted for.

o Mr. Luchetti advised that the question should be directed to the City Finance Department.

♦ Mayor Pro Tem asked who is handling RUA’s
finances within the City's
finance department.

o Mr. Luchetti noted that throughout the duration of the concession agreement, RUA has not had a dedicated
financial expert to oversee and track its finances over time.

He suggested the importance of appointing such an expert.

o Mayor Pro Tem advised that he pays
the Finance department
to manage the financial records.

o Mr. Dopudja confirmed that the City’s finance department handles the finances.

o Mr. Rossi advised that he has been coordinating with finance to verify what they have recorded in their books.

♦ Mayor Baca advised Mr. Luchetti that the report he shared should include detailed information regarding the unused/approved credit amount of $1,835,293, including the Council approval date and the amount accumulated.

♦ Mr. Rossi asked why
the Digesters 1 & 2 project was never completed?

o Mr. Sadighi advised that the Digesters 1 and 2 project was originally part of the microgrid project, which ultimately did not proceed.

♦ Mayor Baca requested that the minutes be provided to him earlier to allow sufficient time to review the requested tasks well in advance of the monthly meeting.

♦ Mayor Pro Tem requested the date by which Jacobs Engineering Group (Jacobs) will provide a report of their findings.

o Mr. Rossi advised that Jacobs is scheduled to have the report available to the City by mid-July.

10 5

♦ Mayor Pro Tem requested for RUA, RWS, and Jacobs meet and come to an agreement on all issues prior to returning to the Water Subcommittee.

♦ Mayor Pro Tem inquired about the anticipated start date for the rate consultant

o Mr. Rossi confirmed that the rate consultant has already started.

Mayor Pro Tem stated that he has been requesting information about RUA’s funds for years and emphasized that the balances of all accounts should be known at all times.

o0o

WS-25-0430 – Request for Feedback
Regarding P osting a Notice Inviting
Bids for the Sycamore Lift Station to
Baseline Road, with an engineer's
estimated cost of $5.52 million.
(ACTION)

Staff requested Feedback Regarding Posting a Notice Inviting Bids for the Sycamore Lift Station to Baseline Road, with an engineer's estimated cost of $5.52 million.
(ACTION)

Questions & Comments
♦ Mayor Baca asked if the Sycamore Lift Station is one of the three CIP projects discussed in today’s meeting.

o Mr. Rossi confirmed it is one of the three CIP projects mentioned today.

♦ Mayor Pro Tem asked whether a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) has been received from Veolia for this project
.

o Mr. Luchetti advised that there is a PLA for this project and committed to
providing it to the Water Subcommittee by
tomorrow.

♦ Mayor Pro Tem asked at which Council meeting this item will be presented.

o Staff anticipates that this item will be presented to Council in August 2025. Staff will confirm.

o0o

WS-25-0434 – Request for Feedback
Regarding N iagara Bottling, LLC
Permit Violations and Related Issues.
(ACTION)

Staff requested Feedback Regarding N iagara Bottling, LLC Permit Violations and related issues.
(ACTION)

Questions & Comments
11 6

♦ Mayor Pro Tem asked whether the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Niagara has been reviewed to confirm the permitted operations.

o Mr. Rossi advised that the CUP was reviewed and found no indication of fruit juicing being permitted, only bottled water operations.

o Mayor Pro Tem emphasized the importance of having a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) that grants the authority to enforce compliance effectively, including the ability to revoke or modify the permit if facilities fail to meet requirements.

♦ Mayor Baca asked staff whether they are satisfied with the current permit held by Niagara Bottling
.

o Mr. Rossi advised that the current permit is inadequate and is being updated to address the existing fruit juicing
operations.

o Mr. Dopudja added that the original permit was for bottle watering only. Over the years, the company has expanded to include fruit juicing, but the CUP was not modified to reflect this change.

♦ Mayor Pro Tem advised that the fruit juice issue was discussed during an EDC meeting, where people were warned accordingly. He recalled that Niagara was either restricted or denied permission to conduct fruit juicing at their facility. May or Pro Tem suggested staff review the minutes to verify the details of what transpired.

o0o

WS-25-0428 – Utilities Director
Update.

Utilities Director Updates:

1. Veolia’s Monthly Operations Report (MOR): June 2025 (reporting period April 2025).

Questions & Comments
♦ Mayor Baca requested that an overview of the Monthly
Operations Report be provided with the report.

o0o

12 7

UPCOMING MEETINGS/OTHER

DISCUSSION ITEMS
♦ The next Water Subcommittee meeting is confirmed for
Thursday, July 24, 2025.

o0o

ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 3:10 PM.

13 City of Rialto
Legislation Text
File #: WS-25-0479, Version: 1, Agenda #:

For Water Subcommittee Meeting July 24, 2025
TO: Water Subcommittee Members
APPROVAL: John Rossi, Interim Utilities Director
Update on the Rialto Biosolids Handling Upgrades Project at the Wastewater Treatment Plant.

ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION:

Biosolids Project
RWS has indicated that they have concluded negotiations with Veolia regarding their fees for project development and management. With these final numbers, which were received just prior to posting of this packet, staff and RWS will be able to finalize the draft FCWA for City Council consideration in August.

RWS will present the most current information available at the Water Subcommittee meeting.

Independent Technical Review By Jacobs
The City’sconsulting team, led by Jacobs Engineering, has independently reviewed the technical documents, plans, and pricing. Jacobs independently evaluated a repair and replace in kind alternative, as well as its own design-build alternative, using the same technology and approach proposed by the Concessionaire. The results of the Jacobs evaluation are contained in their attached Technical Memorandum (TM). Although the TM concludes that a repair and replace in kind alternatives may potentially provide construction cost savings over the proposed design-build project, the increased operational savings of the proposed project are expected to provide greater life cycle savings. The report is attached for reference.

City of Rialto Printed on 7/21/2025Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
14 Memorandum

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
250702153223_3e608ccc
1 Biosolids Project Assessment
Date: July 18, 2025 555 South Flower Street
Suite 3200
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2419
United States
T +1.213.228.8255

Project name: Rialto WWTP Solids Handling Project
Project no: D4001100
Company: City of Rialto, California
Prepared by: Ruoren Yu, Ed Fritz, Max Meng, Ted Couch (Jacobs) Document no: 250702153223_3e608ccc

1. Background
The City of Rialto, California, requested Jacobs provide an independent assessment of the biosolids facilities upgrades at the Rialto Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The plant solids-handling facilities consist of waste activated sludge (WAS) thickening, anaerobic digestion, digested sludge dewatering, and cake drying beds. The ongoing design-build (DB) project proposed to upgrade the solids-handling facilities with the following major areas:
 (New) Primary sludge screening
 Thickening upgrade
 Dewatering upgrade
 Anaerobic Digester No. 1 and No. 2 cover replacement
 Digester sludge storage tank retrofit
The main focus of this effort is on evaluating options of repairing or replacing in-kind the existing structures, equipment, and ancillary systems, in contrast to the DB project that has been based on upgrading with new technologies in new buildings. An independent cost model analysis is also provided based on the 60% Design of the proposed DB project.

This technical memorandum (TM) summarizes findings from the field investigation, engineering code evaluation, technical and cost information research, and conceptual-level cost estimating.

2. Key Assumptions
The following assumptions were made in the assessment:

1. The proposed primary sludge thickening process has been determined necessary to improve the operation of downstream equipment and processes (AECOM 2022).

2. The existing Evoqua Dystor membrane covers on the primary digesters have been determined to have reached the end of useful life. Replacing the covers in-kind is considered cost effective compared with replacing the membrane covers with other types of digester covers.

3. The new cover and mixing system for the digester sludge storage tank have been determined necessary to retrofit the tank for desired service. A membrane gas-holder cover––same as proposed for the primary digesters––is considered cost effective compared with other types of covers. 15 Memorandum

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
250702153223_3e608ccc
2 4. Considering these three assumptions, this assessment effort focuses on the thickening and dewatering facilities.

5. The capacity requirements for thickening and dewatering units should match the specifications of the DB project.

3. Existing Condition Evaluation
The existing WAS thickening facility consists of two gravity belt thickeners (GBTs) installed in 1990 and 2000, respectively. According to the Technical Memorandum – Rialto Biosolids Study (Biosolids Study, AECOM 2022), both GBTs are required to operate for approximately 9 hours per day, 7 days per week, at a solids loading rate of approximately 930 pounds per hour, achieving an approximate 5.0% thickened WAS concentration. The GBT units are in a common area covered by a canopy structure.

The existing dewatering facility consists of two 2-meter Alfa Laval Ashbrook Winklepress belt filter presses (BFPs). The older BFP 1 has not been functional and has been out of service for many years. The newer BFP 2 was installed in 2000 and currently operates 9 to 10 hours per day and 7 days per week at a solids loading rate of approximately 1,200 pounds per hour. The cake solids concentration is reported to be between 10% and 14% at a feed solids concentration of approximately 2.0%. The BFP units are in two separate areas, each covered by a canopy structure.

The existing facilities were visually observed in the field. The record drawings (2000) for the GBTs and BFP 2 were obtained and reviewed. Drawings for BFP 1 are unavailable. The structural evaluation follows procedures outlined in American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) ASCE 41-23, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings . Detailed condition evaluation of each facility is described in the following subsections.

3.1 GBT Facility

3.1.1 Process Equipment and Ancillary Systems
The existing thickening facility consists of two GBTs, two thickened sludge pumps, two polymer blending units, and controls for the thickening process. The two GBTs are both Komline-Sanderson model GSC-2x4 Gravabelt Gravity Belt Thickeners. According to the manufacturer, machine number UN-520 (GBT 1) was manufactured in 1989, and machine number UN-865 (GBT 2) was manufactured in 1999. A visual inspection of the units did not reveal any significant signs of wear or corrosion on the units. The age of the equipment and the typical 20-year lifespan of this type of equipment suggest that replacing the GBTs is in order to provide a long-term, reliable thickening solution. Alternatively, these units could be rebuilt or refurbished to provide another few years of service before replacement is required. If these machines are to be rebuilt or refurbished, it is recommended that the manufacturer’s service technician come to the site to conduct a more thorough examination to determine whether it would be prudent to refurbish the GBTs and the estimated costs.

In addition to the GBT units, several pieces of ancillary equipment for the thickening operation were evaluated:
 Two thickened sludge pumps transfer the thickened sludge from the GBT thickened sludge hopper to the digester.
16 Memorandum

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
250702153223_3e608ccc
3  Two washwater booster pumps are used to provide pressurized cleaning water for the belts. These pumps showed visible signs of aging similar to the GBTs. Like the GBTs, these pumps could be refurbished by the manufacturer to provide a few more years of service, but it is recommended they be replaced to provide a long-term, reliable solution.
 Two air compressors, one Ingersoll Rand and one Schulz, provide compressed air for the belt tensioning system. These compressors showed signs of aging and are also recommended to be replaced.
 Two polymer blending systems, one for each thickener, were also visually inspected. These units were manufactured by Fluid Dynamics and are Dynablend model L4-1200-15P units. The units were inoperable and had been bypassed using a chemical metering pump to direct-inject polymer into the sludge feed line. Replacing these polymer blending units is recommended to restore proper polymer activation functionality and to reduce polymer use. While neat polymer can be dosed directly into the sludge feed pipe, there is not enough energy provided to mix the polymer with the feed sludge, greatly reducing the polymer system’s efficiency. In addition, the neat polymer should be properly activated with water in a makeup system to provide a polymer solution before adding it to the sludge feed line and to reduce polymer use.

Figure 1 shows an overview of the existing GBT facility.

Figure 1. Overview of GBT Facility (Facing North)

3.1.2 Structural Components
The assessment follows the procedures outlined in ASCE 41-23, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings . This report presents an ASCE 41 Tier 1 screening evaluation of the existing steel canopy structures, to assess overall structural condition and potential seismic vulnerability.

3.1.2.1 Steel Canopy Structure
17 Memorandum

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
250702153223_3e608ccc
4 The steel canopy structure was built approximately 25 years ago. Site observation identified localized areas of concern. Rust and corrosion are evident through black staining on the exposed faces of several steel beams and columns, and some connection holes also show signs of rust. Additionally, the existing steel roof panels are damaged, and the crosstie rods appear to have lost tension, potentially compromising their intended structural capacity.

This canopy measures approximately 35 feet (ft) by 45 ft, with a clear height of approximately 14 ft. Its primary structural system consists of six tapered columns and multiple rafters, forming two bays on both the eastern and western sides. While crossties are installed in one of the two bays on each of the eastern and western sides, the southern and northern bays remain open. The roof is framed with I-shape rafters, spaced approximately 4 ft on center and spanning in the north-south direction. Each end of the roof features an approximate 2 ft cantilever and overhang. Numerous in-plane crossties are also present on the roof, connecting the rafters and beams.

3.1.2.2 Foundation
The existing foundation system, as indicated by the record drawings, is a 10-inch-thick uniform concrete slab. This slab features an 18-inch thickened edge, which also serves as support for the perimeter columns. The mat slab was designed with uniform reinforcement consisting of #6 bars at 12 inches O.C. in both the top and bottom layers. This reinforcement scheme generally meets the requirements of current concrete design codes. A visual assessment of the concrete slab surface reveals it to be in generally good condition, with only minor, superficial cracking observed.

3.1.2.3 Platform
The existing platform's structural framing, as detailed in the record drawings, uses 4-inch by 4-inch by 1/4-inch tube sections for typical columns and C8 (channel steel) for beams. The design effectively stiffens the steel framing through the application of both vertical and horizontal diagonal bracings, which serve as the primary lateral resisting system.

Record drawings indicate the existing platform was designed to accommodate foot traffic. Without changes to the load criteria (designed for foot traffic only), the existing platform structure appears adequate for its intended use.

3.1.2.4 Equipment Support
The existing equipment is supported by short, circular, concrete pedestals, with a total of four pedestals under each piece of equipment. According to the record drawings, each concrete pedestal is approximately 18 inches in diameter, with well-detailed concrete ties and vertical reinforcing. The potential for reusing these pedestals should be determined based on the new equipment layout. If the new equipment supporting leg locations can match the existing concrete pedestals, and the operational weight is similar to the existing equipment, these pedestals are likely to be reusable.

3.1.2.5 Seismic Evaluation
A preliminary evaluation of the canopy structure’s lateral load resisting system reveals concerns related to the absence of dedicated lateral bracing members in the east-west direction and questionable crossties on the eastern and western sides. To verify its compliance with the current Building Code, a more detailed ASCE 41 Tier 2 evaluation is needed to assess the adequacy of the lateral load resisting system, which is, however, beyond the scope of this assessment.
18 Memorandum

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
250702153223_3e608ccc
5 Because the proposed project is not anticipated to modify or affect the existing canopy structure, for estimating purposes, no improvements are assumed for the canopy structure.

3.2 BFP 1 Facility

3.2.1 Process Equipment and Ancillary Systems
Dewatering Facility 1 consists of one BFP, three washwater booster pumps, two filtrate pumps in a wet well, and controls for the BFP. The BFP is manufactured by Alfa Laval Ashbrook Simon-Hartley and is a size 3 model KP85 Klampress. This unit was not in operation and had not been operated for several years.

Visual inspection revealed significant evidence of corrosion on the structural frame of the press as well as some of the mechanical components. It is recommended this unit be replaced because of its age and disrepair.

The three washwater booster pumps feed washwater to the operable BFP (refer to BFP 2 Facility). The pressurized washwater is used to clean the equipment belts. These pumps were indicated to be operable, and only one was running at the time of inspection. Two of these pumps are manufactured by ITT Inc. and are model 600 centrifugal type 2000 pumps. The third booster pump is manufactured by G&L Pumps and is a model 4STK1 centrifugal type pump. These washwater pumps are old and could be refurbished to provide service for a few more years, but it is recommended these units be replaced to provide a long- term, reliable solution without high maintenance cost.

The BFP filtrate wet well is north of BFP 1 and receives filtrate flows from both BFPs. Two submersible solids-handling pumps service the wet well and pumping filtrate to the filtrate storage tank. Both pumps were operable at the time of inspection, but a detailed inspection was not performed. Operations reported no issues with this filtrate pump station, so no improvements are recommended at this time.

Figure 2 shows an overview of the existing BFP 1 facility. 19 Memorandum

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
250702153223_3e608ccc
6 Figure 2 Overview of BFP 1 Facility (Facing Southeast)

3.2.2 Structural Components

3.2.2.1 Steel Canopy Structure
The canopy structure measures approximately 25 ft by 40 ft, with a clear height of approximately 17 ft.

The primary structural system consists of ten 6-inch by 6-inch Hollow Structural Section (HSS) steel columns arranged in a 5 by 2 grid pattern. Each column supports a wide flange beam that runs continuously over the column tops and cantilevers out on each end. The columns were designed as cantilever columns to resist lateral loads without additional bracing. The roof system consists of steel decking spanning in the north-south direction. There is no vertical bracing between columns or in-plane crossties on the roof of this steel canopy.

The exposed steel surfaces of the structure, including columns and beams, generally exhibit good condition with no apparent rust. The steel members appear to be galvanized, providing an additional layer of protection. While some areas show signs of paint deterioration, the underlying steel remains unaffected by rust. This suggests that the galvanization is effectively protecting the steel even where the paint has worn away.

3.2.2.2 Foundation
20 Memorandum

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
250702153223_3e608ccc
7 The columns appear to be embedded into individual concrete footings, approximately 20 inches square.

These footings have a joint with an adjacent concrete slab. Cracks were observed on this concrete slab, particularly near the access ramp. However, no major cracks were noted directly on top of the column footings themselves.

A concern was identified on the south side of the foundation where the subgrade fill beneath the concrete slab has become exposed. This exposure could lead to localized bearing loss of the subgrade, potentially causing the concrete slab to become suspended in that area. Such a condition might induce cracking and settlement in the slab due to unsupported spans. To restore the finish grade to its designed elevation and ensure proper bearing, engineered backfill will likely be required in this area.

3.2.2.3 Platform
Based on site observations, the existing stairs and platform appear to have been designed to accommodate pedestrian traffic exclusively. Provided the design of load criteria, specifically the limitation to foot traffic, remains unchanged, the current structure is considered adequate for its specified purpose.

3.2.2.4 Equipment Support
The existing equipment is supported by six short, square concrete pedestals. The reusability of these pedestals will depend entirely on the new equipment layout and operational weight. If the new equipment support points align with the existing pedestals and its operational weight is comparable to the original equipment, these pedestals are likely suitable for reuse.

3.2.2.5 Seismic Evaluation
A Tier 1 screening of the existing structure, conducted per ASCE 41, identified several potential seismic deficiencies:
 Inadequate Roof Diaphragm Components: In the north-south direction, the roof diaphragm lacks sufficient chord and drag strut members at the beam-column joints on the top level. This deficiency may impair the diaphragm’s ability to transfer lateral loads efficiently to the vertical lateral force- resisting system.
 Potential Joint Connection Weakness: The lack of detailed documentation on moment frame joints raises concerns about their ability to resist seismic forces, potentially leading to localized failures under lateral loading.
 Unverified Column Capacity: Incomplete data on column strengths hinders accurate evaluation of the structure’s ability to support combined gravity and lateral loads, increasing uncertainty in its seismic performance.

Due to these deficiencies and the lack of comprehensive as-built documentation, a Tier 2 deficiency-based evaluation, as outlined in ASCE 41, is recommended. This evaluation should include detailed structural analysis and, if necessary, non-destructive testing to accurately assess the strength and stiffness of critical components, verify the adequacy of the roof diaphragm, and confirm the structure’s capacity to resist prescribed seismic force.
21 Memorandum

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
250702153223_3e608ccc
8 3.3 BFP 2 Facility

3.3.1 Process Equipment and Ancillary Systems
Dewatering Facility 2 consists of one BFP, a polymer activation tank, and controls for the press. The BFP is manufactured by Alfa Laval Ashbrook Simon-Hartley and is a model WP888 Winklepress. This unit was visually inspected and revealed significant evidence of corrosion on the structural components of the press. In addition, evidence of corrosion was seen on mechanical components such as roller bearings.

Rehabilitation of the equipment is not recommended, based on the visual inspection. It is recommended this unit be replaced because of the age and condition of the equipment and the significant evidence of corrosion.

The existing polymer activation system consists of a batch makedown tank with a mixer. The top of the tank is covered by grating to facilitate the mixer’s removal. Following the makedown tank, a post-dilution system adds water to the neat polymer before injection into the feed sludge pipe. This style of polymer activation system is commonly used for dry polymers but not for the emulsion polymer currently being used onsite. It is recommended to replace the polymer activation system with a liquid emulsion polymer blending unit to facilitate better polymer activation and reduce polymer use.

Cake from the BFP falls onto a belt conveyor and is transported to a truck-loading station. The belt conveyor was visually inspected and showed some evidence of wear and corrosion. The belt conveyor could be refurbished as needed based on field inspection by the manufacturer to expand its useful life. For estimating purposes, however, the cost for the belt conveyor services is not included. The truck-loading station consists of a small hopper with a gate to control discharge to the truck below. Operators did not indicate any current issues or challenges with the truck-loading station. It is recommended that the truck- loading station remain in place for future use.

Figure 3 shows an overview of the existing BFP 2 Facility.

22 Memorandum

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
250702153223_3e608ccc
9 Figure 3. Overview of BFP 2 Facility (Facing East)

3.3.2 Structural Components

3.3.2.1 Steel Canopy Structure
The canopy structure measures approximately 20 ft by 40 ft, with a clear height of approximately 16 ft. Its primary structural system consists of four tapered columns, one at each corner, supporting rafters. Lateral bracing is provided by crossties (diagonal steel rods) connecting the frame top and bottom, observed only on the short bay at the facility's southern side. The other three bays remain open, lacking similar bracing.

The roof features I-shape rafters spanning in the east-west direction, spaced at approximately 4 ft on center. Each end of the roof includes a few feet of cantilever and overhang. A couple of in-plane crossties are installed on the roof to connect the rafters and beams, likely contributing to roof diaphragm action.

Widespread severe corrosion observed on the steel columns and beams. Visible rusting is present on the surfaces of these members, and the bolts, nuts, and base plates also show signs of corrosion, indicating potential section loss and compromised connections.

3.3.2.2 Foundation
Based on record drawings, each steel column is supported by a 6.5 ft x 6.5 ft x 3 ft deep footing. These footings appear to incorporate well-defined reinforcing, including #4 ties at the anchor bolts and #8 vertical dowels, designed to ensure adequate anchor capacity for the columns. The typical concrete slab is approximately 6 inches thick, reinforced with #4 bars at 10 inches on center. However, to comprehensively evaluate the adequacy of these foundations to resist current design seismic loads, a more detailed Tier 2 evaluation per ASCE 41 is recommended.
23 Memorandum

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
250702153223_3e608ccc
10 3.3.2.3 Platform
Record drawings indicate the existing platform was designed to accommodate foot traffic. Without changes to the load criteria (designed for foot traffic only), the existing platform structure appears adequate for its intended use.

3.3.2.4 Equipment Support
The existing equipment is supported by four short, circular concrete pedestals per unit. The reusability of these pedestals is contingent upon the new equipment's layout and operational weight. If the new equipment support points align with the existing pedestals and its operational weight is comparable to the original equipment, these pedestals are likely suitable for reuse.

3.3.2.5 Seismic Evaluation
A Tier 1 screening of the existing structure, conducted per ASCE 41 checklists, identified several critical seismic deficiencies:
 Inadequate and Asymmetrical Bracing: Diagonal rods, intended for lateral bracing, are present only in the short bay on the southern side of the facility. This asymmetrical configuration likely compromises the lateral bracing system's ability to ensure structural stability and resist lateral loads effectively across the entire structure.
 Weak Diagonal Rod Connections: The connections of the diagonal rods are insufficient, potentially undermining force transfer. Specifically, the rod ends at the base are anchored to the column web rather than the base plate, reducing their effectiveness in transferring lateral forces.  Severe Corrosion of Structural Members: Significant corrosion was observed on steel columns and beams, posing a critical risk to their capacity to resist both gravity and lateral loads, thereby compromising overall structural integrity.
 Incomplete Lateral Load Path: Although the roof system includes crossties that may contribute to diaphragm action, the lateral load path from the roof to the foundation appears incomplete, likely insufficient to meet seismic demands.

The preliminary evaluation suggests the existing canopy structures may be rehabilitated to meet the current Building Code requirements following a more detailed structural analysis and engineering effort.

For estimating purposes, allowances are used to account for the engineering and construction costs to rehabilitate both canopy structures at the BFP facilities.

4. Solids Technology Evaluation
The evaluation of options to replace existing thickening and dewatering systems in-kind is presented in this section. As discussed in the previous section, Jacobs recommends replacing the existing process equipment because of the equipment age and risks associated with reliability and longevity of rebuilt equipment.

Thickening Equipment
Replacement in-kind of the thickening equipment would include two 2-meter GBTs, two thickened sludge pumps, two polymer makeup units, and controls for the thickening process. Each GBT unit will be sized to process a nominal capacity of 200 to 250 gallons per minute of WAS. Komline-Sanderson is the 24 Memorandum

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
250702153223_3e608ccc
11 manufacturer of the existing thickeners and would be considered for a direct replacement. This approach would minimize changes to the thickening facility because the equipment footings and piping connections would match what already exists at the thickening facility. Although some of the existing platforms may need to be disassembled to facilitate installation, using the same size and manufacturer of the GBTs would also allow the continued use of existing platforms.

The existing thickened sludge pumps are recommended to be replaced by progressive cavity (PC) pumps.

PC pumps are commonly used to pump thickened solids because of the non-Newtonian nature and thickness of the thickened solids. The existing washwater booster pumps are recommended to be replaced with new centrifugal pumps of a similar design and footprint. The polymer makeup units are recommended to be replaced by either VeloDyne or Clean 1 One liquid polymer emulsion blending units.

These two polymer equipment manufacturers have similar footprint and piping to the existing fluid dynamics units onsite currently. The two existing air compressors are recommended to be replaced by similar air compressors with an airflow capacity of 35 cfm, a receiver capacity of 120 gallons and a maximum pressure of 175 pounds per square inch.

Dewatering Equipment
Replacement in-kind of the dewatering equipment would include two 2-meter BFPs, two polymer makeup units, and controls for the dewatering process. Each BFP unit would be sized to process approximately 150 to 200 gallons per minute of digested sludge. Alfa Laval Ashbrook Simon-Hartley is the manufacturer of the existing equipment and would be considered for a direct replacement. This approach would minimize changes to the existing dewatering facilities because the equipment footings and process connections would match the existing facilities. While some of the existing platforms may need to be disassembled to facilitate installation, using the same size BFPs would also allow for the continued use of existing platforms.

The existing polymer makeup system would be replaced by liquid emulsion makeup units manufactured by either VeloDyne or Clean Water 1. These units are designed for use with emulsion polymers and would provide more efficient polymer activation. These makeup units would also not require post-dilution of the polymer before it is added to the feed sludge piping.

The existing three washwater pumps are recommended to be replaced by two centrifugal pumps, one dedicated to each BFP unit. Because the BFPs will be operated as duty and standby, a third washwater pump as a shared standby unit is unnecessary.

According to Operations, better dust control is desired in the dewatering area. Metal wall panels are recommended on the southern and eastern side of each facility. To minimize the impact to existing structures, columns for new wall panels are assumed to be supported on individual concrete piles outside existing slab areas. Figure 4 shows the assumed wall panel layouts (marked up in red) used in this assessment.
25 Memorandum

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
250702153223_3e608ccc
12 Figure 4. New Wall Panels at Dewatering Facilities

The impact on operating costs was analyzed related to replacing existing BFPs with centrifuges for dewatering (as proposed in the DB project). It is generally reported in the industry that centrifuges can achieve 1-2% higher cake solids than belt filter presses. This is not true for all sludges and site-specific testing is required to confirm the actual cake solids improvement, if any. This analysis was performed with the following assumptions:
 A centrifuge can produce 2% higher cake solids than a BFP for the Rialto sludge;  Solids production was based on one dewatering unit in operation for 10 hours/day, 7 days/week;  The potential that cakes get wet again (e.g., by rains) on drying beds is not considered;  The hauling cost of dewatered cake away from the site is $300/wet ton;  The electricity cost onsite is $0.18/kWh;
 Electricity and hauling costs are the significantly different costs associated with dewatering operation.

The results showed that centrifuges would provide operational savings of approximately $500,000 per year. In conjunction with capital costs for each option, this number could be used to determine the difference in net present values of the BFP and centrifuge replacements or calculate the payback period if the centrifuge option costs more in capital.
26 Memorandum

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
250702153223_3e608ccc
13 5. Project Summary and Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
Following the evaluations described in this TM, the project scope for the thickening and dewatering facilities is summarized as follows:
 Replace existing two GBT units with new 2-meter GBT units  Replace existing two thickened WAS pumps with new progressive cavity pumps  Replace existing two GBT washwater pumps with new end-suction centrifugal pumps  Replace existing two air compressors with new compressor assemblies  Replace existing two thickening polymer makeup units with two new polymer makeup units  Replace existing exposed process piping, including valves, in the thickening area  Construct new containment for thickening polymer feed area  Replace existing two BFP units with new 2-meter BFP units  Replace existing three BFP washwater pumps with two new end-suction centrifugal pumps  Replace existing dewatering polymer makeup unit with two new polymer makeup units  Construct new wall panels, 10 ft high, on eastern and southern sides of the dewatering facilities  Repair and rehabilitate two existing canopy structures over the dewatering facilities  Replace existing exposed process piping, including valves, in the dewatering areas The following list states the assumptions used to develop the conceptual-level opinion of probable construction cost (OPCC).
 Direct costs are estimated based on the recommended project with Jacobs’ estimating model.  Indirect costs and other project costs are marked up using the same structure and rates as used in the Biosolids Study (AECOM 2022), including:
- 25% for General Conditions, including mobilization and demobilization, and Prime Contractor overhead and profit (OH&P)
- 30% for design and engineering services during construction (ESDC) - Escalation of 5% per year to the midpoint of construction, August 2026. - 40% for project contingency
 The existing equipment platforms and supporting pedestals are assumed not to require modifications to fit the new GBT and BFP units.
 No changes are assumed to be required in existing motor control centers servicing the facilities.  No odor control facilities are to be added to the thickening or dewatering facilities.  Permitting cost is not included.
 Owner’s costs, such as project management and special inspections, are not included. 27 Memorandum

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
250702153223_3e608ccc
14 In accordance with the recommended project as described above, Class 5 OPCC was performed by Jacobs resulting in a total of approximately $13.2 million and is summarized in Table 1. Details of the OPCC are included in Attachment A.

Table 1. OPCC for the Thickening and Dewatering Repairing and Replacing In-Kind Project Description Amount Totals
Thickening Process Upgrade
Material, labor, equipment, and subcontractor $ 1,394,000 Taxes $ 78,000
Subcontractor OH&P $ 368,000
Subtotal – direct cost $ 1,800,000
25% GC, Prime Contractor OH&P $ 460,000
30% Final Design & ESDC $ 690,000
5% Escalation $ 150,000
40% Contingency $ 1,256,000
Grand Total – Thickening Process Upgrade $ 4,400,000
Dewatering Process Upgrade
Material, labor, equipment, and subcontractor $ 2,795,000 Taxes $ 167,000
Subcontractor OH&P $ 708,000
Subtotal – direct cost $ 3,670,000
25% GC, Prime Contractor OH&P $ 918,000
30% Final Design & ESDC $ 1,376,000
5% Escalation $ 298,000
40% Contingency $ 2,505,000
Grand Total – Dewatering Process Upgrade $ 8,770,000
Subtotal Costs 1 $ 13,200,000

1. For AACE International Class 5 estimate, the accuracy range is -50% to +100%. 28 Memorandum

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
250702153223_3e608ccc
15 6. Cost Model Analysis of Design-Build Project
As described in the Background , Jacobs developed a cost model for the ongoing Solids Handling DB Project, as defined in the 60% Submittal for City of Rialto Wastewater Treatment Plant Solids Handling DB Project (AECOM/Lyles JV 2024). The following assumptions were made in Jacobs’ cost model:
 Project scope and quantities are taken from Rialto Solids Handling – 60_Plan Set_26Sept24 (AECOM/Lyles JV 2024).
 Equipment, subcontractor, and design costs are taken from Rialto Biosolids – GMP@60_Design1 (AECOM/Lyles, JV 2024).
 Contingency and overhead and profit percentages are taken from Rialto Biosolids – GMP@60_Design1 (AECOM/Lyles, JV 2024).
 Exclusions and clarifications are taken from Rialto Biosolids – GMP@60_Design1 (AECOM/Lyles, JV 2024).
 Costs assume an 18-month construction duration, with Notice to Proceed in June 2026.  AECOM/Lyles JV deliverables were not reviewed for technical accuracy or quality.

A summary of the cost model results is provided in Attachment B. The total cost from the model is approximately $29.9 million.

7. Conclusions
A comparison was made among the repairing and replacing in-kind project OPCC being evaluated, the 60% cost model results for the DB Project, and the GMP proposed by the Concessionaire team. The comparison is summarized in Table 2.
29 Memorandum

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
250702153223_3e608ccc
16 Table 2. Comparison of Project Costs
Description Jacobs Estimate of Costs from this TM Concessionaire Proposed Costs
R&R Project DB Project DB Project
Total incurring to bring
Project to completion
$ 13,200,000 [a] +
$ 13,890,000 [b] =
$ 27,090,000
$ 29,860,000 [c] $ 36,063,185 [d]
Owner Construction
Management [e]
$ 1,730,250 $ 1,730,250 Included in GMP above
Subtotal $ 28,820,250 $ 31,590,250 $ 36,063,185
Total authorized to date [f] $ 2,006,034 $ 2,006,034 $ 2,006,034 Project Total [g] $ 30,800,000 $ 33,600,000 $ 38,070,000 R&R = repairing and replacing in -kind
[a] From OPCC Cost Estimate in Table 1.
[b] Repairing and replacing in-kind project assumes the same scope for primary sludge screening, anaerobic digesters upgrade, and digester sludge storage tank retrofit as proposed in the DB Project. Full project costs for these facilities were estimated from the Jacobs 60% cost model estimate, by scaling the total project cost in proportion to the direct cost for those facilities.
[c] Details provided in Attachment B.
[d] Proposed GMP number from Concessionaire as of July 10, 2025, including approximately $4.4 million in concession/Veolia related fees, as shown in Attachment C. [e] Estimated based on Concessionaire proposed CPM cost for the DB Project (dated July 10, 2025). [f] Authorized costs to date include Biosolids Study (AECOM 2022) and development of the 60% design package. [g] All totals were rounded to $10,000.

Key conclusions from this TM include:
 The repairing and replacing in-kind option is anticipated to have a capital saving of approximately $2.8 million compared to the proposed DB Project, based on Jacobs’ cost model on the 60% design.  To maximize the cost benefit of the advanced dewatered biosolids, it is best practice to prevent potential rainwater from accumulating in the cake by storing it in a covered area prior to hauling and disposal offsite. The covering could be greenhouse-type, to maximize solar radiation and evaporation.

8. References
AECOM. 2022. Rialto Biosolids Study Technical Memorandum.

AECOM/Lyles Joint Venture (JV). 2024. City of Rialto Wastewater Treatment Plant Solids Handling DB Project.
30 Attachment A
Class 5 Opinion of Probable
Construction Cost
31 Rialto WWTP Biosolids
Schematic Estimate
Rev. 3
Project name Rialto WWTP Biosolids Estimate
Estimator KS
Labor rate table L 25 Union 2025
Equipment rate table E_EqRates_2025_100%
Job size 1 LS
Project Municipal
Project Number D4001100
Estimate Class 1-5 5
Project Manager Ted Couch
QC Reviewer Augustus Tweneboa-Kodua
Rev No. / Date R3/07-17-2025
Report format Sorted by 'Facility/Work Pkg'
'Work Pkg' summary
Allocate addons
Paginate
Factor table California-San Bernardino
Alternates (none)
Railto WWTP Biosolids Estimate Rev3 07-17-2025 7/17/2025 10:16

32 SUMMARY REPORT
Project Name: Rialto WWTP Biosolids Estimate Estimator: KS Project Number: D4001100 Rev/Date: R3/07-17-2025
Estimate Class: 5
Facility Work Pkg Description Takeoff Quantity Grand Total Price Grand Total with Markups
01 Thickening Process Area

02.0 Existing Conditions 9.00 EA 18,510.19 /EA 166,592

26.0 Electrical Work 10.00 EA 54,343.08 /EA 543,431

40.0 Process Pipe 163.00 LF 604.02 /LF 98,454

40.9 Instrumentation & Controls 27.00 EA 18,162.64 /EA 490,391

44.0 Pollution and Waste Control Equipment 9.00 EA 266,668.62 /EA 2,400,018 01 Thickening Process Area 1.00 LS 3,698,885.96 /LS 3,698,886 02 Dewatering Process Area

02.0 Existing Conditions 8.00 EA 16,509.26 /EA 132,074

03.0 Concrete Work 1.00 LS 88,950.64 /LS 88,951

05.0 Metals 1.00 LS 850,999.74 /LS 851,000

07.0 Thermal and Moisture Protection 1.00 SF 730,828.45 /SF 730,828

26.0 Electrical Work 5.00 EA 59,517.88 /EA 297,589

31.0 Earthwork 1.00 LS 176,768.49 /LS 176,768

40.0 Process Pipe 202.00 LF 868.57 /LF 175,451

40.9 Instrumentation & Controls 13.00 EA 13,006.48 /EA 169,084

43.0 Process Gas and Liquid Handling Equipment 2.00 EA 1,899,630.44 /EA 3,799,261

44.0 Pollution and Waste Control Equipment 6.00 EA 162,432.18 /EA 974,593 02 Dewatering Process Area 1.00 LS 7,395,599.73 /LS 7,395,600 Estimate Totals
Description Rate Amount Totals
Labor 2,399,692
Material 8,204,506
Subcontract 287,125
Equipment 203,163
Other
Subtotal OH&P 11,094,486 11,094,486
Final Design & Engineering Services During Construction 30.000 % 2,066,012 Total Construction Cost 13,160,498
Railto WWTP Biosolids Estimate Rev3 07-17-2025 7/17/2025 10:16

33 DETAIL REPORT
Project Name: Rialto WWTP Biosolids Estimate Estimator: KS Project Number: D4001100 Revision/Date: R3/07-17-2025
Estimate Class: 5
Facility Work Pkg Trade Pkg Unit Price Description Takeoff Quantity Labor Amount Material Amount Sub Amount Equip Amount Other Amount Total Cost/Unit Total Amount Grand Total Price Grand Total Amount
01 Thickening Process Area

02.0 Existing Conditions

02.00 Existing Conditions / Demolition

02.01.05.00 Process Equipment Demolition
Demolish Polymer Blending Unit 1.00 EA 2,500 - - - - 2,499.97 /EA 2,500 6,457.96 /EA 6,458 Demolish Existing Gravity Thickners 2.00 EA 36,000 - - - - 17,999.99 /EA 36,000 46,497.88 /EA 92,996 Demolish Misc Pipes 1.00 ls 3,590 0 - - - 3,590.00 /ls 3,590 9,273.75 /ls 9,274 Demolish Misc Electrical 1.00 ls 3,000 - - - 3,000.01 /ls 3,000 7,749.68 /ls 7,750 Demolish Existing Pumps 6.00 EA 14,400 2,400.01 /EA 14,400 6,199.74 /EA 37,198 Haul and Dispose Demolished Items 1.00 ls 5,000 5,000.02 /ls 5,000 12,916.15 /ls 12,916

02.01.05.00 Process Equipment Demolition 9.00 EA 64,490 7,165.56 /EA 64,490 18,510.19 /EA 166,592

02.00 Existing Conditions / Demolition 9.00 EA 64,490 7,165.56 /EA 64,490 18,510.19 /EA 166,592

02.0 Existing Conditions 9.00 EA 64,490 7,165.56 /EA 64,490 18,510.19 /EA 166,592

26.0 Electrical Work

26.15 Process Electrical

26.00.99.00 Electrical, Other
Electrical Conduit & Wire 640.00 lf 15,159 10,441 - - - 40.00 /lf 25,600 106.59 /lf 68,220 VFD 25 HP NEMA-1 4.00 EA 24,100 15,900 - - - 10,000.00 /EA 40,000 26,640.24 /EA 106,561 MCC's 6.00 EA 90,000 - - - 15,000.00 /EA 90,000 39,498.26 /EA 236,990 Misc. Electrical Allowance 1.00 ls 50,000 - - - 50,000.01 /ls 50,000 131,660.86 /ls 131,661

26.00.99.00 Electrical, Other 10.00 EA 179,259 26,341 20,560.00 /EA 205,600 54,343.08 /EA 543,431

26.15 Process Electrical 10.00 EA 179,259 26,341 20,560.00 /EA 205,600 54,343.08 /EA 543,431

26.0 Electrical Work 10.00 EA 179,259 26,341 20,560.00 /EA 205,600 54,343.08 /EA 543,431

40.0 Process Pipe

40.10 Exposed Process Pipe

40.00.99.01 Process Pipe, Other
4" DI pipe 10.00 LF 642 358 - - - 100.00 /LF 1,000 261.08 /LF 2,611 4" DI, bellows 4.00 ea 762 2,638 - - - 850.01 /ea 3,400 2,246.87 /ea 8,987 6" DI pipe 41.00 LF 3,352 2,183 - - - 135.00 /LF 5,535 352.86 /LF 14,467 6" DI, bellows 2.00 ea 525 1,675 - - - 1,100.02 /ea 2,200 2,906.47 /ea 5,813

1.5" black steel pipe, sched 40 112.00 LF 4,675 2,605 - - - 65.00 /LF 7,280 169.71 /LF 19,008

1.5" DI Elbows 23.00 ea 7,955 95 - - - 350.00 /ea 8,050 904.45 /ea 20,802

40.00.99.01 Process Pipe, Other 163.00 LF 17,911 9,554 168.50 /LF 27,465 439.81 /LF 71,688

40.20.20.01 Other Valves
Install check valve, threaded, 1 1/2" 6.00 ea 1,616 - - - - 269.25 /ea 1,616 695.53 /ea 4,173 Install check valve, Flgd, DIP, 4" 4.00 ea 2,154 - - - - 538.50 /ea 2,154 1,391.06 /ea 5,564 FURNISH Check valve, bronze, threaded, 150#, lever oper., 1 1/2" 6.00 EA - 3,000 - - - 500.00 /EA 3,000 1,330.36 /EA 7,982 FURNISH Check valve, iron body, cushioned, Flgd, 150#, 4" 4.00 EA - 3,400 - - - 850.00 /EA 3,400 2,261.61 /EA 9,046

40.20.20.01 Other Valves 10.00 EA 3,770 6,400 1,016.95 /EA 10,170 2,676.60 /EA 26,766

40.10 Exposed Process Pipe 163.00 LF 21,680 15,954 230.89 /LF 37,634 604.02 /LF 98,454

40.0 Process Pipe 163.00 LF 21,680 15,954 230.89 /LF 37,634 604.02 /LF 98,454

40.9 Instrumentation & Controls

40.90 Instrumentation & Controls

40.90.06.01 I&C, Programming
Local panel 2.00 EA 7,368 24,332 - - - 15,850.00 /EA 31,700 42,679.33 /EA 85,359 Transmitters Level 2.00 EA 1,091 1,909 - - - 1,499.99 /EA 3,000 4,023.77 /EA 8,048 Combined Washwater Flowmeter 1.00 EA 545 955 - - - 1,500.01 /EA 1,500 4,023.82 /EA 4,024 Analog, I/O 6.00 EA 5,850 - - - 975.00 /EA 5,850 2,567.39 /EA 15,404 Digital, I/O 10.00 EA 11,000 - - - 1,100.00 /EA 11,000 2,896.55 /EA 28,965 PLC Cabinet 1.00 EA 15,000 - - - 15,000.03 /EA 15,000 39,498.33 /EA 39,498 PI - Pressure Indicator 5.00 EA 180 3,570 - - - 750.00 /EA 3,750 2,030.25 /EA 10,151 I&C Conduit & Wire 800.00 lf 9,651 26,349 - - - 45.00 /lf 36,000 121.05 /lf 96,838 Allow for Misc Items 1.00 ls 15,480 59,520 - - - 74,999.99 /ls 75,000 202,104.04 /ls 202,104

40.90.06.01 I&C, Programming 27.00 EA 66,165 116,635 6,770.37 /EA 182,800 18,162.64 /EA 490,391

40.90 Instrumentation & Controls 27.00 EA 66,165 116,635 6,770.37 /EA 182,800 18,162.64 /EA 490,391

40.9 Instrumentation & Controls 27.00 EA 66,165 116,635 6,770.37 /EA 182,800 18,162.64 /EA 490,391

44.0 Pollution and Waste Control Equipment

44.40 Process Equipment - Pumps

44.05.49.02 Submersible Pump: 21hp-50hp
Thickened sludge pumps (progressive cavity), 25 Hp 2.00 EA - 80,000 - - - 40,000.00 /EA 80,000 106,428.66 /EA 212,857 Set base elbow / pump assembly, 21 - 50 hp 2.00 ea 9,084 100 - - - 4,592.24 /ea 9,184 11,866.63 /ea 23,733 Washwater Pump, 3hp 2.00 EA 6,056 30,000 - - - 18,028.16 /EA 36,056 47,733.14 /EA 95,466 Polymer Feed Pumps 2.00 EA 3,028 19,000 0 0 0 11,014.08 /EA 22,028 29,188.01 /EA 58,376 Railto WWTP Biosolids Estimate Rev3 07-17-2025 7/17/2025 10:14

34 DETAIL REPORT
Project Name: Rialto WWTP Biosolids Estimate Estimator: KS Project Number: D4001100 Revision/Date: R3/07-17-2025
Estimate Class: 5
Facility Work Pkg Trade Pkg Unit Price Description Takeoff Quantity Labor Amount Material Amount Sub Amount Equip Amount Other Amount Total Cost/Unit Total Amount Grand Total Price Grand Total Amount

44.05.49.02 Submersible Pump: 21hp-50hp 6.00 EA 18,169 129,100 24,544.83 /EA 147,269 65,072.15 /EA 390,433

44.40 Process Equipment - Pumps 6.00 EA 18,169 129,100 24,544.83 /EA 147,269 65,072.15 /EA 390,433

44.48 Process Equipment - Thickeners

44.05.71.00 Gravity Belt Thickener
FURNISH Gravity Belt Thickner, 2 Meter, 200-250 gpm 2.00 EA - 670,000 - - - 335,000.00 /EA 670,000 891,340.07 /EA 1,782,680 Install Gravity Belt Thickner 2.00 ea 33,310 - - - - 16,654.88 /ea 33,310 43,023.17 /ea 86,046

44.05.71.00 Gravity Belt Thickener 2.00 EA 33,310 670,000 351,654.88 /EA 703,310 934,363.23 /EA 1,868,726

44.48 Process Equipment - Thickeners 2.00 EA 33,310 670,000 351,654.88 /EA 703,310 934,363.23 /EA 1,868,726

44.69 Process Equipment - Mixers

44.05.75.00 Liquid Chemical Feed Equipment
FURNISH Polymer Blending 10 gph polymer feed, 1,200 gph dilution water 1.00 EA - 50,000 - - - 50,000.00 /EA 50,000 133,035.82 /EA 133,036 Install Polymer Blending Unit, Skid 1.00 ea 3,028 - - - - 3,028.16 /ea 3,028 7,822.39 /ea 7,822

44.05.75.00 Liquid Chemical Feed Equipment 1.00 EA 3,028 50,000 53,028.16 /EA 53,028 140,858.21 /EA 140,858

44.69 Process Equipment - Mixers 1.00 EA 3,028 50,000 53,028.16 /EA 53,028 140,858.21 /EA 140,858

44.0 Pollution and Waste Control Equipment 9.00 EA 54,507 849,100 100,400.76 /EA 903,607 266,668.62 /EA 2,400,018 01 Thickening Process Area 1.00 LS 386,102 1,008,030 1,394,131.49 /LS 1,394,131 3,698,885.96 /LS 3,698,886 02 Dewatering Process Area

02.0 Existing Conditions

02.00 Existing Conditions / Demolition

02.01.05.00 Process Equipment Demolition
Demolish Polymer Blending Unit 2.00 EA 9,000 - - - - 4,500.00 /EA 9,000 11,624.47 /EA 23,249 Demolish Belt Filter Press 2.00 EA 17,000 - - - - 8,500.01 /EA 17,000 21,957.35 /EA 43,915 Demolish Misc Pipes 1.00 ls 5,385 - - - 5,385.00 /ls 5,385 13,910.62 /ls 13,911 Demolish Misc Electrical 1.00 ls 5,143 0 - - - 5,142.72 /ls 5,143 13,284.77 /ls 13,285 Demolish Existing Pumps 4.00 EA 9,600 0 0 0 0 2,400.01 /EA 9,600 6,199.73 /EA 24,799 Haul and Dispose Demolished Items 1.00 ls 5,000 5,000.02 /ls 5,000 12,916.14 /ls 12,916

02.01.05.00 Process Equipment Demolition 8.00 EA 51,128 6,390.97 /EA 51,128 16,509.26 /EA 132,074

02.00 Existing Conditions / Demolition 8.00 EA 51,128 6,390.97 /EA 51,128 16,509.26 /EA 132,074

02.0 Existing Conditions 8.00 EA 51,128 6,390.97 /EA 51,128 16,509.26 /EA 132,074

03.0 Concrete Work

03.15 Cast-In-Place Concrete, Grade Beams

03.10.03.18 Cast-In-Place Concrete, Grade Beams
Grade Beams, 18"x18" 17.00 CY 19,530 13,970 - 499 - 2,000.00 /CY 34,000 5,232.39 /CY 88,951

03.10.03.18 Cast-In-Place Concrete, Grade Beams 17.00 CY 19,530 13,970 499 2,000.00 /CY 34,000 5,232.39 /CY 88,951

03.15 Cast-In-Place Concrete, Grade Beams 17.00 CY 19,530 13,970 499 2,000.00 /CY 34,000 5,232.39 /CY 88,951

03.0 Concrete Work 1.00 LS 19,530 13,970 499 33,999.95 /LS 34,000 88,950.64 /LS 88,951

05.0 Metals

05.00 Metals

05.10.01.00 Metals, Structural Steel
Misc. Repairs to Existing Steel Member 2,944.00 sf 22,399 65,921 - - - 30.00 /sf 88,320 79.23 /sf 233,258 Add Steel to Existing Members for Reinforcement 1.00 ls 3,683 29,503 - 16,814 - 50,000.08 /ls 50,000 132,750.57 /ls 132,751 Structural Analysis of Existing Canopies and Fence Wall 120.00 mh 24,000 0 - 0 - 200.00 /mh 24,000 516.64 /mh 61,997 Steel Support Framing for Metal Panels (Assume 8lb/sf) 9.00 TN 20,612 81,298 - 33,091 - 15,000.00 /TN 135,000 39,733.25 /TN 357,599

05.10.01.00 Metals, Structural Steel 9.00 TN 70,694 176,721 49,904 33,035.56 /TN 297,320 87,289.50 /TN 785,605

05.00 Metals 1.00 LS 70,694 176,721 49,904 297,320.01 /LS 297,320 785,605.49 /LS 785,605

05.50 Metal Fabrications

05.50.05.00 Metal Stairs and Platforms
Misc. Repairs to Stairs and Platforms 1.00 ls 14,498 10,502 - - - 24,999.97 /ls 25,000 65,394.25 /ls 65,394

05.50.05.00 Metal Stairs and Platforms 0.00 14,498 10,502 /SF 25,000 /SF 65,394

05.50 Metal Fabrications 1.00 LS 14,498 10,502 24,999.97 /LS 25,000 65,394.25 /LS 65,394

05.0 Metals 1.00 LS 85,192 187,223 49,904 322,319.98 /LS 322,320 850,999.74 /LS 851,000

07.0 Thermal and Moisture Protection

07.00 Thermal & Moisture Protection

07.60.02.00 Thermal & Moisture Protection, Metal Roofing New Steel Canopy Roof 2,944.00 sf 64,401 82,799 - - - 50.00 /sf 147,200 131.34 /sf 386,667 Remove Existing Roof 2,944.00 sf 22,080 0 - - - 7.50 /sf 22,080 19.37 /sf 57,037

07.60.02.00 Thermal & Moisture Protection, Metal Roofing 0.00 86,481 82,799 /SF 169,280 /SF 443,704

07.70.11.00 Thermal & Moisture Protection, Siding, Soffits & Fascias Steel Metal Panel Enclosure 1,710.00 sf - - 111,150 - - 65.00 /sf 111,150 167.91 /sf 287,125

07.70.11.00 Thermal & Moisture Protection, Siding, Soffits & Fascias 0.00 111,150 /SF 111,150 /SF 287,125

07.00 Thermal & Moisture Protection 0.00 86,481 82,799 111,150 /SF 280,430 /SF 730,828

07.0 Thermal and Moisture Protection 1.00 SF 86,481 82,799 111,150 280,430.02 /SF 280,430 730,828.45 /SF 730,828

26.0 Electrical Work
Railto WWTP Biosolids Estimate Rev3 07-17-2025 7/17/2025 10:14

35 DETAIL REPORT
Project Name: Rialto WWTP Biosolids Estimate Estimator: KS Project Number: D4001100 Revision/Date: R3/07-17-2025
Estimate Class: 5
Facility Work Pkg Trade Pkg Unit Price Description Takeoff Quantity Labor Amount Material Amount Sub Amount Equip Amount Other Amount Total Cost/Unit Total Amount Grand Total Price Grand Total Amount

26.15 Process Electrical

26.00.99.00 Electrical, Other
Electrical Conduit & Wire 445.00 lf 10,540 7,260 - - - 40.00 /lf 17,800 106.59 /lf 47,434 MCC's 5.00 EA 75,000 0 - - - 14,999.99 /EA 75,000 39,498.23 /EA 197,491 Misc. Electrical Allowance 1.00 ls 20,000 0 - - - 20,000.04 /ls 20,000 52,664.44 /ls 52,664

26.00.99.00 Electrical, Other 5.00 EA 105,540 7,260 22,560.00 /EA 112,800 59,517.88 /EA 297,589

26.15 Process Electrical 5.00 EA 105,540 7,260 22,560.00 /EA 112,800 59,517.88 /EA 297,589

26.0 Electrical Work 5.00 EA 105,540 7,260 22,560.00 /EA 112,800 59,517.88 /EA 297,589

31.0 Earthwork

31.17 Piling and Caissons

31.17.02.00 Earthworks, Caissons
Piles, mobilization & Demob 1.00 ls 20,490 - - 24,510 - 45,000.04 /ls 45,000 118,144.38 /ls 118,144 Predrilled Concrete piles, 18" diameter, 340.00 VLF 2,290 18,367 - 1,443 - 65.00 /VLF 22,100 172.42 /VLF 58,624

31.17.02.00 Earthworks, Caissons 340.00 VLF 22,780 18,367 25,953 197.35 /VLF 67,100 519.91 /VLF 176,768

31.17 Piling and Caissons 340.00 VLF 22,780 18,367 25,953 197.35 /VLF 67,100 519.91 /VLF 176,768

31.0 Earthwork 1.00 LS 22,780 18,367 25,953 67,099.96 /LS 67,100 176,768.49 /LS 176,768

40.0 Process Pipe

40.10 Exposed Process Pipe

40.00.99.01 Process Pipe, Other
3" DI pipe 102.00 LF 6,223 3,467 - - - 95.00 /LF 9,690 248.04 /LF 25,300 3" DI, bellows 23.00 ea 4,123 14,277 - - - 800.00 /ea 18,400 2,114.68 /ea 48,638 6" DI pipe 100.00 LF 8,175 5,325 - - - 135.00 /LF 13,500 352.86 /LF 35,286 6" DI, bellows 12.00 ea 3,152 10,048 - - - 1,100.00 /ea 13,200 2,906.42 /ea 34,877

40.00.99.01 Process Pipe, Other 202.00 LF 21,673 33,117 271.24 /LF 54,790 713.37 /LF 144,101

40.20.20.01 Other Valves
Install check valve, Flgd, DIP, 3" 8.00 ea 2,872 - - - - 359.00 /ea 2,872 927.37 /ea 7,419 Install check valve, Flgd, DIP, 6" 2.00 ea 1,436 - - - - 718.00 /ea 1,436 1,854.76 /ea 3,710 FURNISH Check valve, iron body, cushioned, Flgd, 150#, 3" 8.00 EA - 5,600 - - - 700.00 /EA 5,600 1,862.50 /EA 14,900 FURNISH Check valve, iron body, cushioned, Flgd, 150#, 6" 2.00 EA - 2,000 - - - 1,000.00 /EA 2,000 2,660.71 /EA 5,321

40.20.20.01 Other Valves 10.00 EA 4,308 7,600 1,190.80 /EA 11,908 3,134.99 /EA 31,350

40.10 Exposed Process Pipe 202.00 LF 25,981 40,717 330.19 /LF 66,698 868.57 /LF 175,451

40.0 Process Pipe 202.00 LF 25,981 40,717 330.19 /LF 66,698 868.57 /LF 175,451

40.9 Instrumentation & Controls

40.90 Instrumentation & Controls

40.90.06.01 I&C, Programming
Feed Sludge Flowmeters 2.00 EA 1,091 1,909 - - - 1,500.00 /EA 3,000 4,023.79 /EA 8,048 Combined Washwater Flowmeter 1.00 EA 545 955 - - - 1,500.02 /EA 1,500 4,023.87 /EA 4,024 Analog, I/O 6.00 EA 5,850 0 - - - 975.00 /EA 5,850 2,567.39 /EA 15,404 Digital, I/O 2.00 EA 2,200 0 - - - 1,099.99 /EA 2,200 2,896.50 /EA 5,793 PLC Cabinet 1.00 EA 15,000 0 - - - 15,000.03 /EA 15,000 39,498.34 /EA 39,498 Washwater Pump Discharge Pressure Indicator 1.00 EA 36 714 - - - 750.00 /EA 750 2,030.25 /EA 2,030 I&C Conduit & Wire 445.00 lf 5,369 14,656 - - - 45.00 /lf 20,025 121.05 /lf 53,866 Allow for Misc Items 1.00 ls 3,096 11,904 - - - 15,000.00 /ls 15,000 40,420.81 /ls 40,421

40.90.06.01 I&C, Programming 13.00 EA 33,187 30,138 4,871.16 /EA 63,325 13,006.48 /EA 169,084

40.90 Instrumentation & Controls 13.00 EA 33,187 30,138 4,871.16 /EA 63,325 13,006.48 /EA 169,084

40.9 Instrumentation & Controls 13.00 EA 33,187 30,138 4,871.16 /EA 63,325 13,006.48 /EA 169,084

43.0 Process Gas and Liquid Handling Equipment

43.05 Process Equipment - Dewatering

43.05.16.02 Belt Filter Press
FURNISH Belt Filter Press 2-meter, 150-200 gpm 2.00 EA - 1,350,000 - - - 675,000.00 /EA 1,350,000 1,795,983.73 /EA 3,591,967 Install Belt Filter Press 2.00 ea 80,246 - - - - 40,123.12 /ea 80,246 103,646.71 /ea 207,293

43.05.16.02 Belt Filter Press 2.00 EA 80,246 1,350,000 715,123.12 /EA 1,430,246 1,899,630.44 /EA 3,799,261

43.05 Process Equipment - Dewatering 2.00 EA 80,246 1,350,000 715,123.12 /EA 1,430,246 1,899,630.44 /EA 3,799,261

43.0 Process Gas and Liquid Handling Equipment 2.00 EA 80,246 1,350,000 715,123.12 /EA 1,430,246 1,899,630.44 /EA 3,799,261

44.0 Pollution and Waste Control Equipment

44.40 Process Equipment - Pumps

44.05.49.02 Submersible Pump: 21hp-50hp
Washwater Pump, 90 gpm @ 138 ft head 2.00 EA 7,324 22,676 - - - 15,000.00 /EA 30,000 39,626.93 /EA 79,254 Polymer Feed Pumps 2.00 EA 3,028 19,000 0 0 0 11,014.08 /EA 22,028 29,188.01 /EA 58,376

44.05.49.02 Submersible Pump: 21hp-50hp 4.00 EA 10,353 41,676 13,007.04 /EA 52,028 34,407.47 /EA 137,630

44.40 Process Equipment - Pumps 4.00 EA 10,353 41,676 13,007.04 /EA 52,028 34,407.47 /EA 137,630

44.69 Process Equipment - Mixers

44.05.75.00 Liquid Chemical Feed Equipment
FURNISH Polymer Blending Unit 60 gph polymer feed, 12,000 gph dilution water 2.00 EA - 300,000 - - - 150,000.00 /EA 300,000 399,107.49 /EA 798,215 Railto WWTP Biosolids Estimate Rev3 07-17-2025 7/17/2025 10:14

36 DETAIL REPORT
Project Name: Rialto WWTP Biosolids Estimate Estimator: KS Project Number: D4001100 Revision/Date: R3/07-17-2025
Estimate Class: 5
Facility Work Pkg Trade Pkg Unit Price Description Takeoff Quantity Labor Amount Material Amount Sub Amount Equip Amount Other Amount Total Cost/Unit Total Amount Grand Total Price Grand Total Amount

44.05.75.00 Liquid Chemical Feed Equipment
Install Polymer Blending Unit, Skid 2.00 ea 15,000 - - - - 7,500.00 /ea 15,000 19,374.12 /ea 38,748

44.05.75.00 Liquid Chemical Feed Equipment 2.00 EA 15,000 300,000 157,499.99 /EA 315,000 418,481.61 /EA 836,963

44.69 Process Equipment - Mixers 2.00 EA 15,000 300,000 157,499.99 /EA 315,000 418,481.61 /EA 836,963

44.0 Pollution and Waste Control Equipment 6.00 EA 25,353 341,676 61,171.36 /EA 367,028 162,432.18 /EA 974,593 02 Dewatering Process Area 1.00 LS 535,418 2,072,150 111,150 76,357 2,795,074.97 /LS 2,795,075 7,395,599.73 /LS 7,395,600 Estimate Totals
Description Rate Amount Totals
Labor 921,520
Material 3,080,180
Subcontract 111,150
Equipment 76,357
Other
Subtotal Raw Costs 4,189,207 4,189,207
Material Sales & Use Tax 7.750 % 238,714
Construction Equip Tax 7.750 % 5,918
Total Taxes 244,632 4,433,839
Existing Conditions I,OH&P 25.000 % 28,904
Concrete Work I,OH&P 25.000 % 8,500
Masonry Work I,OH&P 25.000 %
Metals Work I,OH&P 25.000 % 80,580
Architectural (Div 6-12)I,OH&P 25.000 % 70,108
Special Construction I,OH&P 25.000 %
Conveying Equipment I,OH&P 25.000 %
Mechanical Work I,OH&P 25.000 %
Electrical Work I,OH&P 30.000 % 95,520
Site/Civil I,OH&P 25.000 % 16,775
Buried Piping I,OH&P 25.000 %
Tank Construction I,OH&P 25.000 %
Process Piping I,OH&P 25.000 % 26,083
Instruments & Controls I,OH&P 30.000 % 73,838
Material Handling I,OH&P 25.000 %
Process Equipment I,OH&P 25.000 % 675,220
Subtotal Subcontractor I,OH&P 1,075,528 5,509,367
General Conditions/Prime Contractor OH&P 25.000 % 1,377,341 Subtotal OH&P 1,377,341 6,886,708
Final Design & Engineering Services During Construction 30.000 % 2,066,012 Subtotal Final Design & Engineering Services 2,066,012 8,952,720 Escalation 5.000 % 447,636
Subtotal Escalation 447,636 9,400,356
Contingency 40.000 % 3,760,142
Subtotal Contingency 3,760,142 13,160,498
Total Construction Cost 13,160,498
Railto WWTP Biosolids Estimate Rev3 07-17-2025 7/17/2025 10:14

37 Attachment B
Cost Model Results
38 DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION MANHOURS
Project Name Solids Handling DB Direct Labor Manhours 20,943 Owner Name City of Rialto Support Labor Manhours 688
Owner Contact Stephen Dopudja Staff Manhours 8,489
Owner Contact Telephone No. Subcontractor Manhours
Owners Engineer
Owners Construction Manager
Project Location Rialto, CA
Bidding Entity TOTALS 30,120
Estimator
Estimate Number DESCRIPTION COST
Bid Date Direct Labor $1,372,599
Award Date Support Labor $36,340
Mobilization Date Staff $885,665
Mechanical Completion Date General Conditions $112,364
Substantial Completion Date Construction Equipment $498,904 Final Acceptance Date Subcontractors $13,191,553
Demobilization Date Other $9,470
Hours Worked per Day Estimated 8.00 Materials & Equipment Procurement $7,349,447 Days per Week Estimated 5.00 Labor Escalation $68,794
Weeks per Month Estimated 4.33 Material Escalation $367,472 Hours per Week Estimated 40.00 Performance & Payment Bond $118,275 Hours per Month Estimated 173.33 Insurance $295,566
OT Hours per Week 0.00 Sales Taxes $598,061
DT Hours per Week 0.00 Use Taxes $0
Completion Time in Months 18 Contingency $1,194,630
Overhead (G&A) $1,254,362
Profit $2,508,724
TOTALS $29,862,228

DESCRIPTION YES / NO DESCRIPTION YES / NO
Union Labor Liquidated Damages
Davis Bacon P&P Bond
Prevailing Wage Letter of Credit
Project Labor Agreement Builders Risk
Owner Furnished Equipment Builders Risk Deducatable
Firm Lump Sum Professional Liability
Time and Material Longshoreman Insurance
Target Price Sales Tax
Other Contract Methodology Use Tax
EPC Contract Other Tax
Bid Build Contract Performance Guarantees
Unusual Risks Noise Guarantees
Wage Escalation Required Other Guarantees
Materials Escalatioin Required
Sales Taxes Required
Use Taxes Required Builders Risk Deductable Value $0.00 Other Taxes Required Letter of Credit Percentage 0.00%
Per Diem Required Sales Tax Percentage 7.75%
Travel Costs Required Use Tax Percentage 0.00%
Relocation Costs Required. Other Taxes $0.00
Liquidated Damages Value $0.00

ESTIMATE SUMMARY SHEET

GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION

PROJECT FACTS

MANHOUR INFORMATION

COST INFORMATION

BONDS-INSURANCE-TAXES
7/3/2025
39 ARB, INC. SUMMARY OF COST PRICE
DETAIL
TAB ID

DIRECT CRAFT MAN
HOURS

SUPPORT LABOR

MAN HOURS STAFF MANHOURSSUBCONTRACT
MANHOURS DIRECT LABOR $ MATERIAL $ CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT $ SUBCONTRACT $ OTHER $ GC'S $ SUPPORT LABOR $ STAFF $ TOTAL COST ESTIMATE DESCRIPTION 20,943 688 8,489 0 $1,372,599 $7,349,447 $498,904 $13,191,553 $9,470 $112,364 $36,340 $885,665 $23,456,342 1 SITEWORK 1,340 44 543 0 $87,704 $36,499 $31,912 $154,416 $0 $7,187 $2,324 $56,651 $376,694 2 SITE PIPING 784 26 318 0 $51,318 $300,500 $18,673 $19,057 $0 $4,205 $1,360 $33,148 $428,262 3 PRIMARY SLUDGE SCREENING 1,767 58 716 0 $115,599 $1,042,341 $42,092 $172,205 $0 $9,480 $3,066 $74,722 $1,459,506 4 THICKENING PROCESS AREA 3,653 120 1,481 0 $239,142 $1,873,701 $87,014 $183,354 $161 $19,597 $6,338 $154,469 $2,563,777 5 DEWATERING PROCESS AREA 7,362 242 2,984 0 $483,525 $1,875,123 $175,376 $1,384,207 $8,707 $39,499 $12,774 $311,332 $4,290,543 6 ANAEROBIC DIGESTER NO. 1 & NO. 2 UPGRADE 1,477 49 599 0 $96,686 $974,132 $35,180 $0 $0 $7,923 $2,563 $62,453 $1,178,937 7 RETREFIT EXISTING DIGESTER SLUDGE STORAGE TANK4,561 150 1,849 0 $298,624 $1,247,150 $108,657 $1,462,572 $602 $24,472 $7,915 $192,890 $3,342,882 8 ELECTRICAL & INSTRUMENTATION 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $5,514,167 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,514,167 9 DESIGN COST 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $4,301,575 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,301,575

SUMMARY SHEET
7/3/2025 Page 1 of 1 Cost 40

Attachment C
Rialto Solids Upgrades Project Cost
Calculations (Veolia)

41 RIALTO SOLIDS UPGRADES PROJECT COST CALCULATIONS:

Category Category Cost
% of Fixed
Project Cost Explanation
Direct Project Cost Contractor Guaranteed Maximum Price $31,614,908 93.74% This is the GMP Price from AECOM Direct Project Cost Construction Insurance (1.2%) $379,379 1.12% be incurred by Veolia. This is part of Direct Veolia CPM Labor Veolia CPM Labor $1,730,250 5.13% with the CPM team to deliver the O&M Compliance, Risk Costs O&M Risk+Labor+Compliance (2.5%) $790,373 2.34% Included in Markup Veolia Corp. Overhead Veolia Corp. Overhead $926,400 2.75% Included in Markup Veolia Profit Veolia Profit $621,875 1.84% Included in Markup $36,063,185
Market Value
Veolia Project Management Cost $2,109,629 6.26% 4% to 8% O&M Risk+Labor+Compliance (2.5%) $790,373 2.34% ?
Veolia Corp. Overhead $926,400 2.75%
Veolia Profit $621,875 1.84%
$4,448,277 13.19%
42 City of Rialto
Legislation Text
File #: WS-25-0499, Version: 1, Agenda #:

For Water Subcommittee Meeting July 24, 2025
TO: Water Subcommittee Members
FROM: John Rossi, Interim Utilities Director
AUTHOR: Toyasha Sebbag, Assistant to the City Manager
Staff request that the Water Subcommittee provide feedback on the proposed Water and Wastewater/Sewer Rate Study Schedule.
(ACTION)

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Water Subcommittee provide feedback on the proposed Water and Wastewater/Sewer Rate Study Schedule.

BACKGROUND
On July 23, 2024, the City Council/Rialto Utility Authority (RUA) Board adopted a one-year rate adjustment, effective January 1, 2025, for water and wastewater/sewer services. The one-year rate was based on a five-year financial projection. Staff was directed to return in 2025 with an updated rate analysis for Council/RUA Board reevaluation.

ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION
On April 7, 2025, staff released RFP No. 25-039 for Financial Consulting Services for a Water and Wastewater/Sewer Rate Analysis. Three proposals were received: Bartele, Raftelis, and Water Resources Economics.

An evaluation committee consisting of John Rossi, Interim Utilities Director; Toyasha Sebbag, Assistant to the City Manager; and Rod LeMond, CPA, RUA Financial Consultant, reviewed the proposals and ranked Water Resources Economics (WRE) as the most qualified firm to conduct the analysis.

A tentative schedule for implementation of a new rate structure, effective January 1, 2026, is as follows:

1. Kick-off Meeting with staff and RWS/Veolia - July 2, 2025

2. Presentation to Water Subcommittee - August 28, 2025

3. Presentation to Utility Commission - September 16, 2025

4. City Council Presentation (includes Technical Memorandum) - September 23, 2025

5. Proposition 218 Mailing - September 26, 2025

6. Public Hearing - November 18, 2025

7. Rates Effective - January 1, 2026
To meet the above schedule, WRE recommends a two-phase approach: Phase I - Update Financial City of Rialto Printed on 7/18/2025Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
43 File #: WS-25-0499, Version: 1, Agenda #:

To meet the above schedule, WRE recommends a two-phase approach: Phase I - Update Financial Plan Only; Phase II - Cost of Service & Rate Design.

Phase I will develop an updated financial plan to ensure revenue sufficiency and Concession Agreement coverage requirements. The resulting rate adjustments would be applied to the existing rate structure and implemented by January 1, 2026.

Phase II, to follow within approximately one year, would address cost-of-service refinements and rate design updates.

Staff is requesting feedback from the Water Subcommittee on this two-phase approach for the Water and Wastewater/Sewer Rate Analysis.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The proposed action is not a “Project”as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to Section 15378(a), a “Project”means the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. According to Section 15378(b), a Project does not include: (5) Organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
Approval of the proposed action also complies with the following City of Rialto Guiding Principles, General Plan Goals and Policies: Our City government will lead by example, and will operate in an open, transparent, and responsive manner that meets the needs of the citizens and is a good place to do business.

LEGAL REVIEW
The City Attorney has reviewed the staff report.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
Operating Budget Impact
Funds are available in the Concession Agreement Contract Services Account.

Capital Improvement Budget Impact
There is no impact on the Capital Improvement Budget.

ATTACHMENT(S)
Water Resources Economics (WRE) Memo Re. Options for Future Water and Wastewater Rate Adoption
City of Rialto Printed on 7/18/2025Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
44 City of Rialto
Legislation Text
File #: WS-25-0502, Version: 1, Agenda #:

For Water Subcommittee Meeting July 24, 2025
TO: Water Subcommittee Members
APPROVAL: John Rossi, Interim Utilities Director
AUTHOR: Toyasha Sebbag, Assistant to the City Manager Staff Request that the Water Subcommittee Provide Feedback on a Contract Amendment with Soto Resources in the Amount of $62,100 for the Preparation of the Cal OES Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP).
(ACTION)

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Water Subcommittee provide feedback on a contract amendment with Soto Resources in the amount of $62,100 for the preparation of the Cal OES Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP).

BACKGROUND
On May 13, 2025, the City Council/Rialto Utility Authority (RUA) Board authorized staff to submit a Notice of Interest (NOI) and full application to the California Governor’sOffice of Emergency Services (Cal OES) for up to $7 million in federal funding through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) to support the Resilient Power Infrastructure for Critical Water Facilities Project.

On June 16, 2025, staff was notified by Cal OES that RUA’sNOI was accepted and deemed an eligible HMGP activity. As a result, the City/RUA was formally invited to submit a full sub-application for funding consideration by September 15, 2025, deadline.

ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION
Staff requested a proposal from Soto Resources, RUA’s grant consultant who assisted with the preparation of the NOI and has secured over $21 million in funding for RUA over the past five years, to prepare the full sub-application.

The proposed project for the sub-application of the Resilient Power Infrastructure for Critical Water Facilities Project would install permanent backup generators at seven critical water system sites. This would ensure uninterrupted potable water service during emergency power outages, extended Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) events, and wildfire-related disruptions. The targeted locations are:

1. City Well 2

2. Chino Well 2

3. Rialto Well 3

4. Booster Pump 1 Treatment Plant

5. Cactus Reservoir Booster Pump 5
City of Rialto Printed on 7/18/2025Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
45 File #: WS-25-0502, Version: 1, Agenda #:

6. City Well 4a

7. City 4a Booster 3a-1
The full HMGP application process is complex and may take up to three years before grant funds are obligated. Projects selected for funding will be subject to a 48-month period of performance, including construction and closeout.

Soto Resources would coordinate with staff and technical consultants to complete the sub- application, which includes:
· A detailed project description and scope of work
· Cost estimates for each of the seven generator sites
· Environmental and Historic Preservation (EHP) documentation · A Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) demonstrating cost-effectiveness · Letters of commitment for local match and long-term maintenance The total estimated project cost is approximately $9.9 million (in 2030 dollars). The HMGP program will cover up to 75% of eligible project costs. RUA is responsible for the 25% local match, which is anticipated to be funded through state grants or existing capital improvement funds.

Staff is seeking feedback from the Water Subcommittee on a proposed contract amendment with Soto Resources in the amount of $62,100 to prepare and submit the full sub-application by the September 15, 2025, deadline.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The proposed action is not a “Project”as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to Section 15378(a), a “Project”means the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. According to Section 15378(b), a Project does not include: (5) Organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
Approval of the proposed action also complies with the following City of Rialto Guiding Principles, General Plan Goals and Policies: Our City government will lead by example, and will operate in an open, transparent, and responsive manner that meets the needs of the citizens and is a good place to do business.

LEGAL REVIEW
The City Attorney has reviewed the staff report.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
Operating Budget Impact
Funds are available in the Concession Agreement Contract Services Account.

Capital Improvement Budget Impact
There is no impact on the Capital Improvement Budget.

City of Rialto Printed on 7/18/2025Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
46 File #: WS-25-0502, Version: 1, Agenda #:

ATTACHMENT(S)
Soto Resources Proposal for RUA Cal OES Sub-application City of Rialto Printed on 7/18/2025Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
47 Soto Resources
Professional Funding Services
(949) 370-6079
[email protected]

1 July 1, 2025

John Rossi
City of Rialto Interim Utilities Director
150 South Palm Avenue
Rialto, CA 92376
[email protected]

Subject: Proposal to Provide Grant Assistance – Preparation of Cal OES Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Subapplication for City of Rialto’s Resilient Power Infrastructure for Critical Water Facilities Project to the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)

Dear John:

It has been a pleasure working with you and the City of Rialto (City) team to provide grant assistance services for the City’s projects over the past few years. The City is an important client of Soto Resources , and together , we have secured nearly $21 million in grant funding for the City’s projects. Per our meeting with City staff on 6/30/25, this proposal is for preparing a subapplication for the City’s proposed Resilient Power Infrastructure for Critical Water Facilities Project (Project). Soto Resources previously prepared and submitted the Notice of Interest (NOI) for HMGP funding in May 2025. Subsequently Cal OES invited the City to submit a full subapplication after review of the NOI . The subapplication is due to Cal OES by September 15, 2025. We understand there may also be a Request for Information (RFI) period if Cal OES has questions on the subapplication, and then select applications are advanced to FEMA by April 8, 2026 for consideration. As a reminder, if the City is awarded, the timeframe for receiving a funding agreement is anticipated to be in 2028. Below is the anticipated Soto Resources Team’s scope of work and fee schedule to prepare the subapplication based on our meetings and notes to date.

Project Understanding

The City is seeking funding for the i nstallation of permanent backup generators at wells and booster pump stations. The following is a list of 7 critical generator locations and the horsepower motor (HP) needed for these sites, which the team believes would strengthen the Rialto water service area to ensure water supply during emergency conditions.

1. City Well 2 450 HP Well Motor

2. Chino Well 2 350 HP Well Motor

3. Rialto Well 3 350 HP Well Motor

4. Booster BP 1 Treatment Plant 350 HP Booster Motor

5. Cactus Reservoir Booster Pump 5 350 HP Booster Motor

6. City Well 4a 400 HP Well Motor

7. City 4a Booster 3a-1 400 HP Booster Motor
It is estimated that the total Project is approximately $9,916,000. 48 Soto Resources
Professional Funding Services
(949) 370-6079
[email protected]

2 FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Understanding

• Eligible Projects must have a FEMA -approved and locally adopted Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) or a Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan at award. • Examples of eligible Projects: include critical facility generators. • 25% minimum non-federal match required.
• May take 3 years from the time of application to receive a grant agreement. • 48-month maximum Period of Performance after agreement, including closeout. • Projects must be cost-effective using FEMA's Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) Toolkit resulting in a benefit cost ratio of 1.0 or greater.
• FEMA won't approve a project under HMGP if the project is more appropriately funded under another funding program (i.e., USBR, USFWS, etc.). Make sure FEMA is the most appropriate funding authority before applying. • Funding Priorities: LHMP updates, shovel-ready projects with a high level of design that can begin construction within 90 days of FEMA approval, whole community risk reduction/large critical infrastructure wildfire projects or other hazard types, planning related activities, 5% Initiative projects.

Scope

The scope of work includes grant writing assistance to prepare and upload one subapplication for seven (7) proposed generator sites to the Engage Cal OES HMGP Portal. It is understood that consultants can contribute information on the Portal, but the Responsible Representative on file with Cal OES for each subapplication must submit (hit the submit button).

Cal OES has indicated that pre- award costs (including the development of the subapplication) are eligible for reimbursement upon award if procurements adhere to federal policies. This includes competitively procuring any consultant/contractor support used to develop the subapplication or plan a project. If Soto Resources, Dopudja and Wells, and other potential consultants were/are selected through a competitive procurement process by the City, we would be able to build in the cost of developing the subapplication into the project budgets. The City’s consultant procurement process should be clarified for our understanding to help prepare the project budget.

Subapplications are due to CalOES by September 15, 2025 through the Engage Cal OES Portal. Cal OES will review all subapplications and submit projects to FEMA in accordance with the State’s priorities for further review. Cal OES will retain eligible subapplications that are not initially selected for submission to FEMA for future consideration when funding becomes available. FEMA will award projects after completing programmatic and Environmental and Historic Preservation (EHP) reviews.

Soto Resources will work closely with City staff to complete the tasks identified below.

Task 1. Prepare Subapplication Framework
Prepare a subapplication framework per Cal OES guidance and resources.

Email/participate in webinars with Cal OES to discuss questions identified in our Go/No- Go meeting held with City staff on 6/30/25. Assumes participation in 4 webinars 1-2 hours in duration.
49 Soto Resources
Professional Funding Services
(949) 370-6079
[email protected]

3 Task 2. Kickoff Meeting, Data Collection, and Weekly Team Meetings a) Hold kickoff meeting with City staff to discuss framework and review required project information.
b) Review existing Project information.
c) Assign tasks to project team, including the City, Veolia, Dopudja and Wells, or other entities/consultant to obtain required information. Coordinate with team on file management. The City, as the applicant, will be responsible for providing all required information.
d) Communication and coordination with City and Cal OES staff on subapplication details and backup documentation.
e) Assumes up to 10 weekly team meetings to develop subapplication information. f) Coordinate with City staff to develop the following:
o General Criteria
o Scope of Work
o Project Information
o Project Alternatives
o Problem Statement
o Solution Description
o HMGP Plan Information
o Scope of Work Documentation
o Work Schedule
 template available here: https://www.caloes.ca.gov/wp- content/uploads/HMGP-2023-Project-Schedule-Gantt-Chart- Template-ADA-7.31.23.xlsx
 Supporting Documents for each of the generator sites, including design documents, maps, etc.
o Generators
 HMGP Generators Project and Documents : Develop project maps, FEMA FIRMette, and annotated aerial photos and photos for each of the seven (7) project sites.
o Project Site List – Generators
o Site Inventory: Coordinate with Project team to c omplete responses to the following questions for each of the seven (7) project sites. • Site Address
• Latitude, Longitude
• Date of Construction
• Age of Structure (year built)
• Is this a critical facility as identified in your hazard mitigation plan? • Provide the address(es) of the property(ies) where the proposed generator(s) will be installed.
• Briefly describe the proposed size and specifications of the generator. i.e., KW, single or multi phase, gas, diesel, or propane fueled, etc.
• Describe the method, materials, and labor to provide connectivity to the structure’s electrical system (Transfer Switch, etc.)? Include material and labor costs in the cost estimate.
50 Soto Resources
Professional Funding Services
(949) 370-6079
[email protected]

4 • Describe how the generator and fuel tank will be mounted. Include design specs in the description.
• Will security fencing and/or impact barriers be installed around the generator?
• Describe the type of fuel the generator will use, size of the tank, and associated piping.
• Identify the useful life of the generator(s) and provide the estimated value of annual maintenance costs. Reference FEMA Generator Job Aid, 2015
• Identify any actual or estimated damages caused by power outages at the facility or to its operational/electronic systems.

Reference FEMA Generator Job Aid, 2015
• Is the fuel tank to be installed above or below ground? • Describe the spill prevention and retention measures that will be employed in the generator design to prevent any fuel spill due to a possible leak? (i.e., double walled tank, located within an impermeable berm, etc.)
• How often will maintenance/testing be conducted? (Monthly, Quarterly, Semi-Annual, Annual)
• What spill cleanup equipment will be on site?
• Is the site location within the 100-year or 500-year flood plain? • Provide a description of how the generator will be elevated. • Provide a description how this elevated support system will comply with seismic and wind building code requirements?
• Identify and describe distance to any surface water bodies, including wetlands, near the project site within about 200 feet. • Will the installation affect, or is it near, a structure 48 year old or older?
• Will installation cause ground disturbance? (Yes or No) Yes? • If Yes, describe the ground disturbance including square footage and depth
 Project Site Documents
o Project Cost Estimate
 Reference the following Cost Share Guide: Hazard Mitigation Assistance Cost Share Guide
 Cost Review
 Cost Review Documentation
o Maintenance and Reporting Commitment Letter
 Annual Maintenance Costs and Tasks
 Responsible Representative Confirmation
 Maintenance and Reporting Commitment Supporting Documents o Match Commitment Letter
o Grant Management Cost Estimate
o Environmental And Historic Preservation (EHP)
 Answer subapplication questions related to environmental and cultural considerations
 Complete and upload the EHP Checklist document linked here:

HMGP-EHP-Checklist.docx
51 Soto Resources
Professional Funding Services
(949) 370-6079
[email protected]

5 Additional HMGP Subapplication Reference Documents
• HMGP-Subapplication-Subapplicant-User-Guide-V4-.docx
• Eligibility of Generators as a Fundable Project by the HMGP and PDM Program

Task 2.1 Prepare Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA)
The BCA is a required component of the Subapplication package. As requested, this proposal includes cost for 2 scenarios: S oto Resources assisting with the BCA and not assisting with BCA. Note that Soto Resources has experience with the FEMA HMGP subapplications, but does not have experience preparing the BCA. Previously, our clients have retained engineering consultants to perform the required BCA for each project site in the subapplication.

Soto Resources would coordinate with the team to prepare one BCA that includes the seven (7) generator project sites, including:
• Download the FEMA BCA Toolkit.
• Download and follow the FEMA Cost -Analysis tool for generator projects -The following is a link : FEMA’S BENEFIT COST -ANALYSIS TOOL FOR

GENERATORS
• Develop Benefits
• Develop BCA
• Prepare and Compile Benefit Cost Analysis Documentation - Cal OES and FEMA require subapplicants to provide documentation for all data that is used in a BCA. o BCA Methodology Report
o BCA Supporting Documentation (i.e., cost estimates, utility provider and City documentation for power loss events, and documentation for people served by each generator site).
o FEMA BCA Toolkit Excel File
Soto Resources proposes preparing a BCA for 1 generator project site, then meeting with Cal OES to review/revise the BCA. Based on completion of the initial BCA with 1 project site, the remaining project sites would be completed following the same approach.

Task 3. Draft Subapplication - Continue to obtain necessary project information to complete the Draft Subapplication, including maps/figures, forms, and other required components. Prepare one Draft Subapplication for the City’s review and incorporate the City’s review and comments. Assumes 2-3 meetings with Cal OES to review the Draft BCA and Subapplication.

Task 4. Final Subapplication - Receive and review the City’s comments from the Draft Subapplication. Prepare one Final Subapplication incorporating comments/edit s, as appropriate. Provide Final Subapplication to the City for approval in Word Format and populate the Cal OES Engage HMGP Subapplication Portal. City Staff will hit the submit button on the portal once ready.

The City will be responsible for providing all information necessary to complete the Subapplication. Soto Resources will work closely with the City to obtain and submit information required. Additional work beyond the proposed subapplication submittal, 52 Soto Resources
Professional Funding Services
(949) 370-6079
[email protected]

6 including responses to RFIs, will be proposed and performed separately from this proposal.

Schedule & Fee

The Cal OES Hazard Mitigation Grant Program accepts subapplications on an ongoing basis, until September 15, 2025. The table below shows the Soto Resources Team staff, bill rate, and estimated hours required to perform the proposed services. The services will be performed on an hourly basis, for a total cost not to exceed $42,700 or $62,100, depending on the scope of work selected. Invoices will be submitted on a monthly basis.

Rialto Cal OES
Subapplication -
Seven Projects
Joey Soto,
M.S.

Principal/
Project
Manager
Jennifer
Nevius, P.E.

Senior
Grant Writer*
FY
Total FY Total
$205/hr. $185/hr. Hours Budget
Task 1. Prepare
Framework 10 10 20 $ 3,900
Task 2. Kickoff Meeting,
Data Collection, &
Weekly Meetings
40 50 90 $ 17,450
Task 2.1 Prepare BCA 45 55 100 $ 19,400
Task 3. Draft
Subapplication 30 35 65 $ 12,625
Task 4. Final
Subapplication 20 25 45 $ 8,725
Total (with BCA) 145 175 320 $ 62,100
Total (without BCA) 100 120 220 $ 42,700
Notes: Other direct costs such as copying, reproduction, delivery, postage, mileage (rates allowed by current IRS guidelines), are not included in the fee estimate and will be billed separately if incurred. Soto Resources reserves the right to adjust its hourly rates at the beginning of the calendar year for all ongoing contracts.

Please contact me with any questions. I look forward to continuing our funding success!

Sincerely,

Ms. Joey Soto, M.S.

Principal
Soto Resources
30767 Gateway Place #505
Rancho Mission Viejo, CA 92694
53 City of Rialto
Legislation Text
File #: WS-25-0483, Version: 1, Agenda #:

For Water Subcommittee Meeting July 15, 2025
TO: Water Subcommittee Members
APPROVAL: John Rossi, Interim Utilities Director
FROM:

Utilities Director Update:

1. Future Extraterritorial Agreements:
a. 19010 Valley Blvd., Bloomington, CA - Single Family Residence b. 9330 S. Linden Ave., Bloomington, CA - Single Family Residence c. 10701 Cedar Ave., Bloomington, CA - Mobile Home Park

2. Update on Electric Rate Savings Analysis.

3. Update on Total Maximum Daily Limit (TMDL) Water Sampling at the Rialto Wastewater Treatment Plant.

4. Veolia’s Monthly Operations Reports (MOR): July 2025 (reporting period May 2025) City of Rialto Printed on 7/18/2025Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
54 July 2025
Reporting period May 2025
55 RIALTO

CUSTOMER SERVICE & REVENUE

MONTHLY OPERATIONS REPORT

Reporting Period:

May 2025

Prepared for: Rialto Water Services
Prepared by: Veolia Water West Operating Services
56 1

RIALTO WATER

MONTHLY OPERATIONS REPORT

Reporting Period:

May 2025

Prepared for: Rialto Water Services
Prepared by: Veolia Water West Operating Services

57 2

RIALTO WATER

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE REPORT

Contents
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
A. Water Production Totals 4
B. Static Water Levels 6
II. REGULATORY 7
A. Regulatory Submittals 7
B. Sample Site Location Results 8
C. Violations 10
D. Source Water Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 10
III. HEALTH AND SAFETY 10
A. Monthly Safety Program Overview 10
IV. CHEMICAL USE 10
V. ELECTRICAL USE 11
VI. WATER QUALITY COMPLAINTS 11
VII. OPERATIONS UPDATE 11
A. Operational Wells 12
B. Valve Activity 12
C. Hydrant Flushing 12
D. Sanitary Survey 13
VIII. ASSET MANAGEMENT 13
A. Main Breaks, Service Leaks, Adverse Water Quality and Health/Safety Issues 13 B. Major Equipment and/or Machinery Outages 13
IX. RAINFALL TOTALS 14

58 3

RIALTO WATER

MONTHLY OPERATIONS REPORT

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Highlights of this month’s Water O&M report include the following:
• The water distribution network achieved compliance with all permit requirements.
• No sample anomalies that require secondary sampling.
• No significant issues with water availability. The purchasing of water remained consistent and daily equalization tanks levels remained at anticipated volume for customer availability.
• The Preventative Maintenance Program, as well as Valve Exercising, continues to identify areas of focus for our Routine Repair and Replacement.

59 4

A. Water Production Totals
Total water delivered into the Rialto system this month was 950.62 acre-feet. 746.36 acre-feet was delivered into the system from the groundwater wells (City 4A production is included in the well total). 93.56 acre-feet was delivered via the BLF transmis sion system (City 4A production has been deducted). 110.70 acre-feet came from the OPRTP.

DATE Chino 2 City 2 Rialto 3 Rialto 5 Miro 3 EW-1 City 4A BOOSTER 6-9 Cactus 1 OPRTP 2 TOTAL3 5/1/25 5.23 1.53 4.80 0.00 0.00 5.96 3.25 2.66 6.44 4.10 30.71 5/2/25 5.39 0.00 4.80 0.00 0.00 5.98 4.29 2.80 9.81 4.36 33.14 5/3/25 5.12 0.00 4.52 0.00 0.00 5.98 8.67 0.00 6.94 4.15 26.71 5/4/25 5.92 0.00 4.96 0.00 0.00 6.10 3.04 3.17 3.21 4.97 28.33 5/5/25 5.51 0.00 5.17 0.00 0.00 6.20 2.41 0.53 3.86 3.24 24.50 5/6/25 4.87 0.00 6.24 0.00 0.00 7.20 4.20 2.96 3.93 3.14 28.34 5/7/25 6.17 0.00 3.49 0.00 0.00 5.56 2.50 0.51 4.64 4.73 25.10 5/8/25 3.81 0.00 3.15 0.00 0.00 5.35 0.87 0.00 9.26 3.79 25.35 5/9/25 5.21 0.00 5.76 0.00 0.00 5.80 8.95 2.80 5.95 4.17 29.69 5/10/25 6.20 0.00 5.03 0.00 0.00 6.60 9.40 2.25 12.16 3.87 36.10 5/11/25 4.34 0.00 4.96 0.00 0.00 5.66 9.83 5.16 4.91 5.11 30.14 5/12/25 6.34 0.00 4.71 0.00 0.00 6.23 7.17 4.77 4.73 3.18 29.95 5/13/25 5.12 0.00 5.69 0.00 0.00 5.72 10.83 9.39 4.38 4.12 34.43 5/14/25 5.00 0.63 5.39 0.00 0.00 5.82 7.18 3.28 2.07 4.13 26.33 5/15/25 4.41 6.12 5.42 0.00 0.00 6.48 0.00 0.11 7.85 3.90 34.29 5/16/25 0.00 8.36 4.66 0.00 3.56 0.98 0.00 0.00 4.59 4.52 26.67 5/17/25 0.00 8.18 5.46 0.00 5.52 0.00 3.55 0.00 4.25 4.07 27.48 5/18/25 0.11 12.50 6.04 0.00 5.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.96 4.66 34.20 5/19/25 0.00 7.21 5.99 0.00 5.51 0.00 2.97 0.00 6.08 3.21 28.01 5/20/25 0.00 10.30 6.45 0.00 5.94 0.00 7.04 3.49 5.12 4.32 35.62 5/21/25 0.00 9.86 6.75 0.00 6.54 0.00 2.91 0.71 6.70 3.68 34.24 5/22/25 0.00 8.75 6.40 0.00 6.69 0.00 4.05 0.00 7.90 0.00 29.75 5/23/25 4.22 9.25 5.92 0.00 6.78 0.00 9.03 3.63 4.64 0.54 34.98 5/24/25 4.98 2.91 6.54 0.00 6.79 0.00 3.86 0.00 8.01 3.53 32.77 5/25/25 5.30 7.10 5.46 0.00 3.23 0.00 3.34 0.00 4.94 5.14 31.17 5/26/25 5.62 0.00 7.00 0.00 6.79 0.00 7.68 5.83 4.41 3.99 33.64 5/27/25 6.31 0.00 5.33 0.00 4.47 0.00 7.62 6.84 5.69 2.90 31.54 5/28/25 4.43 0.00 6.24 0.00 5.16 0.00 9.71 7.41 4.61 3.68 31.54 5/29/25 5.14 0.00 6.45 0.00 6.23 0.00 8.67 7.12 5.76 2.52 33.22 5/30/25 5.42 0.00 6.68 0.00 6.74 0.00 10.15 8.94 2.30 2.98 33.06 5/31/25 0.00 8.40 5.74 0.00 5.82 0.00 7.36 0.00 9.64 0.00 29.60 TOTAL 120.17 101.10 171.21 0.00 91.72 91.63 170.53 84.36 179.74 110.70 950.62 MIN 0.00 0.00 3.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.07 0.00 24.50 MAX 6.34 12.50 7.00 0.00 6.79 7.20 10.83 9.39 12.16 5.14 36.10 AVE 3.88 3.26 5.52 0.00 2.96 2.96 5.50 2.72 5.80 3.57 30.67 MAY 2025 DAILY PRODUCTION TOTALS IN ACRE FEET
Delivered Via BLF
Purchased
1 Measured at point of connection at Cactus Reservoir site including production from City 4A. Amount may vary compared to billing. 2 Measured at point of connection at Cedar Reservoir site. Amount may vary as compared to billing. 3 City 4A is not included in total. It has been accounted for in the Purchased total. 60 5

MAY 2025 DAILY BOOSTER TOTALS IN ACRE FEET
DATE
Booster
1 Booster 2 Booster 3 Booster 4 Booster 5 Booster 6-9 Booster 10 Booster 11 5/1/25 0.00 0.00 1.15 0.00 0.00 2.66 0.00 0.00
5/2/25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.03 2.80 0.00 0.00
5/3/25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.40 0.00 0.00 0.00
5/4/25 0.00 0.00 1.75 0.00 1.82 3.17 0.00 0.00
5/5/25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.00
5/6/25 0.00 0.00 4.20 0.00 0.00 2.96 0.00 0.00
5/7/25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.00
5/8/25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5/9/25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.67 2.80 0.00 0.00
5/10/25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.92 2.25 0.00 0.00
5/11/25 0.00 0.00 2.56 0.00 7.06 5.16 0.00 0.00
5/12/25 0.00 0.00 2.61 0.00 0.00 4.77 0.00 0.00
5/13/25 0.00 0.00 5.95 0.00 0.00 9.39 0.00 0.00
5/14/25 0.00 0.00 3.07 0.00 0.00 3.28 0.00 0.00
5/15/25 0.00 0.00 2.71 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00
5/16/25 0.00 0.00 1.07 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00
5/17/25 0.00 0.00 4.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5/18/25 0.00 0.00 3.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5/19/25 0.00 0.00 5.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5/20/25 0.00 0.00 4.15 0.00 0.00 3.49 0.00 0.00
5/21/25 0.00 0.00 2.48 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.00
5/22/25 0.00 0.00 5.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5/23/25 0.00 0.00 10.61 0.00 2.34 3.63 0.00 0.00
5/24/25 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5/25/25 0.00 0.00 2.61 0.00 4.80 0.00 0.00 0.00
5/26/25 0.00 0.00 5.71 0.00 0.00 5.83 0.00 0.00
5/27/25 0.00 0.00 3.98 0.00 0.00 6.84 0.00 0.00
5/28/25 0.00 0.00 7.70 0.00 0.00 7.41 0.00 0.00
5/29/25 0.00 0.00 7.64 0.00 0.00 7.12 0.00 0.00
5/30/25 0.00 0.00 7.09 0.00 0.00 8.94 0.00 0.00
5/31/25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL 0.00 0.00 96.30 0.00 29.22 84.36 0.00 0.00
MIN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
MAX 0.00 0.00 10.61 0.00 7.06 9.39 0.00 0.00
AVE 0.00 0.00 3.11 0.00 0.94 2.72 0.00 0.00

61 6

B. Static Water Levels
All City of Rialto wells are sounded each month, both active and inactive well sites.

Depth-to-water is measured from the well head to the static water surface.

Increases in depth-to-water represent a decrease in static water level.

Depth to Water
Wells Depth to
Pump
Historical Maximum
Depth to Water Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Chino # 1 (580 ft) In-
active well 429' 414' 414' 412' 411' 411' 411' 410' 412' 414' 414' 413' 413' Chino # 2 (550 ft) 369' 347' 352' 347' 347' 343' 340' 342' 341' 335' 338' 335' 337' City # 1 (260 ft) 392' 158' 151' 150' 247' 247' 251' 121' 126' 121' 122' 119' 117' City # 2 (480 ft) 402' 164' 164' 171' 210' 137' 139' 147' 146' 128' 130' 128' 122' City # 3 (525 ft) Out
of Service 505' 423' 418 417' 416' 416' 417' 414' 414' 415' 416' 416' 414' City # 4A (528 ft) 406' 374' 380' 379' 380' 380' 380' 381' 374' 377' 375' 373' 362' City # 5 (385 ft) In-
active well 364' 335' 333' 334' 332' 322' 320' 318' 318' 321' 318' 318' 316' Rialto # 1 (650 ft) In-
active well 588' 571' 571' 571' 571' 553' 552' 561' 555' 571' 569' 565' 563' Rialto # 2 (550 ft) In-
active well 502' 501' 500' 501' 502' 501' 501' 499' 501' 496' 495' 502' 496' Rialto # 3 (509 ft) 478' 474' 477' 477' 473' 476' 473' 472' 473' 473' 472' 472' 470' Rialto # 4 (450 ft) In-
active well 418' 415' 416' 415' 418' 418' 414' 413' 414' 415' 416' 415' 415' Rialto # 5 (560 ft) 386' 386' 386' 385' 384' 384' 384' 385' 385' 384' 384' 386' 386' Rialto Well # 7 In-
active well 362' 361' 361' 362' 362' 362' 361' 362' 360' 360' 359' 353' 356' Miro # 3 (563 ft) 492' 487' 489' 487' 485' 485' 484' 484' 484' 484' 484' 483' 483' EW-1 (780 ft) 476' 473' 474' 475' 474' 473' 475' 475' 474' 472' 475' 475' 474'

62 7

II. REGULATORY
All State of California and public health agency regulatory requirements were met.

A. Regulatory Submittals
• Monthly Summary of Distribution System Coliform Monitoring • NPDES Discharge Letter
• Conservation SAFER Report
Sample Test Result Standards
Type of Sampling Units of
Measure
Detectable Limit for
Reporting
Maximum Contaminant
Level
Total Coliform A -- --
E. Coli A -- --
Nitrate as N mg/L 0.20 10
Perchlorate (CLO4) μg/L 1.0 6.0
Total Dissolved Solids mg/L -- 500
Arsenic μg/L 2.0 10
Perfluorooctanoic (PFOA) ng/L 2.0 4
Perfluorooctanesulfonic
(PFOS) ng/L 2.0 4
P= Present
A= Absent
mg/L = parts per million
μg/L = parts per billion
ng/L = parts per trillion

Sample Date Sample Site Location Results
05/14/2025
Type of Sampling Chino
2 City
2 City
4A
Rialto
3 Rialto
5 Miro
3 EW-1

BLF
Cactus
BLF 6-
9 OPRT
P
Total Coliform A A A A A A A A A A
E. Coli A A A A A A A A A A
Nitrate as N 2.9
Perchlorate (CLO4) 1.4* 5.8* <1.0 12* 140*
Total Dissolved Solids 230 170 260 200 180 220 220 300 300 180 Arsenic 5.0
Perfluorooctanoic (PFOA) <2.0 5.9
Perfluorooctanesulfonic
(PFOS) <2.0 <2.0
*Sample is from the well head so it is before disinfection & treatment. Treatment is performed before it goes into the distribution system. Water going into the distribution system is <1.0 (non-detect). 63 8

B. Sample Site Location Results
Rialto Distribution Sample Results
May 2025
Sample Location Free Cl Res (Field) Total Coliform E. Coli Apparent Color Odor Threshold Turbidity CYCLE 1 - 5/07/25 mg/l P/A P/A Color Units TON NTU
335 W. Rialto 1.40 A A
1228 W. Merrill 1.10 A A
256 N. Fillmore 1.00 A A
987 W. Grove 1.10 A A
978 N. Driftwood 1.00 A A
1451 N. Linden 1.00 A A
469 W. Jackson 1.10 A A
935 E. Mariposa 1.10 A A
1000 N. Joyce 1.20 A A
766 N. Chestnut 1.10 A A
149 W. Victoria 1.00 A A
313 E. McKinley 1.10 A A
609 E. South 1.10 A A
273 E. Alru 1.30 A A
1161 S. Lilac 1.10 A A
101 E. Valley 1.00 A A
CYCLE 2 - 5/13/25 mg/l P/A P/A Color Units TON NTU
210 N. Park 1.00 P A
101 S. Larch 1.00 A A
320 N. Wisteria 1.10 A A
861 W. Grove 1.20 A A
1168 N. Glenwood 1.00 A A
1320 N. Fitzgerald 1.00 A A
860 N. Willow 1.20 A A
209 E. Cornell 1.10 A A
643 E. Margarita 1.20 A A
1170 N. Terrace Rd. 1.00 A A
681 E. Erwin 1.00 A A
402 E. Merrill 1.00 A A
261 W. Wilson 1.30 A A
532 S. Iris 1.20 A A
281 W. Hawthorne 1.20 A A
379 W. Valley 1.20 A A

64 9

Rialto Distribution Sample Results
May 2025
Sample Location
Free Cl Res
(Field)
Total
Coliform
E.

Coli
Apparent
Color
Odor
Threshold Turbidity
CYCLE 3 - 5/20/25 mg/l P/A P/A Color Units TON NTU
236 N. Willow 1.10 A A <3.0 1 <0.10
775 E. Foothill 1.10 A A <3.0 1 <0.10
878 N. Primrose 1.10 A A <3.0 1 <0.10
369 E. Van Koevering 1.10 A A <3.0 1 <0.10
274 W. Valencia 1.10 A A <3.0 1 <0.10
1566 N. Fillmore 1.10 A A <3.0 1 <0.10
932 N. Idyllwild 1.00 A A <3.0 1 <0.10
644 N. Smoketree 1.00 A A <3.0 1 <0.10
605 W. Rosewood 1.00 A A <3.0 1 <0.10
1189 W. Second 1.10 A A <3.0 1 <0.10
775 W. Rialto 1.00 A A <3.0 1 <0.10
211 E. Wilson 1.10 A A <3.0 1 <0.10
595 E. Huff 1.10 A A <3.0 1 <0.10
1005 S. Riverside 1.30 A A <3.0 1 <0.10
794 S. Verde 1.10 A A <3.0 1 0.21
1055 W. Bloomington 1.30 A A <3.0 1 0.31
CYCLE 4 - 5/28/25 mg/l P/A P/A Color Units TON NTU
375 S. Cactus 1.40 A A
101 S. Linden 1.70 A A
234 N. Larch 1.20 A A
575 N. Driftwood 1.30 A A
1355 W. Shamrock 1.10 A A
992 N. Yucca 1.20 A A
481 W. Cornell 1.00 A A
158. E. Shamrock 1.20 A A
749 E. Holly 1.10 A A
545 E. Victoria 1.30 A A
200 N. Sycamore 1.10 A A
407 E. Allen 1.30 A A
399 E. Montrose 1.00 A A
856 S. Orange 1.40 A A
911 S. Cactus 1.30 A A
220 W. Valley 1.30 A A
P/A + Present or
Absent

65 10

C. Violations
No violations were received during this reporting period.

D. Source Water Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
Veolia has a goal of maintaining an acceptable blended TDS level between all its sources. This goal is achieved by shifting production to or from the lowest TDS wells or purchased low TDS water while adhering to the overall water supply strategy and meeting system demands. The TDS was 223 mg/L for the month of May as compared to 218 mg/L in April. The TDS levels are below the secondary maximum contaminant level requirements.

III. HEALTH AND SAFETY
A. Monthly Safety Program Overview
Category Monthly Statistic
Safety Training Topics Meter Installation SOP
Safety Dashboard Report
Lost Time Incidents, count* 0
Recordable Incidents, count 0
Near Miss Incidents, count 1
Vehicle Incidents, count 0
*A lost time incident has not occurred in the past 4248 days.

IV. CHEMICAL USE
Sodium hypochlorite is the only chemical added to the water system. A total of 2214 gallons of sodium hypochlorite was used in May as compared to 2004 gallons used in April.
66 11

V. ELECTRICAL USE
Southern California Edison (SCE) has not provided all of the data for May 2025. We will provide the data as it is received, thus will include yearly usage received to date.

SCE kWh
Year Month
Billed
Usage
2024 June 629,344
2024 July 550,202
2024 August 650,431
2024 September 562,739
2024 October 529,208
2024 November 266,378
2024 December 247,546
2025 January 427,546
2025 February 268,626
2025 March 261,768
2025 April 425,873
2025 May 425,407

VI. WATER QUALITY COMPLAINTS
No complaints were received during this reporting period.

VII. OPERATIONS UPDATE
The overall operational strategy is to meet the daily water demand. The City of Rialto water system has six operational wells, one of which is owned by the County of San Bernardino and operated by Veolia; Oliver P. Roemer Treatment Plant (OPRTP), which is jointly owned by the City (25%) and West Valley Water District (WVWD); purchased water through the Baseline Feeder (BLF) system from San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (SBVMWD); and, if required to meet demand, additional water can be supplied by the City of San Bernardino (CSB) through the BLF for emergency supply only with no guarantee of actual delivery. Water produced from City Well 4A discharges into the BLF and its production is included in deliveries from that shared transmission line when City Well 4A is in service.
67 12

The overall pumping strategy is based on adjudicated rights, well availability, remediation requirements, and quality of source, cost to operate, and varying weather conditions. TDS effluent concentrations for the City of Ria lto WWTP are taken into consideration when operating the facilities and water sources.

A. Operational Wells
All wells were operational.

B. Valve Activity
On the basis of information collected in 2019, Veolia now has a baseline assessment of all valves and has initiated a new cycle of valve exercising . 37 valves were exercised in the month of May.

Valve Turning Progress
Valves
Turned
2020 530
2021 340
2022 463
2023 750
2024 379
2025 253
C. Hydrant Flushing
There are 63 hydrant/dead ends that are flushed annually to maintain water quality. 11 flushings were performed in May.

Hydrant/Dead End Flushing
Progress
2025
January 0
February 0
March 6
April 6
May 11
Total 23
Progress % (37)
68 13

D. Sanitary Survey
DDW performed field site visit s on May 22 and August 22, 2024. The results of the sanitary survey were received on September 19, 2024. All minor deficiencies have been corrected and submitted to DDW.

VIII. ASSET MANAGEMENT
The following work orders were completed by Water production staff for t he month of May:
• Preventive Maintenance –57
• Corrective Maintenance –0
• Predictive Maintenance –0
4– PMs planned for June 2025
A. Main Breaks, Service Leaks, Adverse Water Quality and Health/Safety Issues
The following work orders were completed by Water distribution staff for the month of May:
• Main line –2
• Service line –3
• Hydrants - 9
• Angle Meter Stop –11
• Meter Box & Lid Replacement –6
• Meter Leaks/ Replacements -16
B. Major Equipment and/or Machinery Outages
All wells were operational.

69 14

IX. RAINFALL TOTALS

70 Table of Contents
I. CUSTOMER SERVICE SUMMARY............................................................................................. 3 II. CALL CENTER PERFORMANCE ................................................................................................. 3 III. AUTOMATED SERVICES ........................................................................................................... 3 IV. CONSUMPTION & BILLING ...................................................................................................... 4 A. Consumption .................................................................................................................... 4 B. Billing ................................................................................................................................ 4 V. REVENUE & AGING .................................................................................................................. 5 A. Revenue ........................................................................................................................... 5 B. Aging ................................................................................................................................ 6 C. Bad Debt........................................................................................................................... 6 VI. SERVICE ORDERS ..................................................................................................................... 7 VII. OTHER ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................... 7 VIII. REVENUE REPORT ................................................................................................................... 7 A. Revenue Summary ........................................................................................................... 7 B. Non Rate Revenue - Extraterritorial Customers ............................................................. 7 C. Non-Rate Revenue – Other ............................................................................................. 8 D. Development Impact Fees ............................................................................................... 8 E. Rialto Basin Water Rights and Leasing ........................................................................... 8 F. Payment Collection Method – Fiscal Year to Date ....................................................... 10 G. Cash Collections on Behalf of the City of Rialto-Prior Year Comparison ..................... 10 H. Non-Rate Revenue + Utility Revenue Collections Prior Year Comparison .................. 10 I. Non-Rate Revenue + Utility Revenue Collected Fiscal Year-to-Date ........................... 11 J. Increase in Cash Collections and Fund Distribution—Prior Year Comparison ............ 11 K. Non-Rate and Extraterritorial Customer Accounts Receivable Aging ......................... 12

71 3

I. CUSTOMER SERVICE SUMMARY
During this reporting month, the Customer Service team provided call service level of

88.0%. Out of 1,272 inbound calls answered 1,120 were answered within the first 30 seconds.

Water consumption has increased by 48.8% when compared against previous month.

When compared against last year, consumption has increased by 48.8%. This increased value is due to one no-bill week in the beginning of the May. (~25%)

Sewer revenue has increased by 2.7% compared to the prior month and increased by 9.1% from last year.

II. CALL CENTER PERFORMANCE
During this reporting month, service level was 88.0% with 1,120 out of 1,272 being answered within the first 30 seconds. Overall average wait time was twenty-six (26) seconds.

III. AUTOMATED SERVICES
About 22,705 or 55.1% of the rate payers have created log-ins to access their accounts online. Of these customers, with online access, 47.9% have chosen the e-bill option. This e-bill participation is 6.1% increase from May of the prior year.

80.0% 77.3% 82.3% 81.4%

87.6% 91.0% 89.5% 86.8% 89.6% 88.8% 91.8% 89.1% 88.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
May-24 Jun-24 Jul-24 Aug-24 Sep-24 Oct-24 Nov-24 Dec-24 Jan-25 Feb-25 Mar-25 Apr-25 May-25 May-24 Jun-24 Jul-24 Aug-24 Sep-24 Oct-24 Nov-24 Dec-24 Jan-25 Feb-25 Mar-25 Apr-25 May-25 Answer in 30 Sec 1,327 1,267 1,275 1,146 1,030 1,193 982 1,100 1,091 1,153 1,183 1,148 1,120 Calls Answered 1,659 1,639 1,549 1,406 1,176 1,310 1,096 1,267 1,218 1,308 1,288 1,287 1,272 Service Level 80.0% 77.3% 82.3% 81.4% 87.6% 91.0% 89.5% 86.8% 89.6% 88.8% 91.8% 89.1% 88.0% Call Center Performance
Answer in 30 Sec Calls Answered Service Level
May-24 Jun-24 Jul-24 Aug-24 Sep-24 Oct-24 Nov-24 Dec-24 Jan-25 Feb-25 Mar-25 Apr-25 May-25 Number of Bills 22,331 22,372 22,410 22,425 22,470 22,541 22,571 22,575 22,587 22,604 22,657 22,694 22,705 Number of Bill Adjustments (during billing) 16 10 11 9 5 11 9 29 17 10 29 25 15 Automated Over the Phone Payments 2,382 2,058 2,250 2,310 2,050 2,483 2,092 2,436 2,509 2,040 2,509 2,454 2,276 Online Payment 9,126 7,457 9,828 9,302 7,538 9,302 7,804 10,320 9,747 7,676 9,912 9,798 8,434 E-bill Participants 5,654 5,683 5,731 5,770 5,814 5,855 5,922 5,959 5,997 6,031 6,069 5,969 6,000 Auto Pay Participants (New Portal) 4,129 4,165 4,221 4,273 4,278 4,305 4,343 4,367 4,420 4,467 4,536 4,554 4,630 PayNearMe 111 88 114 118 92 95 93 95 108 73 99 97 88
72 4

IV. CONSUMPTION & BILLING
A. Consumption
Water consumption has increased by 48.8% when compared against previous month.

When compared against last year, consumption has increased by 48.8%. This increased value is due to one no-bill week in the beginning of the May. (~25%)

B. Billing
A total of 22,705 bills were mailed or sent out electronically in May. Billing accuracy was

99.9% with fifteen (15) requiring adjustments after bill generation.

January Feburary March April May June July August September October November December 2023 Water 228,173 155,716 166,787 182,460 204,254 261,868 356,836 339,778 378,728 282,726 276,127 306,012 2024 Water 206,431 180,655 200,494 182,612 212,666 337,500 324,399 361,294 446,508 312,312 360,721 253,250 2025 Water 259,394 284,167 203,166 212,580 316,422
0 50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
500,000
HCF
Billed Consumption Yearly Comparison Water
January February March April May June July August September October November December 2023 Sewer 58,591 49,302 49,159 63,252 52,718 57,019 65,743 60,617 68,539 65,798 63,762 66,131 2024 Sewer 55,865 50,136 60,877 55,837 54,976 64,339 64,897 68,143 79,931 67,254 73,871 63,136 2025 Sewer 58,347 65,403 51,489 50,598 58,461
0 10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
HCF (hundred cubic feet)
Billed Consumption Yearly Comparison Sewer
(Commercial Only)
73 5

V. REVENUE & AGING
A. Revenue
Water revenue has increased 26.1% when compared against the prior month and increased 44.1% when compared against previous year. Sewer revenue has increased by

2.7% compared to the prior month and increased by 9.1% from last year. Increase of revenue in 2025 versus 2024 is due to rate modifications in January.

(Please consider the scale of the graph as doubled height does not mean double the amount)

January Feburary March April May June July August September October November December 2023 Water Sales $962,367.0 $787,207.0 $813,577.0 $841,086.0 $901,604.0 $1,044,220 $1,266,316 $1,227,744 $1,331,376 $1,098,822 $1,081,741 $1,155,329 2024 Water Sales $912,498.0 $852,016.0 $881,079.0 $864,955.0 $930,910.0 $1,229,951 $1,194,468 $1,291,723 $1,510,717 $1,170,740 $1,297,360 $1,038,617 2025 Water Sales $1,059,329. $1,249,252. $1,039,421. $1,064,341. $1,341,734. $-
$200,000.00
$400,000.00
$600,000.00
$800,000.00
$1,000,000.00
$1,200,000.00
$1,400,000.00
$1,600,000.00
Dollars ($)
Annual Water Sales Comparison
January Feburary March April May June July August September October November December 2023 Sewer Sales $2,184,085.00 $2,111,381.00 $2,110,125.00 $2,219,973.00 $2,142,863.00 $2,172,890.00 $2,243,741.00 $2,202,859.00 $2,264,521.00 $2,243,821.00 $2,233,990.00 $2,260,801.00 2024 Sewer Sales $2,158,668.00 $2,147,783.00 $2,229,038.00 $2,190,195.00 $2,186,025.00 $2,260,077.00 $2,264,418.00 $2,288,863.00 $2,385,936.00 $2,295,859.00 $2,344,329.00 $2,264,375.00 2025 Sewer Sales $2,227,202.00 $2,415,779.00 $2,331,147.00 $2,322,513.00 $2,384,586.00 $1,950,000.00
$2,000,000.00
$2,050,000.00
$2,100,000.00
$2,150,000.00
$2,200,000.00
$2,250,000.00
$2,300,000.00
$2,350,000.00
$2,400,000.00
$2,450,000.00
Dollars ($)
Annual Sewer Sales
74 6

B. Aging
The total aging balance has increased by 21.4%, see first table below. For balances >30- days only, water has increased 10.2% and wastewater has increased by 13.5%.

C. Bad Debt
Fifteen (15) accounts were sent to collections for a total amount of $4,098.08.

$0.00
$500,000.00
$1,000,000.00
$1,500,000.00
$2,000,000.00
$2,500,000.00
$3,000,000.00
$3,500,000.00
$4,000,000.00
May-24 Jun-24 Jul-24 Aug-24 Sep-24 Oct-24 Nov-24 Dec-24 Jan-25 Feb-25 Mar-25 Apr-25 May-25 Aging Balances in Dollars ($)
May-24 Jun-24 Jul-24 Aug-24 Sep-24 Oct-24 Nov-24 Dec-24 Jan-25 Feb-25 Mar-25 Apr-25 May-25 Water $930,266.74 $1,300,485.7 $1,346,722.0 $1,087,642.2 $1,343,665.0 $1,143,400.0 $1,624,355.3 $1,354,212.1 $1,332,847.1 $1,419,698.0 $1,292,967.0 $1,111,102.8 $1,487,957.5 Sewer $2,773,989.3 $3,162,401.4 $2,151,944.5 $1,998,417.9 $2,352,406.8 $2,261,553.6 $3,013,219.8 $2,776,221.3 $2,648,132.6 $3,315,495.9 $3,196,836.5 $3,180,111.5 $3,719,707.7 Historical Aging Totals
Water and Sewer
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
$2,000
May-24 Jun-24 Jul-24 Aug-24 Sep-24 Oct-24 Nov-24 Dec-24 Jan-25 Feb-25 Mar-25 Apr-25 May-25 Thousands
May-24 Jun-24 Jul-24 Aug-24 Sep-24 Oct-24 Nov-24 Dec-24 Jan-25 Feb-25 Mar-25 Apr-25 May-25 Water $372,213 $397,106 $462,301 $336,164 $306,205 $385,519 $470,281 $570,310 $601,520 $396,891 $478,675 $359,409 $396,223 Sewer $1,393,952 $1,436,216 $496,224 $610,308 $638,310 $759,956 $938,055 $1,096,563 $1,180,220 $1,365,283 $1,421,880 $1,580,609 $1,793,227 Aging Balances Over 30 Days Water and Sewer
(April 2021 forward contains both consumption and meter charges) 75 7

VI. SERVICE ORDERS
336 service orders were initiated by the customer service team during the reporting month. Of this total, 67 service orders or 20.0% were due to occupant changes. 199 service orders were initiated to accommodate water disconnection for non-payment and reconnection of water services when customer set up (or reinstate) a payment arrangement with down payment.

VII. OTHER ACTIVITIES
2,004 notice of potential tax roll has been sent out during the month of May. These letters were associated with 1,654 accounts. If property owner is different than account holder, multiple letters are sent out. 80% of these accounts have been tax rolled in 2024.

VIII. REVENUE REPORT
A. Revenue Summary
Cash Revenue is compiled and reconciled to the merchant account on a daily basis. Cash receipts and deposits are made daily and internal controls are reviewed regularly to ensure safeguarding of assets and proper recording of all transactions. Total revenue collected in May 2025 is $ 3,525,000 whereas Non-Rate Revenue is $ 62,000; Utility Revenue is $3,413,000 and Tax / Ambulance Revenue at $50,000.

RWS collects Utility User Taxes and Ambulance Fees on behalf of the City of Rialto. The Utility User Tax (UUT) rates are based on the total billed amount, therefore the collection fluctuates as billed amounts change. The total UUT charges collected in May 2025 and May 2024 are $ 45,000 and $ 284,000 respectively. The large variance in collection of UUT charges is due to the City exempting UUT charges to the Residential customers beginning January 2025 and December 2025. Ambulance Revenue is also collected on behalf of the City of Rialto totaling $5,000 in May 2025 and $6,000 in May 2024.

B. Non Rate Revenue - Extraterritorial Customers
RWS bills the City of Fontana $133,000 each month for extraterritorial sewer usage.

Colton Unified School District is in agreement with RWS to pay $5 ,000 monthly for sewage connections based on enrollment rates provided each school year.

An extraterritorial agreement to provide sewer service was executed between the City of Rialto and the County of San Bernardino —County Service Area 70, Zone BL (Bloo mington). 76 8

This housing development project generates extraterritorial sewer service revenue of $20,000 per month.

The City has an agreement with Social Science Services dba Cedar House Life Change Center to provide extraterritorial sewer ser vice providing sewer revenue of about $5,000 each month.

C. Non-Rate Revenue – Other
Other revenue is generated by leasing space for cell towers to AT&T, which has two leases at $2,073 and $1,500. Sprint lease is at a currently contracted rate of $2,000 each month.

Vertical Bridge also provides $2,400 a month of cell tower generated Revenue.

Rialto Bioenergy Solutions subleased a City property for $10,750 a month.

The City and San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District have entered into a Brine Line Capacity Agreement on May 23, 2021. This agreement pertains to the use of its interest in the SARI Line and discharge of certain brine waste to the SARI Line exclusively from the operation of Rialto Bioenergy Facilities within the City’s boundaries. The revenue generated in this agreement consists of quarterly rent of $37,500 along with the Fixed Pipeline Capacity Fee of $3,300 per month and Fixed Treatment Plant Capacity Fee of $3,300 per month. In addition, a variable fee of any discharge costs are also billed.

The San Bernardino Valley Water District (SBVWD) reimburses RWS for water conservation programs provided to customers. A quarterly bill is delivered directly by the City.

D. Development Impact Fees
Development Impact Fees (“DIF”) are paid to the City of Rialto as various developments are completed in the City. As such, the City of Rialto receives monies from the various developments, which is then distributed to RWS. There was no DIF payment received in May of 2024.

E. Rialto Basin Water Rights and Leasing
A Standby Water Lease Agreement between Fontana Union Water Company and City of Rialto is in effect. For the Water 2023-2024 Water Year, RWS received a payment from San Bernardino County the amount of $332,624 for Standby Charges and Production Charge.

In addition, the County is also billed annually for Rialto Well #3’s summertime electricity costs based on peak usage.
77 9

Cash Collections by Payment Method – Rialto Water Services

Transaction Counts for Carrier Deposits, Remote Depo sits, UB Bill Conc Service (EBOX), and Lockbox Deposits reflect number of batches deposited to the bank. Transaction counts for credit card POS, IVR, and Pay -Near-Me transactions are per number of customer payments. IVR payments are received and process by Paymentus on the day the transactions are made. General ledger are posted and accounted for the following day the payments are processed.

Payment Method Description Transaction Count MAY 2025 % Carrier Deposits Cash deposits prepared per day for transport to US Bank. 21 $ 123,958 3.48% Remote Deposits Scanned batches of checks payments made at the customer service counter 21 664,958 18.68% EBOX Batches of electronic customer payments posted
to customer accounts at US Bank. 21 284,338 7.99%

PAYMENTUS - IVR /
Paymentus / Walk-in
Credit Card payment
Customer payments by credit cards and ACH /
eCheck payments through an Interactive Voice
Response system using a touchtone
phone.Payments originated from Merchant online
service 11,619 1,725,899 48.48% Lockbox Deposits Batches of customer payments mailed in to US Bank's lockbox 21 749,957 21.07% Pay Near Me
Cash payment service that allows customers to pay
at a local 7-Eleven, CVS, Walmart or Family Dollar
stores. 86 11,011 0.31% Total Revenue per Bank $ 3,560,122 100.00% Recon to RUA Recap:

Adj detailed in RUA (35,204)
Prior mo. Correction
RUA increase in Cash $ 3,524,918
78 10

F. Payment Collection Method – Fiscal Year to Date

G. Cash Collections on Behalf of the City of Rialto-Prior Year Comparison

H. Non-Rate Revenue + Utility Revenue Collections Prior Year Comparison

Jul 2024 Aug 2024 Sep 2024 Oct 2024 Nov 2024 Dec 2024 Jan 2025 Feb 2025 Mar 2025 Apr 2025 May 2025 Total % Carrier Deposits 122,310$ 116,600$ 111,287$ 121,951$ 89,627$ 122,268$ 120,688$ 117,076$ 137,735$ 134,742$ 123,958$ 1,318,243$ 3.06% Remote Deposits 227,143 953,011 373,642 394,629 613,264 685,915 291,981 1,113,745 471,688 802,083 664,958 6,592,059$ 15.28% EBOX 334,259 346,067 289,347 349,088 288,522 322,671 332,865 252,149 312,881 316,850 284,338 3,429,036$ 7.95% Paymentus, IVR, Credit Cards 1,827,817 1,855,221 1,688,345 2,034,573 1,499,559 2,049,055 2,011,139 1,553,121 2,179,266 1,939,784 1,725,899 20,363,779$ 47.21% Lockbox Deposits 1,169,619 1,273,243 1,089,604 1,285,860 903,561 1,175,827 1,098,091 706,631 1,025,831 821,238 749,957 11,299,462$ 26.20% Pay Near Me 14,561 14,530 10,989 11,968 10,491 12,923 12,774 7,957 12,063 11,624 11,011 130,892$ 0.30% Total Revenue to Bank 3,695,709$ 4,558,672$ 3,563,214$ 4,198,069$ 3,405,024$ 4,368,659$ 3,867,538$ 3,750,679$ 4,139,464$ 4,026,321$ 3,560,122$ 43,133,471$ 100.00% NSF (7,962) (4,946) (8,970) (8,951) (21,124) (20,764) (9,479) (10,322) (8,496) (9,457) (10,260) (120,731)$ Net deposits 3,687,747$ 4,553,726$ 3,554,244$ 4,189,118$ 3,383,900$ 4,347,895$ 3,858,059$ 3,740,357$ 4,130,968$ 4,016,864$ 3,549,862$ 43,012,740$ May 2025 May 2024 Variance
UUT Water 18,230$ 84,788$ (66,558)$
UUT Sewer 26,728 199,424 (172,696)
Ambulance 4,879 6,218 (1,339)
Total 49,836$ 290,430$ (240,594)$
May 2025 May 2024 Variance
Non-Rate / Extra Territorial
Revenue 61,967$ 525,133$ (463,166)$
Utility Revenue 3,413,115$ 5,225,710$ (1,812,595)
Total 3,475,082$ 5,750,843$ (2,275,761)$
79 11

I. Non-Rate Revenue + Utility Revenue Collected Fiscal Year-to-Date

J. Increase in Cash Collections and Fund Distribution—Prior Year Comparison

Jul 2024 Aug 2024 Sept 2024 Oct 2024 Nov 2024 Dec 2024 Jan 2025 Feb 2025 Mar 2025 Apr 2025 May 2025 Total Non-Rate Revenue
Cell Tower Rent,Llease 5,647 19,985 21,506 66,161 55,391 9,235 12,824 29,957 55,985 66,904 19,985 363,580 Interest Income 19,290 9,559 - - - - - - - - 9,000 37,849

NRR-FOG - - - - - - - - - - - - Municipal Water Sales - - - - 332,624 - - - - - - 332,624 Extra Terr- Sewage 31,463 252,123 161,340 185,039 136,360 128,586 145,544 225,208 159,667 346,473 - 1,771,803 Abatement of Expenses - - - - - - - - - - - - Water Meter Lost/Damaged/Repl 1,419 710 2,129 5,171 - - 4,924 492 36,930 10,601 26,256 88,633 Misc Fees - New Occ., Same Day Svc 5,877 4,453 4,939 5,629 3,067 5,525 5,945 6,069 6,060 6,400 6,726 60,690 Miscellaneous Revenue - Sewer - - - - - - - - - - - - NSF - 342 - 152 35 - 30 - - - - 559 Total Non-Rate Revenue 63,696$ 287,172$ 189,914$ 262,152$ 527,477$ 143,346$ 169,267$ 261,726$ 258,642$ 430,379$ 61,967$ 2,655,737 Utility Revenue -
Water Penalty 3,154 15,321 10,183 5,903 2,602 720 101 6,016 16,300 23,990 27,506 111,796 Sewer Penalty 5,200 33,061 18,283 7,639 3,313 1,435 700 11,411 33,426 40,185 43,522 198,175 Turf Removal, Hi-Eff Rebate (1,000) (100) - - - - - - - (1,000) - (2,100) Water Deposits Billed 17,289 8,629 9,906 8,629 8,686 10,057 11,411 11,856 20,052 16,614 13,908 137,038 Hydrant Deposits 574 - - - 420 282 - - 702 - - 1,978 Sewer Deposits Paid - - - - - - - - - - - - Sewer Deposits Billed 11,760 12,823 9,518 10,900 15,201 8,822 11,737 8,959 18,436 10,612 14,975 133,743 Water 1,171,886 1,540,256 1,194,449 1,386,681 884,906 1,229,369 1,086,436 1,126,085 1,161,792 1,223,012 976,785 12,981,657 Sewer 2,327,246 2,418,456 1,959,890 2,448,917 1,669,263 2,454,711 2,380,281 1,745,679 2,469,796 2,345,182 1,902,496 24,121,917 Unapplied Credits (101,077) (54,176) (140,916) (81,949) (69,090) (35,829) (43,709) (83,121) (42,584) (20,663) (61,290) (734,404) Bad Debt Sewer 12,029 9,909 - - - - 4,560 - - - 6,647 33,145 Bad Debt Water - - - - - - - - - - - - Tax Roll Sewer 15,596 2,790 - - - 22,950 399,116 474,784 8,462 3,652 488,565 1,415,915 Collection Agency - Water - - - - - - - - - - - - Collection Agency - Sewer - - - - - - - - - - - - Collection Agency - Misc Water - - - - - - - - - - - - Total Utility Revenue 3,462,657$ 3,986,969$ 3,061,313$ 3,786,720$ 2,515,301$ 3,692,517$ 3,850,633$ 3,301,669$ 3,686,382$ 3,641,584$ 3,413,115$ 38,398,861$ Total Non-Rate + Utility Rev. 3,526,353 4,274,141 3,251,227 4,048,872 3,042,778 3,835,863 4,019,900 3,563,395 3,945,024 4,071,963 3,475,082 41,054,598 Increase to Cash
per Incode
Adjustments
Required to GL
Cash
Fund 660-Sewer Fund 670-Water Total Cash Per
GL
Adjustments To
Match RUA to Bank
Cash/CC/Cks
Deposit To Bank
May 2025 123,958 10,063 2,412,249 1,102,607 3,524,918 35,204 3,560,122 May 2024 4,487,203 7,390 3,154,879 1,324,934 4,487,203 (21,462) 4,465,741 80 12

K. Non-Rate and Extraterritorial Customer Accounts Receivable Aging

AT&T makes annual payment of one cell tower rent and monthly dues on the other. The customer is current with its payments.

Social Science Service (Cedar House) balance reflects current service fees.

City of Fontana is current with its obligations.

Colton Unified School District is current with its obligations.

County of San Bernardino is current with its obligations.

Rialto Bioenergy Solutions RWS shows a current Invoice balance in May. Subsequently, received payments in June.

Vertical Bridge Holdco, LLC and Sprint: Vertical Bridge and Sprint have been contacted for open Invoices as well.

Name
Total as of
5/31/2025 Current 31 to 60 days 61 to 90 days >90 days
AT&T - Easton (1,500)$ (1,500)
Cedar House 5,692 5,692
CITY OF FONTANA 133,713 133,713
Colton Unified School District 5,571 5,571 County of San Bernardino-CSA 70 BL 20,948 20,948 Rialto BioEnergy Facilities 32,278 21,528 10,750 Sprint-Nextel 9,331 - 9,331 San Bernardino Co Waste System Div. - - SB Valley Mun Water District - - Vertical Bridge Holdco, LLC (CIG) 4,714 - 4,714 Grand Total 210,746$ 185,952$ 10,750$ -$ 14,045$ 81 RIALTO WASTEWATER

MONTHLY OPERATIONS REPORT

Reporting Period:

May 2025

Prepared for: - Rialto Water Services
Prepared by: - Veolia Water West Operating Services
82 RIALTO WASTEWATER

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE REPORT

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Collection System / Customer Service Log
a. Collection System Activities
b. S.S.O. dates
c. Customer Service Call Outs

2. Wastewater Treatment Plant - Monthly Overview
a. Significant events during the month

3. Treatment Facility Performance / Laboratory Activities a. See attached Monthly Performance Summary
b. Summary of Notices and Laboratory Tests / Reports filed with government agencies c. Effluent Specifications Exceedance Discussion

4. Monthly Safety Program Overview

5. Biosolids, Chemicals, and Utilities
a. Monthly Biosolids Production
b. Monthly Chemical Consumption
c. Monthly Utilities Consumption

6. Odor Complaints / Actions Taken

7. Major Equipment and/or Machinery Outages

8. Outside Agency Activities during the Month
a. Government agency or property insurance inspections
b. Government agency environmental, health, or safety tests/monitoring c. Government agency notice of violation received
d. Government agency monitoring
e. Other matters of concern

9. Complaint Logs

TABLES

● Treatment Facility – Monthly Performance Summary
● Collection System- Monthly Pipe Cleaned
83 RIALTO WASTEWATER

MONTHLY OPERATIONS REPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Highlights of this month’s Wastewater O&M report include the following:

● The treatment plant performed well and met all compliance parameters. ● There were two residential call-outs for sewer-related issues.

1. Collection System/Customer Service Log

a. Collections group activities this month:

Category Current Month
Statistics
Prior Month Statistics 2025 Year to Date
Statistics
Sanitary sewers are cleaned using the
conventional method, including feet, which
includes “Hot spot cleaning.”
35,102 15,459 118,351
Sanitary sewers assessed using the SL-RAT
method, feet 35 0 35
CCTV Inspection, miles (26 is the annual goal)* 3.37 2.63 12.7 Manhole Inspections 1 13 31
USA Dig Alert Markings, count 28 69 201
Residential call outs 3 2 11
Sanitary sewer overflows 0 0 1

b. S.S.O. N/A
c. Customer Service Call Outs – See Item 9 for details.

2. Wastewater Treatment Plant – Monthly Overview
● NPDES discharge compliance parameters were achieved.

a. Significant events during the month were:

O.R.&R. Projects WW2324-17 and WW2324-18 completed and in operation.

3. Treatment Facility Performance/Laboratory Activities

a. See the attached Table 1, Monthly Performance Summary.

b. Summary of Notices and Laboratory Tests/Reports filed with government agencies.

The monthly submittal of State/Federal discharge monitoring reports was completed promptly.

84 c. Effluent specification exceedance discussion
See Section 2 above. N/A

4. Monthly Safety Program Overview

Category Monthly Statistic
Safety Training Topics 2
Lost Time Incidents count* 0
Recordable Incidents, count 0
Near Miss Incidents, count 1
Vehicle Incidents, count 0

*A lost time incident has not occurred since 9-3-2020, totaling 1,730 days.

5. Biosolids, Chemicals, and Utilities

a. Monthly Biosolids Production

Biosolids Current Month
Statistics
Prior Month Statistics 2025 Year-to-Date
Statistics
Wet Tons Produced 1,408.62 1,532.12 6,464.51

b. Monthly Chemical Consumption

Chemical Current Month
Gallons Used
Prior Month
Gallons Used
Sodium Hypochlorite, Tertiary Disinfection 29,766 28,526 Sodium Bisulfite, Discharge Dechlorination 11,166 7,003 Ferrous Chloride, Digester Gas Conditioning 4,398 4,108 Polymer, Gravity Belt Thickener 353 356
Polymer, Belt Filter Press 702 712
Alum, Tertiary Filters 1 12

85 c. Monthly Utilities Consumption

Utility Current Month Statistics Prior Month Statistics Electricity WWTP, KWH ** 412,716
Electricity Lilac LS, KWH ** 755
Electricity Sycamore LS, KWH ** 493*
Electricity Ayala LS, KWH ** 7895
Electricity Agua Mansa LS, KWH ** 2818
Electricity Cactus LS, KWH ** 1585
Electricity Ramrod LS, KWH 623 597
Frisbee Park LS, KWH ** 769
El Rancho Verde LS, KWH 1975 1825
Natural Gas WWTP, Therms 5969 5930
* LS is in bypass mode, pending CIP completion
** SCE has not updated this account.

6. Odor Complaints Received/Actions Taken
No odor complaints were received this month.

7. Major Equipment and/or Machinery Outages
● Sludge Holding Tank
● Aeration Basin #1 is currently offline.

8. Outside Agency Activities during the Month
a. Government agency or property insurance inspections
None

b. Government agency environmental, health, or safety tests/monitoring Permit testing was completed for this month

c. Government agency notices of violation received
No notices were received.

d. Government agency monitoring
Routine monitoring reports were submitted.

e. Other matters of concern
None

86 9. Customer Service Callout Details Log

Date Address Comments Personnel Manhole To
Manhole
5/7/2025 429 E Mariposa The resident called to report a backup in their sewer line.

The mainline was inspected and found to be clear. The
resident was informed to call the plumber.

ET NA NA

5/19/2025 1039 N Sycamore A call was received from Public Works about a possible SSO. The problem was a potable water leak on the
resident's property.

ET NA NA
5/22/2025 1173 Cactus A resident called to report roaches coming from a manhole. Collection applied roach bait to the manhole
and scheduled it for spraying. The resident was informed.

ET

87 Table 1 Summary

88 89

Table 2 Summary

90 91

Table 3 Summary
*Cyanide was not available at the time of report completion

92 93

Monthly Sewer Line Cleaned

94 95