Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutCC Agenda Packet 08.15.2023 CITY COUNCIL CLOSED & REGULAR SESSION AGENDA Tuesday, August 15, 2023 Closed Session: 5:00 PM Regular Meeting: 6:00 PM 550 E. Sixth Street, Beaumont, CA Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packets are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s office at 550 E. 6th Street during normal business hours. MEETING PARTICIPATION NOTICE This meeting will will be recorded for live streaming as well as open to public attendance. Please use the following link during the meeting for live stream access: beaumontca.gov/livestream Public comments will be accepted using the following options. 1. Written comments will be accepted via email and will be read aloud during the corresponding item of the meeting. Public comments shall not exceed three (3) minutes unless otherwise authorized by City Council. Comments can be submitted anytime prior to the meeting as well as during the meeting up until the end of the corresponding item. Please submit your comments to: nicolew@beaumontca.gov with "Public Comment" in the subject line. 2. Phone-in comments will be accepted by joining a conference line prior to the corresponding item of the meeting. Public comments shall not exceed three (3) minutes unless otherwise authorized by City Council. Please use the following phone number to join the call (951) 922 - 4845. 3. In-person comments are accepted by notifying the City Clerk using a provided Request to Speak Form prior to the start of the Public Comment Period. Public comments shall not exceed three (3) minutes unless otherwise authorized by City Council. In compliance with the American Disabilities Act, if you require special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's office using the above email or call (951) 572 - 3196. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will ensure the best reasonable accommodation arrangements. Pages CLOSED SESSION A.CALL TO ORDER Mayor Martinez, Mayor Pro Tem Fenn, Council Member Lara, Council Member Voigt, Council Member White B.PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING CLOSED SESSION B.1 Conference with Legal Counsel Regarding Anticipated Litigation Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2) and/or (3): Four Claims: (i) Braiden Goedhart; (ii)James Albert Pietronico; (iii)Shannon Luellen (Application for Permission to file Late Claim); and (iv.) Gary Blackwell (Application for Permission to File a Late Claim) B.2 Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. Property: City’s interchange property at 4th Street and Potrero Agency negotiator: City Manager Negotiating parties: The City of Beaumont And ASM Beaumont Investors, LLC Under negotiation: price and terms of sale. B.3 Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation Initiation of litigation pursuant to government code Section 54956.9(d)(4): (One case) C.ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION REGULAR SESSION D.CALL TO ORDER Mayor Martinez, Mayor Pro Tem Fenn, Council Member Lara, Council Member Voigt, Council Member White Report out from Closed Session Action on any Closed Session Items Action of any Requests for Excused Absence Pledge of Allegiance Invocation Adjustments to the Agenda Conflict of Interest Disclosure E.ANNOUNCEMENTS / RECOGNITION / PROCLAMATIONS / CORRESPONDENCE E.1 Introduction of Oakley F.PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA) Any one person may address the City Council on any matter not on this agenda. If you wish to speak, please fill out a “Public Comment Form” provided at the back table and give it to the City Clerk. There is a three (3) minute time limit on public comments. There will be no sharing or passing of time to another person. State Law prohibits the City Council from discussing or taking actions brought Page 2 of 379 up by your comments. G.CONSENT CALENDAR Items on the consent calendar are taken as one action item unless an item is pulled for further discussion here or at the end of action items. Approval of all Ordinances and Resolutions to be read by title only. G.1 Ratification of Warrants 7 Recommended Action: Ratify Warrants dated: July 27, 2023 August 4, 2023 G.2 Approval of Minutes 43 Recommended Action: Approve Minutes dated August 1, 2023 G.3 Approve the Transfer of the Developer of Record from Tesla to Swell Energy for the Grant Funded Energy Resiliency Projects at Upper Oak Valley and Beaumont Mesa Lift Stations 49 Transfer the Developer of Record from Tesla to Swell Energy to keep two grant-funded projects viable. Recommended Action: Approve the transfer of the developer of record from Tesla to Swell Energy for the Grant Funded Resiliency Projects at Upper Oak Valley and Beaumont Mesa Lift Stations. H.YOUTH COUNCIL REPORT Beaumont Youth Council Report Out and City Council Direction I.PUBLIC HEARINGS Approval of all Ordinances and Resolutions to be read by title only. I.1 Hold a Public Hearing to Consider a Resolution Approving Rates for Wastewater Service Effective September 1, 2023, and Rescinding all Prior Established Wastewater Rates 51 Hold a public hearing to consider adopting a resolution approving rates for wastewater services. Recommended Action: Hold a Proposition 218 Public Hearing; and Waive the full reading and adopt by title only, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, Approving Rates for Wastewater Service Effective September 1, 2023, and Rescinding all Prior Established Wastewater Rates” I.2 First Reading of an Ordinance Rescinding Ordinance No. 1091 and Amending Chapter 3.39 of the Beaumont Municipal Code – Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program 142 Amendment of Chapter 3.39, Section 060 “Procedures for the Levy, Collection and Disposition of Fees,” to authorize TUMF fees to be collected directly by WRCOG from the developers from the effective date Page 3 of 379 of this ordinance forward. Recommended Action: Waive the full first reading of “An Ordinance of the City of Beaumont, California Amending Section 060 Beaumont Municipal Code Section 3.39 To Include a Process Whereby the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Shall Calculate and Collect Fees Under the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program Directly” J.ACTION ITEMS Approval of all Ordinances and Resolutions to be read by title only. J.1 Award a Professional Services Agreement in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $997,160 to Tom Dodson & Associates for the Preparation of an Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan 157 Prepare an Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan as part of the process of implementing a recycled water program. Recommended Action: Authorize the Mayor to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Tom Dodson & Associates for an Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan in an amount not to exceed $997,160. J.2 Award a Professional Services Agreement to Willdan Financial Services for a Variety of Development Impact Fee Studies in a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $79,080 244 Award an agreement with Willdan Financial Services for professional services to conduct a development impact fee study. Recommended Action: Approve a professional services agreement with Willdan Financial Services at a not to exceed cost of $79,080 to conduct a variety of development impact fee studies. J.3 Second Amendment to the Professional Service Agreement with EXP U.S. Services, Inc. 290 Second Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement for Engineering Services to EXP U.S. Services, Inc. for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan (MDP) Line 2, Stage 1 Project (CIP2019-019). Recommended Action: Approve a second amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with EXP U.S. Services, Inc. to extend the term for one-year and a new not-to-exceed amount of $524,064.96. J.4 Service Agreement between the County of Riverside and the City of Beaumont for Brookside Avenue Slurry Seal Improvements 339 Cooperative Agreement with the County of Riverside. Recommended Action: Approve Cooperative Agreement between the County of Riverside and City of Beaumont for Brookside Avenue Slurry Seal Improvements and Page 4 of 379 authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement in the amount not to exceed $74,876.60. J.5 ISF Replacement Vehicles 352 The purchase of seven (7) replacement vehicles and one (1) new vehicle for the Community Services Department through the approved FY 23/24 City-wide budget; and one (1) vehicle maintenance vehicle for the Transit Department funded by the State Transit Assistance grant. Recommended Action: Approve a Purchase Order in an amount not to exceed $479,358.56 to Santa Margarita Ford for the Purchase of eight (8) 2022 Ford F-250s for the Community Services Department and one (1) 2023 Ford F-250 for the Transit Department. J.6 Approval of City Attorney Invoices for the Month of July 2023 364 Recommended Action: Approve invoices in the amount of $94,373.23 K.LEGISLATIVE UPDATES AND DISCUSSION L.ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT UPDATE Economic Development Committee Report Out and City Council Direction M.CITY TREASURER REPORT Finance and Audit Committee Report Out and City Council Direction N.CITY CLERK REPORT O.CITY ATTORNEY REPORT P.CITY MANAGER REPORT P.1 Transportation Update 378 Q.FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Resource for residents to contact local businesses• City staff first aid and safety discussion• Assessment for the need for additional community center(s)• Annexation Agreement with the County• Enforcement of sidewalk vendors (October)• R.COUNCIL REPORTS White Voigt Lara Fenn Martinez S.ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the Beaumont City Council, Beaumont Financing Authority, the Beaumont Successor Agency (formerly RDA), the Beaumont Utility Authority, the Beaumont Parking Authority and the Beaumont Public Improvement Agency is scheduled for Tuesday September 5, 2023, at 6:00 p.m. Page 5 of 379 unless otherwise posted. Page 6 of 379 Page 7 of 379 Page 8 of 379 Page 9 of 379 Page 10 of 379 Page 11 of 379 Page 12 of 379 Page 13 of 379 Page 14 of 379 Page 15 of 379 Page 16 of 379 Page 17 of 379 Page 18 of 379 Page 19 of 379 Page 20 of 379 Page 21 of 379 Page 22 of 379 Page 23 of 379 Page 24 of 379 Page 25 of 379 Page 26 of 379 Page 27 of 379 Page 28 of 379 Page 29 of 379 Page 30 of 379 Page 31 of 379 Page 32 of 379 Page 33 of 379 Page 34 of 379 Page 35 of 379 Page 36 of 379 Page 37 of 379 Page 38 of 379 Page 39 of 379 Page 40 of 379 Page 41 of 379 Page 42 of 379 1 CITY COUNCIL CLOSED & REGULAR SESSION MINUTES August 1, 2023 Closed Session: 5:00 PM Regular Meeting: 6:00 PM 550 E. Sixth Street, Beaumont, CA _____________________________________________________________________ CLOSED SESSION A. CALL TO ORDER at 5:46 p.m. Present: Mayor Pro Tem Fenn, Council Member Lara, Council Member Voigt, Council Member White (at 5:47 p.m.) Absent: Mayor Martinez B. PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING CLOSED SESSION B.1 Conference with Labor Negotiators - Pursuant to Code Section 54957.6 City Designated Representatives City Manager Elizabeth Gibbs and Administrative Services Director Kari Mendoza. Employee Organizations: Police Managers Police Officers Association Managers/Professional/Technical Motion by Council Member Lara Second by Mayor Pro Tem Fenn To approve side letter no. 2 with the POA and the Police Managers. Approved by a 4-0 vote Absent: Martinez Page 43 of 379 2 REGULAR SESSION D. CALL TO ORDER at 6:13 p.m. Present: Mayor Pro Tem Fenn, Council Member Lara, Council Member Voigt, Council Member White Absent: Mayor Martinez Report out from Closed Session: Motion by Council Member Voigt Second by Council Member White To approve side letter no. 2 with Managers/Professional/Technical For the record, Council Member White was in attendance for the full Closed Session. Action on any Closed Session Items Action of any Requests for Excused Absence Pledge of Allegiance Adjustments to the Agenda Conflict of Interest Disclosure E. ANNOUNCEMENTS / RECOGNITION / PROCLAMATIONS / CORRESPONDENCE F. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA) K. Walton - Representing San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency. G. CONSENT CALENDAR Items on the consent calendar are taken as one action item unless an item is pulled for further discussion here or at the end of action items. Approval of all Ordinances and Resolutions to be read by title only. Motion by Council Member White Second by Council Member Lara To approve the Consent Calendar Approved by a 4-0 vote Absent: Martinez G.1 Ratification of Warrants Ratify Warrants dated: Page 44 of 379 3 July 7, 2023 July 14, 2023 G.2 Approval of Minutes Approve Minutes dated July 18, 2023. G.3 Performance Bond Exoneration Performance bond exoneration for sewer improvements associated with Tract Map No. 31469-7 and traffic signal and sewer lift station improvements associated with Parcel Map No. 36426. Authorize City staff to issue a Bond Exoneration Letter for Performance and Payment Bonds and Accept Maintenance Bonds for (Project / Bond Number / Improvement / Maintenance Bond Number): • Tract Map No. 31469-7/ PB03010402910 / Sewer / PB03010402910-M • Parcel Map No. 36426/ 107366929 / Traffic Signal / 107736393 • Parcel Map No. 36426/ 107506778 / Lift Station / 107506778 G.4 Storm Water Management Facilities Covenant and Agreement Approve Storm Water Management WQMP/BMP Facilities Covenant and Agreement for 1675 E. Eight Street, Dutch Bros. Authorize City Manager to execute the Storm Water Management WQMP/BMP Facilities Covenant and Agreement for 1675 E. Eighth Street, Dutch Bros. G.5 Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Participation in the Community Development Block Grant Home Investment Partnership Program and Emergency Solutions Grant Program for Fiscal Years 2024-25, 2025-26 and 2026-27 Renewal of the cooperation agreement between the City of Beaumont and the County of Riverside for the Home Investment Partnership Program and Emergency Solutions Grant through Community Development Block Grant participation. Waive the full reading and adopt by title only, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Beaumont Authorizing Participation in the County of Riverside’s Community Development Block Grant Home Investment Partnership Program and Emergency Solutions Grant Program for Fiscal Years 2024-25, 2025-26 and 2026-27.” G.6 FY2022-2023 4th Quarter Budget Update and Financial Status Report Receive and file an update on the FY2022-2023 budget and financial status of city funds. Page 45 of 379 4 Receive and file report. G.7 FY2022-2023 4th Quarter Cash and Investment Report Receive and file the 4th Quarter Cash and Investment Report. H. YOUTH COUNCIL REPORT No report. I. PUBLIC HEARINGS Approval of all Ordinances and Resolutions to be read by title only. J. ACTION ITEMS Approval of all Ordinances and Resolutions to be read by title only. J.1 Award a Professional Services Agreement for Preparation of a Climate Action Plan (CAP) – Capital Improvement Project CD-05 Update to the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) including requirements for the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Motion by Council Member White Second by Council Member Voigt Authorize the Mayor to execute a Professional Services Agreement for preparation of a Climate Action Plan (CAP) with Raimi + Associates in an amount not to exceed $272,601. Approved J.2 Parks and Community Services Master Plan – Quarterly Update of Capital Improvement Project P-17 Strategic Plan – Priority Level 2, Target 5, Goal 3 Motion by Council Member White Second by Council Member Voigt Receive and file. Approved Page 46 of 379 5 J.3 Set Time, Date and Place for a Special Workshop Workshop to discuss amendments to the current Beaumont Municipal Code Section 17.07 – Signs. No action. K. LEGISLATIVE UPDATES AND DISCUSSION No report. L. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT UPDATE No report. M. CITY TREASURER REPORT Report out from recent Finance and Audit Committee meeting. N. CITY CLERK REPORT No report. O. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT No report. P. CITY MANAGER REPORT Announcement of upcoming Wastewater Treatment Plant Open House event. P.1 Update on Commercial Landscape Enforcement Activity Commercial shopping center landscape update Receive and file. Q. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS • Resource for residents to contact local businesses • City staff first aid and safety discussion Page 47 of 379 6 • Assessment for the need for additional community center(s) • Annexation Agreement with the County • Enforcement of sidewalk vendors R. COUNCIL REPORTS White - No report Voigt - Attended recent Summer Concert, gave a report out from the Financial Audit Committee Meeting, a water agency meeting, and the National Night Out event. Lara - Attended the recent Gov in the Park event. Fenn - Attended the Financial and Audit Committee Meeting, met with staff in a Land Use Committee meeting. S. ADJOURNMENT at 6:41 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Beaumont City Council, Beaumont Financing Authority, the Beaumont Successor Agency (formerly RDA), the Beaumont Utility Authority, the Beaumont Parking Authority and the Beaumont Public Improvement Agency is scheduled for Tuesday August 15, 2023, at 6:00 p.m. unless otherwise posted. Page 48 of 379 Staff Report TO: City Council FROM: Thaxton Van Belle, Director of W ater Reclamation DATE August 15, 2023 SUBJECT: Approve the Transfer of the Developer of Record from Tesla to Swell Energy for the Grant Funded Energy Resiliency Projects at Upper Oak Valley and Beaumont Mesa Lift Stations Description Transfer the Developer of Record from Tesla to Swell Energy to keep two grant-funded projects viable. Background and Analysis: In June 2021, the City entered an agreement with Tesla for the purchase and installation of four energy storage systems to be funded by the Self -Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) grants. Two of these systems have been installed at the Lower Oak Valley Lift Station and the Wastewater Treatment Plant. The remaining two approved projects, Upper Oak Valley Lift Station and Beaumont Mesa Lift Station, have been granted extensions due to supply chain issues. Tesla has reached out to the City with information that the battery backup system designated for the two outstanding projects is no longer in production and that the future replacement product may not be available by the December 2023 grant deadline for construction. Therefore, Tesla is recommending a transfer of the project to Swell Energy, an SGIP-approved company that utilizes Tesla technology in its systems. If approved, Tesla and Swell will collaborate to develop the remaining projects under the existing contract. The City’s legal counsel participated in discussions with Tesla regarding the transfer of the developer of record. Fiscal Impact: If approved, continued progression of the two grant-funded projects valued at $1,000,000 each with additional energy savings and resiliency benefits. Page 49 of 379 If not approved, the potential loss of the approved grant funding for the two projects in the event Tesla is unable to allocate product before the December construction grant deadline. Tesla has also indicated the possibility of seeking damages against the City for the loss of their $50,000 deposits. The estimated cost to prepare this report is $600. Recommended Action: Approve the transfer of the developer of record from Tesla to Swell Energy for the Grant Funded Resiliency Projects at Upper Oak Valley and Beaumont Mesa Lift Stations. Page 50 of 379 Staff Report TO: City Council FROM: Jennifer Ustation, Finance Director Thaxton Van Belle, Director of W ater Reclamation DATE August 15, 2023 SUBJECT: Hold a Public Hearing to Consider a Resolution Approving Rates for Wastewater Service Effective September 1, 2023, and Rescinding all Prior Established Wastewater Rates Description Hold a public hearing to consider adopting a resolution approving rates for wastewater services. Background and Analysis: The City is obligated to establish wastewater rates sufficient to cover all costs of providing wastewater service, including, but not limited to, the costs of operating and maintaining the sewer system, debt service, and a provision for a prudent and reasonable reserve, as well as funding for capital projects and asset replacement. Currently, the City’s sewer rates are not sufficient to cover the costs of providing sewer service to its customers. The City of Beaumont owns and operates the Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The WWTP receives and treats domestic and commercial/industrial wastewater generated within the City of Beaumont and Highland Springs (portions of an unincorporated area of Cherry Valley). All wastewater discharged from the facility is currently regulated under Order No. R8- 2022-0042, NPDES No. CA105376. The City recently completed a major expansion and upgrade project at the wastewater treatment plant to satisfy State regulatory requirements. Additionally, a 23-mile brine line was constructed across two counties and multiple municipalities to discharge the salts removed from the treatment process. Proposition 218 Process: In November 1996, the California electorate approved Proposition 218 which requires certain procedures be followed regarding “prop erty-related” fee increases imposed by governmental agencies. It requires that the City provide written notice by mail of the proposed fee or charge to the record owner of each parcel affected, the amount of the Page 51 of 379 fee or charge, the basis for which the amoun t was calculated, the reason for the fee increase, and the date, time, and location of the public hearing on the fee increase. The written notice must be sent at least 45 days prior to the public hearing. At the public hearing, the City will consider all protests against the proposed fee or charge. If written protests against the increased fee or charge are presented by a majority (50% +1) of parcel owners, the City will not impose the fee or charge. Community Involvement, Meetings, and Notice of Hearing: On December 6, 2022, the City Council held a public meeting and approved a contract for Professional Engineering Services with Raftelis, an independent consulting firm, for the purpose of conducting a cost-of-service analysis and sewer rate study. On April 10, 2023, the City Council held a public meeting at which staff updated the City Council on the financial needs of the wastewater system and a preliminary proposed amendment to the sewer rates pursuant to the sewer rate study prepared by Raftelis. On May 30, 2023, the City Council held a public meeting at which staff updated the City Council on the proposed rates based on scenario planning discussions in relation to the financial position of the wastewater fund pursuant to the sewer rate study prepared by Raftelis. On June 6, 2023, the City Council held another public meeting regarding sewer rate adjustments and approved sending out notices of rate increases to comply with Prop 218 requirements. Between June 28 and June 30, 2023, the City with the assistance of a third-party vendor, mailed written notices to the record owner and tenant of each parcel affected. These notices included the amount of the proposed sewer rate increase, the basis on which the proposed rates were calculated, the reason for the rate increases, and the date, time, and location of the public hearing on the proposed rate increases. On August 3, 2023, the City of Beaumont hosted a Wastewater Treatment Plant Open - House and Tour for the public and Beaumont residents to see firsthand where and how their wastewater is treated. On August 12, 2023, The Press-Enterprise, a newspaper of general circulation within the City, published a copy of the notice. Page 52 of 379 Sewer Rate Study Summary The July 2023 Sewer Rate Study includes a financial plan, cost of service analysis, and a rate design analysis. The financial plan identifies the net revenue requirements for the sewer utility. The cost-of-service analysis determines the cost of providing sewer service to each customer class. The rate study also proposed adjusted rates designed to cover the cost of providing service. The City currently has 7 types of customer classes based on the type of use at each property and estimated strength characteristics of the effluent put into the sewer system by each customer class. The categories are as follows: 1) Single-Family Residential 2) Multi-Family Residential 3) Schools 4) Commercial-Low 5) Commercial-Medium 6) Commercial-High 7) Significant Industrial Users Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) are users who use a federally regulated process or have the potential to affect the performance or operation of the wastewater treatment plant. Rates were developed for these five customers individually based on the specific characteristics of the effluent produced by each customer. A fixed charge will be applied to cover costs associated with managing, regulating, and permitting SIUs. The five current SIUs are as follows: 1) Dura Plastics Products 2) Perricone Juice 3) Rudolph Food Company 4) CJ Foods 5) Precision Stamping The characteristics of the discharges for these industries were reviewed and a rate was calculated based on the strength and treatment demand of each SIUs’ contributions to the wastewater plant. Monthly flow totals will be recorded, and each SIUs’ bill will be calculated using a formula that incorporates the strength characteristics and the volume of flow discharged to the sewer system. If any SIU regularly exceeds its historical or projected strength characteristics a surcharge may be added to ensure equitable practices. Similarly, new industries connecting to the system will be required to pay their fair share of capital and treatment costs. Page 53 of 379 The July 2023 rate study assumes that the City will not need to issue any addit ional debt to fund major capital projects. This rate study calculates costs of service and revenue requirements from FY2023/24 through FY2027/28. Commensurate with the findings, the FY2023/24 rates must be adjusted to accurately reflect the customer class, cost of service, and corresponding system impacts. Newly implemented rates for FY2023/24 will result in residential monthly rates increasing from $47.21 to $50.22 per month. Rates for multi-family and non-residential customers will result in a decrease for FY2023/24. The FY2023/24 rates reflect the appropriate redistribution of costs among the classification of customers. The rate adjustment for FY2023 -24 to FY2027-28 are calculated to increase overall revenues to meet operations and capital requirement s. The rate model shows that the following rate increases will be required on September 1, 2023, and on July 1 each fiscal year after. The corresponding single-family residential rates are: Fiscal Year Projected Annual Rate Increase Proposed Sewer Rate FY 2023/24 6.0% $50.22 FY 2024/25 5.0% $52.73 FY 2025/26 3.0% $54.31 FY 2026/27 2.0% $55.40 FY 2027/28 2.0% $56.51 The attached Sewer Rate Study has a detailed discussion of the financial planning and revenue determination process as well as the breakdown of the rate adjustments for each year. Fiscal Impact: The approval of increased rates will allow the wastewater fund to meet the projected sewer utility’s financial needs to provide services without subsidy from the General Fund. Recommended Action: Hold a Proposition 218 Public Hearing; and Page 54 of 379 Waive the full reading and adopt by title only, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, Approving Rates for Wastewater Service Effective September 1, 2023, and Rescinding all Prior Established Wastewater Rates” Attachments: A. Resolution Approving Rates for Wastewater Service B. Mailed Notice of Public Hearing C. July 2023 Sewer Rate Study D. Raftelis Presentation Page 55 of 379 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2023-_____ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING RATES FOR WASTEWATER SERVICE EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 2023, AND RESCINDING ALL PRIOR ESTABLISHED WASTEWATER RATES WHEREAS, it is the responsibility of the City Council to establish wastewater rates which are sufficient to cover all costs of providing wastewater service, including, but not limited to , the costs of operating and maintaining the sewer system, debt service and a provision for a prudent and reasonable reserve, as well as funding for capital projects and asset replacement; and WHEREAS, the Beaumont Municipal Code provides, among other things, that all future fees and charges for wastewater/sewer rates (“sewer rates”) shall be fixed by resolution of the City Council of the City of Beaumont; and WHEREAS, on December 6, 2023, the City Council approved the contract for Professional Engineering Services with Raftelis, for the purposes of conducting a cost of service analysis and sewer rate study; and WHEREAS, on April 10, 2023, City staff briefed the City Council on the financial needs of the wastewater system and preliminary necessary amendments to the sewer service rates as determined by the study prepared by Raftelis; and WHEREAS, on May 30, 2023, City staff briefed the City Council on the final proposed rates based on scenario financial planning discussions in relation to the financial position of the wastewater fund pursuant to the sewer rate study prepared by Raftelis; and WHEREAS, on June 6, 2023, the City Council approved to send out notices of rate increases to comply with Prop 218 requirements which were completed and mailed between June 28, 2023 and June 30, 2023; and WHEREAS, the City hosted a Wastewater Treatment Plant Open-House and Tour for Beaumont residents to see firsthand where and how their wastewater is treated; and WHEREAS, on August 12, 2023, the public hearing was published by publication in The Press- Enterprise, a newspaper of general circulation within the City; and WHEREAS, on August 15, 2023, the City Council conducted and concluded a duly noticed public hearing concerning the recommended sewer rate increases, at which time it considered all written and oral comments presented; and WHEREAS, at the close of the public hearing, the City did not receive written protests in an amount of 50% + 1 for the affected parcels; and Page 56 of 379 2 WHEREAS, the City Council has determined to adopt the revised schedule of rates and charges set forth in Schedule “A” and based on the recommendations contained in the updated sewer rate study attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “1”. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. All of the above recitals are true and correct. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby approves the sewer rate increases for wastewater services as set forth in Schedule “A”, Schedule of Rates and Charges. The rates and charges set forth in Schedule “A” shall be effective commencing September 1, 2023. SECTION 3. The City Council hereby finds and determines that such rates do not exceed the costs for providing wastewater/sewer services. SECTION 4. This Resolution may be interpreted by the City Manager should there be a conflict regarding the rate applicable to a user. SECTION 5. It is the intention of the City Council to review the rates and charges as determined and set out herein as part of the City’s Annual Budget for the next five fiscal years and all the City’s costs reasonably borne as established at that time, and, if warranted, to revise such rates and charges based thereon up to the level of rates and charges set forth in Schedule “A”, Schedule of Rates and Charges. SECTION 6. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Resolution, or any part thereof is declared invalid or unconstitutional, such declaration shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution or any part the reof. It is the intention of the City Council to have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 7. All prior established wastewater/sewer rates are hereby rescinded. SECTION 8. The City Council hereby finds that the provisions of this Resolution are exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under Public Resources Code section 21080(b)(8) and the CEQA Guidelines section 15273(a), because the City Council’s action in increasing/amending wastewater service rates are for the purpose of (i) meeting operating expenses, (ii) purchasing or leasing supplies equipment or materials for the wastewater services; (iii) meeting financial reserve needs and requirements for the wastewater system, and (iv) obtaining funds for capital projects necessary to maintain wastewater service within existing service areas. The City Council finds that the provisions of this Resolution are further exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a “project” as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential for resulting in a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. Page 57 of 379 3 SECTION 9. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect on and after September 1, 2023. ADOPTED this 15th day of August 2023. ______________________________ Julio Martinez, Mayor of the City of Beaumont, California ATTEST: ________________________________ Elaine Morgan, City Clerk of the City of Beaumont, California Page 58 of 379 4 CERTIFICATION I, _____________________, City Clerk of the City of Beaumont, California, do hereby certify that foregoing Resolution No. 2023 -____ was regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, duly held the _______ day of ______________, 2023, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Beaumont, California, this _______ day of _______________, 2023. ________________________________ Elaine Morgan, City Clerk of the City of Beaumont, California Page 59 of 379 5 SCHEDULE A Proposed Sewer Rates for FY 2022 – FY 2028 Line Monthly Service Charge (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) Customer Class Current FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Effective 9/1/23 Effective 7/1/24 Effective 7/1/25 Effective 7/1/26 Effective 7/1/27 1 Residential 2 Single Family $47.21 $50.22 $52.73 $54.31 $55.40 $56.51 3 MF & MH–Rural ($/unit) $29.24 $28.55 $29.98 $30.88 $31.50 $32.13 4 5 Schools ($/student) $1.07 $1.10 $1.15 $1.19 $1.21 $1.23 6 7 Commercial Customers 8 Commercial - Low Strength $25.77 $6.14 $6.45 $6.64 $6.77 $6.91 9 Commercial - Medium Strength $47.21 $6.14 $6.45 $6.64 $6.77 $6.91 10 Commercial - High Strength $151.07 $6.14 $6.45 $6.64 $6.77 $6.91 11 12 Industrial Customers 13 Dura Plastics Products N/A $553.02 $580.67 $598.09 $610.05 $622.26 14 Perricone Juice N/A $553.02 $580.67 $598.09 $610.05 $622.26 15 Rudolph Food Company $169.27 $553.02 $580.67 $598.09 $610.05 $622.26 16 CJ Foods #1 N/A $553.02 $580.67 $598.09 $610.05 $622.26 17 CJ Foods #2 N/A $553.02 $580.67 $598.09 $610.05 $622.26 18 Precision Stamping $148.24 $553.02 $580.67 $598.09 $610.05 $622.26 19 20 Proposed Commodity Rates ($/CCF) 21 (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) 22 Customer Class Current FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 23 Effective 9/1/23 Effective 7/1/24 Effective 7/1/25 Effective 7/1/26 Effective 7/1/27 24 Residential 25 Single Family N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 26 MF & MH–Rural ($/unit) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 27 28 Schools ($/student) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 29 30 Commercial Customers 31 Commercial - Low Strength $2.77 $4.91 $5.16 $5.31 $5.42 $5.53 32 Commercial - Medium Strength $3.75 $5.91 $6.20 $6.39 $6.52 $6.65 33 Commercial - High Strength $7.31 $9.88 $10.38 $10.69 $10.90 $11.12 34 35 Industrial Customers 36 Dura Plastics Products $3.84 $5.13 $5.38 $5.54 $5.65 $5.77 37 Perricone Juice $2.94 $10.87 $11.42 $11.76 $11.99 $12.23 38 Rudolph Food Company $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 39 CJ Foods #1 $11.07 $13.37 $14.04 $14.46 $14.75 $15.04 40 CJ Foods #2 $5.71 $8.20 $8.61 $8.87 $9.04 $9.22 41 Precision Stamping $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Page 60 of 379 6 EXHIBIT 1 SEWER RATE STUDY Page 61 of 379 City of Beaumont Proposition 218 Notice for Proposed Sewer Rate Increases 1 City of Beaumont Proposition 218 Notice of Public Hearing Proposed Increases to Sewer Rates Hearing Date and Time: August 15, 2023, at 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard. Hearing Location: City Council Meeting Chambers Beaumont Civic Center, 550 E. 6th Street, Beaumont, CA 92223 Important Information About Your Sewer Rates The City of Beaumont will conduct a public hearing to consider proposed adjustments to the rates charged for sewer service. If approved by the City Council, the increases will take effect on September 1, 2023, with subsequent annual increases on July 1, 2024, through July 1, 2027. The public hearing will be conducted at the time, date, and location specified above. All members of the public are invited to attend the hearing. This notice is being sent to all record owners of property upon which the proposed increased sewer rates will be imposed and any tenants who are directly liable for the payment of such rates (that is, customers of record who are not property owners). Why Have I Received this Notice? In 1996, California voters approved Proposition 218, which amended the state constitution as it relates to the passage of property-related fees such as sewer rates. Proposition 218 requires that local governments follow a strictly defined process for setting fees. Generally speaking, the local government must: (1) provide notice to customers that a proposed rate increase is being considered, (2) clearly demonstrate the basis on which proposed fees are calculated, and (3) hold a public hearing at least 45 days after noticing property owners, at which time the local government hears all protests to the proposed rate increases. Proposed rate increases are subject to a “majority protest.” This means that a proposed rate increase will not be passed if a majority of property owners (or tenants who are directly liable for the payment of the rates), submit written and signed protests opposing the increase. You have received this notice because, in compliance with the requirements of Proposition 218, the City of Beaumont must notify all customers about the proposed increases to sewer rates and the public hearing where adoption of the increases will be considered. Basis of Proposed Sewer Rate Increases A Sewer Cost-of-Service Rate Study (Study) was recently conducted on behalf of the City of Beaumont by Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. (Raftelis), an independent financial consulting firm, with the support from City staff. The Study evaluated the 5-year budget projection for the Page 62 of 379 City of Beaumont Proposition 218 Notice for Proposed Sewer Rate Increases 2 City’s Sewer Enterprise Fund and analyzed its capacity to implement its capital improvement plan while maintaining cash reserve requirements. The City Council reviewed the results of the Study at a workshop of the Council on May 30, 2023. The Study recommends increasing sewer rates to meet the revenue requirements of the Sewer Enterprise Fund in light of projected increasing expenditures. The Sewer Cost of Service Study can be viewed at www.beaumontca.gov and is also on file and available for public review at the City of Beaumont at the following location: Beaumont Civic Center, 550 E. 6th Street, Beaumont, CA 92223. Why are Sewer Rate Increases Necessary? The City’s previous sewer cost-of-service rate study was completed in June 2017. This study resulted in the adoption of sewer rates for fiscal years (FY) 2018 – FY 2023. The City retained the services of Raftelis to determine whether existing FY 2023 rates (that is, current rates without any increases) are adequate to pay for projected Sewer Enterprise Fund operating costs and capital improvement expenditures during the five-year period FY 2024 – FY 2028. The results of the Study indicated that in order to maintain adequate cash reserves, the level of rate revenues provided by sewer customers must increase. The need for additional sewer rate revenues was driven by two key factors. The first factor is projected capital improvement program expenditures for infrastructure improvements required to maintain service quality. Projected FY 2024 – FY 2028 capital improvement program expenditures are approximately $20.8 million. The second factor is the projected increase in Sewer Enterprise Fund operating costs for FY 2024 – FY 2028 which are projected to increase over 28% from approximately $7.8 million in FY 2023 to approximately $10.0 million in FY 2028. This increase is caused by high inflation in the overall economy and an increase in the cost of services provided to the Sewer Enterprise Fund by the City of Beaumont. Proposed Monthly Sewer Service Charges Monthly Service Charge Customer Class Current Sept. 2023 July 2024 July 2025 July 2026 July 2027 Residential Single Family $47.21 $50.22 $52.73 $54.31 $55.40 $56.51 Multi-Family & Mobile Home-Rural (per unit) $29.24 $28.55 $29.98 $30.88 $31.50 $32.13 Schools ($/student) $1.07 $1.10 $1.15 $1.19 $1.21 $1.23 Commercial Customers Commercial – Low $25.77 $6.14 $6.45 $6.64 $6.77 $6.91 Commercial – Medium $47.21 $6.14 $6.45 $6.64 $6.77 $6.91 Commercial – High $151.07 $6.14 $6.45 $6.64 $6.77 $6.91 Industrial Customers Dura Plastics Products N/A $553.02 $580.67 $598.09 $610.05 $622.26 Perricone Juice N/A $553.02 $580.67 $598.09 $610.05 $622.26 Rudolph Food Company $169.27 $553.02 $580.67 $598.09 $610.05 $622.26 CJ Foods #1 N/A $553.02 $580.67 $598.09 $610.05 $622.26 CJ Foods #2 N/A $553.02 $580.67 $598.09 $610.05 $622.26 Precision Stamping $148.24 $553.02 $580.67 $598.09 $610.05 $622.26 Page 63 of 379 City of Beaumont Proposition 218 Notice for Proposed Sewer Rate Increases 3 Monthly Service Charge - Dollar Increase Customer Class Current Sept. 2023 July 2024 July 2025 July 2026 July 2027 Residential Single Family ---- $3.01 $2.51 $1.58 $1.09 $1.11 Multi-Family & Mobile Home-Rural (per unit) ---- ($0.69) $1.43 $0.90 $0.62 $0.63 Schools ($/student) ---- $0.03 $0.05 $0.03 $0.02 $0.02 Commercial Customers Commercial – Low ---- ($19.63) $0.31 $0.19 $0.13 $0.14 Commercial – Medium ---- ($41.07) $0.31 $0.19 $0.13 $0.14 Commercial – High ---- ($144.93) $0.31 $0.19 $0.13 $0.14 Industrial Customers Dura Plastics Products ---- $553.02 $27.65 $17.42 $11.96 $12.20 Perricone Juice ---- $553.02 $27.65 $17.42 $11.96 $12.20 Rudolph Food Company ---- $383.75 $27.65 $17.42 $11.96 $12.20 CJ Foods #1 ---- $553.02 $27.65 $17.42 $11.96 $12.20 CJ Foods #2 ---- $553.02 $27.65 $17.42 $11.96 $12.20 Precision Stamping ---- $404.78 $27.65 $17.42 $11.96 $12.20 Proposed Commodity Rates - $/One Hundred Cubic Feet (HCF) of Billed Consumption Proposed Commodity ($/HCF) Volumetric Current Sept. 2023 July 2024 July 2025 July 2026 July 2027 Residential Single Family N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Multi-Family & Mobile Home-Rural (per unit) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Schools ($/student) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Commercial Customers Commercial - Low $2.77 $4.91 $5.16 $5.31 $5.42 $5.53 Commercial - Medium $3.75 $5.91 $6.20 $6.39 $6.52 $6.65 Commercial - High $7.31 $9.88 $10.38 $10.69 $10.90 $11.12 Industrial Customers Dura Plastics Products $3.84 $5.13 $5.38 $5.54 $5.65 $5.77 Perricone Juice $2.94 $10.87 $11.42 $11.76 $11.99 $12.23 Rudolph Food Company $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 CJ Foods #1 $11.07 $13.37 $14.04 $14.46 $14.75 $15.04 CJ Foods #2 $5.71 $8.20 $8.61 $8.87 $9.04 $9.22 Precision Stamping $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Page 64 of 379 City of Beaumont Proposition 218 Notice for Proposed Sewer Rate Increases 4 Commodity Rates ($/HCF) - Dollar Increase Volumetric Current Sept. 2023 July 2024 July 2025 July 2026 July 2027 Residential Single Family N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Multi-Family & Mobile Home-Rural (per unit) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Schools ($/student) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Commercial Customers Commercial – Low ---- $2.14 $0.25 $0.15 $0.11 $0.11 Commercial – Medium ---- $2.16 $0.30 $0.19 $0.13 $0.13 Commercial – High ---- $2.57 $0.49 $0.31 $0.21 $0.22 Industrial Customers Dura Plastics Products ---- $1.28 $0.26 $0.16 $0.11 $0.11 Perricone Juice ---- $7.93 $0.54 $0.34 $0.24 $0.24 Rudolph Food Company ---- $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 CJ Foods #1 ---- $2.31 $0.67 $0.42 $0.29 $0.29 CJ Foods #2 ---- $2.49 $0.41 $0.26 $0.18 $0.18 Precision Stamping ---- $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 How to Protest the Proposed Sewer Rate Increases Any customer or property owner receiving sewer service from the City of Beaumont may file a written protest against the proposed sewer rate increases by mailing a letter to the address listed below. Protests can also hand delivered and dropped off at the address listed below during regular business hours (Monday – Thursday: 8:00 am to 5:00 pm and Friday from 8:00 am to 12:00 pm): City of Beaumont Beaumont Civic Center 550 E. 6th Street Beaumont, CA 92223. A valid written protest letter must contain: (1) a statement of opposition to the proposed sewer rate increases, (2) the property address or assessor parcel number at which sewer service is received, and (3) the name and original signature of the property owner or utility customer of record registering the protest. If the name of the property owner or utility customer on the written protest does not match City records, the protest will not be considered valid. Only one protest will be counted for each address or parcel. Electric protests (email, social media messages, etc.) will not qualify as a written protest under state requirements. Protest letters received by August 15, 2023, will be tabulated and presented to the City Council at the public hearing regarding the proposed rate increases to be held on August 15, 2023, at 6:00 p.m. at the following location: City Council Meeting Chambers Beaumont Civic Center 550 E. 6th Street Beaumont, CA 92223 Page 65 of 379 City of Beaumont Proposition 218 Notice for Proposed Sewer Rate Increases 5 Any customer or property owner may appear at the hearing to make comments regarding the proposed rates. Protest letters may be delivered in-person and must be received prior to the conclusion of the August 15, 2023, public hearing. Pursuant to Government Code Section 53759, there is a 120-day statute of limitations for any judicial action or proceeding challenging any new, increased, or extended water and sewer fee or charge. Page 66 of 379 Notificación de la Propuesta 218 de la Ciudad de Beaumont para los aumentos propuestos en las tarifas de alcantarillado 1 Ciudad de Beaumont Notificación de audiencia pública sobre la Propuesta 218 Aumentos propuestos en las tarifas de alcantarillado Fecha y hora de la audiencia: 15 de agosto de 2023, a las 6:00 p. m., o tan pronto como sea posible realizar la audiencia después de esa fecha. Lugar de la audiencia: Sala de reuniones del Consejo de la Ciudad (City Council Meeting Chambers) Beaumont Civic Center, 550 E. 6th Street, Beaumont, CA 92223 Información importante sobre las tarifas de alcantarillado La ciudad de Beaumont llevará a cabo una audiencia pública para analizar los ajustes propuestos a las tarifas que se cobran por el servicio de alcantarillado. De ser aprobados por el Consejo de la Ciudad los aumentos entrarán en vigor el 1 de septiembre de 2023, con posteriores incrementos anuales desde el 1 de julio de 2024 hasta el 1 de julio de 2027. La audiencia pública se llevará a cabo en la fecha, hora y lugar que se indican más arriba. Se invita a todo el público a asistir a la audiencia. Este aviso se envía a todos los propietarios registrados de bienes inmuebles a los que se impondrá el aumento propuesto de las tarifas de alcantarillado y a todos los inquilinos que sean directamente responsables del pago de dichas tarifas (es decir, clientes registrados que no sean propietarios de bienes inmuebles). ¿Por qué he recibido este aviso? En 1996, los votantes de California aprobaron la Propuesta 218, que modificaba la Constitución del Estado en lo relativo a la aprobación de tarifas relacionadas con la propiedad como las tarifas de alcantarillado. La Propuesta 218 exige que los gobiernos locales sigan un proceso estrictamente definido para fijar las tarifas. En términos generales, el gobierno local debe: (1) notificar a los clientes de que se está estudiando una propuesta de aumento de tarifas, (2) demostrar claramente los fundamentos sobre los que se calculan las tarifas propuestas y (3) tener una audiencia pública al menos 45 días después de avisar a los propietarios, momento en el que el gobierno local escucha todas las protestas a los aumentos de tarifas propuestos. Los aumentos de tarifas propuestos están sujetos a una "protesta mayoritaria". Esto significa que una propuesta de aumento de tarifas no se aprobará si la mayoría de los propietarios (o inquilinos que sean directamente responsables del pago de las tarifas), presentan protestas por escrito y firmadas oponiéndose al aumento. Usted ha recibido este aviso porque, en cumplimiento de los requisitos de la Propuesta 218, la Ciudad de Beaumont debe notificar a todos los clientes sobre los aumentos propuestos a las tarifas de alcantarillado y la audiencia pública donde se considerará la adopción de los aumentos. Fundamento de los aumentos propuestos en las tarifas de alcantarillado Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. (Raftelis), una consultora financiera independiente, con el apoyo del personal municipal, llevó a cabo recientemente un estudio sobre las tarifas del costo del servicio de alcantarillado en nombre de la ciudad de Beaumont. El estudio evaluó la proyección presupuestaria a 5 años del Fondo de la Empresa de Alcantarillado de la Ciudad y analizó su capacidad para ejecutar su plan de mejoras de capital manteniendo al mismo tiempo los requisitos de reserva de efectivo. El Consejo de Page 67 of 379 Notificación de la Propuesta 218 de la Ciudad de Beaumont para los aumentos propuestos en las tarifas de alcantarillado 2 la Ciudad revisó los resultados del Estudio en un taller que se llevó a cabo el 30 de mayo de 2023. El Estudio recomienda aumentar las tarifas de alcantarillado para satisfacer las necesidades de ingresos del Fondo de la Empresa de Alcantarillado a la luz del aumento previsto de los gastos. El estudio sobre el costo del servicio de alcantarillado se puede ver en www.beaumontca.gov y también está archivado y a disposición del público en la siguiente dirección de la ciudad de Beaumont: Beaumont Civic Center, 550 E. 6th Street, Beaumont, CA 92223. ¿Por qué es necesario aumentar las tarifas de alcantarillado? El anterior estudio de tarifas de costo de servicio de alcantarillado de la ciudad se realizó en junio de 2017. Este estudio dio lugar a la adopción de las tarifas de alcantarillado para los ejercicios fiscales 2018- 2023. La ciudad contrató los servicios de Raftelis para determinar si las tarifas existentes para el año fiscal 2023 (es decir, las tarifas actuales sin ningún aumento) son adecuadas para pagar los gastos operativos previstos del Fondo de la Empresa de Alcantarillado y los gastos de mejoras de capital durante el período de cinco años comprendido entre los ejercicios fiscales 2024 y 2028. Los resultados del Estudio indicaron que, para mantener unas reservas de tesorería adecuadas, debía aumentar el nivel de ingresos por tarifas aportados por los clientes de alcantarillado. La necesidad de ingresos adicionales por tarifas de alcantarillado se debe a dos factores clave. El primer factor son los gastos previstos del programa de mejora de las infraestructuras necesarias para mantener la calidad del servicio. Los gastos del programa de mejoras de capital proyectados para los ejercicios fiscales 2024-2028 son de aproximadamente $20.8 millones. El segundo factor es el aumento previsto de los costos operativos del Fondo de la Empresa de Alcantarillado para los ejercicios fiscales 2024-2028, que se prevé que aumenten más de un 28 %, de aproximadamente $7.8 millones en el ejercicio fiscal 2023 a aproximadamente $10 millones en el ejercicio fiscal 2028. Este aumento se debe a la elevada inflación de la economía general y al incremento del costo de los servicios prestados al Fondo de la Empresa de Alcantarillado por la ciudad de Beaumont. Cargos mensuales propuestos para el servicio de alcantarillado Cargo mensual de servicio Clase de cliente Actual Sept. 2023 Julio 2024 Julio 2025 Julio 2026 Julio 2027 Residencial Unifamiliar $47.21 $50.22 $52.73 $54.31 $55.40 $56.51 Vivienda multifamiliar y casa móvil/rural (por unidad) $29.24 $28.55 $29.98 $30.88 $31.50 $32.13 Escuelas ($/estudiante) $1.07 $1.10 $1.15 $1.19 $1.21 $1.23 Clientes comerciales Comercial - Bajo $25.77 $6.14 $6.45 $6.64 $6.77 $6.91 Comercial - Medio $47.21 $6.14 $6.45 $6.64 $6.77 $6.91 Comercial - Alto $151.07 $6.14 $6.45 $6.64 $6.77 $6.91 Clientes industriales Dura Plastics Products N/A $553.02 $580.67 $598.09 $610.05 $622.26 Perricone Juice N/A $553.02 $580.67 $598.09 $610.05 $622.26 Rudolph Food Company $169.27 $553.02 $580.67 $598.09 $610.05 $622.26 CJ Foods #1 N/A $553.02 $580.67 $598.09 $610.05 $622.26 CJ Foods #2 N/A $553.02 $580.67 $598.09 $610.05 $622.26 Precision Stamping $148.24 $553.02 $580.67 $598.09 $610.05 $622.26 Page 68 of 379 Notificación de la Propuesta 218 de la Ciudad de Beaumont para los aumentos propuestos en las tarifas de alcantarillado 3 Cargo mensual por servicio - Aumento en dólares Clase de cliente Actual Sept. 2023 Julio 2024 Julio 2025 Julio 2026 Julio 2027 Residencial Unifamiliar ---- $3.01 $2.51 $1.58 $1.09 $1.11 Vivienda multifamiliar y casa móvil/rural (por unidad) ---- ($0.69) $1.43 $0.90 $0.62 $0.63 Escuelas ($/estudiante) ---- $0.03 $0.05 $0.03 $0.02 $0.02 Clientes comerciales Comercial - Bajo ---- ($19.63) $0.31 $0.19 $0.13 $0.14 Comercial - Medio ---- ($41.07) $0.31 $0.19 $0.13 $0.14 Comercial - Alto ---- ($144.93) $0.31 $0.19 $0.13 $0.14 Clientes industriales Dura Plastics Products ---- $553.02 $27.65 $17.42 $11.96 $12.20 Perricone Juice ---- $553.02 $27.65 $17.42 $11.96 $12.20 Rudolph Food Company ---- $383.75 $27.65 $17.42 $11.96 $12.20 CJ Foods #1 ---- $553.02 $27.65 $17.42 $11.96 $12.20 CJ Foods #2 ---- $553.02 $27.65 $17.42 $11.96 $12.20 Precision Stamping ---- $404.78 $27.65 $17.42 $11.96 $12.20 Tarifas especificadas propuestas - $/Cien pies cúbicos (CPC) de consumo facturado Tarifas especificadas propuestas ($/CPC) Volumétrica Actual Sept. 2023 Julio 2024 Julio 2025 Julio 2026 Julio 2027 Residencial Unifamiliar N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Vivienda multifamiliar y casa móvil/rural (por unidad) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Escuelas ($/estudiante) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Clientes comerciales Comercial - Bajo $2.77 $4.91 $5.16 $5.31 $5.42 $5.53 Comercial - Medio $3.75 $5.91 $6.20 $6.39 $6.52 $6.65 Comercial - Alta $7.31 $9.88 $10.38 $10.69 $10.90 $11.12 Clientes industriales Dura Plastics Products $3.84 $5.13 $5.38 $5.54 $5.65 $5.77 Perricone Juice $2.94 $10.87 $11.42 $11.76 $11.99 $12.23 Rudolph Food Company $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 CJ Foods #1 $11.07 $13.37 $14.04 $14.46 $14.75 $15.04 CJ Foods #2 $5.71 $8.20 $8.61 $8.87 $9.04 $9.22 Precision Stamping $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Page 69 of 379 Notificación de la Propuesta 218 de la Ciudad de Beaumont para los aumentos propuestos en las tarifas de alcantarillado 4 Tarifas especificadas ($/CPC) - Aumento en dólares Volumétrica Actual Sept. 2023 Julio 2024 Julio 2025 Julio 2026 Julio 2027 Residencial Unifamiliar N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Vivienda multifamiliar y casa móvil/rural (por unidad) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Escuelas ($/estudiante) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Clientes comerciales Comercial - Bajo ---- $2.14 $0.25 $0.15 $0.11 $0.11 Comercial - Medio ---- $2.16 $0.30 $0.19 $0.13 $0.13 Comercial - Alto ---- $2.57 $0.49 $0.31 $0.21 $0.22 Clientes industriales Dura Plastics Products ---- $1.28 $0.26 $0.16 $0.11 $0.11 Perricone Juice ---- $7.93 $0.54 $0.34 $0.24 $0.24 Rudolph Food Company ---- $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 CJ Foods #1 ---- $2.31 $0.67 $0.42 $0.29 $0.29 CJ Foods #2 ---- $2.49 $0.41 $0.26 $0.18 $0.18 Precision Stamping ---- $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Cómo protestar contra los aumentos propuestos de las tarifas de alcantarillado Cualquier cliente o propietario que haga uso del servicio de alcantarillado de la ciudad de Beaumont puede presentar una protesta por escrito contra los aumentos propuestos de la tarifa de alcantarillado enviando una carta a la dirección que se indica a continuación. Las protestas también pueden entregarse personalmente y depositarse en la dirección que figura a continuación durante el horario laboral habitual (de lunes a jueves: de 8:00 a. m. a 5:00 p. m. y viernes de 8:00 a. m. a 12:00 p. m.): City of Beaumont Beaumont Civic Center 550 E. 6th Street Beaumont, CA 92223. Una carta de protesta válida debe contener lo siguiente: (1) una declaración de oposición a los aumentos propuestos en las tarifas de alcantarillado, (2) la dirección de la propiedad o el número de parcela del asesor en la que se recibe el servicio de alcantarillado, y (3) el nombre y la firma original del propietario o cliente del servicio público que registra la protesta. Si el nombre del propietario o cliente del servicio público que figura en la protesta escrita no coincide con los registros de la Ciudad, la protesta no se considerará válida. Solo se contabilizará una protesta por cada dirección o parcela. Las protestas que se presenten por medios electrónicos (correo electrónico, mensajes en redes sociales, etc.) no se considerarán protestas escritas según los requisitos estatales. Las cartas de protesta recibidas antes del 15 de agosto de 2023 se tabularán y se presentarán ante el Concejo de la Ciudad en la audiencia pública relativa a los aumentos de tarifas propuestos que se llevara a cabo el 15 de agosto de 2023 a las 6:00 p. m. en el siguiente lugar: Sala de reuniones del Consejo de la Ciudad (City Council Meeting Chambers) Beaumont Civic Center 550 E. 6th Street Beaumont, CA 92223 Page 70 of 379 Notificación de la Propuesta 218 de la Ciudad de Beaumont para los aumentos propuestos en las tarifas de alcantarillado 5 Cualquier cliente o propietario puede comparecer en la audiencia para hacer comentarios sobre las tarifas propuestas. Las cartas de protesta podrán entregarse en persona y deberán recibirse antes de que concluya la audiencia pública del 15 de agosto de 2023. De conformidad con la Sección 53759 del Código de Gobierno, existe un estatuto de limitaciones de 120 días para cualquier acción o procedimiento judicial que impugne cualquier tarifa o cargo de agua y alcantarillado nuevo, aumentado o ampliado. Page 71 of 379 CITY OF BEAUMONT 202 4 Sewer Rate Study REPORT / J uly 1 8 , 2023 Page 72 of 379 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 73 of 379 445 S. Figueroa Street , Suite 1925, Los Angeles , CA 90071 www.raftelis.com July 18, 2023 Ms. Jennifer Ustation Director of Finance City of Beaumont Subject: 2024 Sewer Rate Study Report Dear Ms. Ustation Raftelis is pleased to provide this sewer rate study report to the City of Beaumont (City). The City’s overarching goals for the study included: • Fair and reasonable sewer rates and fees for a five-year period • Ten-Year financial plan to provide necessary revenue for the City’s CIP needs • Updated financing and rate schedule models The report describes the methodologies and rationale used to achieve the City’s goals and develop projected sewer rates for the period FY 2024 - FY 2028. Sincerely, John Wright Senior Manager Page 74 of 379 i CITY OF BEAUMONT 2024 SEWER RATE STUDY Contents 1. Executive Summary ..................................................................... 1 1.1. Background ...................................................................................................................1 1.2. Rate Study Process and Approach .............................................................................1 1.3. Sewer Rate Study Summary .........................................................................................1 2. Study Background ........................................................................ 8 2.1. Sewer Utility Overview ..................................................................................................8 2.2. Rate Study Overview ....................................................................................................8 2.3. Report Contents ............................................................................................................8 2.4. Proposition 218 .............................................................................................................9 2.5. Reliance on City Provided Data ...................................................................................9 3. Financial Plan & Revenue Requirement Projection .................. 10 3.1. Overview of the Financial Planning Process ............................................................ 10 3.2. Focus on the Sewer Utility Operating Reserve ......................................................... 10 3.3. Financial Plan Components ....................................................................................... 11 4. Cost-of-Service Analysis ............................................................ 26 4.1. Cost-of-Service Methodology .................................................................................... 26 4.2. Cost-of-Service Process ............................................................................................. 26 4.3. FY 2024 Revenue Requirement .................................................................................. 26 4.4. FY 2024 Revenue Requirement Allocations .............................................................. 27 4.5. Units of Service Determination .................................................................................. 31 4.6. Unit Cost-of-Service Determination ........................................................................... 35 4.7. Customer Class Cost-of-Service ............................................................................... 35 5. Rate Design ................................................................................ 37 5.1. Monthly Service Charge ............................................................................................. 37 5.2. Commodity Rate .......................................................................................................... 38 5.3. Proposed FY 2024 – FY 2028 Rate Increases ........................................................... 38 5.4. Customer Bill Impacts ................................................................................................ 39 Page 75 of 379 ii CITY OF BEAUMONT 2024 SEWER RATE STUDY Tables Table 1-1: Current Sewer Rates ...................................................................................................2 Table 1-2: Proposed Rate Revenue Increases .............................................................................3 Table 1-3: FY 2024 Sewer Customer Class Cost-of-Service ........................................................5 Table 1-4: Proposed Sewer Rates for FY 2022 – FY 2028 ...........................................................6 Table 1-5: Estimated Change in Monthly Sewer Bills ...................................................................7 Table 3-1: Projected Growth in Billing Units ............................................................................... 11 Table 3-2: Projected Customer Billing Units ............................................................................... 12 Table 3-3: Projected Customer Accounts ................................................................................... 12 Table 3-4: Projected Billed Discharges (CCF) ............................................................................ 13 Table 3-5: Current Sewer Rates ................................................................................................. 13 Table 3-6: Projected Revenue at Existing Rates ........................................................................ 14 Table 3-7: Non-Operating Revenues .......................................................................................... 14 Table 3-8: Projected Inflation Rates / Cost Escalation Factors ................................................... 14 Table 3-9: Projected Operating Expenses (O&M Expenses) ...................................................... 15 Table 3-10: Projected Debt Service Payments ........................................................................... 15 Table 3-11: Projected Contribution to the Repair & Replacement Reserve ................................ 15 Table 3-12: Projected Rate Funded (PAYGO) CIP Expenditures ............................................... 16 Table 3-13: Projected Total CIP Expenditures ............................................................................ 17 Table 3-14: Target for Cash Reserves and Debt Service Coverage ........................................... 17 Table 3-15: Status Quo Financial Plan - Operating Reserve ...................................................... 19 Table 3-16: Proposed Rate Revenue Increases ......................................................................... 20 Table 3-17: Financial Plan – Operating Reserve ........................................................................ 22 Table 3-18: Projected Capital Reserve ....................................................................................... 24 Table 3-19: Projected Repair and Replacement Reserve ........................................................... 24 Table 3-20: Summary Projection of Combined Cash Reserves .................................................. 25 Table 3-21: Revenue Requirement Projection ............................................................................ 25 Table 4-1: FY 2024 Revenue Requirement ................................................................................ 27 Table 4-2: Functionalized Sewer System Assets ........................................................................ 27 Table 4-3: Asset Allocation to Cost Causation Components ...................................................... 28 Table 4-4: Capital Costs Allocation to Cost Causation Components .......................................... 28 Table 4-5: Functionalized Operating Costs ................................................................................. 29 Table 4-6: Operating Cost Allocation to Cost Causation Components ....................................... 30 Table 4-7: Non-Operating Revenues Allocation to Cost Causation Components ....................... 30 Page 76 of 379 iii CITY OF BEAUMONT 2024 SEWER RATE STUDY Table 4-8: Summary Allocation to Cost Causation Components ................................................ 31 Table 4-9: Customer Wastewater Treatment Plant Contributions ............................................... 33 Table 4-10: Basis for Commercial BOD and TSS Strength Loadings ......................................... 33 Table 4-11: Allocation of Infiltration and Inflow ........................................................................... 34 Table 4-12: Units of Service ....................................................................................................... 34 Table 4-13: Units Cost-of-Service Calculation ............................................................................ 35 Table 4-14: Customer Class Cost-of-Service ............................................................................. 36 Table 5-1: FY 2024 Monthly Service Charge Calculation ........................................................... 37 Table 5-2: FY 2024 Commodity Rate Calculation ....................................................................... 38 Table 5-3: Proposed Rate Revenue Increases ........................................................................... 38 Table 5-4: Proposed Sewer Rates for FY 2022 – FY 2028 ......................................................... 39 Table 5-5: Estimated Change in Monthly Sewer Bills ................................................................. 40 Figures Figure 1-1: Status Quo Financial Plan – Operating Reserve ........................................................3 Figure 1-2: Status Quo Financial Plan: Combined Reserves ........................................................3 Figure 1-3: Financial Plan - Operating Reserve ............................................................................4 Figure 1-4: Financial Plan - Combined Reserves .........................................................................4 Figure 3-1: Status Quo Financial Plan - Operating Reserve ....................................................... 20 Figure 3-2: Status Quo Financial Plan - Combined Reserves .................................................... 20 Figure 3-3: Financial Plan - Operating Reserve .......................................................................... 23 Figure 3-4: Financial Plan - Combined Cash Reserves .............................................................. 23 Page 77 of 379 iv CITY OF BEAUMONT 2024 SEWER RATE STUDY Glossary Terms Descriptions AWWA Manual M1 American Water Works Association, Manual of Water Supply Practices M1, Principles of Water Rates, Fees, and Charges,7th Edition BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand CCF Hundred cubic feet or 100 cubic feet, 1 CCF = 748 gallons CIP Capital Improvement Program COS Cost-of-Service FY Fiscal Year (July 1 – June 30) Industrial Admin. Industrial administration is the process of testing the discharges of high discharge strength customers in the Industrial customer class to ensure compliance with City and other regulatory requirements I/I Infiltration and Inflow MF & MH-Rural Multi-Family and Mobile Home-Rural mg/l Milligrams per Liter. A reflection of the strength of customer wastewater discharges for BOD, TSS or TDS Monthly Service Charge A fixed monthly charge assessed on both the water and wastewater bills. O&M Operations and Maintenance Raftelis Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. Rate Funded (PAYGO) CIP Capital improvement expenditures funded by rate revenues that are often referred to a “pay -as- you-go” (PAYGO) CIP. Return Flow The amount of billed sewer discharges that are received at the City of Beaumont’s Wastewater Treatment Plant. TDS Total Dissolved Solids TSS Total Suspended Solids WEF Manual 27 Water Environment Federation, Manual of Practice No. 27, Financing and Charges for Sewer Systems,4th Edition WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant Page 78 of 379 v CITY OF BEAUMONT 2024 SEWER RATE STUDY THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 79 of 379 1 CITY OF BEAUMONT 2024 SEWER RATE STUDY 1. Executive Summary 1.1. Background On December 6, 2022, the City of Beaumont, CA (City) engaged Raftelis to assist with the completion of a sewer rate study. The City’s overarching goals for the study included: • Fair and reasonable sewer rates and fees for a five-year period • Ten-Year financial plan to provide necessary revenue for the City’s CIP needs • Updated financing and rate schedule models As an outcome of the study, Raftelis developed projected sewer rates for the five-year period FY 2024 - FY 2028. On June 6, 2023, the Beaumont City Council authorized the issuance of a Proposition 218 public notice in order to begin the process of implementing the proposed sewer rates developed as part of the study. 1.2. Rate Study Process and Approach The sewer rate study was informed by the City’s financial management and policy objectives, its current sewer rates, and projected costs, as well as the legal requirements in California (namely, Proposition 218). The resulting cost of service analyses and rate design process followed four key steps to derive proposed rates that fulfill the City’s objectives, follow industry standard rate setting practices, and align with the intent of Proposition 218. Step 1: Financial Planning and Revenue Requirement Determination The rate-making process begins by creating a financial plan that estimates the amount of sewer rate revenue that will be required to cover the sewer utility’s projected operating costs (the revenue requirement). The revenue requirement is determined for a base year, also known as a test-year or rate-setting year. The base year for the sewer rate study is fiscal year (FY) 2024 which runs from July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024. Step 2: Cost-of-Service Analysis After determining the annual revenue requirement as part of the financial planning process, the projected costs incurred to provide utility service are then distributed among customer classes in proportion to the demands and associated costs they impose on the utility system. This is accomplished in the cost-of-service (COS) analysis. Step 3: Rate Design and Calculation After allocating the revenue requirement for each system to its corresponding customer classes, the rate design process begins. Rates must be designed to recover the COS for each customer class as determined in the COS analysis. Step 4: Report Preparation A formal report creates an administrative record that documents the rate study results and describes the assumptions and calculations used to derive proposed rates. Step 5: Proposition 218 Process The financial step in the rate study process is to comply with the procedures specified in Proposition 218 for the adoption of new rates. 1.3. Sewer Rate Study Summary Existing Rates The sewer rates currently charged by the City are shown in Table 1-1. Under the current sewer rate structure, Page 80 of 379 2 CITY OF BEAUMONT 2024 SEWER RATE STUDY residential customers and schools do not pay $/CCF commodity rates. Instead, the full cost of providing service to these customers is recovered through a monthly fixed charge. Commercial customers pay both a monthly service charge and $/CCF commodity rates based on the estimated strength of their sewer discharges. Industrial customers pay unique monthly service charges and $/CCF commodity rates that reflect the volume and strength of their sewer discharges. Table 1-1: Current Sewer Rates (A) (B) (C) Line Customer Class Monthly Service Charge Commodity Rates ($/CCF) 1 Residential 2 Single Family $47.21 N/A 3 Multi-Family & Mobile Home-Rural ($/unit) $29.24 N/A 4 5 Schools ($/student) $1.07 N/A 6 7 Commercial Customers 8 Commercial – Low Strength $25.77 $2.77 9 Commercial – Medium Strength $47.21 $3.75 10 Commercial – High Strength $151.07 $7.31 11 12 Industrial Customers 13 Dura Plastics Products N/A $3.84 14 Perricone Juice N/A $2.94 15 Rudolph Food Company $169.27 $0.00 16 CJ Foods #1 N/A $11.07 17 CJ Foods #2 N/A $5.71 18 Precision Stamping $148.24 $0.00 Financial Plan Overview The Microsoft Excel financial model developed for the City has the capability to produce sewer utility financial plans over a variety of time horizons (for example, 5 years, 10 years, or 15 years). Raftelis, with the assistance of City staff, focused on the creation of a detailed 5-year financial plan for the period FY 2024 - FY 2028. This five- year planning horizon corresponds to the sewer rate projection period specified in the City’s RFP and also reflects the fact that the City does not have detailed capital improvement expenditure projections for the years after FY 2028. The results of the financial planning process are shown below. A detailed discussion of the financial planning and revenue requirement determination process is provided in Section 3 of this report. Status Quo Financial Plan (No Rate Revenue Increases) To demonstrate the need for sewer rate revenue increases a “status quo” financial plan was developed. The status quo financial plan presents the projected cash reserve outcomes of maintaining the City’s current sewer rates (i.e., having no sewer rate revenue increases). Figure 1-1 shows the results of this analysis. In FY 2025, the Operating Reserve ending cash balance falls below the minimum target. In FY 2026, the Operating Reserve ending cash balance turns negative and falls below $0. As shown in Figure 1-2, by FY 2028, the sewer utility’s combined cash reserves, which consist of the Operating Reserve, the Capital Reserve, and the Repair and Replacement Reserve, are projected to fall below the combined target minimums. This demonstrates the insufficiency of the City’s current sewer rates to support the sewer utility’s financial needs over the next five years. Page 81 of 379 3 CITY OF BEAUMONT 2024 SEWER RATE STUDY Figure 1-1: Status Quo Financial Plan – Operating Reserve Figure 1-2: Status Quo Financial Plan: Combined Reserves Proposed Financial Plan (Rate Revenue Increases) Raftelis and City staff evaluated various sewer rate revenue adjustment scenarios before arriving at the proposed annual sewer rate revenue adjustments shown in Table 1-2. The percentages shown in Column B of Table 1-2 reflect the required total system rate revenue increase. The actual percentage increase in rates experienced by each customer class will vary based on the outcome of the COS analyses discussed in Section 4 of this report. Table 1-2: Proposed Rate Revenue Increases (A) (B) (C) Line Fiscal Year Proposed Rate Revenue Increase Effective Date 1 FY 2024 6.0% September 2023 2 FY 2025 5.0% July 2024 3 FY 2026 3.0% July 2025 4 FY 2027 2.0% July 2026 5 FY 2028 2.0% July 2027 ($8,000,000) ($6,000,000) ($4,000,000) ($2,000,000) $0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Operating Reserve Ending Balance Operating Reserve Target Balance $0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Combined Reserve Ending Balance Combined Reserve Target Balance Page 82 of 379 4 CITY OF BEAUMONT 2024 SEWER RATE STUDY Figure 1-3 shows the projected Operating Reserve cash outcomes of the proposed sewer rate revenue increases shown in Table 1-2. In all years, projected operating cash flows meet or exceed the City’s target balances. Similarly, as shown in Figure 1-4, the sewer utility’s combined cash reserves are projected to exceed target minimums. The combined cash reserves consist of the Operating Reserve, the Capital Reserve, and the Repair and Replacement Reserve. The primary funding source for the Capital Reserve are capacity fees paid by developers who connect to the sewer utility system. Capacity fees can only be used to pay for growth -related CIP costs. They cannot be used to fund on-going utility operating costs. Figure 1-3: Financial Plan - Operating Reserve Figure 1-4: Financial Plan - Combined Reserves Cost-of-Service Analysis The COS analysis allocates the overall FY 2024 rate revenue requirement to each customer class based on the proportionate demands and associated costs they are projected to place on the utility system. It was conducted using industry-standard cost allocation principles as discussed in the Water Environment Federation publication, Manual of Practice No. 27, Financing and Charges for Sewer Systems, Fourth Edition (WEF Manual 27). $0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 $4,000,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Operating Reserve Ending Balance Operating Reserve Target Balance $0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000 $16,000,000 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Combined Reserve Ending Balance Combined Reserve Target Balance Page 83 of 379 5 CITY OF BEAUMONT 2024 SEWER RATE STUDY Table 1-3 shows the results of the FY 2024 COS analysis, which allocates the total FY 2024 revenue requirement of $13,893,236 (Line 13). The dollar amounts shown in Column B of Table 1-3 reflect the estimated proportional share of the FY 2024 revenue requirement that must be recovered from each customer class based on the proportionate demands they are projected to impose on the City’s sewer utility system. A detailed discussion of the financial planning and revenue requirement determination process is provided in Section 4 of this report . Table 1-3: FY 2024 Sewer Customer Class Cost-of-Service (A) (B) (C) Line Customer Class Cost-of-Service % of Total 1 Single Family $10,451,116 75.2% 2 Multi-Family F & Mobile Home–Rural $830,664 6.0% 3 Schools $164,852 1.2% 4 Commercial – Low Strength $477,828 3.4% 5 Commercial – Medium Strength $260,108 1.9% 6 Commercial – High Strength $365,735 2.6% 7 Dura Plastics Products $12,372 0.1% 8 Perricone Juice $563,776 4.1% 9 Rudolph Food Company $6,647 0.0% 10 CJ Foods #1 $697,050 5.0% 11 CJ Foods #2 $56,439 0.4% 12 Precision Stamping $6,647 0.0% 13 Total $13,893,236 100.0% Proposed Rates The FY 2024 sewer rates shown in Table 1-4 are designed to recover the total FY 2024 COS from each customer class. In general, the structure of the proposed rates is similar to the current rate structure. Specifically, residential customers and schools continue to pay a monthly service charge but no $/CCF commodity rates. Commercial and industrial customers pay both a monthly service charge and a $/CCF commodity rate that reflect the assumed strength of their sewer discharges. Key items to note about the rates shown in Table 1-4 include: • Column C: FY 2024 rates are based on the COS analysis which allocated the required 6.0% total system rate revenue increase to customer classes based on their proportionate demands. The 6.0% annual increase over the rate revenues produced by current rates is shown in Line 1 of Table 1-2. • Column D: FY 2025 rates reflect a 5.0% increase over FY 2024 COS rates based on the financial plan increase of 5.0% is shown in Line 2 of Table 1-2. • Column E: FY 2026 rates reflect a 3.0% increase over FY 2025 rates based on the financial plan increase of 3.0% is shown in Line 3 of Table 1-2. • Column F: FY 2027 rates reflect a 2.0% increase over FY 2026 rates based on the financial plan increase of 2.0% is shown in Line 4 of Table 1-2. • Column G: FY 2028 rates reflect a 2.0% increase over FY 2027 rates based on the financial plan increase of 2.0% is shown in Line 5 of Table 1-2. Page 84 of 379 6 CITY OF BEAUMONT 2024 SEWER RATE STUDY Table 1-4: Proposed Sewer Rates for FY 2022 – FY 2028 Line Monthly Service Charge (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) Customer Class Current FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Effective 9/1/23 Effective 7/1/24 Effective 7/1/25 Effective 7/1/26 Effective 7/1/27 1 Residential 2 Single Family $47.21 $50.22 $52.73 $54.31 $55.40 $56.51 3 MF & MH–Rural ($/unit) $29.24 $28.55 $29.98 $30.88 $31.50 $32.13 4 5 Schools ($/student) $1.07 $1.10 $1.15 $1.19 $1.21 $1.23 6 7 Commercial Customers 8 Commercial - Low Strength $25.77 $6.14 $6.45 $6.64 $6.77 $6.91 9 Commercial - Medium Strength $47.21 $6.14 $6.45 $6.64 $6.77 $6.91 10 Commercial - High Strength $151.07 $6.14 $6.45 $6.64 $6.77 $6.91 11 12 Industrial Customers 13 Dura Plastics Products N/A $553.02 $580.67 $598.09 $610.05 $622.26 14 Perricone Juice N/A $553.02 $580.67 $598.09 $610.05 $622.26 15 Rudolph Food Company $169.27 $553.02 $580.67 $598.09 $610.05 $622.26 16 CJ Foods #1 N/A $553.02 $580.67 $598.09 $610.05 $622.26 17 CJ Foods #2 N/A $553.02 $580.67 $598.09 $610.05 $622.26 18 Precision Stamping $148.24 $553.02 $580.67 $598.09 $610.05 $622.26 19 20 Proposed Commodity Rates ($/CCF) 21 (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) 22 Customer Class Current FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 23 Effective 9/1/23 Effective 7/1/24 Effective 7/1/25 Effective 7/1/26 Effective 7/1/27 24 Residential 25 Single Family N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 26 MF & MH–Rural ($/unit) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 27 28 Schools ($/student) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 29 30 Commercial Customers 31 Commercial - Low Strength $2.77 $4.91 $5.16 $5.31 $5.42 $5.53 32 Commercial - Medium Strength $3.75 $5.91 $6.20 $6.39 $6.52 $6.65 33 Commercial - High Strength $7.31 $9.88 $10.38 $10.69 $10.90 $11.12 34 35 Industrial Customers 36 Dura Plastics Products $3.84 $5.13 $5.38 $5.54 $5.65 $5.77 37 Perricone Juice $2.94 $10.87 $11.42 $11.76 $11.99 $12.23 38 Rudolph Food Company $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 39 CJ Foods #1 $11.07 $13.37 $14.04 $14.46 $14.75 $15.04 40 CJ Foods #2 $5.71 $8.20 $8.61 $8.87 $9.04 $9.22 41 Precision Stamping $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Estimated Bill Impacts Table 1-5 shows estimated customer sewer bills for the period FY 2024 – FY 2028 based on the proposed sewer rates presented in Table 1-4. Key items to note about the rates shown in Table 1-5 include: • Residential Customers and School Estimated Bills (Lines 1 -5): Residential customers and schools do not pay commodity rates. The monthly bills for these customers are based on the proposed change in monthly service charges. Page 85 of 379 7 CITY OF BEAUMONT 2024 SEWER RATE STUDY • Commercial Customer Estimated Bills (Lines 7-10): . Commercial customer bills reflect both commodity charges and monthly service charges. The estimated bills for commercial customers assume monthly billed sewer discharges of 40 CCF. This assumption was made for low, medium, and high strength commercial customers. Each commercial customer will have a unique amount of billed sewer discharges. Therefore, the bill impacts shown in Table 1-5 are but one example of an infinite range of potential outcomes. • Industrial Customer Bills (Lines 12-18): The estimated bills for commercial customers reflect the estimated projected billed discharges applicable to each customer. Industrial customer bills reflect both commodity charges and monthly service charges. Table 1-5: Estimated Change in Monthly Sewer Bills Line Projected Monthly Bills Customer Class (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) Current FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 1 Residential 2 Single Family $47.21 $50.22 $52.74 $54.32 $55.40 $56.51 3 MF & MH–Rural ($/unit) $29.24 $28.55 $29.97 $30.87 $31.49 $32.12 4 5 Schools ($/student) $1.07 $1.10 $1.15 $1.19 $1.21 $1.23 6 7 Commercial Customers 8 Commercial - Low Strength $136.57 $202.65 $212.78 $219.17 $223.55 $228.02 9 Commercial - Medium Strength $197.21 $242.45 $254.57 $262.21 $267.45 $272.80 10 Commercial - High Strength $443.47 $401.18 $421.24 $433.87 $442.55 $451.40 11 12 Industrial Customers 13 Dura Plastics Products $358.33 $1,031.00 $1,082.55 $1,115.02 $1,137.32 $1,160.07 14 Perricone Juice (Note 1) $13,852.50 $46,981.34 $49,330.41 $50,810.32 $51,826.53 $52,863.06 15 Rudolph Food Company $169.27 $553.02 $580.67 $598.09 $610.05 $622.26 16 CJ Foods #1 $47,608.33 $58,087.53 $60,991.91 $62,821.67 $64,078.10 $65,359.66 17 CJ Foods #2 $2,891.67 $4,703.25 $4,938.41 $5,086.56 $5,188.29 $5,292.06 18 Precision Stamping $148.24 $553.02 $580.67 $598.09 $610.05 $622.26 19 20 Change in Monthly Bills 21 (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L) 22 Customer Class Current FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 23 Residential 24 Single Family --- $3.01 $2.51 $1.58 $1.09 $1.11 25 MF & MH–Rural ($/unit) --- ($0.69) $1.43 $0.90 $0.62 $0.63 26 27 Schools ($/student) -- $0.03 $0.05 $0.03 $0.02 $0.02 28 29 Commercial Customers 30 Commercial - Low Strength -- $66.08 $10.13 $6.38 $4.38 $4.47 31 Commercial - Medium Strength -- $45.24 $12.12 $7.64 $5.24 $5.35 32 Commercial - High Strength -- ($42.29) $20.06 $12.64 $8.68 $8.85 33 34 Industrial Customers 35 Dura Plastics Products -- $672.66 $51.55 $32.48 $22.30 $22.75 36 Perricone Juice (Note 1) -- $33,128.84 $2,349.07 $1,479.91 $1,016.21 $1,036.53 37 Rudolph Food Company -- $383.75 $27.65 $17.42 $11.96 $12.20 38 CJ Foods #1 -- $10,479.20 $2,904.38 $1,829.76 $1,256.43 $1,281.56 39 CJ Foods #2 -- $1,811.58 $235.16 $148.15 $101.73 $103.77 40 Precision Stamping -- $404.78 $27.65 $17.42 $11.96 $12.20 Note 1: The monthly bills for Perricone Juice (Line 14) and the monthly bill changes (Line 36) reflect the discharge volumes and strength loadings specified in an agreement between Perricone Juice and the City. Page 86 of 379 8 CITY OF BEAUMONT 2024 SEWER RATE STUDY 2. Study Background 2.1. Sewer Utility Overview The City of Beaumont is located in Riverside County. The City is located approximately 11 miles north of the City of Hemet, 5 miles east of the City of Banning, 12 miles east of City of Monero Valley, and 7 miles southeast of the City of Yucaipa. The City currently encompasses an area greater than 26,000 acres, with an approximate population of 52,000 residents. The City’s sewer utility provides wastewater collection and treatment services to approximately 17,852 sewer customer accounts. The collection system consists of approximately 200 miles of mains and 10 lift stations that convey flows to the Beaumont Sewer Treatment Plant (WWTP). The WWTP treats, on average, approximately 3.66 mgd of wastewater flows, collecting flows from 11 different tributary basins. Improvements to the WWTP’s treatment technologies were completed in 2022. The improvements were necessary to meet the environmental mandates of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and the projected demands of customer growth. On September 27, 2018, the City issued $90 million in bonds to pay for the construction of the new plant and related system improvements. Approximately $17.8 million of the costs come from capacity fees. The remaining $3.1 million was funded from Community Facilities District tax proceeds. The entire project budget is $110.9 million. 2.2. Rate Study Overview The City’s most recent sewer rate study was completed in June 2018 by an independent third-party consulting firm. The 2018 study resulted in proposed sewer rates for the period FY 2019 - FY 2023. On October 6, 2022, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking an independent consultant to complete a new sewer rate study. After conducting a competitive selection process, the City selected Raftelis. A professional service agreement between the City and Raftelis was executed on December 6, 2022. The objectives of the sewer rate study, as described in the City’s RFP, were: • Fair and reasonable sewer rates and fees for a five-year period • Ten-Year financial plan to provide necessary revenue for the City’s CIP needs • Updated financing and rate schedule models 2.3. Report Contents This report contains the following sections: Section 1: Executive Summary: Summarizes the results for the financial planning, cost of service analysis, and rate design portions of the sewer rate study. Section 2: Study Background: Provides an overview of the sewer rate study. Section 3: Financial Planning and Requirement Determination: Discussion of the development of the sewer utility financial plan and revenue requirement projections for the FY 2024 – FY 2028 financial planning period. Section 4: Cost-of-Service Analysis: Discussion of the process used to functionalize, allocate, and distribute the FY 2024 sewer rate revenue requirement to customer classes. Section 5: Rate Design: Discussion of the process used to develop the recommended sewer rate structure and proposed sewer rates for the period FY 2024 – FY 2028. Page 87 of 379 9 CITY OF BEAUMONT 2024 SEWER RATE STUDY 2.4. Proposition 218 In November 1996, California voters approved Proposition 218, which amended the California Constitution by adding Article XIII C and Article XIII D. Article XIII D placed substantive limitations on the use of the revenue collected from property-related fees and on the amount of the fee that may be imposed on each parcel. Additionally, it established procedural requirements for imposing new, or increasing existing, property-related fees. The California Supreme Court has determined that sewer service fees are property-related fees. Proposition 218 requires that municipal utility rates cannot be “arbitrary and capricious,” meaning that the rate- setting methodology must be sound and that there must be a nexus between the costs and the rates charged in addition to meeting the substantive requirements set forth therein. These provisions require that a property-related fee must meet all of the following requirements: • Revenues derived from the fee must not exceed the funds required to provide the property-related service. • Revenues from the fee must not be used for any purpose other than that for which the fee is imposed. • The amount of a fee imposed upon any parcel or person as an incident of property ownership must not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel. • The fee may not be imposed for a service, unless the service is actually used by, or immediately available to, the owner of the property subject to the fee. A fee based on potential or future use of a service is not permitted and stand-by charges must be classified as assessments subject to the ballot protest and proportionality requirements for assessments. • No fee may be imposed for general governmental services, such as police, fire, ambulance, or libraries, where the service is available to the public in substantially the same manner as it is to property owners. The five substantive requirements in Article XIII D are structured to place limitations on (1) the use of the revenue collected from property-related fees and (2) the allocation of costs recovered by such fees to ensure that they are proportionate to the cost of providing the service attributable to each parcel. Industry standard rate setting methodologies for sewer and water utilities are, in many ways, similar to the requirements of Proposition 218. As stated in the WEF Manual 27, “the process of identifying the service characteristics of the utility's customers and distributing costs in proportion to their service demands are critical steps in the development of equitable rates and charges." Similarly, the American Water Works publication, Manual of Water Supply Practice M1, Principles of Water Rates, Fees, and Charges,7th Edition, states that “water rates and charges should be recovered from classes of customers in proportion to the cost of serving those customers.” California Courts have made clear that, while agencies are authorized to use industry-standard rate setting methodologies set forth in WEF Manual 27 and AWWA Manual M1 rates for sewer and water service must meet the substantive requirements of Proposition 218. 2.5. Reliance on City Provided Data During the study, City staff provided Raftelis with a variety of technical information including demand, cost, and revenue data. Raftelis did not independently assess or test the accuracy of such data – historic or projected. Raftelis has relied on this data in the formulation of our findings and subsequent recommendations, as well as in the preparation of this report. Raftelis also relied on cost allocation data provided by the Department as needed to complete the COS and rate design analysis. Page 88 of 379 10 CITY OF BEAUMONT 2024 SEWER RATE STUDY 3. Financial Plan & Revenue Requirement Projection 3.1. Overview of the Financial Planning Process The primary goal of the financial planning process is to identify the total amount of annual sewer rate revenue required to support the sewer utility’s financial needs. The critical steps in developing a sewer utility financial plan include: • Projecting Sewer Units of Service (Demand Forecast): The demand forecast projects the “units of service” subject to each specific rate or charge. Units of service include number of customer accounts and bills, the quantity of customer water consumption and associated billed sewer discharge volumes (flow), and the quantity of sewer discharges based on customer strength loading characteristics (pounds). • Projecting Sewer Rate Revenues at Existing Rates: This step in the financial planning process determines how much rate revenue will be generated annually if there are no rate increases. The level of rate revenues at existing rates is compared to projected expenditures to determine the annual funding shortfall that must be met by the appropriate combination of rate revenue increases or external debt financing. • Projecting Miscellaneous Non-Rate Revenue: Miscellaneous non-rate revenue items can include interest income from cash reserves, grants, capacity fee receipts, and miscellaneous ancillary fees. Miscellaneous non- rate revenues assist in closing the annual funding shortfall and reduce the revenue requirement from rates (i.e., the level of amount of rate revenue that must be recovered from customers). • Projecting Operating and Maintenance Expenses and Existing Debt Service: This step in the financial planning process projects the O&M expenses that will be incurred to provide utility service as well as required debt service payments on existing debt obligations. • Determining a Capital Financing Strategy: In many utilities, the key driver of the annual funding shortfall is projected CIP expenditures. In this step in the financial planning process, the utility determines the optimal mix of annual rate revenue increases and external debt financing to cover the funding shortfall. An outcome of this process is the identification of rate revenue funded CIP expenditures, required debt proceeds, and projected debt service costs. • Identifying Cash Reserve and Debt Service Coverage Targets: Utilities must not only have sufficient revenues to pay for projected costs, but they must also maintain prudent cash reserves and meet both contractually obligated and target debt service coverage requirements. The sewer revenue requirement from rates therefore must include the cost of meeting both cash reserve and debt service coverage targets. • Determining Annual Revenue Requirement from Rates: The final outcome of the financial planning process is the determination of the annual amount of rate revenue that must be recovered from customers to pay for all projected Sewer Enterprise costs and meet financial targets. 3.2. Focus on the Sewer Utility Operating Reserve The City tracks its sewer utility activities through three types of cash reserve funds: • Operating Reserve: The financial plan discussed in this report is focused on the Operating Reserve. This reserve reflects ongoing sewer utility activities such as revenues earned from rates and the costs incurred to provide services. They include operating costs, rate funded capital improvement program (CIP) expenditures, and debt service payments. Page 89 of 379 11 CITY OF BEAUMONT 2024 SEWER RATE STUDY • Capital Reserve: The Capital Reserve reflects revenues and costs associated with the funding of growth-related CIP expenditures. The primary funding source for growth-related CIP expenditures are capacity fees paid by developers who connect to the sewer utility system. Capacity fees can only be used to pay for growth-related CIP costs. They cannot be used to fund on-going utility operating costs. As part of the sewer rate study, a projection of cash reserves for the period FY 2023 – FY 2028 was prepared. • Repair and Replacement Reserve: The Repair and Replacement reserve is used to track the cost of non-growth repair and replacement CIP expenditures. The source of funding for the Repair and Replacement Reserve is rate revenues earned from customers that are transferred in from the Operating Reserve. The Operating Reserve revenue requirement includes the transfer of rate revenues to the Repair and Replacement Reserve. 3.3. Financial Plan Components Projected Units of Service (Demand Forecast) The financial plan assumes the growth in customer billing units shown in Table 3-1. The growth rates developed in consultation with City staff based on recent historical trends and projected development during the FY 2024-FY 2028 financial planning horizon. Table 3-1: Projected Growth in Billing Units (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) Line Customer Type Billing Unit Estimated FY 2023 Projected FY 2024 Projected FY 2025 Projected FY 2026 Projected FY 2027 Projected FY 2028 1 Residential EDUs 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 2 Schools Students 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 3 Commercial Accounts 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 4 Industrial Accounts 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Table 3-2 shows the projected customer billing units for the FY 2024-FY 2028 financial planning horizon. The City bills the monthly sewer service charge for residential customers based on equivalent dwelling units (EDUs). Schools are billed on a per student basis. Commercial and industrial customers are billed on a per account basis. The projected billing units shown in Table 3-2 reflect the growth rates shown in Table 3-1 projected forward from a baseline of actual FY 2022 billing units. Table 3-3 shows the projected accounts for the FY 2024-FY 2028 financial planning horizon. The projected accounts shown in Table 3-3 reflect the growth rates shown in Table 3-1 projected forward from a baseline of actual FY 2022 accounts. Table 3-4 shows projected customer billed sewer discharges for the FY 2024 – FY 2028 financial planning horizon. The City determines the monthly billed sewer discharges for commercial and industrial customers based on their winter average billed water consumption during the previous year. The months used to calculate the winter average Page 90 of 379 12 CITY OF BEAUMONT 2024 SEWER RATE STUDY are January – April. The City obtains monthly billed water consumption data for each customer from the Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District. Note that the billed water consumption for residential customers and schools is marked “N/A” (Lines 1 – 6 in Table 3-4). This is because the entire cost of providing sewer service to residential customers and schools is recovered via monthly fixed charges. Thus, they do not have actual billed sewer discharge volumes. Table 3-2: Projected Customer Billing Units (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) Line Customer Class Billing Units Estimated FY 2023 Projected FY 2024 Projected FY 2025 Projected FY 2026 Projected FY 2027 Projected FY 2028 1 Residential 2 Single Family EDUs 17,084 17,341 17,601 17,865 18,133 18,405 3 Multi-Family & Mobile Home-Rural EDUs 2,388 2,424 2,460 2,497 2,535 2,573 4 Total Residential EDUs 19,473 19,765 20,061 20,362 20,668 20,978 5 6 Schools Students 12,332 12,517 12,705 12,896 13,089 13,285 7 8 Commercial 9 Commercial - Low Strength Accounts 290 295 299 304 308 313 10 Commercial - Medium Strength Accounts 63 64 65 66 67 68 11 Commercial - High Strength Accounts 63 64 65 66 67 68 12 Total Commercial Accounts 416 422 429 435 442 448 13 14 Industrial 15 Dura Plastics Products Accounts 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 Perricone Juice Accounts 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 Rudolph Food Company Accounts 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 CJ Foods #1 Accounts 1 1 1 1 1 1 19 CJ Foods #2 Accounts 1 1 1 1 1 1 20 Precision Stamping Accounts 1 1 1 1 1 1 21 Total Industrial Accounts 6 6 6 6 6 6 Table 3-3: Projected Customer Accounts (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) Line Customer Class Estimated FY 2023 Projected FY 2024 Projected FY 2025 Projected FY 2026 Projected FY 2027 Projected FY 2028 1 Residential 2 Single Family 17,084 17,341 17,601 17,865 18,133 18,405 3 Multi-Family & Mobile Home-Rural 72 73 74 75 76 78 4 Total Residential 17,157 17,414 17,675 17,940 18,209 18,482 5 6 Schools 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 8 Commercial 9 Commercial - Low Strength 290 295 299 304 308 313 10 Commercial - Medium Strength 63 64 65 66 67 68 11 Commercial - High Strength 63 64 65 66 67 68 12 Total Commercial 416 422 429 435 442 448 13 14 Industrial 15 Dura Plastics Products 1 1 1 1 1 1 Page 91 of 379 13 CITY OF BEAUMONT 2024 SEWER RATE STUDY 16 Perricone Juice 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 Rudolph Food Company 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 CJ Foods #1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19 CJ Foods #2 1 1 1 1 1 1 20 Precision Stamping 1 1 1 1 1 1 21 Total Industrial 6 6 6 6 6 6 22 23 Total 17,589 17,852 18,120 18,391 18,667 18,947 Table 3-4: Projected Billed Discharges (CCF) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) Line Customer Class Estimated FY 2023 Projected FY 2024 Projected FY 2025 Projected FY 2026 Projected FY 2027 Projected FY 2028 1 Residential 2 Single Family N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3 Multi-Family & Mobile Home-Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4 Total Residential N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5 6 Schools N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 7 8 Commercial 9 Commercial - Low Strength 91,472 92,844 94,237 95,650 97,085 98,541 10 Commercial - Medium Strength 42,593 43,232 43,881 44,539 45,207 45,885 11 Commercial - High Strength 35,980 36,519 37,067 37,623 38,188 38,760 12 Total Commercial 170,045 172,596 175,185 177,812 180,480 183,187 13 14 Industrial 15 Dura Plastics Products 1,119 1,119 1,119 1,119 1,119 1,119 16 Perricone Juice 56,457 51,233 51,233 51,233 51,233 51,233 17 Rudolph Food Company 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 CJ Foods #1 51,631 51,631 51,631 51,631 51,631 51,631 19 CJ Foods #2 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 20 Precision Stamping 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 Total Industrial 115,282 110,058 110,058 110,058 110,058 110,058 22 23 Total 285,327 282,653 285,242 287,870 290,537 293,244 Projected Revenues at Existing Rates The sewer rates currently charged by the City are shown in Table 3-5. The rates were used in the development of projection of sewer rate revenues under existing rates as described below. Table 3-5: Current Sewer Rates (A) (B) (C) Line Customer Class Monthly Service Charge Commodity Rates ($/CCF) 1 Residential 2 Single Family $47.21 N/A 3 Multi-Family & Mobile Home-Rural ($/unit) $29.24 N/A 4 5 Schools ($/student) $1.07 N/A 6 7 Commercial Customers 8 Commercial – Low Strength $25.77 $2.77 Page 92 of 379 14 CITY OF BEAUMONT 2024 SEWER RATE STUDY 9 Commercial – Medium Strength $47.21 $3.75 10 Commercial – High Strength $151.07 $7.31 11 12 Industrial Customers 13 Dura Plastics Products N/A $3.84 14 Perricone Juice N/A $2.94 15 Rudolph Food Company $169.27 $0.00 16 CJ Foods #1 N/A $11.07 17 CJ Foods #2 N/A $5.71 18 Precision Stamping $148.24 $0.00 Table 3-6 shows a summary of detail of projected rate revenues for the period FY 2023 – FY 2028 assuming that existing sewer rates remain unchanged. The projection of revenues at existing rates, when compared to projected expenditures, allows for the quantification of the funding gap that must be filled by rate revenue increases, external debt financing, or some other form of funding. The revenues shown in Table 3-6 were calculated by multiplying the projected units of service for each year by the existing sewer rates. Table 3-6: Projected Revenue at Existing Rates (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) Line Customer Class Estimated FY 2023 Projected FY 2024 Projected FY 2025 Projected FY 2026 Projected FY 2027 Projected FY 2028 1 Total Rate Revenues $12,948,348 $13,106,827 $13,283,295 $13,462,410 $13,644,211 $13,828,740 Projected Non-Operating Income In addition to revenues produced by the City’s sewer rates, the City also earns non-operating revenues from miscellaneous sources. Revenue from non-operating sources reduces the annual revenue requirement and the rates that must ultimately be paid by customers. Table 3-7 shows the projection of these non-operating revenues. Line 1 labeled “Miscellaneous” includes revenues earned from activities such as inspections, fines and forfeitures, and special sewer services. Line 2 of Table 3-7 reflects the projected interest income on Operating Reserves based on an assumption of a 2.5% interest rate earned on cash reserve balances. Table 3-7: Non-Operating Revenues (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) Line Revenue Estimated FY 2023 Projected FY 2024 Projected FY 2025 Projected FY 2026 Projected FY 2027 Projected FY 2028 1 Miscellaneous $195,537 $200,426 $205,437 $210,572 $215,837 $221,233 2 Interest Income $130,575 $94,890 $71,121 $62,089 $60,941 $63,609 3 Total $326,113 $295,316 $276,558 $272,662 $276,778 $284,842 Projected Inflation Rates / Cost Escalation Factors The financial plan projects both operating costs and capital improvement costs for the FY 2024 – FY 2028 financial planning period, starting from a baseline of the City’s FY 2023 sewer utility budget. The costs contained in the FY 2023 budget were escalated using the factors shown in Table 3-8. These factors reflect an estimate of inflation during each year of the planning horizon and were developed in consultation with City staff. Table 3-8: Projected Inflation Rates / Cost Escalation Factors (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) Line Customer Class Estimated FY 2023 Projected FY 2024 Projected FY 2025 Projected FY 2026 Projected FY 2027 Projected FY 2028 1 General N/A 5.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 2 Personnel N/A 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 3 Administrative N/A 5.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 2.0% Page 93 of 379 15 CITY OF BEAUMONT 2024 SEWER RATE STUDY 4 Operating (Fleet Costs, Program Costs, Repairs and Maintenance, Supplies, Special Services, Equipment Leasing) N/A 5.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 2.0% 5 Utilities N/A 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 6 Capital N/A 5.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 3.0% Projected Operating Expenses Projected sewer utility operating expenses for the FY 2024 – FY 2028 financial planning period are shown in Table 3-9. Personal service costs (Line 1) reflect salary and benefits costs for all sewer utility personnel (administrative, treatment, field operations, and customer service). Operating costs (Line 2) reflect the cost of fleet operations, special programs, repairs and maintenance, supplies, special services, and equipment leasing). Capital outlay costs (Line 3) reflect the purchase of vehicles, the purchase of equipment, and contingencies. The amounts shown in Table 3-9 were projected forward starting from a baseline of the City’s FY 2023 sewer utility budget using the escalation factors shown in Table 3-8. Table 3-9: Projected Operating Expenses (O&M Expenses) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) Line Item Estimated FY 2023 Projected FY 2024 Projected FY 2025 Projected FY 2026 Projected FY 2027 Projected FY 2028 1 Personnel Services $2,545,415 $2,981,044 $3,149,003 $3,221,580 $3,295,776 $3,491,615 2 Operating Costs $4,705,585 $4,908,364 $5,885,115 $6,016,699 $6,152,230 $6,245,294 3 Capital Outlay $558,023 $1,037,473 $220,500 $322,771 $335,995 $285,256 4 Total $7,809,023 $8,926,881 $9,254,618 $9,561,050 $9,784,000 $10,022,164 Projected Debt Service Expenditures In 2018, the Beaumont Public Improvement issued $81.1 million of revenue bonds to finance improvements at the City’s WWTP. The projected debt service payments shown in Table 3-10 reflect the contractually required debt service payments associated with these revenue bonds during the FY 2024 – FY 2028 financial planning period (Line 1). There is no proposed debt service (Line 2). Table 3-10: Projected Debt Service Payments (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) Line Item Estimated FY 2023 Projected FY 2024 Projected FY 2025 Projected FY 2026 Projected FY 2027 Projected FY 2028 1 Existing Debt Service $5,073,213 $5,073,713 $5,070,713 $5,069,088 $5,073,463 $5,073,588 2 Proposed Debt Service $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3 Total $5,073,213 $5,073,713 $5,070,713 $5,069,088 $5,073,463 $5,073,588 Projected Contribution to the Repair & Replacement Reserve In 2023, the City established a sewer utility Repair and Replacement Reserve to accumulate funds to pay for future CIP expenditures related to the repair and replacement of existing infrastructure such as underground pipelines and lift stations. The initial contribution to this fund was $1 million via a transfer of cash from the Operating Reserve. As shown in Table 3-11, the financial plan for FY 2024 – FY 2028 features an annual contribution of approximately $2.0 million being transferred into the Repair and Replacement Reserve from the Operating Reserve. The estimate of $2.0 million represents 85% of the annual depreciation expense for collection and conveyance system assets assuming a 60 year useful life. The exact equation is as follows: ($141,085,109 original cost / 60 years = $2,351,418 annual depreciation expense) * .85 = $1.998,706 Table 3-11: Projected Contribution to the Repair & Replacement Reserve (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) Page 94 of 379 16 CITY OF BEAUMONT 2024 SEWER RATE STUDY Line Item Estimated FY 2023 Projected FY 2024 Projected FY 2025 Projected FY 2026 Projected FY 2027 Projected FY 2028 1 Repair & Replacement Reserve $1,000,000 $1,998,706 $1,998,706 $1,998,706 $1,998,706 $1,998,706 2 Total $1,000,000 $1,998,706 $1,998,706 $1,998,706 $1,998,706 $1,998,706 Projected Rate Funded (PAYGO) CIP Expenditures The annual revenue requirement from rates includes both an annual contribution to the Repair and Replacement Reserve (Table 3-11) and the cost of rate funded CIP which is often referred to as pay-as-you-go or “PAYGO” CIP. Table 3-12 shows the projected rate funded (PAYGO) CIP expenditures for the FY 2024 – FY 2028 financial planning horizon. The projects shown in Table 3-12 were provided by City staff in current year 2023 dollars (i.e., without estimated construction cost inflation). Starting in FY 2024 (Column C), the projected cost for each project has been inflated using the cost escalation factors shown in Line 6 of Table 3-8 Table 3-12: Projected Rate Funded (PAYGO) CIP Expenditures (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) Line Item Estimated FY 2023 Projected FY 2024 Projected FY 2025 Projected FY 2026 Projected FY 2027 Projected FY 2028 1 Office Expansion $0 $0 $0 $573,300 $0 $0 2 Crane Truck $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $364,928 3 CCTV Main Line Inspection System $0 $241,962 $0 $0 $0 $0 4 4th Street Manhole Replacement $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5 Oak Valley Lift Station Access Point $210,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 6 Vactor Dump Station $450,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 7 Total $860,000 $241,962 $0 $573,300 $0 $364,928 Projected Total CIP Expenditures Table 3-13 summarizes projected sewer utility CIP expenditures for the FY 2024 – FY 2028 financial planning period which are based on the projects identified in the City of Beaumont’s Draft 2021 Wastewater Master Plan. The financial plan does not feature the use of external debt financing. Instead, four types of CIP expenditure funding sources are projected to be used: • Rate Funded (PAYGO) CIP Expenditures (Lines 1-8): These CIP expenditures are funded directly from the operational cash flows earned from rate revenues. As such, they are reflected in the Operating Reserve. Rate Funded (PAYGO) CIP expenditures can be for both non-growth CIP that does not increase the capacity of sewer system to serve new customers and growth-related CIP that does increase system capacity. • Capacity Fee Funded CIP Expenditures (Lines 10-13): Capacity fees can only be used to fund growth-related CIP expenditures that increase the capacity of the sewer system to serve new customers. Capacity fee receipts/revenues and the cost of growth-related CIP expenditures are reflected in the Capital Reserve. • CIP Expenditures Funded CIP Expenditures (Lines 15-28): As noted previously, in 2023, the City established a sewer utility Repair and Replacement Reserve to accumulate funds to pay for future CIP expenditures related to the repair and replacement of existing infrastructure such as underground pipelines and lift stations. Funding for the Repair and Replacement Reserve is provided by cash transfers from the Operating Reserve Fund. • Grant Funded CIP Expenditures (Lines 30-32): The FY 2024 – FY 2028 financial plan projects the receipt of $2.3 million dollars of grant funding for CIP expenditures (Line 31). The grant funding will be used to pay for a growth-related CIP project. Therefore, they are reflected in the Capital Reserve. Page 95 of 379 17 CITY OF BEAUMONT 2024 SEWER RATE STUDY Table 3-13: Projected Total CIP Expenditures (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) Line Item Estimated FY 2023 Projected FY 2024 Projected FY 2025 Projected FY 2026 Projected FY 2027 Projected FY 2028 1 Rate Funded (PAYGO) CIP 2 Office Expansion $0 $0 $0 $573,300 $0 $0 3 Crane Truck $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $364,928 4 CCTV Main Line Inspection System $0 $241,962 $0 $0 $0 $0 5 4th Street Manhole Replacement $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 6 Oak Valley Lift Station Access Point $210,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 7 Vactor Dump Station $450,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 8 Total $860,000 $241,962 $0 $573,300 $0 $364,928 9 10 Capacity Fee Funded CIP 11 Mesa Lift Station Construction $3,650,000 $2,835,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 12 1211 Petition with Adaptive Management & Mitigation Plan $0 $2,205,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 13 Total $3,650,000 $5,040,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 14 15 CIP Funded by the Repair & Replacement Reserve 16 Apron Lane Pipeline Replacement $0 $0 $303,188 $0 $0 $0 17 Edgar Ave Pipeline Replacement $0 $0 $650,475 $0 $0 $0 18 Lift Station Condition $0 $0 $441,000 $458,640 $472,399 $486,571 19 On-going Pipeline Replacement Program $0 $0 $551,250 $573,300 $708,599 $729,857 20 I&I System Repairs - Phase 3 $0 $0 $220,500 $0 $0 $0 21 UV Bulb Replacement $0 $0 $165,375 $0 $0 $0 22 RO Module Replacement $0 $0 $0 $343,980 $0 $0 23 Vactor Truck $0 $0 $0 $0 $826,699 $0 24 Huber 4MM Coarse Screen Retrofit $0 $52,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 25 Sewer Bridge Coating/Inspection $0 $0 $55,125 $0 $0 $0 26 Lift Station Spare Pump Program $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 27 VFD $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 28 Total $550,000 $52,500 $2,386,913 $1,375,920 $2,007,697 $1,216,428 29 30 Grant Funded CIP 31 Mesa Lift Station Construction $100,000 $2,415,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 32 Total $100,000 $2,415,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 33 34 Grand Total $5,160,000 $7,749,462 $2,386,913 $1,949,220 $2,007,697 $1,581,356 Target Cash Reserves and Debt Service Coverage The target minimum cash reserve and debt service coverage metrics reflected in the financial plan are shown in Table 3-14. Table 3-14: Target for Cash Reserves and Debt Service Coverage (A) (B) Line Description Minimum Target Page 96 of 379 18 CITY OF BEAUMONT 2024 SEWER RATE STUDY 1 Operating Reserve Ending balance equivalent to 25% of annual operating expenses 2 Capital Reserve Ending balance equivalent to 75% of the four-year rolling average of projected growth- related CIP expenditures 3 Repair and Replacement Reserve Ending Balance equivalent to 100% of annual collection and conveyance system depreciation expense assuming a 60 year useful life 4 Revenue Bond Debt Service Coverage 1.20x contractually required debt service coverage 1.50x minimum target debt service coverage* Capacity fees are included in the revenues used to calculate debt service coverage Status Quo Financial Plan (No Rate Revenue Increases) To demonstrate the need for sewer rate revenue increases a “status quo” financial plan was developed. The status quo financial plan presents the projected cash reserve outcomes of maintaining the City’s current sewer rates (i.e., having no sewer rate revenue increases). Page 97 of 379 19 CITY OF BEAUMONT 2024 SEWER RATE STUDY Table 3-15 shows the results of this analysis. In FY 2025, the Operating Reserve ending cash balance falls below the minimum target (Line 56). In FY 2026, the Operating Reserve ending cash balance turns negative and falls below $0 (Line 54). These outcomes are presented in a graphical format in Figure 3-1: Status Quo Financial Plan - Operating Reserve Figure 3-2: Status Quo Financial Plan - Combined Reserves . Further, as shown in Figure 3-2, by FY 2028, the sewer utility’s combined cash reserves consisting of the Operating Reserve, the Capital Reserve, and the Repair and Replacement Reserve, are projected to fall below target minimums. This demonstrates the insufficiency of the City’s current sewer rates to support the sewer utility’s financial needs over the next five years. ($8,000,000) ($6,000,000) ($4,000,000) ($2,000,000) $0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Operating Reserve Ending Balance Operating Reserve Target Balance $0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Combined Reserve Ending Balance Combined Reserve Target Balance Page 98 of 379 20 CITY OF BEAUMONT 2024 SEWER RATE STUDY It is also important to note that under the status quo financial plan, the sewer utility fails to meet the minimum of 1.50x debt service coverage target in FY 2024 and the contractually required debt service coverage of 1.20x in FY 2027. Page 99 of 379 21 CITY OF BEAUMONT 2024 SEWER RATE STUDY Table 3-15: Status Quo Financial Plan - Operating Reserve (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) Line Item Estimated FY 2023 Projected FY 2024 Projected FY 2025 Projected FY 2026 Projected FY 2027 Projected FY 2028 1 Rate Revenue 2 Annual Rate Revenue % Increase 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3 4 Revenue at Existing Rates $12,948,348 $13,106,827 $13,283,295 $13,462,410 $13,644,211 $13,828,740 5 Revenue from Rate Increases $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 6 Total Rate Revenue $12,948,348 $13,106,827 $13,283,295 $13,462,410 $13,644,211 $13,828,740 7 8 Non-Operating Revenue 9 Miscellaneous $195,537 $200,426 $205,437 $210,572 $215,837 $221,233 10 Interest Income $130,575 $89,963 $41,365 $0 $0 $0 11 Total Non-Operating Revenue $326,113 $290,389 $246,802 $210,572 $215,837 $221,233 12 13 Total Revenue $13,274,461 $13,397,216 $13,530,097 $13,672,982 $13,860,048 $14,049,973 14 15 Operating Expenses 16 Personnel Services $2,545,415 $2,981,044 $3,149,003 $3,221,580 $3,295,776 $3,491,615 17 Operating Costs $4,705,585 $4,908,364 $5,885,115 $6,016,699 $6,152,230 $6,245,294 18 Capital Improvements $558,023 $1,037,473 $220,500 $322,771 $335,995 $285,256 19 Total Operating Expenses $7,809,023 $8,926,881 $9,254,618 $9,561,050 $9,784,000 $10,022,164 20 21 Capital Costs 22 Existing Debt Service $5,073,213 $4,312,656 $4,310,106 $3,801,816 $4,312,443 $4,312,549 23 Rate Funded (PAYGO) CIP $860,000 $241,962 $0 $573,300 $0 $364,928 24 Transfer to Repair & Replacement Reserve $1,000,000 $1,998,706 $1,998,706 $1,998,706 $1,998,706 $1,998,706 25 Total Capital Costs $6,933,213 $6,553,323 $6,308,811 $6,373,821 $6,311,149 $6,676,183 26 27 Total Expenditures $14,742,236 $15,480,204 $15,563,430 $15,934,871 $16,095,149 $16,698,348 28 Net Operating Cash Flow (Change in Cash) ($1,467,774) ($2,082,989) ($2,033,333) ($2,261,889) ($2,235,101) ($2,648,375) 29 30 Debt Service Coverage Calculation 31 Net Revenues Available for Debt Service $5,465,438 $4,470,335 $4,275,478 $4,111,932 $4,076,048 $4,027,808 32 Add: Capacity Fees $3,783,021 $2,586,380 $2,026,956 $1,905,618 $1,149,502 $1,917,477 33 Net Revenues Available for Debt Service $9,248,459 $7,056,714 $6,302,434 $6,017,550 $5,225,550 $5,945,285 34 35 Annual Debt Service $5,073,213 $4,312,656 $4,310,106 $3,801,816 $4,312,443 $4,312,549 36 Calculated Coverage 1.82 1.64 1.46 1.58 1.21 1.38 37 38 Operating Reserve Cash Balance 39 Beginning Balance $6,022,186 $4,684,987 $2,691,961 $699,993 ($1,561,896) ($3,796,997) 40 41 Sources of Funds 42 Rate Revenues $12,948,348 $13,106,827 $13,283,295 $13,462,410 $13,644,211 $13,828,740 43 Non-Operating Revenue $195,537 $200,426 $205,437 $210,572 $215,837 $221,233 44 Interest Income $130,575 $89,963 $41,365 $0 $0 $0 45 Total Sources $13,274,461 $13,397,216 $13,530,097 $13,672,982 $13,860,048 $14,049,973 46 47 Uses of Funds 48 Operating Expenses $7,809,023 $8,926,881 $9,254,618 $9,561,050 $9,784,000 $10,022,164 49 Existing Debt Service $5,073,213 $4,312,656 $4,310,106 $3,801,816 $4,312,443 $4,312,549 50 Rate Funded (PAYGO) CIP $860,000 $241,962 $0 $573,300 $0 $364,928 51 Transfer to Repair & Replacement Reserve $1,000,000 $1,998,706 $1,998,706 $1,998,706 $1,998,706 $1,998,706 52 Total Uses $14,742,236 $15,480,204 $15,563,430 $15,934,871 $16,095,149 $16,698,348 53 54 Ending Balance $4,554,412 $2,601,998 $658,628 ($1,561,896) ($3,796,997) ($6,445,372) 55 Minimum Target $1,952,256 $2,231,720 $2,313,655 $2,390,263 $2,446,000 $2,505,541 56 Variance from Target $2,732,731 $460,241 ($1,613,662) ($3,952,159) ($6,242,997) ($8,950,913) Page 100 of 379 22 CITY OF BEAUMONT 2024 SEWER RATE STUDY Figure 3-1: Status Quo Financial Plan - Operating Reserve Figure 3-2: Status Quo Financial Plan - Combined Reserves Proposed Financial Plan (Rate Revenue Increases) The proposed financial plan features annual sewer rate revenue adjustments shown in Table 3-16. The percentages shown in Column B of Table 3-16 reflect the required total system rate revenue increase. The actual percentage increase in rates experienced by each customer class will vary based on the outcome of the COS analyses discussed in Section 4 of this report. Table 3-16: Proposed Rate Revenue Increases (A) (B) (C) Line Fiscal Year Proposed Rate Revenue Increase Effective Date 1 FY 2024 6.0% September 2023 2 FY 2025 5.0% July 2024 3 FY 2026 3.0% July 2025 4 FY 2027 2.0% July 2026 5 FY 2028 2.0% July 2027 ($8,000,000) ($6,000,000) ($4,000,000) ($2,000,000) $0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Operating Reserve Ending Balance Operating Reserve Target Balance $0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Combined Reserve Ending Balance Combined Reserve Target Balance Page 101 of 379 23 CITY OF BEAUMONT 2024 SEWER RATE STUDY The outcome of increasing rate revenues in the manner shown in Table 3-16 can be observed in the proposed financial plan presented in Table 3-17. • The proposed Operating Reserve ending meets or exceeds the minimum target in all years of the FY 2024 – FY 2028 financial planning horizon (Line 57 of Table 3-18) and Figure 3-3. • Debt service coverage exceeds the contractually obligated minimum of 1.20x and meets or exceeds the minimum target of 150x in each year of the FY 2024 – FY 2028 financial planning horizon (Line 36 of Table 3-17: Financial Plan – Operating Reserve (Table 3-17). • As shown in • Figure 3-4, combined cash reserves consisting of the Operating Reserve, the Capital Reserve, and the Repair and Replacement Reserve, are projected to exceed combined target minimums. The primary funding source for the Capital Reserve are capacity fees paid by developers who connect to the sewer utility system. Capacity fees can only be used to pay for growth-related CIP costs. They cannot be used to fund on-going utility operating costs. Page 102 of 379 24 CITY OF BEAUMONT 2024 SEWER RATE STUDY Table 3-17: Financial Plan – Operating Reserve (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) Line Item Estimated FY 2023 Projected FY 2024 Projected FY 2025 Projected FY 2026 Projected FY 2027 Projected FY 2028 1 Rate Revenue 2 Annual Rate Revenue % Increase 0.0% 6.0% 5.0% 3.0% 2.0% 2.0% 3 4 Revenue at Existing Rates $12,948,348 $13,106,827 $13,283,295 $13,462,410 $13,644,211 $13,828,740 5 Revenue from Rate Increases $0 $655,341 $1,501,012 $1,970,762 $2,310,208 $2,664,856 6 Total Rate Revenue $12,948,348 $13,762,168 $14,784,307 $15,433,172 $15,954,419 $16,493,596 7 8 Non-Operating Revenue 9 Miscellaneous $195,537 $200,426 $205,437 $210,572 $215,837 $221,233 10 Interest Income $130,575 $98,155 $76,921 $69,957 $70,755 $75,437 11 Total Non-Operating Revenue $326,113 $298,580 $282,358 $280,529 $286,591 $296,670 12 13 Total Revenue $13,274,461 $14,060,749 $15,066,665 $15,713,701 $16,241,010 $16,790,265 14 15 Operating Expenses 16 Personnel Services $2,545,415 $2,981,044 $3,149,003 $3,221,580 $3,295,776 $3,491,615 17 Operating Costs $4,705,585 $4,908,364 $5,885,115 $6,016,699 $6,152,230 $6,245,294 18 Capital Improvements $558,023 $1,037,473 $220,500 $322,771 $335,995 $285,256 19 Total Operating Expenses $7,809,023 $8,926,881 $9,254,618 $9,561,050 $9,784,000 $10,022,164 20 21 Capital Costs 22 Existing Debt Service $5,073,213 $4,312,656 $4,310,106 $3,801,816 $4,312,443 $4,312,549 23 Rate Funded (PAYGO) CIP $860,000 $241,962 $0 $573,300 $0 $364,928 24 Transfer to Repair & Replacement Reserve $1,000,000 $1,998,706 $1,998,706 $1,998,706 $1,998,706 $1,998,706 25 Total Capital Costs $6,933,213 $6,553,323 $6,308,811 $6,373,821 $6,311,149 $6,676,183 26 27 Total Expenditures $14,742,236 $15,480,204 $15,563,430 $15,934,871 $16,095,149 $16,698,348 28 Net Operating Cash Flow(Change in Cash) ($1,467,774) ($1,419,456) ($496,765) ($221,170) $145,862 $91,918 29 30 Debt Service Coverage Calculation 31 Net Revenues Available for Debt Service $5,465,438 $5,133,868 $5,812,046 $6,152,651 $6,457,011 $6,768,101 32 Add: Capacity Fees $3,783,021 $2,586,380 $2,026,956 $1,905,618 $1,149,502 $1,917,477 33 Net Revenues Available for Debt Service $9,248,459 $7,720,247 $7,839,002 $8,058,269 $7,606,513 $8,685,578 34 35 Annual Debt Service $5,073,213 $4,312,656 $4,310,106 $3,801,816 $4,312,443 $4,312,549 36 Calculated Coverage 1.82 1.79 1.82 2.12 1.76 2.01 37 38 Operating Reserve Cash Balance 39 Beginning Balance $6,022,186 $4,684,987 $3,363,686 $2,943,842 $2,792,628 $3,009,245 40 41 Sources of Funds 42 Rate Revenues $12,948,348 $13,762,168 $14,784,307 $15,433,172 $15,954,419 $16,493,596 43 Non-Operating Revenue $195,537 $200,426 $205,437 $210,572 $215,837 $221,233 44 Interest Income $130,575 $98,155 $76,921 $69,957 $70,755 $75,437 45 Total Sources $13,274,461 $14,060,749 $15,066,665 $15,713,701 $16,241,010 $16,790,265 46 47 Uses of Funds 48 Operating Expenses $7,809,023 $8,926,881 $9,254,618 $9,561,050 $9,784,000 $10,022,164 49 Existing Debt Service $5,073,213 $4,312,656 $4,310,106 $3,801,816 $4,312,443 $4,312,549 50 Rate Funded (PAYGO) CIP $860,000 $241,962 $0 $573,300 $0 $364,928 51 Transfer to Repair & Replacement Reserve $1,000,000 $1,998,706 $1,998,706 $1,998,706 $1,998,706 $1,998,706 52 Total Uses $14,742,236 $15,480,204 $15,563,430 $15,934,871 $16,095,149 $16,698,348 53 54 Ending Balance $4,554,412 $3,265,531 $2,866,921 $2,722,671 $2,938,490 $3,101,162 56 Minimum Target $1,952,256 $2,231,720 $2,313,655 $2,390,263 $2,446,000 $2,505,541 57 Variance from Target $2,732,731 $1,131,965 $630,187 $402,366 $563,245 $671,058 Page 103 of 379 25 CITY OF BEAUMONT 2024 SEWER RATE STUDY Figure 3-3: Financial Plan - Operating Reserve Figure 3-4: Financial Plan - Combined Cash Reserves Projection of Other Cash Reserve Balances As noted previously the financial plan and revenue requirement from rates discussed in this report is focused on the Operating Reserve. The Operating Reserve reflects ongoing sewer utility activities such as revenues earned from rates and the costs incurred to provide services. This fact notwithstanding, an outcome of the financial planning process was the development of projections for the Capital Reserve and the Repair and Replacement Reserve. Table 3-18 shows the projected Capital Reserve cash balances for the FY 2024 – FY 2028 financial planning horizon. The Capital Reserve reflects revenues and costs associated with the funding of growth-related CIP expenditures. The primary funding source for growth-related CIP expenditures are capacity fees paid by developers who connect to the sewer utility system. The projection of capacity fee receipts shown in Line 4 of Table 3-18 was prepared by City staff. Table 3-19 shows the projected Repair and Replacement Reserve cash balances for the FY 2024 – FY 2028 financial planning horizon. The Repair and Replacement reserve is used to track the cost of non-growth repair and $0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 $4,000,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Operating Reserve Ending Balance Operating Reserve Target Balance $0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000 $16,000,000 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Combined Reserve Ending Balance Combined Reserve Target Balance Page 104 of 379 26 CITY OF BEAUMONT 2024 SEWER RATE STUDY replacement CIP expenditures. The source of funding for the Repair and Replacement Reserve is rate revenues earned from customers that are transferred in from the Operating Reserve. The amount of this annual transfer as show in Line 4 of Table 3-19 is discussed in the narrative presented regarding Table 3-11. Table 3-18: Projected Capital Reserve (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) Line Item Estimated FY 2023 Projected FY 2024 Projected FY 2025 Projected FY 2026 Projected FY 2027 Projected FY 2028 1 Beginning Balance $6,431,327 $6,726,794 $3,640,103 $5,013,284 $5,784,942 $6,322,905 2 3 Sources of Funds 4 Capacity Fees $3,783,021 $2,586,380 $2,026,956 $1,905,618 $1,149,502 $1,917,477 5 Grants $100,000 $2,415,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 6 Interest Income $162,446 $127,986 $106,832 $133,311 $149,480 $172,528 7 Total Sources $4,045,467 $5,129,366 $2,133,788 $2,038,930 $1,298,982 $2,090,005 8 9 Uses of Funds 10 Operating Reserve Portion of Existing Debt Service $0 $761,057 $760,607 $1,267,272 $761,019 $761,038 11 Capacity Fee Funded CIP $3,650,000 $5,040,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 12 Grant Funded CIP $100,000 $2,415,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 13 Total Uses $3,750,000 $8,216,057 $760,607 $1,267,272 $761,019 $761,038 14 15 Ending Balance $6,726,794 $3,640,103 $5,013,284 $5,784,942 $6,322,905 $7,651,871 16 Minimum Target $1,118,250 $93,969 $190,757 $290,449 $393,131 $498,894 17 Variance from Target $5,608,544 $3,546,134 $4,822,527 $5,494,493 $5,929,773 $7,152,977 Table 3-19: Projected Repair and Replacement Reserve (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) Line Item Estimated FY 2023 Projected FY 2024 Projected FY 2025 Projected FY 2026 Projected FY 2027 Projected FY 2028 1 Beginning Balance $0 $455,625 $2,437,549 $2,105,428 $2,788,634 $2,849,247 2 3 Sources of Funds 4 Transfer-In from Rate Revenues $1,000,000 $1,998,706 $1,998,706 $1,998,706 $1,998,706 $1,998,706 5 Interest Income $5,625 $35,718 $56,086 $60,421 $69,603 $81,010 6 Total Sources $1,005,625 $2,034,424 $2,054,792 $2,059,126 $2,068,309 $2,079,715 7 8 Uses of Funds 9 Repair & Replacement CIP $550,000 $52,500 $2,386,913 $1,375,920 $2,007,697 $1,216,428 10 Total Uses $550,000 $52,500 $2,386,913 $1,375,920 $2,007,697 $1,216,428 11 12 Ending Balance $455,625 $2,437,549 $2,105,428 $2,788,634 $2,849,247 $3,712,534 14 Minimum Target $2,351,418 $2,351,418 $2,351,418 $2,351,418 $2,351,418 $2,351,418 15 Variance from Target ($1,895,793) $86,130 ($245,990) $437,216 $497,829 $1,361,116 Summary Projection of Combined Cash Reserves Table 3-20 presented a summary of the sewer utility’s combined cash reserves for the FY 2024 – FY 2028 financial planning horizon. A definition of the minimum targets for each reserve are presented in Table 3-14. Page 105 of 379 27 CITY OF BEAUMONT 2024 SEWER RATE STUDY Table 3-20: Summary Projection of Combined Cash Reserves (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) Line Item Estimated FY 2023 Projected FY 2024 Projected FY 2025 Projected FY 2026 Projected FY 2027 Projected FY 2028 1 Ending Balance 2 Operating Reserve $4,554,412 $3,265,531 $2,866,921 $2,722,671 $2,938,490 $3,101,162 3 Capital Reserve $6,726,794 $3,640,103 $5,013,284 $5,784,942 $6,322,905 $7,651,871 4 Repair & Replacement Reserve $455,625 $2,437,549 $2,105,428 $2,788,634 $2,849,247 $3,712,534 5 Total $11,736,830 $9,343,183 $9,985,633 $11,296,248 $12,110,642 $14,465,568 6 7 Minimum Targets 8 Operating Reserve $1,952,256 $2,231,720 $2,313,655 $2,390,263 $2,446,000 $2,505,541 9 Capital Reserve $1,118,250 $93,969 $190,757 $290,449 $393,131 $498,894 10 Repair & Replacement Reserve $2,351,418 $2,351,418 $2,351,418 $2,351,418 $2,351,418 $2,351,418 11 Total $5,421,924 $4,677,108 $4,855,830 $5,032,130 $5,190,550 $5,355,854 12 13 Variance from Minimum Target 14 Operating Reserve $2,602,156 $1,033,811 $553,266 $332,409 $492,490 $595,621 15 Capital Reserve $5,608,544 $3,546,134 $4,822,527 $5,494,493 $5,929,773 $7,152,977 16 Repair & Replacement Reserve ($1,895,793) $86,130 ($245,990) $437,216 $497,829 $1,361,116 17 Total $6,314,906 $4,666,075 $5,129,803 $6,264,118 $6,920,092 $9,109,714 Revenue Requirement Projection The final outcome (and primary purpose) of the financial planning process is the determination of the projected revenue requirement from rates. Table 3-21 shows this projection for the FY 2024 – FY 2028 financial planning horizon. Table 3-21: Revenue Requirement Projection (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) Line Item Estimated FY 2023 Projected FY 2024 Projected FY 2025 Projected FY 2026 Projected FY 2027 Projected FY 2028 1 Operating Expenses 2 Personnel Services $2,545,415 $2,981,044 $3,149,003 $3,221,580 $3,295,776 $3,491,615 3 Operating Costs $4,705,585 $4,908,364 $5,885,115 $6,016,699 $6,152,230 $6,245,294 4 Capital Outlay $558,023 $1,037,473 $220,500 $322,771 $335,995 $285,256 5 Total Operating Expenses $7,809,023 $8,926,881 $9,254,618 $9,561,050 $9,784,000 $10,022,164 6 7 Capital Costs 8 Existing Debt Service $5,073,213 $4,312,656 $4,310,106 $3,801,816 $4,312,443 $4,312,549 9 Rate Funded (PAYGO) CIP $860,000 $241,962 $0 $573,300 $0 $364,928 10 Transfer to Repair and Replacement Reserve $1,000,000 $1,998,706 $1,998,706 $1,998,706 $1,998,706 $1,998,706 11 Total Capital Costs $6,933,213 $6,553,323 $6,308,811 $6,373,821 $6,311,149 $6,676,183 12 13 Total Expenditures $14,742,236 $15,480,204 $15,563,430 $15,934,871 $16,095,149 $16,698,348 14 15 Net Operating Cash Flow (Change in Cash) ($1,467,774) ($1,419,456) ($496,765) ($221,170) $145,862 $91,918 16 Gross Revenue Requirement from Rates $13,274,461 $14,060,749 $15,066,665 $15,713,701 $16,241,010 $16,790,265 17 18 Less: Non- Operating Revenues 19 Miscellaneous $195,537 $200,426 $205,437 $210,572 $215,837 $221,233 20 Interest Income $130,575 $98,155 $76,921 $69,957 $70,755 $75,437 21 Total Non-Operating Revenue $326,113 $298,580 $282,358 $280,529 $286,591 $296,670 22 24 Net Revenue Requirement from Rates $12,948,348 $13,762,168 $14,784,307 $15,433,172 $15,954,419 $16,493,596 Page 106 of 379 28 CITY OF BEAUMONT 2024 SEWER RATE STUDY 4. Cost-of-Service Analysis 4.1. Cost-of-Service Methodology This section details the sewer cost of service (COS) analysis. A COS analysis distributes a utility’s revenue requirements from rates (costs) to each customer class based on their proportionate share of total system sewer demand. The COS analysis completed by Raftelis follows industry standard cost allocation principl es as presented in the Water Environment Federation’s Manual of Practice No. 27, Financing and Charges for Sewer Systems, Fourth Edition. (WEF Manual No. 27). 4.2. Cost-of-Service Process The framework and methodology used to develop the COS analysis and to apportion the revenue requirement to each customer class is informed by the processes outlined in WEF Manual No. 27. COS analyses are tailored specifically to meet the unique needs of each customer class’s use of the sewer system. Five key steps are often completed in a COS analysis to recover costs from customers in an equitable and defensible manner: • Revenue Requirement Determination: The first step in the COS analysis is to determine the amount of revenue required from rates (i.e., costs). The revenue requirement is determined during the financial planning process discussed in Section 3 of this report. • Cost Functionalization: When possible, the revenue requirement is assigned to sewer system functions such as treatment, lift stations, and collection and conveyance, etc. The functionalization process answers the question of what types of functional activities are being paid for by the costs included in the revenue requirement. • Cost Allocation to Cost Causation Components: Functionalized costs are then allocated to cost causation components based on the types of customer demands they are incurred to meet. Cost causation components often include flow (the volume of sewer discharges), and strength loading characteristics such as COD and TSS. The allocation process answers the question of what types of customer demands are being paid for by the costs included in the revenue requirement. • Unit COS Development: In order to allocate the revenue requirement to customer classes, a unit cost of service must be determined for cost causation component. For example, the $/CCF for flow, or $/pound for BOD or TSS. The unit COS for each cost causation component is determined by dividing the revenue requirement allocated to each cost component by the appropriate total system units of service. • Revenue Requirement Distribution to Customer Classes: The revenue requirement for each customer class is determined by multiplying the unit COS for each cost causation component by the customer class units of service determined for each customer class. 4.3. FY 2024 Revenue Requirement Table 4-1 shows a detail of the FY 2024 Operating Reserve revenue requirement from rates expressed on an operating cost and capital cost basis. The net revenue requirement before adjustment shown in Column D, Line 13 of Table 4-1 matches Line 24 of Table 3-21. Line 24 of Table 4-1 shows adjustment that increases the revenue requirement by $131,068. This adjustment is required because the FY 2024 rate revenue increase of 6.0% will not become effective at the start of FY 2024 on July 1, 2023. Instead, the rate revenue increase of 6.0% will become effective on September 1, 2023. The adjustment of $131,068 ensures that the sewer utility will recover the level of rate revenue requited to fully cover its costs in FY 2024. Page 107 of 379 29 CITY OF BEAUMONT 2024 SEWER RATE STUDY Table 4-1: FY 2024 Revenue Requirement (A) (B) (C) (D) Line Revenue Requirement Component Operating Costs Capital Costs Total Costs 1 O&M 2 Personnel Services $2,981,044 $2,981,044 3 Operating Costs $4,908,364 $4,908,364 4 Capital Outlay $1,037,473 $1,037,473 5 Total Operating Expenses $8,926,881 $0 $8,926,881 6 7 Capital 8 Existing Debt Service $4,312,656 $4,312,656 9 Rate Funded (PAYGO) CIP $241,962 $241,962 10 Tranter to Repair & Replacement Reserve $1,998,706 $1,998,706 11 Net Change in Cash Reserve ($1,419,456) ($1,419,456) 12 Total Capital Costs $5,133,868 $5,133,868 13 14 Gross Revenue Requirement $8,926,881 $5,133,868 $14,060,749 15 16 Less: Non-Operating Revenues 17 Miscellaneous $200,426 $200,426 18 Interest Income $98,155 $98,155 19 Total Non-Operating Revenues $298,580 $0 $298,580 20 21 Net Revenue Requirement Before Adjustment $8,628,300 $5,133,868 $13,762,168 22 23 Revenue Requirement Adjustments 24 Adjustment for Mi-Year Effective Data $131,068 $131,068 25 Total Revenue Requirement Adjustment $0 $131,068 $131,068 26 27 Net Revenue Requirement from Rates $8,628,300 $5,264,936 $13,893,236 4.4. FY 2024 Revenue Requirement Allocations FY 2024 Capital Cost Allocation Functionalization of Asset Values: As a first step in the FY 2024 capital cost allocation process, the functions associated with the sewer utility assets were identified based on the City’s asset accounting records. The estimated value of the City’s sewer assets as of FY 2022 was based on the metric replacement cost less depreciation. A detail of these assets is shown in Table 4-2. The estimated replacement cost less depreciation of the assets (Column F) was determined using historical construction cost data for the Los Angeles region as obtained from the publication, Engineering News-Record. Table 4-2: Functionalized Sewer System Assets (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) Line Asset Function Original Cost Original Cost Less Depreciation Replacement Cost Replacement Cost Less Depreciation Replacement Cost Less Depreciation % of Total 1 Treatment $254,104,711 $225,417,691 $294,170,308 $246,207,054 61.07% 2 Lift Stations $34,241,213 $17,840,374 $49,299,280 $24,539,591 6.09% 3 General $28,690,611 $23,118,124 $36,007,492 $24,906,543 6.18% 4 Land $2,002,560 $2,002,560 $2,278,393 $2,278,393 0.57% 5 Collection and Conveyance $141,085,109 $58,167,402 $262,543,603 $105,248,515 26.10% 6 Total $460,124,203 $326,546,152 $644,299,076 $403,180,096 100.00% Page 108 of 379 30 CITY OF BEAUMONT 2024 SEWER RATE STUDY Allocation of Assets to Cost Causation Components: The second step in the FY 2024 capital cost allocation process was to associate each asset function (Table 4-2) with a cost causation component. Cost causation components reflect the types of demand that must be met to serve sewer customers. For example, as shown in Line 1 of Table 4-3, assets associated with the treatment function were allocated 40% to the flow cost causation component (Column C), and 20% to the strength components of Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Total Suspended Solids (TSS) or Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) as shown in Line 1, Columns D, E, and F of Table 4-3. The percentage allocations shown in Table 4-3 were determined in consultation with City staff. Table 4-3: Asset Allocation to Cost Causation Components (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) Line Asset Function Value Flow BOD TSS TDS Industrial Admin. Customer Service General & Admin. 1 Treatment $246,207,054 40% 20% 20% 20% 0% 0% 0% 2 Lift Stations $24,539,591 100% 0% 3 General $24,906,543 100% 4 Land $2,278,393 50% 25% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5 Collection and Conveyance $105,248,515 90% 5% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6 Total $403,180,096 7 8 Treatment $246,207,054 $98,482,821 $49,241,411 $49,241,411 $49,241,411 $0 $0 $0 9 Lift Stations $24,539,591 $24,539,591 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 10 General $24,906,543 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,906,543 11 Land $2,278,393 $1,139,197 $569,598 $569,598 $0 $0 $0 $0 12 Collection and Conveyance $105,248,515 $94,723,664 $5,262,426 $5,262,426 $0 $0 $0 $0 13 Total $403,180,096 $218,885,273 $55,073,435 $55,073,435 $49,241,411 $0 $0 $24,906,543 14 15 % Allocation 100.0% 54.3% 13.7% 13.7% 12.2% 0.0% 0.0% 6.2% Allocation of the FY 2024 Capital Cost Revenue Requirement to Cost Causation Components: The FY 2024 capital cost revenue requirement, before any adjustments, is $5,130,603 as show in Column C, Line 12 14, and 21, of Table 4-1. Table 4-4 shows the allocation of this amount to cost causation components using the percentage allocations developed for the City’s existing sewer utility assets as show in Table 4-3. Note that the final aggregate allocation percentages shown in Line 8 of Table 4-4 match those shown in Line 15 of Table 4-3. Table 4-4: Capital Costs Allocation to Cost Causation Components (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) Line Capital Cost Component Flow BOD TSS TDS Industrial Admin. Customer Service General & Admin. Total 1 Existing Debt Service $2,341,328 $589,098 $589,098 $526,716 $0 $0 $266,415 $4,312,656 2 Non-Growth PAYGO Capital $131,360 $33,051 $33,051 $29,551 $0 $0 $14,947 $241,962 3 Repair and Replacement Reserve $1,085,091 $273,018 $273,018 $244,107 $0 $0 $123,471 $1,998,706 4 Net Operating CF (Change in Cash) ($770,618) ($193,894) ($193,894) ($173,362) $0 $0 ($87,687) ($1,419,456) 5 Mid-Year Adjustment $71,157 $17,904 $17,904 $16,008 $0 $0 $8,097 $131,068 6 Total Capital Costs $2,858,318 $719,178 $719,178 $643,020 $0 $0 $325,243 $5,264,936 7 8 % Allocation 54.3% 13.7% 13.7% 12.2% 0.0% 0.0% 6.2% 100.0% FY 2024 Operating Cost Allocation Functionalization of Operating Costs: Unlike sewer utility assets, the City’s accounting system does not allow operating costs to be directly assigned to functions such as treatment, lift stations, and collection and conveyance, etc. This fact notwithstanding, operating costs can be assigned to high level categories that approximate functions. Table 4-5 shows these functional assignments which were developed in consultation with City staff. Page 109 of 379 31 CITY OF BEAUMONT 2024 SEWER RATE STUDY Table 4-5: Functionalized Operating Costs (A) (B) (C) Line Operating Costs Amount % of Total 1 Personnel Services 2 Allocation to Administration $814,763 25.0% 3 Allocation to Treatment $977,715 30.0% 4 Allocation to Field Operations $1,303,620 40.0% 5 Allocation to Customer Service $162,953 5.0% 6 Total Personnel Services $3,259,050 100.0% 7 8 Operating Costs 9 Allocation to Treatment $2,555,019 60.0% 10 Allocation to Field Operations $1,703,346 40.0% 11 Total Operating Costs $4,258,364 100.0% 12 13 Capital Outlay 14 Equipment $702,500 67.7% 15 Vehicles $124,973 12.0% 16 Contingency Costs $210,000 20.2% 17 $1,037,473 100.0% 18 19 Additional Operating Costs 20 New Positions $179,993 48.4% 21 Contribution to Repair & Replace $192,001 51.6% 22 Total Additional Operating Costs $371,994 100.0% 23 24 Total Operating Costs $8,926,881 Allocation of Operating Costs to Cost Causation Components: The City’s FY 2024 operating cost revenue requirement, before any adjustments, is $8,926,881 as shown in Column B, Lines 5 and 14 of Table 4-1. Sewer utility operating costs are tracked in approximately 63 general ledger accounts within the City’s financial accounting system. City staff and Raftelis reviewed each operating expense item to determine the most appropriate assignment to cost causation components. The aggregate outcome of these allocation is show in Line 30 of Table 4-6. Page 110 of 379 32 CITY OF BEAUMONT 2024 SEWER RATE STUDY Table 4-6: Operating Cost Allocation to Cost Causation Components (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) Line Operating Costs Flow BOD TSS TDS Industrial Admin. Customer Service General & Admin. Total 1 Personnel Services 2 Allocation to Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,738 $0 $774,024 $814,763 3 Allocation to Treatment $391,086 $195,543 $195,543 $195,543 $0 $0 $0 $977,715 4 Allocation to Field Operations $1,173,258 $65,181 $65,181 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,303,620 5 Allocation to Customer Service $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $162,953 $0 $162,953 6 Total Personnel Services $1,564,344 $260,724 $260,724 $195,543 $40,738 $162,953 $774,024 $3,259,050 7 % Allocation 48.0% 8.0% 8.0% 6.0% 1.3% 5.0% 23.8% 100.0% 8 9 Operating Costs 10 Allocation to Treatment $1,022,007 $511,004 $511,004 $511,004 $0 $0 $0 $2,555,019 11 Allocation to Field Operations $1,533,011 $85,167 $85,167 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,703,346 12 Total Operating Costs $2,555,019 $596,171 $596,171 $511,004 $0 $0 $0 $4,258,364 13 % Allocation 60.0% 14.0% 14.0% 12.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 14 15 Capital Outlay 16 Equipment $381,385 $95,960 $95,960 $85,798 $0 $0 $43,397 $702,500 17 Vehicles $67,847 $17,071 $17,071 $15,263 $0 $0 $7,720 $124,973 18 Contingency Costs $114,008 $28,685 $28,685 $25,648 $0 $0 $12,973 $210,000 19 Total Capital Outlay $563,241 $141,716 $141,716 $126,709 $0 $0 $64,090 $1,037,473 20 % Allocation 54.3% 13.7% 13.7% 12.2% 0.0% 0.0% 6.2% 100.0% 21 22 Additional Operating Costs 23 New Positions $97,718 $24,587 $24,587 $21,983 $0 $0 $11,119 $179,993 24 Contribution to Repair & Replace $104,237 $26,227 $26,227 $23,450 $0 $0 $11,861 $192,001 25 Total Additional Operating Costs $201,954 $50,813 $50,813 $45,433 $0 $0 $22,980 $371,994 26 % Allocation 54.3% 13.7% 13.7% 12.2% 0.0% 0.0% 6.2% 100.0% 27 28 Total Operating Costs $4,884,558 $1,049,425 $1,049,425 $878,688 $40,738 $162,953 $861,095 $8,926,881 29 30 % Allocation 54.7% 11.8% 11.8% 9.8% 0.5% 1.8% 9.6% 100.0% FY 2024 Non-Operating Revenue Allocation The net revenue requirement from rates is determined by calculating a gross revenue requirement consisting of operating and capital costs. Non-operating revenues from miscellaneous items serve as an offset to the gross revenue requirement (i.e., they reduce the gross revenue requirement) and reduce the amount of rate revenues that must be collected from customers. Table 4-7 shows the allocation of non-operating revenues to cost causation components. Both miscellaneous non-operating revenues and interest income (Lines 1 and 2) were allocated using the aggregate operating cost allocations shown in Line 30 of Table 4-6. Table 4-7: Non-Operating Revenues Allocation to Cost Causation Components (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) Line Non-Operating Revenue Flow BOD TSS TDS Industrial Administration Customer Service General & Administrative Total 1 Miscellaneous $109,668 $23,562 $23,562 $19,728 $915 $3,659 $19,333 $200,426 2 Interest Income $53,708 $11,539 $11,539 $9,662 $448 $1,792 $9,468 $98,155 3 Total Non-Operating Revenue $163,375 $35,100 $35,100 $29,390 $1,363 $5,450 $28,801 $298,580 4 5 % Allocation 54.7% 11.8% 11.8% 9.8% 0.5% 1.8% 9.6% 100.0% Summary of FY 2024 Revenue Requirement Allocations A final summary of the FY 2024 revenue requirement to cost causation components is presented in Page 111 of 379 33 CITY OF BEAUMONT 2024 SEWER RATE STUDY Table 4-8. The mid-year adjustment $131,068 (discussed for Table 4-1) was allocated based on the capital cost allocation percentages shown in Line 8 of Table 4-4. Table 4-8: Summary Allocation to Cost Causation Components (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) Line Revenue Requirement Component Flow BOD TSS TDS Industrial Admin. Customer Service General & Admin. Total 1 Operating Costs 2 Personnel Services $1,564,344 $260,724 $260,724 $195,543 $40,738 $162,953 $774,024 $3,259,050 3 Operating Costs $2,555,019 $596,171 $596,171 $511,004 $0 $0 $0 $4,258,364 4 Capital Outlay $563,241 $141,716 $141,716 $126,709 $0 $0 $64,090 $1,037,473 5 Additional Operating Costs $201,954 $50,813 $50,813 $45,433 $0 $0 $22,980 $371,994 6 Total Operating Costs $4,884,558 $1,049,425 $1,049,425 $878,688 $40,738 $162,953 $861,095 $8,926,881 7 8 Capital Costs 9 Existing Debt Service $2,341,328 $589,098 $589,098 $526,716 $0 $0 $266,415 $4,312,656 10 Rate Funded (PAYGO) CIP $131,360 $33,051 $33,051 $29,551 $0 $0 $14,947 $241,962 11 Transfer to R&R Reserve $1,085,091 $273,018 $273,018 $244,107 $0 $0 $123,471 $1,998,706 12 Net Op. CF Chg. in Cash) ($770,618) ($193,894) ($193,894) ($173,362) $0 $0 ($87,687) ($1,419,456) 13 Mid-Year Adjustment $71,157 $17,904 $17,904 $16,008 $0 $0 $8,097 $131,068 14 Net CF (Change in Cash) $2,858,318 $719,178 $719,178 $643,020 $0 $0 $325,243 $5,264,936 15 16 Gross Revenue Requirement $7,742,876 $1,768,602 $1,768,602 $1,521,708 $40,738 $162,953 $1,186,337 $14,191,817 17 Less: Non-Operating Revenue $163,375 $35,100 $35,100 $29,390 $1,363 $5,450 $28,801 $298,580 18 Net Revenue Requirement $7,579,500 $1,733,502 $1,733,502 $1,492,319 $39,376 $157,502 $1,157,536 $13,893,236 19 20 % Allocation 54.6% 12.5% 12.5% 10.7% 0.3% 1.1% 8.3% 100.0% 4.5. Units of Service Determination Customer Contributed Units of Service The work completed in Section 4.4 determined the costs that must be allocated to each cost causation component. In order to allocate these costs to specific customer classes and eventually determine proposed FY 2024 sewer rates, the units of service for each cost causation component must be estimated. Table 4-9 provides a summary allocation of the units of service determined for each customer class. Important points to note about Table 4-9 include: • Single Family Residential (Line 1): Although single family residential customers do not pay $/CCF commodity rates under the existing or proposed sewer rate structure, the volume of flow and the strength loadings they contribute to the City of Beaumont’s WWTP must be estimated in order to equitably reflect the proportionate demands they place on the utility system. The hypothetical annual billed sewer discharges shown in Column B were based on FY 2022 single family winter average billed water consumption during the months of January – April using data provided by the Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District. The estimated return flow percentage of 47.5% (Column C) reflects the estimated billed sewer discharges returning to the WWTP. The value of 47.5% was required to approximate the total volume of customer sanitary sewer discharges reaching the WWTP after calculating the return flows for all other customer classes. The Column E and F strength loading assumption of 250 mg/l (milligrams per liter) for BOD and TSS were based on data published by the California State Water Resources Control Board in its Revenue Program Guidelines, March 1998 edition. The TDS estimate of 300 mg/l shown in Column G was provided by City staff. The permitted TDS limit for the City’s wastewater discharge basin is 300 mg/l. Page 112 of 379 34 CITY OF BEAUMONT 2024 SEWER RATE STUDY • Multi-Family and Mobile Home-Rural (Line 2): Although multi-family, mobile home or rural customers do not pay $/CCF commodity rates under the existing or proposed sewer rate structure, the volume of flow and the strength loadings they contribute to the WWTP must be estimated in order to equitably reflect the proportionate demands they place on the utility system. The hypothetical annual billed sewer discharges shown in Column B were based on FY 2022 winter average billed water consumption during the months of January – April using data provided by the Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District. The estimated return flow percentage of 100% (Column C) reflects the estimated billed sewer discharge returning to the WWTP. The value of 100% assumes that the water consumption of multi- family residential customers is for non-discretionary indoor purposes and therefore returns entirely to the WWTP. The Column E and F strength loading assumption of 250 mg/l for BOD and TSS were based on data published by the California State Water Resources Control Board in its Revenue Program Guidelines, March 1998 edition. The TDS estimate of 300 mg/l shown in Column G was provided by City Staff. The permitted TDS limit for the City’s wastewater discharge basin is 300/mg/l. • Schools (Line 5): Although schools do not pay $/CCF commodity rates under the existing or proposed sewer rate structure, the volume of flow and the strength loadings they contribute to the WWTP must be estimated in order to equitably reflect the proportionate demands they place on the utility system. The annual billed sewer discharges shown in Column B were based on FY 2022 billed water consumption during the months of January – April using data provided by the Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District. The estimated return flow percentage of 80% reflects the estimated billed sewer discharge returning to the City of Beaumont’s WWTP. The value of 80% reflects the fact that even during the winter months, some level of school water consumption is used for outdoor irrigation purposes and does not return to the WWTP. The Column E and F strength loading assumptions of 100 mg/l for BOD and 130 mg/l for TSS were based on data published by the California State Water Resources Control Board in its Revenue Program Guidelines, March 1998 edition. The TDS estimate of 300 mg/l shown in Column G was provided by City staff. The permitted TDS limit for the City’s wastewater discharge basin is 300 mg/l. • Commercial Low, Medium, and High Strength (Lines 7 – 10): The annual billed sewer discharges shown in Column B were based on FY 2022 billed water consumption during the months of January – April using data provided by the Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District. The estimated return flow percentage of 85% reflects the estimated billed sewer discharge returning to the WWTP as estimated in the City of Beaumont’s Draft 2021 Wastewater Master Plan (see for example, Section 3.2.2 on page 155). The Column E and F strength loading assumptions for BOD and TSS were based on data, for a selection of different types of commercial sewer customers, published by the California State Water Resources Control Board in its Revenue Program Guidelines, March 1998 edition. A detail of this information which shows how the strength loadings were determined for commercial low, medium, and high strength customers is shown in Table 4-10. The TDS estimates shown in Column G were developed in consultation with City staff and reflect the current best estimate of TDS discharge strengths. Medium and high strength customers are estimated to exceed the 300 mg/l permitted TDS limit for the City’s wastewater discharge basin. • Industrial Customers (Lines 13 – 18): The flow and strength loading for each industrial customer were provided by City staff. The estimated return flow percentage of 85% reflects the estimated billed sewer discharge returning to the City of Beaumont’s WWTP as estimated in the City of Beaumont’s Draft 2021 Wastewater Master Plan (see for example, Section 3.2.2 on page 155). The flow and strength loading assumptions for each industrial customer were provided by City staff based on their testing of customer sanitary sewer discharges. Page 113 of 379 35 CITY OF BEAUMONT 2024 SEWER RATE STUDY Table 4-9: Customer Wastewater Treatment Plant Contributions (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J) Line Customer Class Billed Flow (CCF) Return Flow Factor % Contributions (CCF) BOD (mg/L) TSS (mg/L) TDS (mg/L) BOD Pounds TSS Pounds TDS Pounds 1 Residential 2 Single Family 2,871,072 47.5% 1,363,387 250 250 300 2,127,831 2,127,831 2,553,397 3 MF & MH-Rural 125,154 100.0% 125,154 250 250 300 195,327 195,327 234,393 4 5 Schools 36,279 80.0% 29,023 130 100 300 23,554 18,119 54,356 6 7 Commercial 8 Low Strength 92,844 85.0% 78,917 140 115 300 68,973 56,656 147,799 9 Medium Strength 43,232 85.0% 36,748 235 175 600 53,911 40,146 137,644 10 High Strength 36,519 85.0% 31,042 933 667 900 180,866 129,190 174,407 11 12 Industrial 13 Dura Plastics Products 1,119 85.0% 951 71 138 480 422 819 2,850 14 Perricone Juice 51,233 85.0% 43,548 1,420 410 1,200 386,042 111,463 326,233 15 Rudolph Food Company 0 85.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 CJ Foods #1 51,631 85.0% 43,886 1,775 602 1,700 486,301 164,931 465,753 17 CJ Foods #2 6,075 85.0% 5,164 575 83 1,500 18,535 2,676 48,353 18 Precision Stamping 0 85.0% 0 140 115 300 0 0 0 19 20 Total 3,315,158 1,757,819 3,541,762 2,847,158 4,145,183 Table 4-10: Basis for Commercial BOD and TSS Strength Loadings (A) (B) (C) Line Customer Type BOD (mg/L) TSS (mg/L) 1 Commercial Low Strength 2 Professional Office 130 80 3 Department and Retail Store 150 150 4 Average 140 115 5 6 Commercial Medium Strength 7 Repair Shop with Service Station 180 280 8 Bars without Dining Facilities 200 200 9 Hospital and Convalescent 250 100 10 Hotel/Motel without Dining 310 120 11 Average 235 175 12 13 Commercial High Strength 14 Market with Garbage Disposal 800 800 15 Bakery, Wholesale 1,000 600 16 Restaurant 1,000 600 17 Average 933 667 Allocation of Infiltration and Inflow Before the final calculation of customer class units of service can be finalized, a basis for determining the annual amount of Infiltration and Inflow (I/I) received at the City of Beaumont’s WWTP must be determined. The COS analysis assumes that 4% of the volumes received at the City’s wastewater treatment plant were associated with I/I. Infiltration is water entering the wastewater collection system through leaky sewer pipelines. Inflow is water introduced into the wastewater collection and conveyance system through direct connections such as manhole covers. I/I volumes and strength loadings (if applicable) are allocated to customers because there is a cost to treat the I/I received at the WWTP. This cost must be borne by the customers whose rates pay for the wastewater utility system. Page 114 of 379 36 CITY OF BEAUMONT 2024 SEWER RATE STUDY There is no industry-standard, one-size-fits-all approach for the allocation of I/I in every situation. Methods for allocating I/I to customer classes range from relying entirely on the proportionate share of contributed volume from each customer class (100% volume) to relying entirely on the proportionate share of customer accounts/wastewater service connections (100% accounts). The COS analysis allocated I/I to customer classes based 67% on accounts and 33% on contributed volumes. The rationale for this approach is that the majority of infiltration entering the wastewater system is from leaky connections from service lines that connect to individual customer premises. Table 4-11 the percentage allocation of flow based on this allocation approach (Column B). I/I was not assigned any strength loadings. Therefore, no allocation of strength between accounts and flow is necessary for BOD, TSS, or TDS (Columns D, E, and F). Table 4-11: Allocation of Infiltration and Inflow (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) Line Allocation of I/I to Accounts & Volume Percentage Allocation Estimated Flow (CCF) Estimated COD Pounds Estimated TSS Pounds Estimated TDS Pounds 1 % Allocated on Accounts 67% 23,894 0 0 0 2 % Allocated on Flow 33% 47,788 0 0 0 3 Total 100% 71,681 0 0 0 Table 4-12 shows the final calculation of the FY 2024 total system units of service (Line 20) and the individual units of service for each customer class (Lines 2 – 17). Table 4-12: Units of Service (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (H) Flow (CCF) Strength (Pounds) Line Customer Class Contributed to Treatment Plant I/I Allocated on Accounts I/I Allocated on Volume Total Units of Flow BOD TSS TDS Accounts EDUs 1 Residential 2 Single Family 1,363,387 46,418 18,532 1,428,338 2,127,831 2,127,831 2,553,397 17,341 17,341 3 MF & MH-Rural 125,154 196 1,701 127,051 195,327 195,327 234,393 73 2,424 4 Total Residential 1,488,541 46,614 20,234 1,555,389 2,323,158 2,323,158 2,787,790 17,414 19,765 4 5 Schools 29,023 27 395 29,444 23,554 18,119 54,356 10 6 7 Commercial 8 Commercial - Low 78,917 789 1,073 80,779 68,973 56,656 147,799 295 9 Commercial - Medium 36,748 171 500 37,418 53,911 40,146 137,644 64 10 Commercial - High 31,042 171 422 31,634 180,866 129,190 174,407 64 11 Total Commercial 146,706 1,131 1,994 149,831 303,750 225,993 459,850 422 12 13 Industrial 12 Dura Plastics Products 951 3 13 967 422 819 2,850 1 13 Perricone Juice 43,548 3 592 44,143 386,042 111,463 326,233 1 14 Rudolph Food Company 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 1 15 CJ Foods #1 43,886 3 597 44,485 486,301 164,931 465,753 1 16 CJ Foods #2 5,164 3 70 5,236 18,535 2,676 48,353 1 17 Precision Stamping 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 1 18 Total Industrial 93,549 16 1,272 94,837 891,300 279,889 843,188 6 19 20 Total 1,757,819 47,788 23,894 1,829,501 3,541,762 2,847,158 4,145,183 17,852 19,675 4.6. Unit Cost-of-Service Determination Having established the units of service shown in Page 115 of 379 37 CITY OF BEAUMONT 2024 SEWER RATE STUDY Table 4-12, a unit COS can be calculated for each cost causation component. Table 4-13 shows this calculation which for both variable costs (flow and strength in Columns B – F) and fixed costs (Columns F and G). Key things to note about Table 4-12 include: • The revenue requirement amounts shown on Line 4 were originally presented in Line 18 of Table 4-8. • As shown on Line 6 General administrative costs (Column H) were allocated to the customer cost causation component (Line 7 of Column G) because these costs do not vary with the volume or strength of customer sewer discharges. • The units of service shown on Line 9 can be traced to Line 20 on • Table 4-12. • The final calculation of the unit COS for each cost causation component is shown in Line 11 of Table 4-13. The specific calculation is: Cost Causation Component Total COS (Line 9) / Units of Service (Line 10) = Unit COS (line 11) Table 4-13: Units Cost-of-Service Calculation (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) Variable Fixed Line Revenue Requirement Component Flow BOD TSS TDS Ind. Admin Customer G&A Total 1 Total Operating Expenses $4,884,558 $1,049,425 $1,049,425 $878,688 $40,738 $162,953 $861,095 $8,926,881 2 Total Capital Costs $2,858,318 $719,178 $719,178 $643,020 $0 $0 $325,243 $5,264,936 3 Total Non-Operating Revenues ($163,375) ($35,100) ($35,100) ($29,390) ($1,363) ($5,450) ($28,801) ($298,580) 4 Total Revenue Requirement $7,579,500 $1,733,502 $1,733,502 $1,492,319 $39,376 $157,502 $1,157,536 $13,893,236 5 6 Allocation of G&A 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 7 Allocation of G&A $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,157,536 ($1,157,536) $0 8 9 Total System Cost of Service $7,579,500 $1,733,502 $1,733,502 $1,492,319 $39,376 $1,315,038 10 Total System Units of Service 1,829,501 3,541,762 2,847,158 4,145,183 6 17,852 11 Unit Cost of Service $4.14 $0.49 $0.61 $0.36 $6,562.59 $73.66 12 Units $/CCF $/lb. $/lb. $/lb. $/Account $/Account 4.7. Customer Class Cost-of-Service The final step in the COS analysis is the determination of the FY 2024 COS for each customer class as shown in Table 4-14. The is accomplished by the straightforward process of multiplying the unit COS for each cost causation component (Line 11 of Table 4-13) by the customer class units of service summarized in Table 4-12. Page 116 of 379 38 CITY OF BEAUMONT 2024 SEWER RATE STUDY Table 4-14: Customer Class Cost-of-Service (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) Variable Fixed % of Line Class Flow BOD TSS TDS Ind Admin Customer Total Total 1 Residential 2 Single Family $5,917,508 $1,041,459 $1,295,537 $919,255 $0 $1,277,357 $10,451,116 75.2% 3 MF & MH-Rural $526,364 $95,602 $118,926 $84,384 $0 $5,388 $830,664 6.0% 4 Total Residential $6,443,872 $1,137,061 $1,414,463 $1,003,640 $0 $1,282,745 $11,281,780 81.2% 5 6 Schools $121,987 $11,528 $11,032 $19,569 $0 $737 $164,852 1.2% 7 8 Commercial 9 Commercial - Low $334,661 $33,759 $34,495 $53,210 $0 $21,704 $477,828 3.4% 10 Commercial - Medium $155,020 $26,386 $24,443 $49,554 $0 $4,705 $260,108 1.9% 11 Commercial - High $131,059 $88,524 $78,658 $62,789 $0 $4,705 $365,735 2.6% 12 Commercial $620,741 $148,669 $137,596 $165,552 $0 $31,114 $1,103,672 7.9% 13 14 Industrial 15 Dura Plastics Products $4,005 $206 $499 $1,026 $6,563 $74 $12,372 0.1% 16 Perricone Juice $182,880 $188,947 $67,865 $117,448 $6,563 $74 $563,776 4.1% 17 Rudolph Food Company $11 $0 $0 $0 $6,563 $74 $6,647 0.0% 18 CJ Foods #1 $184,300 $238,018 $100,419 $167,677 $6,563 $74 $697,050 5.0% 19 CJ Foods #2 $21,694 $9,072 $1,629 $17,408 $6,563 $74 $56,439 0.4% 20 Precision Stamping $11 $0 $0 $0 $6,563 $74 $6,647 0.0% 21 Industrial $392,902 $436,243 $170,411 $303,558 $39,376 $442 $1,342,932 9.7% 22 23 Total $7,579,500 $1,733,502 $1,733,502 $1,492,319 $39,376 $1,315,038 $13,893,236 100.0% Page 117 of 379 39 CITY OF BEAUMONT 2024 SEWER RATE STUDY 5. Rate Design 5.1. Monthly Service Charge The monthly service charge is used to recover the cost of customer service functions and the general and administrative costs incurred to operate the sewer utility. In the case of industrial customers, the monthly service charge is also used to recover the cost of industrial customer administration which involves routine testing of the discharges of high discharge strength customers in the Industrial customer class to ensure compliance with City and other regulatory requirements. Table 5-1 shows the calculation of the proposed FY 2024 monthly service charge. Key points to note include: • The total revenue requirement that must be recovered from each customer class (Column D) can be traced to Table 4-14. • Residential customers and schools to not pay commodity charges. Therefore, variable costs allocated to these customer types (Column A) must be recovered through the monthly service charge. • The billing units shown in Column E can be traced to • Table 4-12 • The process calculating the rates shown in Column G is: Revenue requirement (Column D) / Billing Units (Column E) = Proposed $/Month Service Charge (Column G) Table 5-1: FY 2024 Monthly Service Charge Calculation (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J) Revenue Requirement Line Customer Class Variable Fixed Total Billing Units Type of Billing Unit Proposed $/Month Current $/Month $ Change % Change 1 Residential 2 Single Family $9,173,759 $1,277,357 $10,451,116 17,341 EDU $50.22 $47.21 $3.01 6.4% 3 MF & MH-Rural ($/Unit) $825,276 $5,388 $830,664 2,424 EDU $28.55 $29.24 ($0.69) -2.4% 4 5 Schools ($/Student) $164,115 $737 $164,852 12,517 Students $1.10 $1.07 $0.03 2.6% 6 7 Commercial 8 Commercial - Low $21,704 $21,704 295 Accounts $6.14 $25.77 ($19.63) -76.2% 9 Commercial - Medium $4,705 $4,705 64 Accounts $6.14 $47.21 ($41.07) -87.0% 10 Commercial - High $4,705 $4,705 64 Accounts $6.14 $151.07 ($144.93) -95.9% 11 12 Industrial 13 Dura Plastics Products $6,636 $6,636 1 Accounts $553.02 $0.00 $553.02 0.0% 14 Perricone Juice $6,636 $6,636 1 Accounts $553.02 $0.00 $553.02 0.0% 15 Rudolph Food Company $6,636 $6,636 1 Accounts $553.02 $169.27 $383.75 226.7% 16 CJ Foods #1 $6,636 $6,636 1 Accounts $553.02 $0.00 $553.02 0.0% 17 CJ Foods #2 $6,636 $6,636 1 Accounts $553.02 $0.00 $553.02 0.0% 18 Precision Stamping $6,636 $6,636 1 Accounts $553.02 $148.24 $404.78 273.1% 19 20 Total $10,163,150 $1,354,414 $11,517,564 Page 118 of 379 40 CITY OF BEAUMONT 2024 SEWER RATE STUDY 5.2. Commodity Rate The commodity rate, which is billed on a $/CCF basis, is used to recover the volume of flows and the strength of customer sewer discharges. Table 5-2 shows the calculation of the proposed FY 2024 commodity charges. Key points to note include: • The total revenue requirement that must be recovered from each customer class (Column D) can be traced to Table 4-14. • Residential customers and schools to not pay commodity charges. Therefore, these customer classes are not show in in Table 5-2. • The billing units shown in Column E can be traced to Column B of Table 4-9. • The process calculating the rates shown in Column G is: Revenue requirement (Column D) / Billing Units (Column E) = Proposed $/Month Service Charge (Column G) Table 5-2: FY 2024 Commodity Rate Calculation (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J) Revenue Requirement Line Customer Class Variable Fixed Total Billing Units Type of Billing Unit Proposed $/CCF Current $/CCF $ Change % Change 1 Commercial 2 Commercial – Low $456,124 $456,124 92,844 CCF $4.91 $2.77 $2.14 77.4% 3 Commercial – Medium $255,403 $255,403 43,232 CCF $5.91 $3.75 $2.16 57.5% 4 Commercial – High $361,030 $361,030 36,519 CCF $9.88 $7.31 $2.57 35.1% 5 6 Industrial 7 Dura Plastics Products $5,736 $5,736 1,119 CCF $5.13 $3.84 $1.28 33.4% 8 Perricone Juice $557,140 $557,140 51,233 CCF $10.87 $2.94 $7.93 269.3% 9 Rudolph Food Company $11 $11 0 CCF $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.0% 10 CJ Foods #1 $690,414 $690,414 51,631 CCF $13.37 $11.07 $2.31 20.8% 11 CJ Foods #2 $49,803 $49,803 6,075 CCF $8.20 $5.71 $2.49 43.5% 12 Precision Stamping $11 $11 0 CCF $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.0% 13 14 Total $2,375,672 $0 $2,375,672 3,315,158 5.3. Proposed FY 2024 – FY 2028 Rate Increases Having established the FY 2024 monthly service charge (Table 5-1) and the FY 2024 commodity charges (Table 5-2), the rates for FY 2025 – FY 2028 must be calculated. The increase in rates each year is tied to the overall annual rate revenue process determined as part of the financial planning process. Table 5-3 shows these increases. Table 5-4 shows the projected rates for FY 2024 – FY 2028. Table 5-3: Proposed Rate Revenue Increases (A) (B) (C) Line Fiscal Year Proposed Rate Revenue Increase Effective Date 1 FY 2024 6.0% September 2023 2 FY 2025 5.0% July 2024 3 FY 2026 3.0% July 2025 4 FY 2027 2.0% July 2026 5 FY 2028 2.0% July 2027 Page 119 of 379 41 CITY OF BEAUMONT 2024 SEWER RATE STUDY Table 5-4: Proposed Sewer Rates for FY 2022 – FY 2028 Line Monthly Service Charge (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) Customer Class Current FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Effective 9/1/23 Effective 7/1/24 Effective 7/1/25 Effective 7/1/26 Effective 7/1/27 1 Residential 2 Single Family $47.21 $50.22 $52.73 $54.31 $55.40 $56.51 3 MF & MH–Rural ($/unit) $29.24 $28.55 $29.98 $30.88 $31.50 $32.13 4 5 Schools ($/student) $1.07 $1.10 $1.15 $1.19 $1.21 $1.23 6 7 Commercial Customers 8 Commercial - Low Strength $25.77 $6.14 $6.45 $6.64 $6.77 $6.91 9 Commercial - Medium Strength $47.21 $6.14 $6.45 $6.64 $6.77 $6.91 10 Commercial - High Strength $151.07 $6.14 $6.45 $6.64 $6.77 $6.91 11 12 Industrial Customers 13 Dura Plastics Products N/A $553.02 $580.67 $598.09 $610.05 $622.26 14 Perricone Juice N/A $553.02 $580.67 $598.09 $610.05 $622.26 15 Rudolph Food Company $169.27 $553.02 $580.67 $598.09 $610.05 $622.26 16 CJ Foods #1 N/A $553.02 $580.67 $598.09 $610.05 $622.26 17 CJ Foods #2 N/A $553.02 $580.67 $598.09 $610.05 $622.26 18 Precision Stamping $148.24 $553.02 $580.67 $598.09 $610.05 $622.26 19 20 Proposed Commodity Rates ($/CCF) 21 (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) 22 Customer Class Current FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 23 Effective 9/1/23 Effective 7/1/24 Effective 7/1/25 Effective 7/1/26 Effective 7/1/27 24 Residential 25 Single Family N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 26 MF & MH–Rural ($/unit) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 27 28 Schools ($/student) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 29 30 Commercial Customers 31 Commercial - Low Strength $2.77 $4.91 $5.16 `$5.31 $5.42 $5.53 32 Commercial - Medium Strength $3.75 $5.91 $6.20 $6.39 $6.52 $6.65 33 Commercial - High Strength $7.31 $9.88 $10.38 $10.69 $10.90 $11.12 34 35 Industrial Customers 36 Dura Plastics Products $3.84 $5.13 $5.38 $5.54 $5.65 $5.77 37 Perricone Juice $2.94 $10.87 $11.42 $11.76 $11.99 $12.23 38 Rudolph Food Company $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 39 CJ Foods #1 $11.07 $13.37 $14.04 $14.46 $14.75 $15.04 40 CJ Foods #2 $5.71 $8.20 $8.61 $8.87 $9.04 $9.22 41 Precision Stamping $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 5.4. Customer Bill Impacts Table 5-5 shows estimated customer sewer bills for the period FY 2024 – FY 2028 based on the proposed sewer rates presented in Table 1-4. Key items to note about the rates shown in Table 5-5Table 1-5 include the following: • Residential Customers and School Estimated Bills (Lines 1 -5): Residential customers and schools do not pay commodity rates. The monthly bills for these customers are based on the proposed change in monthly service charges. Page 120 of 379 42 CITY OF BEAUMONT 2024 SEWER RATE STUDY • Commercial Customer Estimated Bills (Lines 7-10): . Commercial customer bills reflect both commodity charges and monthly service charges. The estimated bills for commercial customers assume monthly billed sewer discharges of 40 CCF. This assumption was made for low, medium, and high strength commercial customers. Each commercial customer will have a unique amount of billed sewer discharges. Therefore, the bill impacts shown in Table 1-5 are but one example of an infinite range of potential outcomes. • Industrial Customer Bills (Lines 12-18): The estimated bills for commercial customers reflect the estimated projected billed discharges applicable to each customer. Industrial customer bills reflect both commodity charges and monthly service charges. Table 5-5: Estimated Change in Monthly Sewer Bills Line Projected Monthly Bills Customer Class (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) Current FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 1 Residential 2 Single Family $47.21 $50.22 $52.74 $54.32 $55.40 $56.51 3 MF & MH–Rural ($/unit) $29.24 $28.55 $29.97 $30.87 $31.49 $32.12 4 5 Schools ($/student) $1.07 $1.10 $1.15 $1.19 $1.21 $1.23 6 7 Commercial Customers 8 Commercial - Low Strength $136.57 $202.65 $212.78 $219.17 $223.55 $228.02 9 Commercial - Medium Strength $197.21 $242.45 $254.57 $262.21 $267.45 $272.80 10 Commercial - High Strength $443.47 $401.18 $421.24 $433.87 $442.55 $451.40 11 12 Industrial Customers 13 Dura Plastics Products $358.33 $1,031.00 $1,082.55 $1,115.02 $1,137.32 $1,160.07 14 Perricone Juice (Note 1) $13,852.50 $46,981.34 $49,330.41 $50,810.32 $51,826.53 $52,863.06 15 Rudolph Food Company $169.27 $553.02 $580.67 $598.09 $610.05 $622.26 16 CJ Foods #1 $47,608.33 $58,087.53 $60,991.91 $62,821.67 $64,078.10 $65,359.66 17 CJ Foods #2 $2,891.67 $4,703.25 $4,938.41 $5,086.56 $5,188.29 $5,292.06 18 Precision Stamping $148.24 $553.02 $580.67 $598.09 $610.05 $622.26 19 20 Change in Monthly Bills 21 (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L) 22 Customer Class Current FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 23 Residential 24 Single Family --- $3.01 $2.51 $1.58 $1.09 $1.11 25 MF & MH–Rural ($/unit) --- ($0.69) $1.43 $0.90 $0.62 $0.63 26 27 Schools ($/student) -- $0.03 $0.05 $0.03 $0.02 $0.02 28 29 Commercial Customers 30 Commercial - Low Strength -- $66.08 $10.13 $6.38 $4.38 $4.47 31 Commercial - Medium Strength -- $45.24 $12.12 $7.64 $5.24 $5.35 32 Commercial - High Strength -- ($42.29) $20.06 $12.64 $8.68 $8.85 33 34 Industrial Customers 35 Dura Plastics Products -- $672.66 $51.55 $32.48 $22.30 $22.75 36 Perricone Juice (Note 1) -- $33,128.84 $2,349.07 $1,479.91 $1,016.21 $1,036.53 37 Rudolph Food Company -- $383.75 $27.65 $17.42 $11.96 $12.20 38 CJ Foods #1 -- $10,479.20 $2,904.38 $1,829.76 $1,256.43 $1,281.56 39 CJ Foods #2 -- $1,811.58 $235.16 $148.15 $101.73 $103.77 40 Precision Stamping -- $404.78 $27.65 $17.42 $11.96 $12.20 Note 1: The monthly bills for Perricone Juice (Line 14) and the monthly bill changes (Line 36) reflect the discharge volumes and strength loadings specified in an agreement between Perricone Juice and the City. Page 121 of 379 City of Beaumont Sewer Rate Study Public Hearing for Sewer Increases August 15, 2023 Page 122 of 379 Agenda 2 Purpose of the Hearing Rate Study Process Financial Planning Cost-of-Service Analysis Proposed Rates Projected Bills Page 123 of 379 Purpose of Today’s Hearing 3 Page 124 of 379 Proposition 218 Hearing to Consider Sewer Rate Changes •Proposition 218 Procedures ➢Requires public hearing to consider all protests to proposed rate changes ➢Public hearing can be held no less than 45 days from mailing notice ➢If a majority protest, the proposed rate changes cannot be adopted 4 •Proposition 218 Requirements ➢Rate revenues cannot exceed costs ➢Rate revenues must be used for utility service ➢Rates must be proportional to the cost of providing service ➢Service must be available Page 125 of 379 Your Sewer Utility •Operating Facts ›Customers served: –17,084 single-family residential –72 multi-family residential –426 commercial –6 industrial ›Wastewater treated: –1.34 billion gallons (FY 2023) 5 •Funding Sources ›Funded entirely by the rates paid by customers –Rates pay for all operating costs –Rates pay for all non-growth infrastructure investments ›Enterprise fund –Does not receive money from taxes Page 126 of 379 Rate Study Process 6 Page 127 of 379 Rate Study Process Step 1: Financial Planning How much rate revenue is required from all customers? Step 2: Cost of Service Analysis How much should each customer class pay given the costs they impose on the system? Step 3: Rate Design What rates should each customer class pay to recover their cost of service? 7Page 128 of 379 Financial Planning 8 Page 129 of 379 Proposed Rate Revenue Increases 9 Fiscal Year Proposed Rate Revenue Increases Effective Date 2024 6.0%September 2023 2025 5.0%July 2024 2026 3.0%July 2025 2027 2.0%July 2026 2028 2.0%July 2027 Page 130 of 379 Why Are Rate Increases Necessary? •Inflation: ›Last rate study was completed in 2018. During the period FY 2018 - FY 2023: –Los Angeles Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers increased by 21.07% –Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for Los Angles increased by 24.76% •Regulatory Requirements: ›Completed a $110 million wastewater treatment plant upgrade to comply with regulatory requirements •Continuing Capital Improvement Expenditures 10 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Total $7,749,462 $2,386,913 $1,949,220 $2,007,697 $1,581,356 $15,674,647Page 131 of 379 Operating Reserve Projected Cash Balances 11 ($8,000,000) ($6,000,000) ($4,000,000) ($2,000,000) $0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Operating Reserve Ending Balance Operating Reserve Target Balance $0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 $4,000,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Operating Reserve Ending Balance Operating Reserve Target Balance Without Proposed Rate Revenue Increases With Proposed Rate Revenue Increases Page 132 of 379 Cost-of-Service Analysis 12 Page 133 of 379 What is a Cost-of-Service Analysis? 13 •Process used to allocate costs to different customer classes ➢Different types of customers generate different costs because their usage characteristics vary o Volume of wastewater discharges o Strength of wastewater discharges •Cost of service matches rate revenue recovery to the costs incurred by the utility to provide service ➢Each customer class “pays its own way” ➢Maximizes fairness and equity ➢Eliminates cross subsidies between customer classes Page 134 of 379 FY 2024 Cost-of-Service Results 14 Class Total % of Total Residential Single Family $10,451,116 75.2% MF & MH-Rural $830,664 6.0% Total Residential $11,281,780 81.2% Schools $164,852 1.2% Commercial Commercial - Low $477,828 3.4% Commercial - Medium $260,108 1.9% Commercial - High $365,735 2.6% Commercial $1,103,672 7.9% Industrial Dura Plastics Products $12,372 0.1% Perricone Juice $563,776 4.1% Rudolph Food Company $6,647 0.0% CJ Foods #1 $697,050 5.0% CJ Foods #2 $56,439 0.4% Precision Stamping $6,647 0.0% Industrial $1,342,932 9.7% Total $13,893,236 100.0%Page 135 of 379 Rate Design 15 Page 136 of 379 What is a Rate Design? 16 •Process used to recover required revenues from each customer class ➢The customer class required rate revenue is determined in the cost-of-service analysis •No fundamental change in the City’s existing sewer rate design ➢Single family residential and multi-family residential continue to pay a fixed service charge (no commodity rates) ➢Schools continue to pay on a per student basis ➢Commercial and industrial customers continue to have a monthly service charge and commodity rates Page 137 of 379 Proposed Monthly Service Charges 17 Customer Class Current FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Effective 9/1/23 Effective 7/1/24 Effective 7/1/25 Effective 7/1/26 Effective 7/1/27 Residential Single Family $47.21 $50.22 $52.73 $54.31 $55.40 $56.51 MF & MH–Rural ($/unit)$29.24 $28.55 $29.98 $30.88 $31.50 $32.13 Schools ($/student)$1.07 $1.10 $1.15 $1.19 $1.21 $1.23 Commercial Customers Commercial - Low Strength $25.77 $6.14 $6.45 $6.64 $6.77 $6.91 Commercial - Medium Strength $47.21 $6.14 $6.45 $6.64 $6.77 $6.91 Commercial - High Strength $151.07 $6.14 $6.45 $6.64 $6.77 $6.91 Industrial Customers Dura Plastics Products N/A $553.02 $580.67 $598.09 $610.05 $622.26 Perricone Juice N/A $553.02 $580.67 $598.09 $610.05 $622.26 Rudolph Food Company $169.27 $553.02 $580.67 $598.09 $610.05 $622.26 CJ Foods #1 N/A $553.02 $580.67 $598.09 $610.05 $622.26 CJ Foods #2 N/A $553.02 $580.67 $598.09 $610.05 $622.26 Precision Stamping $148.24 $553.02 $580.67 $598.09 $610.05 $622.26 Page 138 of 379 Projected Commodity Rates ($/CCF) 18 Customer Class Current FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Effective 9/1/23 Effective 7/1/24 Effective 7/1/25 Effective 7/1/26 Effective 7/1/27 Residential Single Family N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A MF & MH–Rural ($/unit)N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Schools ($/student)N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Commercial Customers (40 CCF) Commercial - Low Strength $2.77 $4.91 $5.16 `$5.31 $5.42 $5.53 Commercial - Medium Strength $3.75 $5.91 $6.20 $6.39 $6.52 $6.65 Commercial - High Strength $7.31 $9.88 $10.38 $10.69 $10.90 $11.12 Industrial Customers Dura Plastics Products $3.84 $5.13 $5.38 $5.54 $5.65 $5.77 Perricone Juice $2.94 $10.87 $11.42 $11.76 $11.99 $12.23 Rudolph Food Company $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 CJ Foods #1 $11.07 $13.37 $14.04 $14.46 $14.75 $15.04 CJ Foods #2 $5.71 $8.20 $8.61 $8.87 $9.04 $9.22 Precision Stamping $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Page 139 of 379 Projected Monthly Bills 19 Customer Class Current FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Residential Single Family $47.21 $50.22 $52.74 $54.32 $55.40 $56.51 MF & MH–Rural ($/unit)$29.24 $28.55 $29.97 $30.87 $31.49 $32.12 Schools ($/student)$1.07 $1.10 $1.15 $1.19 $1.21 $1.23 Commercial Customers Commercial - Low Strength $136.57 $202.65 $212.78 $219.17 $223.55 $228.02 Commercial - Medium Strength $197.21 $242.45 $254.57 $262.21 $267.45 $272.80 Commercial - High Strength $443.47 $401.18 $421.24 $433.87 $442.55 $451.40 Industrial Customers Dura Plastics Products $358.33 $1,031.00 $1,082.55 $1,115.02 $1,137.32 $1,160.07 Perricone Juice $13,852.50 $46,981.34 $49,330.41 $50,810.32 $51,826.53 $52,863.06 Rudolph Food Company $169.27 $553.02 $580.67 $598.09 $610.05 $622.26 CJ Foods #1 $47,608.33 $58,087.53 $60,991.91 $62,821.67 $64,078.10 $65,359.66 CJ Foods #2 $2,891.67 $4,703.25 $4,938.41 $5,086.56 $5,188.29 $5,292.06 Precision Stamping $148.24 $553.02 $580.67 $598.09 $610.05 $622.26 Page 140 of 379 2020 Page 141 of 379 Staff Report TO: City Council FROM: Jeff Hart, Public Works Director DATE August 15, 2023 SUBJECT: First Reading of an Ordinance Rescinding Ordinance No. 1091 and Amending Chapter 3.39 of the Beaumont Municipal Code – Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program Description Amendment of Chapter 3.39, Section 060 “Procedures for the Levy, Collection and Disposition of Fees,” to authorize TUMF fees to be collected directly by WRCOG from the developers from the effective date of this ordinance forward. Background and Analysis: The City of Beaumont is a Member Jurisdiction of the Western Riverside Council of Governments (“WRCOG”), a joint powers agency comprised of the County of Riverside and eighteen (18) cities located in Western Riverside County. Acting in concert, in 2002-2003, WRCOG member jurisdictions developed a plan whereby the shortfall in funds needed to enlarge the capacity of the Regional System of Highways and Arterials due to new development in Western Riverside County could be made up in part by a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (“TUMF”) on future residential, commercial, and industrial development. Currently, staff calculates TUMF fees for all development projects. Applicable fees are due at the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, but the developer m ay elect to pay as early as issuance of a building permit. Fees are remitted to WRCOG monthly, and building permits are audited on a yearly basis. The process to calculate TUMF fees for non-residential uses can be tedious and time consuming. Additionally, under the current process and as defined in the TUMF Administrative Plan, “Any balance in TUMF obligation due to incorrect development project information will be the responsibility of the participating jurisdiction.” Staff is proposing to modify the process in which TUMF fees are calculated and payment is processed. WRCOG created a process in 2017 which allows for WRCOG staff to calculate applicable TUMF fees for all development projects as well as accept Page 142 of 379 payment should the participating agency elect to do so and modify their respective ordinances accordingly. Converting the manner which TUMF fees are calculated and paid directly to WRCOG significantly reduces the risk of the City being responsible for any incorrect fee calculations. Under the proposed process and consistent with the TUMF Administrative Plan, “In the event a participating jurisdiction makes the election to have WRCOG calculate and collect TUMF, WRCOG shall take full responsibility for calculating the TUMF obligation and any shortfall in the calculation shall not be the responsibility of the participating jurisdiction.” Existing, and future credit agreements for the benefit of City improvements will still be managed and reported monthly by City staff, consistent with the current procedure. Staff is recommending that City Council approve amending section 060 of Chapter 3.39 to allow TUMF fees to be calculated and processed directly by WRCOG. Fiscal Impact: The cost of preparing the staff report is estimated to be $500. Recommended Action: Waive the full first reading of “An Ordinance of the City of Beaumont, California Amending Section 060 Beaumont Municipal Code Section 3.39 To Include a Process Whereby the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Shall Calculate and Collect Fees Under the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program Directly” Attachments: A. Proposed Ordinance B. Public Notice Page 143 of 379 1 ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, CALIFORNIA AMENDING SECTION 060 OF BEAUMONT MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 3.39 TO INCLUDE A PROCESS WHEREBY WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (WRCOG) SHALL CALCULATE AND COLLECT OF FEES UNDER THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF) PROGRAM DIRECTLY NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. CEQA. The City Council finds that the actions contemplated by this Ordinance are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section 15060 (c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. SECTION 2. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that if any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Ordinance is rendered or declared to be invalid or unconstitutional by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words of this Ordinance, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion thereof and intends that the invalid portions should be severed and the balance of the Ordinance enforced. SECTION 3. Findings. The City Council of the City of Beaumont (the “City”) is a member agency of the Western Riverside Council of Governments (“WRCOG”), a joint powers agency comprised of the County of Riverside and 18 cities located in Western Riverside County. Acting in concert, the WRCOG Member Agencies WRCOG developed a plan whereby the shortfall in funds needed to enlarge the capacity of the Regional System of Highways and Arterials in Western Riverside County could be made up in part by a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (“TUMF”) on future residential, commercial and industrial development; and WRCOG, upon the recommendation of the WRCOG Executive Committee, has adopted a process in which WRCOG calculates and collects TUMF on behalf of member agencies directly from the developer upon which the fee is imposed under the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program Ordinance of 2018 and the City Council so desires WRCOG to collect the TUMF on behalf of the City. Page 144 of 379 2 SECTION 4. No provisions of this Ordinance shall entitle any person who has already paid the TUMF to receive a refund, credit or reimbursement of such payment. This Ordinance does not create any new TUMF. SECTION 5. Chapter 3.39 is hereby amended and restated in full to read as follows: 3.39.010. Title. This Ordinance shall be known as the “Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program Ordinance of 2017” (“Ordinance”). 3.39.020. Findings. A. The City is a member agency of the Western Riverside Council of Governments (“WRCOG”), a joint powers agency comprised of the County of Riverside and 18 cities located in Western Riverside County. Acting in concert, the WRCOG Member Agencies developed a plan whereby the shortfall in funds needed to enlarge the capacity of the Regional System of Highways and Arterials in Western Riverside County (the “Regional System”) could be made up in part by a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (“TUMF”) on future residential, commercial and industrial development. A map depicting the boundaries of Western Riverside County and the Regional System is attached here as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein. B. WRCOG, with the assistance of TUMF Participating Jurisdictions, has prepared an updated nexus study entitled “Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Nexus Study: 2016 Update” (“2016 Nexus Study”) pursuant to California Government Code sections 66000 et seq. (the Mitigation Fee Act), for the purpose of updating the fees. On July 10, 2017, the WRCOG Executive Committee reviewed the 2016 Nexus Study and TUMF Program and recommended TUMF Participating Jurisdictions amend their applicable TUMF ordinances to ref lect changes in the TUMF network and the cost of construction in order to update the TUMF Program. C. The City Council has been informed and advised, and hereby finds, that if the capacity of the Regional System is not enlarged and unless development contributes to the cost of improving the Regional System, the result will be substantial traffic congestion in all parts of Western Riverside County, with unacceptable Levels of Service. Furthermore, the failure to mitigate growing traffic impacts on the Regional System will substantially impair the ability of public safety services (police and fire) to respond and, thus, adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare. Therefore, continuation of a TUMF Program is essential. D. The City Council finds and determines that there is a reasonable and rational relationship between the use of the TUMF and the type of development projects on which the fees are imposed because the fees will be used to construct the transportation improvements that are necessary for the safety, health and welfare of the residential and non-residential users of the development in which the TUMF will be levied. E. The City Council finds and determines that there is a reasonable and rational relationship between the need for the improvements to the Regional System and the type of development projects on which the TUMF is imposed because it will be necessary for the residential and non-residential users of such projects to have access to the Regional system. Such development will benefit from the Regional System improvements and the burden of such developments will be mitigated in part by payment of the TUMF. Page 145 of 379 3 F. The City Council finds and determines that the cost estimates set forth in the new 2016 Nexus Study are reasonable cost estimates for constructing the Regional System improvements and the facilities that compromise the Regional System, and that the amount of the TUMF expected to be generated by new development will not exceed the total fair share cost to such development. G. The fees collected pursuant to this Chapter shall be used to help pay for the design, planning, construction of and real acquisition for the Regional System improvements and its facilities as identified in the 2016 Nexus Study. The need for the improvements and facilities is related to new development because such development results in additional traffic and creates the demand for the improvements. H. By notice duly given and published, the City Council set the time and place for a public hearing on the 2016 Nexus Study and the fees proposed thereunder and at least ten (10) days prior to this hearing, the City Council made the 2016 Nexus Study available to the public. I. At the time and place set for the hearing, the City Council duly considered data and information provided by the public relative to the cost of the improvements and facilities for which the fees are proposed and all other comments, whether written or oral, submitted prior to the conclusion of the hearing. J. The City Council finds that the 2016 Nexus Study proposes a fair and equitable method for distributing a portion of the unfunded costs of improvements and facilities to the Regional system. K. The City Council hereby adopts the 2016 Nexus Study and its findings. The 2016 Nexus Study is attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit “B.” 3.39.030. Definitions. For the purpose of this Ordinance, the following words, terms and phrases shall have the following meanings: A. “Class ‘A’ Office” means an office building that is typically characterized by high quality design, use of high end building materials, state of the art technology for voice and data, on site support services/maintenance, and often includes full service ancillary uses such as, but not limited to a bank, restaurant/office coffee shop, health club, printing shop, and reserved parking. The minimum requirements of an office building classified as Class ‘A” Office shall be as follows: (i) minimum of three stories (exception will be made for March JPA, where height requirements exist); (ii) minimum of 10,000 square feet per floor; (iii) steel frame construction; (iv) central, interior lobby; and (v) access to suites shall be from inside the building unless the building is located in a central business district with major foot traffic, in which case the first floor may be accessed from the street to provide entrances/ exits for commercial uses within the building. B. “Class ‘B’ Office” means an office building that is typically characterized by high quality design, use of high end building materials, state of the art technology for voice and data, on site support services/maintenance, and often includes full service ancillary uses such as, but not limited to a bank, restaurant/office coffee shop, health club, printing shop, and reserved parking. The minimum requirements of an office building classified as Class ‘B” Office shall be as follows: (i) minimum of two stories; (ii) minimum of 15,000 square feet per floor; (iii) steel Page 146 of 379 4 frame, concrete or masonry shell construction; (iv) central, interior lobby; and (v) access to suites shall be from inside the building unless the building is located in a central business district with major foot traffic, in which case the first floor may be accessed from the street to provide entrances/exits for commercial uses within the building. C. “Development Project” or “Project” means any project undertaken for the purposes of development, including the issuance of a permit for construction. D. “Gross Acreage” means the total property area as shown on a land division of a map of record, or described through a recorded legal description of the property. This area shall be bounded by road rights of way and property lines. E. “Habitable Structure” means any structure or part thereof where persons reside, congregate or work and which is legally occupied in whole or part in accordance with applicable building codes, and state and local laws. F. “Industrial Project” means any development project that proposes any industrial or manufacturing use allowed in the following Ordinance No. 1016 zoning classifications: I-P, M, M-S-C, M-M, M-H, M-R, M-R-A, A-1, A-P, A-2, A-D, W-E, or SP with one of the aforementioned zones used as the base zone. G. “Low Income Residential Housing” means ”Residential Affordable Units”: (A) for rental housing, the units shall be made available, rented and restricted to “lower income households” (as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5) at an “affordable rent” (as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50053), ). Affordable units that are rental housing shall be made available, rented, and restricted to lower income households at an affordable rent for a period of at least fifty-five (55) years after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for new residential development. and (B) for for-sale housing, the units shall be sold to “persons or families of low or moderate income” (as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50093) at a purchase price that will not cause the purchaser’s monthly housing cost to exceed “affordable housing cost (as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5) Affordable units that are for-sale housing units shall be restricted to ownership by persons and families of low or moderate income for at least forty-five (45) years after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new residential development. H. “Multi-Family Residential Unit” means a development project that has a density of greater than eight (8) residential dwelling units per gross acre. I. “Non-Residential Unit” means retail commercial, service commercial and industrial development which is designed primarily for non-dwelling use, but shall include hotels and motels. J. “Recognized Financing District” means a Financing District as defined in the TUMF Administrative Plan as may be amended from time to time. K. “Residential Dwelling Unit” means a building or portion thereof used by one (1) family and containing but one (1) kitchen, which is designed primarily for residential occupancy including single-family and multi-family dwellings. “Residential Dwelling Unit” shall not include hotels or motels. Page 147 of 379 5 L. “Retail Commercial Project” means any development project that proposes any retail commercial activity use not defined as a service commercial project allowed in the following Ordinance No. 1016 classifications: R-1, R-R, R-R-O, R-1-A, R-A, R-2, R-2-A, R-3, R- 3-A, R-T, R-T-R, R-4, R-5, R-6, C-1/C-P, C-T, C-P-S, C-R, C-O, R-V-C, C-V, W-2, R-D, N-A, W- 2-M, W -1, CC, CG or SP with one of the aforementioned zones used as the base zone, which can include any eating/dining facility residing on the retail commercial development premises. M. “Service Commercial Project” means any development project that is predominately dedicated to business activities associated with professional or administrative services, and typically consists of corporate offices, financial institutions, legal, and medical offices eating/dining facilities, and other uses related to personal or professional services. N. “Single Family Residential Unit” means each residential dwelling unit in a development that has a density of eight (8) units to the gross acre or less. O. “TUMF Participating Jurisdiction” means a jurisdiction in Western Riverside County which has adopted and implemented an ordinance authorizing participation in the TUMF Program and complies with all regulations established in the TUMF Administrative Plan, as adopted and amended from time to time by the WRCOG. P. “Disabled Veteran” means any veteran who is retired or is in process of medical retirement from military service who is or was severely injured in a theatre of combat operations and has or received a letter of eligibility for the Veterans Administration Specially Adapted Housing (SAH) Grant Program. Q. Government/public buildings, public schools, and public facilities means any owned and operated facilities by a government entity in accordance with Section G. Exemptions, Subsection 2. of this Ordinance. A new development that is subject to a long-term lease with a government agency for government/public buildings, public schools, and public facilities shall apply only if all of the following conditions are met: (a) The new development being constructed is subject to a long-term lease with a government agency. (b) The project shall have a deed restriction placed on the property that limits the use to government/public facility for the term of the lease, including all extension options, for a period of not less than 20 years. Any change in the use of the facility from government shall trigger the payment of the TUMF in effect at the time of the change is made. (c) No less than ninety percent of the total square footage of the building is leased to the government agency during the term of deed restriction the long term and any extensions thereof. (d) The new development is constructed at prevailing wage rates. (e) A copy of the lease is provided to the applicable jurisdiction and to WRCOG. (f) Based on the facts and circumstances WRCOG determines that the intent of the lease is to provide for a long-term government use, and not to evade payment of TUMF. R. “Non-profit Organization” means an organization operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial port of its activities Page 148 of 379 6 and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates. For the purposes of the TUMF Program, the non-profit may be a 501(c) (3) charitable organization as defined by the Internal Revenue Service. S. “Long-Term Lease” as used in the TUMF Program, a “long-term lease” shall mean a lease with a term of no less than twenty years. T. “Mixed-Use Development” as used in the TUMF Program, means Developments with the following criteria: (1) three or more significant revenue-producing uses, and (2) significant physical and functional integration of project components. U. “Guest Dwellings” and “Detached Second Units” according to the State of California legal definition as following: 1) The second unit is not intended for sale and may be rented; 2) The lot is zoned for single-family dwellings; 3) The lot contains an existing single- family dwelling; 4) The second unit is either attached to the existing dwelling and located within the living area of the existing dwelling or detached from the existing dwelling and located on the same lot as the existing dwelling; and 5) Are ministerially amended by each jurisdiction’s local codes. .V. “TUMF Administrative Plan” means that the TUMF Administration Plan adopted by the WRCOG Execution Committee May 5, 2003, as amended, setting forth detailed administration procedures and requirements f or the TUMF program. 3.39.040. Establishment of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee. A. Adoption of TUMF Schedule. The City Council shall adopt an applicable TUMF schedule through a separate resolution, which may be amended from time to time. B. Fee Calculation. The fees shall be calculated according to the calculation methodology fee set forth in the WRCOG TUMF Fee Calculation Handbook adopted July 14, 2003, as amended from time to time. In addition to data in the Fee Calculation Handbook, WRCOG Staff and the local agency may consider the following items when establishing the appropriate fee calculation methodology:  Underlying zoning of the site  Land-use classifications in the latest Nexus Study  Project specific traffic studies  Latest Standardized reference manuals such as the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual  Previous TUMF calculations for similar uses  WRCOG staff shall approve final draft credit / reimbursement agreement prior to execution WRCOG shall have final determination regarding the appropriate methodology to calculate the fee based on the information provided. In case of a conflict between the applicant, WRCOG, and/or the local agency regarding the fee calculation methodology, the dispute resolution process in the TUMF Administrative Plan will apply. C. Fee Adjustment. The fee schedule may be periodically reviewed and the amounts adjusted by the WRCOG Executive Committee. By amendment to the Resolution Page 149 of 379 7 referenced as subsection A, above, the fees may be increased or decreased to reflect the changes in actual and estimated costs of the Regional System including, but not limited to, debt service, lease payments and construction costs. The adjustment of the fees may also reflect changes in the facilities required to be constructed, in estimated revenues received pursuant to this Ordinance, as well as the availability or lack thereof of other funds with which to construct the Regional System. WRCOG shall review the TUMF Program no less than every four (4) years after the effective date of this Ordinance. D. Purpose. The purpose of the TUMF is to fund those certain improvements to the Regional System as depicted in Exhibit “A” and identified in the 2016 Nexus Study, Exhibit “B.” E. Applicability. The TUMF shall apply to all new development within the City, unless otherwise exempt hereunder. F. Exemptions. The following types of new development shall be exempt from the provisions of this Ordinance and in TUMF Administrative Plan: 1. Low income residential housing as described in Section 3 Definitions, Subsection G of this Ordinance and in the TUMF Administrative Plan. 2. Government/public buildings, public schools, and public facilities as described in Section 3. Definitions, Subsection Q. of this Ordinance and in the TUMF Administrative Plan. Airports that are public use airports and are appropriately permitted by Caltrans or other state agency. 3. Development Projects which are the subject of a Public Facilities Development Agreement entered into pursuant to Government Code section 65864 et seq, prior to the effective date of Ordinance No. 839, wherein the imposition of new fees are expressly prohibited, provided that if the term of such a Development Agreement is extended by amendment or by any other manner after the effective date of Ordinance No. 839, the TUMF shall be imposed. 4. The rehabilitation and/or reconstruction of any habitable structure in use on or after January 1, 2000, provided that the same or fewer traffic trips are generated as a result thereof. 5. Guest Dwellings and Detached Second Units as described in this Ordinance in Section 3. Definitions, Subsection U. and in the Administrative Plan 6. Kennels and Catteries established in connection with an existing single family residential unit. 7. Any sanctuary, or other activity under the same roof of a church or other house of worship that is not revenue generating and is eligible for a property tax exemption (excluding concert venues, coffee/snack shops, book stores, for-profit pre- school day-cares, etc., which would be assessed TUMF.) 8. Any nonprofit corporation or nonprofit organization offering and conducting full-time day school at the elementary, middle school or high school level for students between the ages of five and eighteen years. 9. New single-family homes, constructed by non-profit organizations, specially adapted and designed for maximum freedom of movement and independent living for qualified Disabled Veterans.” 10. Other uses may be exempt as determined by the WRCOG Executive Committee as further defined in the TUMF Administrative Plan. Page 150 of 379 8 G. Credit. Regional System improvements may be credited toward the TUMF in accordance with the TUMF Administrative Plan and the following: Regional Tier i. Arterial Credits: If a developer constructs arterial improvements identified on the Regional System, the developer shall receive credit for all costs associated with the arterial component based on approved Nexus Study for the Regional System effective at the time the credit agreement is entered into. WRCOG staff must pre-approve any credit agreements that deviate from the standard WRCOG approved format. ii. Other Credits: In special circumstances, when a developer constructs off-site improvements such as an interchange, bridge, or railroad grade separation, credits shall be determined by WRCOG and the City in consultation with the developer. All such credits must have prior written approval from WRCOG. iii. The amount of the development fee credit shall not exceed the maximum amount determined by the Nexus Study for the Regional System at the time the credit agreement is entered into or actual costs, whichever is less. Local Tier i. The local jurisdictions shall compare facilities in local fee programs against the Regional System and eliminate any overlap in its local fee program except where there is a Recognized Financing District has been established. ii. If there is a Recognized Financing District established, the local agency may credit that portion of the facility identified in both programs against the TUMF in accordance with the TUMF Administrative Plan. 3.39.050. Reimbursements. Should the developer construct Regional System improvements in excess of the TUMF fee obligation, the developer may be reimbursed based on actual costs or the approved Nexus Study effective at the time the agreement was entered into, whichever is less. Reimbursements shall be enacted through an agreement between the developer and the City, contingent on funds being available and approved by WRCOG. In all cases, however, reimbursements under such special agreements must coincide with construction of the transportation improvements as scheduled in the five-year Zone Transportation Improvement Program’s adopted annually by WRCOG. 3.39.060. Procedures for the Levy, Collection and Disposition of Fees. A. Authority of the Building Department. The Director of Building & Safety, or his/her designee, is hereby authorized provide WRCOG with development project specifics for the calculation of TUMF in a manner consistent with the TUMF Administrative Plan. B. Payment and Collection. Payment of the fees shall be as follows: i. All fees collected hereunder shall be collected by WRCOG directly from the developer for deposit, investment, accounting and expenditure in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance, TUMF Administrative Plan, and the Mitigation Fee Act. ii. The TUMF fees shall be paid by the developer to WRCOG at the time a certificate of occupancy is issued for the Development Project or upon final inspection, Page 151 of 379 9 whichever comes first (the “Payment Date”). However this section should not be construed to prevent payment of the TUMF fees by the developer to WRCOG prior to issuance of an certificate of occupancy or final inspection. TUMF fees may be paid at the issuance of a building permit, and the fee payment shall be calculated based on the TUMF fee in effect at that time, provided the developer tenders the full amount of his/her TUMF obligation. If the developer makes only a partial payment prior to the Payment Date, the amount of the fee due shall be based on the TUMF fee schedule in place on the Payment Date. The fees shall be calculated according to fee schedule set forth in the Ordinance and the calculation methodology set forth in the Fee Calculation Handbook adopted July 14, 2003, as amended from time to time. iii. The fees required to be paid shall be the fee amounts in effect at the time of payment is due under this Ordinance, not the date the Ordinance is initially adopted. The City shall not enter into a development agreement which freezes future adjustments of the TUMF. iv. If all or part of any development project is sold prior to payment of the fee, the property shall continue to be subject to the requirement for payment of the fee. The obligation to pay the fee shall run with the land and be binding on all the successors in interest to the property. v. Fees shall not be waived. C. Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. The City shall not issue a certificate of occupancy for any Development Project until WRCOG has provided written evidence that it has collected the fee. D. Appeals. Appeals shall be filed with WRCOG in accordance with the provisions of the TUMF Administrative Plan. Appealable issues shall be the application of the fee, application of credits, application of reimbursement, application of the legal action stay and application of exemption. E. Reports to WRCOG. The Director of Building and Safety, or his/her designee, shall prepare and deliver to the Executive Director of WRCOG, periodic reports as will be established under Section 7 of this Ordinance. 3.39.070. Appointment of the TUMF Administrator. WRCOG is hereby appointed as the Administrator of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program. WRCOG is hereby authorized to receive all fees generated from the TUMF within the City, and to invest, account for and expend such fees in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance and the Mitigation Fee Act. The detailed administrative procedures concerning the implementation of this Ordnance shall be contained in the TUMF Administrative Plan. Furthermore, the TUMF Administrator shall use the Fee Calculation Handbook adopted July 14, 2003, as amended from time to time, for the purpose of calculating a developer’s TUMF obligation. In addition to detailing the methodology for calculating all TUMF obligations of different categories of new development, the purpose of the Fee Calculation Handbook is to clarify for the TUMF Administrator, where necessary, the definition and calculation methodology for uses not clearly defined in the respective TUMF ordinances. Page 152 of 379 10 WRCOG shall expend only that amount of the funds generated from the TUMF for staff support, audit, administrative expenses, and contract services that are necessary and reasonable to carry out its responsibilities and in no case shall the funds expended for salaries and benefits exceed one percent (1%) of the revenue raised by the TUMF Program. The TUMF Administrative Plan further outlines the fiscal responsibilities and limitations of the Administrator. SECTION 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. INTRODUCED and READ for the first time and ordered posted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, held upon this ____ day of ____ 2023, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, held on the ___ day of _______, 2023. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Julio Martinez III, Mayor Attest: Nicole Wheelwright, Deputy City Clerk Approved as to from: John O. Pinkney, City Attorney Page 153 of 379 11 Page 154 of 379 TUMF Ord (5209298) - Page 1 of 1 3512 14 Street Riverside, California 92501 (951) 368-9229 neller@scng.com City of Beaumont 550 E. 6th Street Beaumont, California 92223 Account Number:5209298 Ad Order Number:0011617076 Customer's Reference/PO Number: Publication:The Press-Enterprise Publication Dates:08/04/2023 Total Amount:$236.84 Payment Amount:$0.00 Amount Due:$236.84 Notice ID:xVcKDws7TIOA0z1iQiO4 Invoice Text:On August 15, 2023 at approximately 6:00 p.m. at the City of Beaumont Council meeting, in City Council Chambers at City of Beaumont Civic Center, 550 E 6th Street, Beaumont, Ca 92223, the Council will consider the following matter: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT AMENDING AMENDING SECTION 060 OF ORDINANCE NO. 1091 TO INCLUDE A PROCESS WHEREBY WRCOG SHALL CALCULATE AND COLLECT OF FEES UNDER THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF) PROGRAM INSTEAD OF THE CITY The City of Beaumont seeks to amend Ordinance No. 1091, Section 060 “Procedures for the Levy, Collection and Disposition of Fees,” to authorize the TUMF fees to be collected by WRCOG directly from the developers from the effective date of this Ordinance forward. The Council will conduct a public hearing to receive testimony and comments from all interested persons. Public comments can be made in person, using the public comment phone line or by written email. Phone-in comments will be accepted by calling the designated public comment phone line (951) 922-4845 prior to the corresponding item. Public comments shall not exceed three minutes unless otherwise authorized by City Council. Written comments can be emailed to NicoleW@BeaumontCa.gov Public comments accepted via email will be read aloud during the corresponding item of the meeting. Comments can be submitted anytime prior to the meeting as well as during the meeting until the end of the corresponding item. This meeting will be conducted in person and also and will be recorded for live streaming. All City of Beaumont public meetings will be made available via live streaming and made available on the City’s Page 155 of 379 TUMF Ord (5209298) - Page 1 of 1 The Press-Enterprise 3512 14 Street Riverside, California 92501 (951) 368-9229 City of Beaumont 550 E. 6th Street Beaumont, California 92223 Publication: The Press-Enterprise PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF Ad Desc: 0011617076 FILE NO. 0011617076 PROOF OF PUBLICATION I am a citizen of the United States. I am over the age of eighteen years and not party to or interested in the above- entitled matter. I am an authorized representative of THE PRESS- ENTERPRISE, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published daily in the County of Riverside, and which newspaper has been adjudicated a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Riverside, State of California, under date of April 25, 1952, Case Number 54446, under date of March 29, 1957, Case Number 65673, under date of August 25, 1995, Case Number 267864, and under date of September 16, 2013, Case Number RIC 1309013; that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said newspaper in accordance with the instructions of the person(s) requesting publication, and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to wit: 08/04/2023 I certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: August 4, 2023. At: Riverside, California ______________________________ Signature Page 156 of 379 Staff Report TO: City Council FROM: Thaxton Van Belle, Director of W ater Reclamation DATE August 15, 2023 SUBJECT: Award a Professional Services Agreement in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $997,160 to Tom Dodson & Associates for the Preparation of an Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan Description Prepare an Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan as part of the process of implementing a recycled water program. Background and Analysis: The purpose of this Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan (AMMP) is to provide a framework for implementing the City of Beaumont (City) recycled water program with flows from the City’s wastewater reclamation plant, currently discharging to Cooper’s Creek. On June 8, 2023, staff released a request for proposals (RFP) for an Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan. The time frame for responses was extended two weeks after feedback through the bid portal site. A total of thirty-five (35) firms accessed the proposal. Upon closing of the RFP on July 25, 2023, the City received a single proposal from Tom Dodson & Associates. Staff has reviewed the proposal from Tom Dodson & Associates and found it complete with additional recommended elements for time savings and completeness. Tom Dodson & Associates has substantial experience in this narrow field with solid references and recommendations from peers. Staff interviewed the firm and its partners on August 10, 2023, and found them to be knowledgeable and committed to the City’s goals. Tom Dodson & Associates proposed a three (3) phase approach to the project. The first phase consists of characterizing historical and current conditions to support the development of the AMMP. The second phase is a feasibility assessment incorporating the first phase findings and implementation of baseline monitoring. The third phase is the preparation of the AMMP and the continuation of baseline monitoring. Page 157 of 379 The proposal was presented to the RFP subcommittee for their approval. Tom Dodson & Associates provided pricing with the following table that includes three phases to complete. Recommended Budget for Tasks Performed Phase 1 $267,160 Phase 2 $589,000 Phase 3 $141,000 Total $997,160 Fiscal Impact: The estimated cost to prepare this report is $350. The cost for the Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan will be paid using recycled water capacity fees from CIP WW -14 which has a total allocation of $2,100,000. WW-14 Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan Project Accounting Summary Funding Summary Funding Year Funding Source Amount 23/24 Recycled Water DIF $2,100,000 Total Project Funding = $2,100,000 Budget Summary Project Component Budget Encumbered Paid to Date Remaining Budget Project Management $2,100,000 $0 $0 $2,100,000 Preliminary Services $0 $0 $0 $0 Environmental $0 $0 $0 $0 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction Management $0 $0 $0 $0 Permits $0 $0 $0 $0 Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 Project Summary Totals $2,100,000 $0 $0 $2,100,000 Page 158 of 379 Recommended Action: Authorize the Mayor to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Tom Dodson & Associates for an Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan in an amount not to exceed $997,160. Attachments: A. RFP for Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan B. Professional Services Agreement C. Tom Dodson & Associates Proposal D. Levine Act – Conflict of Interest Disclosure Page 159 of 379 Request for Proposals for Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan Questions Due By: Proposals Due By: 5:00 P.M. 2:00 P.M Thursday, June 22, 2023 Tuesday, July 11, 2023 Contact: Grace Wichert Procurement and Contracts Specialist Gwichert@beaumontca.gov RFP Available: www.publicpurchase.com or https://www.beaumontca.gov/949/Bids-and-RFPs Website: www.beaumontca.gov Address: 550 E. 6th Street Beaumont, CA 92223 Phone: 951.769.8520 Page 160 of 379 City of Beaumont Request for Proposal Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan 1 1. INTRODUCTION The City of Beaumont (“City”) requests written responses to a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the development of an Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan (AMMP) to support current and future discharges from the Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plan to Cooper Creek. The selected consultant will be one that has demonstrated experience and professionalism in the preparation of final construction documents and specifications required for final city plan approvals. Responses must conform to the requirements of this Request for Proposal (RFP). The City reserves the right to waive any irregularity in any proposal, withdraw or amend this RFP or reject any proposal that does not comply with this RFP or City policies. 2. THE CITY OF BEAUMONT The City was incorporated in November 1912 and is located in the San Gorgonio Pass portion of western Riverside County. It is bounded on the west by Calimesa and unincorporated areas, on the north by unincorporated county areas (Cherry Valley), on the south by unincorporated county areas and the City of San Jacinto, and on the east by the City of Banning. The land area within the City’s boundary is approximately 30 square miles. The City of Beaumont is rated one of the safest cities in southern California. The City has its own police department. Fire and paramedic services are contracted through Riverside County. The City of Beaumont has been one of the fastest growing cities in California over the past 15 years and has a population of approximately 55,000. An average of 500 new homes have been permitted annually since 2013 and the population has grown by approximately 1,500 residents each year. Beaumont has seen significant growth in its quality of workforce with educational levels and technical skills. The community has also seen growth in its household income levels. As a result of this growth, the City must continue to provide residents with the quality of life they expect. This involves expanding park and recreational amenities, maintaining a quality police force to keep pace with growth, construction of regional surface transportation projects, and to perform economic development activities to diversify the city’s tax base and increase employment opportunities in the region. The City Government The Beaumont City Council is comprised of five Council members, each sharing equal voting powers on all items coming before the Council. Council members are elected to at-large positions for four-year terms, with elections held in November of even-numbered years. The City Council meets annually to select one of its members to serve as Mayor and another to serve as Mayor Pro Tem for one year but no more than two consecutive years. The City Council provides legislative and policy direction to the City Manager, who implements their decisions to direct the activities of the City. The City Council responds to issues and concerns of the community by allocating resources, developing policies, and formulating strategies that support the vitality and economic viability of the City. All of their decisions must be made at public meetings. The City Council appoints the City Manager and City Attorney and members of all advisory boards, commissions, and committees. The City Council also serves as the Board of Directors for the Beaumont Financing Authority, Beaumont Utility Authority, and the Beaumont Parking Authority. Page 161 of 379 City of Beaumont Request for Proposal Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan 2 3. BACKGROUND Founded at the turn of the 20th century, Beaumont is proud of its rich history and rural charm. The town served as a welcome “stopping-off point” for early travelers making their way from the Mohave desert to Los Angeles, and later for L.A. residents eager to vacation in Palm Springs. Some, however, set down roots, drawn by the beautiful mountain vistas; clean, crisp air; and the abundance of cherry and apple orchards. Beaumont provides the very best of rustic, rural beauty and charm, combined with the planned growth, abundant recreational opportunities, and rich community life offered by the finest Southern California cities. The progressive city of over 54,000 people, sits at 2,612 feet in elevation between Riverside and Palm Springs in the Inland Empire. The city operates 18 city- owned parks, including a 20-acre sports park as well as an extensive trails system. The Beaumont School District, with 12 schools, has an outstanding reputation, and it ranks highly in the Pass Area. The city is rounded out with various local service clubs, a state-of-the-art community recreation center, a library, two four-star golf courses, and multiple churches. Beaumont owns and operates the Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The WWTP receives and treats domestic and commercial/industrial wastewater generated within the City of Beaumont and the Highland Springs area (portions of the unincorporated area of Cherry Valley). The City recently completed a WWTP upgrade and expansion project that brought capacity to 6 MGD and the ability to produce recycled water through an MBR/RO/UV treatment process. Wastewater discharges from the Facility are currently regulated under Order No. R8-2022-042 NPDES Number CA105376 (Permit). 4. SCOPE OF WORK The intent of this Request for Proposal (RFP) is to secure the services of a qualified professional firm (Consultants) to develop an Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan (AAMP) to support the Beaumont Wastewater Treatment current and future discharge into Cooper Creek. The AMMP is required as a part of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Division of Water Rights Wastewater Change Petition under California Water Code Section 1211. Consultant must be proactive and knowledgeable of all regulations required for project acceptance. Consultant shall be an advisor, advocate, and produce a product with the best interest intended for the City within the required schedule and budget. The Scope of Service outlined in Exhibit A is provided as a guideline and is intended to identify the City’s initial expectations and requirements. Consultants may suggest modifications to the proposed Scope of Services and shall expand the scope to include additional and/or optional tasks if deemed necessary to execute and facilitate the proposed services to complete the Project. 5. TERM The term of the agreement shall be for the duration of the project. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, this Agreement shall automatically terminate after five (5) years, unless extended by the parties with the approval of the City Council of the CITY. All fees should be fixed for the duration of project. 6. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS The proposal shall clearly address all the information requested herein. To achieve a uniform review process and obtain the maximum degree of comparability, it is required that proposals be organized and contain all information as specified below. Page 162 of 379 City of Beaumont Request for Proposal Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan 3 A. Cover Letter: Maximum of two (2) pages serving as an Executive Summary which shall include an understanding of the scope of services. The RFP shall be transmitted with a cover letter that must be signed by an official authorized to bind the consultant contractually. The letter accompanying the RFP shall also provide the name, title, address, and telephone number of individuals with the authority to negotiate and contractually bind the consultant. The cover letter constitutes certification by the consultant, under penalty of perjury, that the consultant complies with nondiscrimination requirements of the State and Federal Government. An unsigned proposal or one signed by an individual unauthorized to bind the consultant may be rejected. B. Introduction/Information: Introduction of the service proposal, including a statement of understanding for the types of services contemplated. Provide a discussion on how the objectives of the scope of services will be accomplished. Provide the name of the firm submitting the proposal, its mailing address, telephone number, and the name of the individual to contact if further information is required. Any participating firms and proposed sub-consultants shall be identified and included in the proposal (all sub-consultants must be approved by City prior to signing the agreement with City). C. Approach: The firm’s approach to delivering the scope of services. Provide a description of the firm’s approach to communicating effectively with City staff and officials, other jurisdictional stakeholders, and the public, to facilitate successful delivery of assigned tasks. D. Firm Profile: Provide a description of the firm, including number of professional personnel, years in business, office location(s), organizational structure (e.g., corporation, partnership, sole practitioner, etc.), areas of particular expertise, etc. E. Location of principal office that will be responsible for the implementation of this contract. F. Proposed Team: Provide a summary description of all personnel who will be involved in this project, their roles and responsibilities, and their experience in similar past projects. The proposal must name a project manager. In addition to this summary, full resumes limited to 2 pages per proposed team member must be provided as an attachment to the proposal. G. References: Provide at least three (3) references from previous cities, counties or other agencies for similar work completed within the last five (5) years, which include: name, address, contact person and phone number for the agency, length of time services were provided, staff assigned to each project by your firm, and a description of the services provided. All submitted materials shall become the property of the City of Beaumont. H. Scope of Services: Provide a detailed outline of tasks, sub-tasks and deliverables that will be provided to develop an AAMP with final approval from local, State and Federal agencies. Any additional items not mentioned in Exhibit A- Scope of Services but required to obtain final approval, shall be included in the proposal as additional items for consideration. The fully recommended Scope of Services should be presented as an attachment to the proposal and shall be in a logical format that can be easily attached to Page 163 of 379 City of Beaumont Request for Proposal Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan 4 the Professional Services Agreement (Exhibit B). I. Project Schedule: Provide a comprehensive Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule describing the nature and estimated timeline of proposed work objectives and milestones. Gannt chart preferred. JK. Cost proposal: Provide detailed cost of services in a separate sealed envelope. Costing should include:  Break down by task on an hourly rate bases with hourly rates to remain fixed for the duration of the project.  Provide a table with estimates based on information outlined in this RFP.  Fixed prices, including out-of-pocket expenses, for all costs associated within the scope of this proposal,  Total fees and expenses for the entire scope of the project  Any area which proposers believe should be included in the scope of work in this proposal, but which is not stipulated in this RFP, and identifies the costs associated with the services rendered. Please note, Proposers shall be expected to preplan to make cost saving reductions wherever possible. Pricing shall be all-inclusive. L. List of all current/outstanding contracts with the City of Beaumont, their status, and the completion date for each contract. M. Any other information which should be considered, such as any special services or customer service philosophy which define your firm’s practice. N. The firm will be required to have professional liability insurance including liability at a minimum of one million per occurrence, worker’s compensation, and vehicle coverage including comprehensive and collision insurance naming the City of Beaumont as additional insured. The proposal shall state whether such insurances will be in force at time of contract execution. 7. SUBMITTAL Two (2) bound copies, one (1) unbound copy and one (1) color digital pdf copy (flash drive) of the proposal must be submitted no later than July 11, 2023 at 2:00 P.M. The cost proposal shall be submitted in a separate sealed envelope. Proposal must be titled “RFP for Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan.” All proposals shall be submitted to: City of Beaumont c/o Grace Wichert 550 E. 6th Street Beaumont, CA 92223 Electronic submittals of the proposal will not be accepted. Proposals received after the stated date and time will not be accepted. Once submitted, proposals, including the composition of the consulting staff, cannot be altered without prior written consent of the City. All costs associated with the preparation of any proposal shall be the sole responsibility of the Page 164 of 379 City of Beaumont Request for Proposal Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan 5 proposer. Each proposal shall be limited to a maximum of 25 pages, using a minimum 12-point font size excluding cover, tabs, and attachments for scope of services and 2-page resumes. *DUE DATE FOR QUESTIONS IS June 22, 2023 @ 5:00 P.M.* All questions shall be submitted via PublicPurchase.com. Answers will be posted on the same website to allow all users to review the City’s responses to all questions within one (1) week of the question due date. 8. SCHEDULE Event Date RFP Issued Thursday, June 8, 2023 RFC/ Questions Due Thursday, June 22, 2023 @ 5:00 P.M. Proposals Due Tuesday, July 11, 2023 @ 2:00 P.M. Interviews (if required) TBD Award Date TBD 9.. CONFIDENTIALITY Prior to the proposal submittal deadline, all proposals will be designated confidential to the extent permitted by the California Public Records Act. After the proposal submittal deadline, all responses will be regarded as public record and will be subject to review by the public. Any language purported to render confidential all or portions of the proposals will be regarded as non- effective and will be disregarded. 10. AMENDMENTS TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS The City reserves the right to amend the RFP by addendum prior to the final proposal submittal date. 11. CITY OF BEAUMONT RIGHTS AND OPTIONS This RFP does not commit the City of Beaumont to award a contract or to pay any cost incurred with the preparation of a proposal or contract for services described herein. The City may, in its sole discretion and without any obligation to act reasonably, reject any and all proposals, waive informalities and minor irregularities in any proposal reviewed, negotiate with any qualified source submitting a proposal, extend deadlines, and/or request additional information. Subsequent to negotiations, prospective consultants may be required to submit revisions to their proposals. The City may reject any proposal that does not conform to the instructions provided in this RFP. Additionally, the City reserves the right to negotiate all final terms and conditions of any proposal received before entering into final contract. The City reserves the right to postpone selection for its own convenience, to withdraw this RFP at any time, and to reject any and all proposals without indicating any reason for such rejection. As a function of the RFP process, the City of Beaumont reserves the right to remedy technical errors in response to the RFP and to modify the published scope of services and scope of work. Proposals submitted in response to the RFP will not be returned. 12. CONFLICT OF INTEREST Page 165 of 379 City of Beaumont Request for Proposal Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan 6 The Consultant shall disclose any personal or professional financial, business, or other relationships with the City that may have an impact on the outcome of this contract or any resulting project. The consultant shall also list current clients who may have a financial interest in the outcome of this contract. 13. PROPOSAL EVALUATION/SELECTION The City intends to engage the most qualified consultant available that demonstrates a thorough understanding of the City’s needs. City staff will use the following criteria to evaluate the proposals: Criteria & Scoring Points Understanding the scope of services and completeness of RFP 20 Related Experience and Demonstrated skills 30 Approach to performing this type of service 40 Cost and Cost Effectiveness 10 Total 100 The City may request a qualification interview with the highest ranked consultant(s) prior to determining the final ranking. This selection will be conducted according to the City’s adopted procedures. The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals. CONTACT WITH ANY CITY EMPLOYEE OTHER THAN THE CONTACT NAMED IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED AND WILL BE CAUSE FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF THE PROPOSAL. Attachments A. Exhibit A- Proposed Scope of Services B. Exhibit B- Professional Services Agreement (PSA) Page 166 of 379 1 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BY INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR THIS AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BY INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR is made and effective as of the 1st day of October 2023, by and between the CITY OF BEAUMONT (“CITY”) whose address is 550 E. 6th Street, Beaumont, California 92223 and Tom Dodson & Associates, whose address is PO Box 2307, San Bernardino, CA 92406 (“CONTRACTOR”). RECITALS This Agreement is entered into on the basis of the following facts, understandings and intentions of the parties to this Agreement: A. CITY desires to engage CONTRACTOR to provide an Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan; and B. CONTRACTOR has made a proposal (“Proposal”) to the CITY to provide such professional services, which Proposal is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference; and C. CONTRACTOR agrees to provide such services pursuant to, and in accordance with, the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and represents and warrants to CITY that CONTRACTOR possesses the necessary skills, licenses, certifications, qualifications, personnel and equipment to provide such services. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing Recitals and mutual covenants contained herein, CITY and CONTRACTOR agree as follows: 1. Term of Agreement. This Agreement is effective as of the date first above written and shall continue until terminated as provided for herein. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, this Agreement shall automatically terminate after three (3) year(s) unless extended by the parties with the approval of the City Council of the CITY. 2. Services to be Performed. CONTRACTOR agrees to provide the services (“Services”) as follows: provide an Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan for the Wastewater Treatment Plant per Exhibit “A”. All Services shall be performed in the manner and according to the timeframe set forth in the Proposal. CONTRACTOR designates Tom Dodson as CONTRACTOR’S professional(s) responsible for overseeing the Services provided by CONTRACTOR. 3. Associates and Subcontractors. CONTRACTOR may, at CONTRACTOR’s sole cost and expense, employ such competent and qualified independent associates, subcontractors and consultants as CONTRACTOR deems necessary to perform the Services; provided, however, that CONTRACTOR shall not subcontract any of the Services without the written consent of CITY. Page 167 of 379 2 4. Compensation. 4.01 CONTRACTOR shall be paid at the rates set forth in the Proposal and shall not increase any rate without the prior written consent of the CITY. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, total fees and charges paid by CITY to CONTRACTOR under this Agreement shall not exceed Nine Hundred Ninety-Seven Thousand One Hundred Sixty ($997,160.00). 4.02 CONTRACTOR shall not be compensated for any Services rendered nor reimbursed for any expenses incurred in excess of those authorized unless approved in advance by the CITY, in writing. 4.03 CONTRACTOR shall submit to CITY, on or before the fifteenth (15th) of each month, itemized invoices for the Services rendered in the previous month. The CITY shall not be obligated to pay any invoice that is submitted more than sixty (60) days after the due date of such invoice. CITY shall have the right to review and audit all invoices prior to or after payment to CONTRACTOR. This review and audit may include, but not be limited to CITY’s: a. Determination that any hourly fee charged is consistent with this Agreement's approved hourly rate schedule; b. Determination that the multiplication of the hours billed times the approved rate schedule dollars is correct; c. Determination that each item charged is the usual, customary, and reasonable charge for the particular item. If CITY determines an item charged is greater than usual, customary, or reasonable, or is duplicative, ambiguous, excessive, or inappropriate, CITY shall either return the bill to CONTRACTOR with a request for explanation or adjust the payment accordingly, and give notice to CONTRACTOR of the adjustment. 4.04 If the work is satisfactorily completed, CITY shall pay such invoice within thirty (30) days of its receipt. Should CITY dispute any portion of any invoice, CITY shall pay the undisputed portion within the time stated above, and at the same time advise CONTRACTOR in writing of the disputed portion. 5. Obligations of CONTRACTOR. 5.01 CONTRACTOR agrees to perform all Services in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the Proposal. In the event that the terms of the Proposal shall conflict with the terms of this Agreement, or contain additional terms that purport to bind the CITY other than the Services to be rendered and the price for the Services, the terms of this Agreement shall govern and said additional or conflicting terms shall be of no force or effect. 5.02 Except as otherwise agreed by the parties, CONTRACTOR will supply all personnel, materials and equipment required to perform the Services. CONTRACTOR Page 168 of 379 3 shall provide its own offices, telephones, vehicles and computers and set its own work hours. CONTRACTOR will determine the method, details, and means of performing the Services under this Agreement. 5.03 CONTRACTOR shall keep CITY informed as to the progress of the Services by means of regular and frequent consultations. Additionally, when requested by CITY, CONTRACTOR shall prepare written status reports. 5.04 CONTRACTOR is responsible for paying, when due, all income and other taxes, fees and withholding, including withholding state and federal taxes, social security, unemployment and worker’s compensation, incurred as a result of the compensation paid under this Agreement. CONTRACTOR agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY for any claims, costs, losses, fees, penalties, interest, or damages suffered by CITY resulting from CONTRACTOR’s failure to comply with this provision. 5.05 In the event CONTRACTOR is required to prepare plans, drawings, specifications and/or estimates, the same shall be furnished in conformance with local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations. 5.06 CONTRACTOR represents that it possesses all required licenses necessary or applicable to the performance of Services under this Agreement and the Proposal and shall obtain and keep in full force and effect all permits and approvals required to perform the Services herein. In the event CITY is required to obtain an approval or permit from another governmental entity, CONTRACTOR shall provide all necessary supporting documents to be filed with such entity. 5.07 CONTRACTOR shall be solely responsible for obtaining Employment Eligibility Verification information from CONTRACTOR’s employees, in compliance with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-603 (8 U.S.C. 1324a), and shall ensure that CONTRACTOR’s employees are eligible to work in the United States. 5.08 In the event that CONTRACTOR employs, contracts with, or otherwise utilizes any CalPERS retirees in completing any of the Services performed hereunder, such instances shall be disclosed in advance to the CITY and shall be subject to the CITY’s advance written approval. 5.09 Drug-free Workplace Certification. By signing this Agreement, the CONTRACTOR hereby certifies under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the CONTRACTOR will comply with the requirements of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1990 (Government Code, Section 8350 et seq.) and will provide a drug- free workplace. 5.10 CONTRACTOR shall comply with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules, regulations, entitlements and/or permits applicable to, or governing the Services authorized hereunder. 6. Insurance. CONTRACTOR hereby agrees to be solely responsible for the health Page 169 of 379 4 and safety of its employees and agents in performing the Services under this Agreement and shall comply with all laws applicable to worker safety including but not limited to Cal-OSHA. Therefore, throughout the duration of this Agreement, CONTRACTOR hereby covenants and agrees to maintain insurance in conformance with the requirements set forth below. Attached hereto as Exhibit “B” are copies of Certificates of Insurance and endorsements as required by Section 7.02. If existing coverage does not meet the requirements set forth herein, CONTRACTOR agrees to amend, supplement or endorse the existing coverage to do so. CONTRACTOR shall provide the following types and amounts of insurance: 6.01 Commercial general liability insurance in an amount of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 in the aggregate; CONTRACTOR agrees to have its insurer endorse the general liability coverage required herein to include as additional insured’s CITY, its officials, employees and agents. CONTRACTOR also agrees to require all contractors and subcontractors to provide the same coverage required under this Section 6. 6.02 Business Auto Coverage in an amount no less than $1 million per accident. If CONTRACTOR or CONTRACTOR’s employees will use personal autos in performance of the Services hereunder, CONTRACTOR shall provide evidence of personal auto liability coverage for each such person. 6.03 Workers’ Compensation coverage for any of CONTRACTOR’s employees that will be providing any Services hereunder. CONTRACTOR will have a state-approved policy form providing statutory benefits as required by California law. The provisions of any workers’ compensation will not limit the obligations of CONTRACTOR under this Agreement. CONTRACTOR expressly agrees not to use any statutory immunity defenses under such laws with respect to CITY, its employees, officials and agents. 6.04 Optional Insurance Coverage. Choose and check one: Required __ /Not Required ___; Errors and omissions insurance in a minimum amount of $2 million per occurrence to cover any negligent acts or omissions committed by CONTRACTOR, its employees and/or agents in the performance of any Services for CITY. 7. General Conditions pertaining to Insurance Coverage 7.01 No liability insurance coverage provided shall prohibit CONTRACTOR from waiving the right of subrogation prior to a loss. CONTRACTOR waives all rights of subrogation against CITY regardless of the applicability of insurance proceeds and shall require all contractors and subcontractors to do likewise. 7.02. Prior to beginning the Services under this Agreement, CONTRACTOR shall furnish CITY with certificates of insurance, endorsements, and upon request, complete copies of all policies, including complete copies of all endorsements. All copies of policies and endorsements shall show the signature of a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. 7.03. All required policies shall be issued by a highly rated insurer with a minimum A.M. Best rating of “A:VII”). The insurer(s) shall be admitted and licensed to do business Page 170 of 379 5 in California. The certificates of insurance hereunder shall state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, or reduced in coverage or in limits, except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice has been given to CITY. 7.04 Self-insurance does not comply with these insurance specifications. CONTRACTOR acknowledges and agrees that that all insurance coverage required to be provided by CONTRACTOR or any subcontractor, shall apply first and on a primary, non- contributing basis in relation to any other insurance, indemnity or self-insurance available to CITY. 7.05 All coverage types and limits required are subject to approval, modification and additional requirements by CITY, as the need arises. CONTRACTOR shall not make any reductions in scope of coverage (e.g. elimination of contractual liability or reduction of discovery period) that may affect CITY’s protection without CITY’s prior written consent. 7.06 CONTRACTOR agrees to provide immediate notice to CITY of any claim or loss against CONTRACTOR or arising out of the Services performed under this Agreement. CITY assumes no obligation or liability by such notice, but has the right (but not the duty) to monitor the handling of any such claim or claims if they are likely to involve CITY. 8. Indemnification. 8.01 CONTRACTOR and CITY agree that CITY, its employees, agents and officials should, to the extent permitted by law, be fully protected from any loss, injury, damage, claim, lawsuit, cost, expense, attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, defense costs, court costs or any other costs arising out of or in any way related to the performance of this Agreement by CONTRACTOR or any subcontractor or agent of either as set forth herein. Accordingly, the provisions of this indemnity are intended by the parties to be interpreted and construed to provide the fullest protection possible under the law to CITY. CONTRACTOR acknowledges that CITY would not enter into this Agreement in the absence of the commitment of CONTRACTOR to indemnify and protect CITY as set forth herein. a. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONTRACTOR shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless CITY, its employees, agents and officials, from any liability, claims, suits, actions, arbitration proceedings, administrative proceedings, regulatory proceedings, losses, expenses, damages or costs of any kind, whether actual, alleged or threatened, actual attorneys’ fees incurred by CITY, court costs, interest, defense costs, including expert witness fees and any other costs or expenses of any kind whatsoever without restriction or limitation incurred in relation to, as a consequence of or arising out of, or in any way attributable actually, allegedly or impliedly, in whole or in part to the performance of this Agreement. CONTRACTOR’s obligation to defend, indemnify and hold harmless shall include any and all claims, suits and proceedings in which CONTRACTOR (and/or CONTRACTOR’s agents and/or employees) is alleged to be an employee of CITY. All obligations under this provision are to be paid by CONTRACTOR as they are Page 171 of 379 6 incurred by CITY. b. Without affecting the rights of CITY under any provision of this Agreement or this Section, CONTRACTOR shall not be required to indemnify and hold harmless CITY as set forth above for liability attributable solely to the fault of CITY, provided such fault is determined by agreement between the parties or the findings of a court of competent jurisdiction. 8A. Indemnification Design Professionals. 8A.01 In the event that CONTRACTOR is a design professional under California Civil Code Section 2782.8 this Section 8A shall apply instead of Section 8. To the fullest extent permitted by California law and in accordance with California Civil Code section 2782.8, CONTRACTOR shall indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, trustees and members (“Indemnified Parties”) from any and all actions, assessments, counts, citations, claims, costs, damages, demands, judgments, liabilities (legal, administrative or otherwise), losses, notices, expenses, fines, penalties, proceedings, responsibilities, violations, attorney’s and consultants’ fees and causes of action including, but not limited to those for, injury to property or persons, including personal injury and/or death (“Claim(s)”), to the extent that the Claim(s) arises out of, pertains to, or relates to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of CONTRACTOR, its directors, officials, officers, employees and consultants arising out of, connected with, or resulting from the performance of the Services, the Project, or this Agreement. This indemnity excludes liability caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of any of the Indemnified Parties. The cost to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend charged to CONTRACTOR shall not exceed CONTRACTOR’S proportionate percentage of fault. 9. Additional Services, Changes and Deletions. 9.01 In the event CONTRACTOR performs additional or different services than those described herein without the prior written approval of the City Manager and/or City Council of CITY, CONTRACTOR shall not be compensated for such services. CONTRACTOR expressly waives any right to be compensated for services and materials not covered by the scope of this Agreement or authorized by the CITY in writing. 9.02 CONTRACTOR shall promptly advise the City Manager and Finance Director of CITY as soon as reasonably practicable upon gaining knowledge of a condition, event or accumulation of events which may affect the scope and/or cost of Services. All proposed changes, modifications, deletions and/or requests for additional services shall be reduced to writing for review and approval by the CITY and/or City Council. 10. Termination of Agreement. 10.01 Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, CITY, at its sole option, may terminate this Agreement with or without cause, or for no cause, at any time by giving twenty (20) days’ written notice to CONTRACTOR. 10.02 In the event of termination, the payment of monies due CONTRACTOR for undisputed Services performed prior to the effective date of such termination shall be paid Page 172 of 379 7 within thirty (30) business days after receipt of an invoice as provided in this Agreement. Immediately upon termination, CONTRACTOR agrees to promptly provide and deliver to CITY all original documents, reports, studies, plans, specifications and the like which are in the possession or control of CONTRACTOR and pertain to CITY. 11. Status of CONTRACTOR. 11.01 CONTRACTOR shall perform the Services in CONTRACTOR’s own way as an independent contractor, and in pursuit of CONTRACTOR’s independent calling, and not as an employee of CITY. However, CONTRACTOR shall regularly confer with CITY’s City Manager as provided for in this Agreement. 11.02 CONTRACTOR agrees that it is not entitled to the rights and benefits afforded to CITY’s employees, including disability or unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation, retirement, CalPERS, medical insurance, sick leave, or any other employment benefit. CONTRACTOR is responsible for providing, at its own expense, disability, unemployment, workers’ compensation and other insurance, training, permits, and licenses for itself and its employees and subcontractors. 11.03 CONTRACTOR hereby specifically represents and warrants to CITY that it possesses the qualifications and skills necessary to perform the Services under this Agreement in a competent, professional manner, without the advice or direction of CITY and that the Services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be performed in accordance with the standards customarily applicable to an experienced and competent professional rendering the same or similar services in the same geographic area where the CITY is located. Further, CONTRACTOR represents and warrants that the individual signing this Agreement on behalf of CONTRACTOR has the full authority to bind CONTRACTOR to this Agreement. 12. Ownership of Documents; Audit. 12.01 All draft and final reports, plans, drawings, studies, maps, photographs, specifications, data, notes, manuals, warranties and all other documents of any kind or nature prepared, developed or obtained by CONTRACTOR in connection with the performance of Services performed for the CITY shall become the sole property of CITY, and CONTRACTOR shall promptly deliver all such materials to CITY upon request. At the CITY’s sole discretion, CONTRACTOR may be permitted to retain original documents, and furnish reproductions to CITY upon request, at no cost to CITY. 12.02 Subject to applicable federal and state laws, rules and regulations, CITY shall hold all intellectual property rights to any materials developed pursuant to this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall not such use data or documents for purposes other than the performance of this Agreement, nor shall CONTRACTOR release, reproduce, distribute, publish, adapt for future use or any other purposes, or otherwise use, any data or other materials first produced in the performance of this Agreement, nor authorize others to do so, without the prior written consent of CITY. 12.03 CONTRACTOR shall retain and maintain, for a period not less than four years following termination of this Agreement, all-time records, accounting records and Page 173 of 379 8 vouchers and all other records with respect to all matters concerning Services performed, compensation paid and expenses reimbursed. At any time during normal business hours and as often as CITY may deem necessary, CONTRACTOR shall make available to CITY’s agents for examination all of such records and shall permit CITY’s agents to audit, examine and reproduce such records. 13. Miscellaneous Provisions. 13.01 This Agreement, which includes all attached exhibits, supersedes any and all previous agreements, either oral or written, between the parties hereto with respect to the rendering of Services by CONTRACTOR for CITY and contains all of the covenants and agreements between the parties with respect to the rendering of such Services in any manner whatsoever. Any modification of this Agreement will be effective only if it is in writing signed by both parties. 13.02 CONTRACTOR shall not assign or otherwise transfer any rights or interest in this Agreement without the prior written consent of CITY. Unless specifically stated to the contrary in any written consent to an assignment, no assignment will release or discharge the assignor from any duty or responsibility under this Agreement. 13.03 CONTRACTOR shall timely file FPPC Form 700 Conflict of Interest Statements with CITY if required by California law and/or the CITY’s conflict of interest policy. 13.04 If any legal action or proceeding, including an action for declaratory relief, is brought to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party will be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, in addition to any other relief to which that party may be entitled. 13.05 This Agreement is made, entered into and shall be performed in the County of Riverside in the State of California and shall in all respects be interpreted, enforced and governed under the laws of the State of California. The parties agree that venue in any litigation between them shall be in Riverside County, California. 13.06 CONTRACTOR covenants that neither it nor any officer or principal of its firm has any interest, nor shall they acquire any interest, either directly or indirectly, which will conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of their Services hereunder. CONTRACTOR further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person having such interest shall be employed by it as an officer, employee, agent, or subcontractor. 13.07 CONTRACTOR has read and is aware of the provisions of Section 1090 et seq. and Section 87100 et seq. of the Government Code relating to conflicts of interest of public officers and employees. CONTRACTOR agrees that they are unaware of any financial or economic interest of any public officer or employee of the CITY relating to this Agreement. It is further understood and agreed that if such a financial interest does exist at the inception of this Agreement, the CITY may immediately terminate this Agreement by giving notice thereof. CONTRACTOR shall comply with the requirements Page 174 of 379 9 of Government Code section 87100 et seq. and section 1090 in the performance of and during the term of this Agreement. 13.08 Improper Consideration. CONTRACTOR shall not offer (either directly or through an intermediary) any improper consideration such as, but not limited to, cash, discounts, services, the provision of travel or entertainment, or any items of value to any officer, employee or agent of the CITY in an attempt to secure favorable treatment regarding this Agreement or any contract awarded by CITY. The CITY, by notice, may immediately terminate this Agreement if it determines that any improper consideration as described in the preceding sentence was offered to any officer, employee or agent of the CITY with respect to the proposal and award process of this Agreement or any CITY contract. This prohibition shall apply to any amendment, extension or evaluation process once this Agreement or any CITY contract has been awarded. CONTRACTOR shall immediately report any attempt by any CITY officer, employee or agent to solicit (either directly or through an intermediary) improper consideration from CONTRACTOR. 13.09 Severability. If any portion of this Agreement is declared invalid, illegal or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the entire balance of this Agreement not so affected shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereby have made and executed this Agreement to be effective as of the day and year first above written. CITY: CONTRACTOR: CITY OF BEAUMONT Tom Dodson & Associates By: By: Julio Martinez, III, Mayor Print Name: Title: Page 175 of 379 EXHIBIT “A” PROPOSAL (insert behind this page) Page 176 of 379 EXHIBIT “B” CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE AND ENDORSEMENTS (insert behind this page) Page 177 of 379 PROPOSAL FOR THE CITY OF BEAUMONT ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AND MITIGATION PLAN Submitted to: Submitted by: Tom Dodson and Associates P.O. Box 2307 San Bernardino, California 92406 (909) 882-3612 In Partnership with: West Yost 23692 Birtcher Drive Lake Forest, CA 92630 (949) 420-3030 and Jacobs (Lisa Patterson, Biological Resources/Regulatory Team) Proposal Due Date and Time: July 25, 2023 2:00 p.m. Page 178 of 379 Tom Dodson & Associates, West Yost, and Jacobs City of Beaumont Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan i i Table of Contents A. Cover Letter 1 B. Introduction 3 C. Approach 4 D. Firm Profile 8 E. Firm Location 9 F. Proposed Team 9 G. References 12 H. Scope of Services 17 I. Project Schedule 17 J. Outstanding Contracts with the City of Beaumont 20 K. Additional Information and Services 20 L. Liability Insurance 20 Fee Rate Schedule and Cost Proposal are provided under a separate cover ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Scope of Services Attachment 2: Resumes Page 179 of 379 Tom Dodson & Associates, West Yost, and Jacobs City of Beaumont Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan 1 1 1 MEMORANDUM July 22, 2023 FROM: Tom Dodson & Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton, Tom Dodson & Associates Samantha Adams, West Yost Lisa Patterson, Jacobs TO: Grace Wichert, City of Beaumont SUBJECT: Proposal to Provide Consulting Services to Prepare an Adaptive Management and Mit igation Plan for the City of Beaumont Tom Dodson & Associates (TDA), in partnership with West Yost Associates, Inc. (West Yost) and Jacobs is pleased to submit this proposal to provide consulting services to prepare an Adaptive Management and Mitigation P lan (AMMP) for the City of Beaumont (City). It is our understanding that the City intends to submit a Petition for Change of Wastewater Discharge to the State Water Resources Control Board for its recycled water discharge to Cooper’s Creek (Riverside Coun ty, CA). The water that is currently discharged to Cooper’s Creek can then be delivered for direct or indirect reuse (such as irrigation or groundwater recharge). The City has recognized that reducing its discharge has the potential to impact downstream biological resources (e.g. creek and riparian habitat). To address the potential for impacts, the City will develop the AMMP, the objective of which is to establish a monitoring, analysis, and reporting framework that will document changes in the hydrogeologic system and biological resources as discharge is reduced and inform the need for implementing management measures that will mitigate impacts of the reduced discharge. The development of the AMMP will be a multi-year effort produced in phases. Our team carefully reviewed the RFP and have prepared an approach and scope of work that we believe will result in the development and approval of a robust AMMP that will serve as the framework for implementing the City’s recycled water program. Our proposal includes all the requisite elements defined in the RFP, including submitting our cost proposal under separate cover. Our proposal provides an approach that will be implemented over three to five years and will include the following three phases: • Phase 1 – Characterize Historical and Current Conditions to Support Development of AMMP • Phase 2 – Assess Feasibility of Reduced Discharge and Perform Initial Baseline Monitoring • Phase 3 – Prepare Adaptive Monitoring and Mitigation Plan and Continue Baseline Monitoring Our project team has extensive experience working together to develop and implement complex water management programs, including development of monitoring and mitigation programs to address environmental, hydrogeologic, and biologic impacts of water resources projects. We believe that our team is well suited to support the City in achieving its recycled water use and discharge goals. We have a strong resume demonstrating successful outcomes for our clients, most particularly our team’s support of the Chino Basin Watermaster in the development and implementation of its Page 180 of 379 Tom Dodson & Associates, West Yost, and Jacobs City of Beaumont Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan 2 2 2 Optimum Basin Management Program, which includes a robust adaptive monitoring and mitigation program for the Prado Basin Habitat Sustainability Committee. Our team is fully committed and available to perform the multi-year services requested by the City and will enhance your capacity to efficiently develop the AMMP. We are confident that the City will be completely satisfied with the quality of our work and our commitment to provide the highest possible level of support while considering cost and efficiency. The team will provide the City: • A commitment to working collaboratively. We are committed to working with City staff to develop an approach that will result in a high-quality, scientifically defensible AMMP that will provide for ease of adaptation as new information is learned or the City’s plans and priorities evolve. • Leadership you can trust to deliver. Our project team leadership is comprised of industry leaders in environmental, water, and biological resources. Our team will be led by Project Manager, Kaitlyn Dodson- Hamilton (TDA). She will be supported by Principles-in-Charge, Tom Dodson (TDA) and Samantha Adams (West Yost) and technical advisor Andy Malone, PG (West Yost). Technical work will be led by Veva Weamer (West Yost) and Lisa (Jacobs). This team brings a strong history of delivering on challenging multi-disciplinary projects. • A team with a deep bench to deliver projects that expertly meet your needs. Our team offers a full-service approach across the entire spectrum of disciplines, including: planning, data analysis, modeling, engineering feasibility, CEQA, regulatory support, and grant funding. • A project management plan that will keep the team engaged. Our project managers will keep our internal team and City staff engaged and meet the project goals and objectives. Our proactive project management plans include monthly updates (or other frequencies as appropriate), action item and decision logs, and oversight by our team’s Principal-in-Charge and Technical Advisor. We appreciate this opportunity to serve the City and we look forward to discussing our recommended approach and scope of work. Sincerely, Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton, Vice President, TDA. Please contact Kaitlyn, Tom, or Samantha. Our direct contact information is below: Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton Samantha Adams Email: kaitlyn@tdaenv.com Email: sadams@westyost.com Phone: (909) 882-3612 Phone: 949.238.0698 Tom Dodson Email: tda@tdaenv.com Phone: (909) 882-3612 Page 181 of 379 Tom Dodson & Associates, West Yost, and Jacobs City of Beaumont Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan 3 3 3 B. INTRODUCTION Tom Dodson & Associates, in partnership with West Yost and Jacobs, has prepared this proposal to develop an Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan (AMMP) for the City of Beaumont (City). Our team carefully reviewed the RFP and have prepared an approach and scope of work that we believe will result in the development and approval of a robust AMMP that will serve as the framework for implementing the City’s recycled water program. It is our understanding that the City intends to submit a Petition for Chang e of Wastewater Discharge to the State Water Resources Control Board for its recycled water discharge to Cooper’s Creek (Riverside County, CA). The water that is currently discharged to Cooper’s Creek can then be delivered for direct or indirect reuse (suc h as irrigation or groundwater recharge). The City has recognized that reducing its discharge has the potential to impact downstream biological resources (e.g. creek and riparian habitat). To address the potential for impacts, the City will the AMMP, the o bjective of which is to establish a monitoring, analysis, and reporting framework that will document changes in the hydrogeologic system and biological resources as discharge is reduced and inform the need for implementing management measures that will mitigate impacts of the reduced discharge. Our team has extensive experience working together to develop and implement complex water management programs, including development of monitoring and mitigation programs to address environmental, hydrogeologic, and biologic impacts of water resources projects. We believe that our team is well suited to support the City in achieving its recycled water use and discharge goals. We have a strong resume demonstrating successful outcomes for our clients, most particularly our team’s support of the Chino Basin Watermaster in the development and implementation of its Optimum Basin Management Program, which includes a robust adaptive monitoring and mitigation program for the Prado Basin Habitat Sustainability Committee. Our team has a successful approach and record in achieving our clients’ objectives. We will do the same for the City in accomplishing the scope of services to develop an AMMP through our tried and true practices for project management and communication, which include: 1. Prior to entering into contract. We will work with the City to review the proposed scope of work and ensure we are in alignment on the project needs and objectives. Key milestones are defined as well as “off -ramps” that lead to revisiting the scope if initial investigations and analysis warrant a change to the project or approach. Through this process, the scope, schedule, and cost are refined as necessary to establish a final budget that considers any necessary contingencies to address challenges that may arise. 2. As early as possible, we identify the data and tools needed and available to support the project development, define the technical approaches that could be applied to meet the project objectives, and establish criteria to evaluate analytical outcomes. We strive to communicate when there are important data and analytical tool gaps that could impact the implementation of the scope of work so that adjustments to the scope of work and expected outcomes can be made. 3. We create a team whose skills match the unique needs of the project, including senior technical review at defined points within the scope. Our project team has a deep bench of skilled scientists, engineers, hydrogeologists, and biologists available to build a multi-disciplinary team that will ensure all aspects of the project are expertly addressed. Page 182 of 379 Tom Dodson & Associates, West Yost, and Jacobs City of Beaumont Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan 4 4 4 4. We Communicate in a clear and timely manner. We pride ourselves on being responsible, approachable, clear, and professional. As technical experts, we must always strive to present complex information in a manner that leads to effective decision making. Communication skills are essential to ensuring maximum efficiency for activities such as conducting meetings, reporting to regulators, and providing data, information, or presentations to deci sion makers as well as stakeholders. Our team leaders have extensive experience working for, communicating with, and speaking on behalf of multi‐stakeholder groups, such as the Chino Basin Watermaster and the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, among others. 5. Ensure that we have subject matter experts assigned to perform Senior Technical Review and QA/QC of Reports and Deliverables. We execute every project to ensure that our methods, data, and results can hold up to peer ‐ review, regulatory scrutiny, and court processes. To ensure high‐quality deliverables, our Project Manager will be responsible to ensure that principal‐level technical experts review the team’s work to ensure they meet the intended goals and objectives of the project and are prepared to the highest technical standards and are communicated in a clear and concise manner. 6. We perform regular project management reviews of the scope, schedule, and budget to track progress and report out on key project milestones and financial status. We will i nvolve the City at the first indication of a challenge with the scope, schedule, or financial status, and work together to resolve the challenge. The project manager and primary contact for our team is Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton with Tom Dodson and Associates, located at: Tom Dodson and Associates: P.O. Box 2307, San Bernardino, California 92406. Phone: (909) 882-3612 C. APPROACH In this Section, we describe our team’s approach to developing the AMMP, including our understanding of the Project, our articulation of the steps to accomplish the City’s objectives, the technical approach to implementing the work, our project management approach, and our project budgeting approach. Project Understanding The AMMP approach, which is iterative in nature, is valuable in that it will allow the City to develop and implement a “right size” approach to characterizing and analyzing local physical and operational conditions. The level of analysis and monitoring performed over time can be tailored to the local physical conditions (hydrogeologic and biologic), the robustness of available data and analytical tools, and the feasibility of filling data gaps and enhancing analytical tools to support adaptive management. Based on our team’s experience, the development of an AMMP is a multi-year process that evolves over multiple phases. The RFP describes the following work to be performed by the consultant in developing an AMMP for the City: • Assess the hydrologic and operational feasibility of diverting discha rge from the current point of discharge on Cooper’s Creek • Identify the potential impacts to biological resources downstream of the Cooper’s Creek discharge point • Assess the feasibility of implementing operation and mitigation alternatives • Develop a monitoring program to assess baseline conditions and support an adaptive management plan • Assist the City in seeking and applying for funding opportunities • Any additional services required or recommended to secure approval of the AMMP Page 183 of 379 Tom Dodson & Associates, West Yost, and Jacobs City of Beaumont Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan 5 5 5 Technical Approach The RFP defines a two-phase approach to developing the AMMP and performing the above listed work. We have reviewed the recommended phases and tasks and have developed a recommended technical approach to accomplish the work that includes all of the required tasks. Below we describe our articulation of the necessary steps to accomplish the City’s objectives for preparing an AMMP and define an alternative phased approach to completing the work. Steps to accomplish the City’s Objectives Based on our team’s experience in developing and implementing similar adaptive management programs, we have articulated the following 12 steps as the approach to developing the AMMP: 1. Describe the Project and the objectives/requirements of the AMMP. This includes describing/defining the recycled water operations, change petition, future recycled water reuse, study area, and goals and objectives of the City. 2. Collect and review all relevant data, information, reports, and models/analytical tools ( surface water and groundwater). 3. Characterize the historical extent/health of the biological resources within the Cooper’s Creek floodplain up to the present day. 4. Characterize all factors that could have supported or affected the extent/health of the biological resources over time (e.g., surface-water discharge, groundwater levels, climate, pests, fire, etc.). Describe the relationships of these factors to the extent/health of the biological resources and define preliminary metrics for habitat sustainability. 5. Characterize the data and models (or analytical tools) that are available for assessing and projecting future hydrogeologic and biologic conditions and identify gaps in the available data and tools. Define approaches to improve the available data and tools. This step will include a r eview of the County of Riverside’s Flow Ecology Investigation and its associated modeling tool/results. 6. Prepare Cooper’s Creek Habitat Characterization and Sustainability Report. This report will summarize the results and conclusions of all prior steps, will describe preliminary metrics for habitat sustainability (e.g., depth to groundwater, surface-water discharge, etc.), and define a scope of work for (i) baseline monitoring /data collection and (ii) using existing, or developing new, models/tools for assessing the hydrologic and operational impacts and feasibility of reducing discharge to Cooper’s Creek. 7. Assess the hydrologic feasibility of diverting at the current point of discharge. This would include performing predictive model simulations of the surface-water and groundwater hydrology of Cooper’s Creek with and without the Project and comparing the model results against the preliminary metrics for habitat sustainability. Depending on the state of existing models and tools, this task may include: o Construct and calibrate (or update) a surface-water model that is capable of simulating: (i) historical discharge in Cooper’s Creek and (ii) future discharge in Cooper’s Creek under climate change, water conservation, and various future wastewater discharge scenarios. o Construct and calibrate (or update) a groundwater-flow model that is capable of simulating: (i) historical groundwater levels and GW/SW interactions within the alluvial aquifer and regional aquifer beneath Cooper’s Creek and (ii) future groundwater levels and GW/SW interactions in Cooper’s Creek under climate change, water conservation, and various future wastewater discharge scenarios. 8. Define potential project operations or other management actions to mitigate impacts to biologic resources. 9. Assess the engineering/operational feasibility of alternative project operations and management actions. This would include defining facility descriptions, level 5 cost opinions, and a CEQA checklist. 10. Prepare Cooper’s Creek Discharge Hydrogeologic and Operatio nal Feasibility Report. This report will summarize the results and conclusions of steps 7 through 9. Page 184 of 379 Tom Dodson & Associates, West Yost, and Jacobs City of Beaumont Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan 6 6 6 11. Concurrent with steps 7 through 10, implement the first year of the baseline monitoring program defined in the Cooper’s Creek Habitat Characterization and Sustainability Report. 12. Using the information from steps 1 through 10, prepare the AMMP report. This report will include the following chapters, at a minimum: o Background. ▪ Project Description and Regulatory Requirements ▪ Description of the study area and Cooper’s Creek hydrology/habitat [taken from Cooper’s Creek Habitat Characterization and Sustainability Report] ▪ Objectives of the AMMP o Predicted changes in Cooper’s Creek hydrology/habitat. [taken from Cooper’s Creek Discharge Hydrogeologic and Operational Feasibility Report] o Preliminary metrics for habitat sustainability. [taken from Cooper’s Creek Habitat Characterization and Sustainability Report] o Monitoring program. This section will describe the monitoring program to track the extent/health of the Cooper’s Creek riparian habitat and the factors that could affect it. The initial years of monitoring preceding Project startup (and the historical characterization) will be considered “baseline” conditions. The monitoring program will consider outcomes of the initial year of baseline monitoring performed pursuant to the Cooper’s Creek Habitat Characterization and Sustainability Report. The monitoring program will be designed to compare the monitoring data versus the preliminary metrics for habitat sustainability , which could trigger mitigation measures. o Potential mitigation measures. This section will provide a list of potential strategies to mitigate adverse impacts to the riparian habitat in the event that such impacts are identified by the monitoring program a nd attributed to Project implementation. [taken from Cooper’s Creek Discharge Hydrogeologic and Operational Feasibility Report] o Annual reporting. This section will describe the commitment to prepare annual reports that document the monitoring program and data analysis. The AMMP will include an annotated table of contents for the Annual Report. o Process to update the AMMP. This section will describe the process to revise the AMMP in the future based on the results and conclusions of the monitoring program. R evisions could include modifications to the monitoring program or the metrics for habitat sustainability. In parallel to the technical work, the Team can provide support to the City in applying and negotiating terms of the change petition, communicating the project to interested and impacted stakeholders, and identifying grant opportunities. Project Phases The RFP defines a two-phase approach to developing the AMMP. We recommend organizing the above 12 steps into the following three phases: 1. Phase 1 – Characterize Historical and Current Conditions to Support Development of AMMP. Phase 1 includes steps 1 through 7 through the completion of the Cooper’s Creek Habitat Characterization and Sustainability Report. 2. Phase 2 – Assess Feasibility of Re duced Discharge and Perform Initial Baseline Monitoring. Phase 2 includes steps 8 through 11. This phase should be performed in two-parallel processes: a. Phase 2A - Assess Project Hydrologic and Operational Feasibility b. Phase 2B - Implement First year of Baseline Monitoring 3. Phase 3 – Prepare Adaptive Monitoring and Mitigation Plan. This Phase includes step 12. Page 185 of 379 Tom Dodson & Associates, West Yost, and Jacobs City of Beaumont Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan 7 7 7 Grant Funding and USBR The RFP requires that the AMMP meet all of the requirements of the Bureau of Reclamation reporting requirements of Title XVI-Water Reclamation and Reuse Program. The purpose of such a requirement is to be able to obtain grant funding, or comply with any grants received from the USBR to perform the project. Some elements of the Title XVI reporting are outside the scope of work envisioned for developing the AMMP. For these items, it is assumed that the City will provide or prepare the requisite information for Title XVI compliance. Alternatively, this work can be added to the scope at a later date, if requested by the City. The following items required for Title XVI compliance are not included in our proposed approach/scope of work. • Providing a Crosswalk from the AMMP to a Title XVI Compliant format • Detailed description of current and projected water supplies, demands, or water quali ty concerns • Detailed description of water reclamation, recycling, and desalination opportunities • Description of technology options • Economic Analysis • Selection of Recycled Water Reuse project (we are focused on selection of discharge alternatives only) • CEQA considerations on the above bullets • Legal and Institutional requirements for recycled water use • Financial capability of City to implement project • Research needs beyond the data gaps and tools needed to assess hydrogeologic and biologic impacts of reduced discharges Project Management Approach TDA’s project management will keep our internal, subconsultant, and City staff engaged and meet the project goals and objectives on time and within budget. Our proactive project management plans include monthly updates (or other frequencies as appropriate), coordinating team meetings, and oversight by our team’s Principal-in-Charge and Project Managers. West Yost has developed additional tools to help our project managers and team maintain accountability and project momentum. In our view, the most important tool at our disposal is internal review for quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC), to ensure that the work product meets the standards we deem acceptable for the work product at hand. The internal QA/QC will be undertaken by our team’s Principal -in-Charge and Project Managers, between West Yost and Tom Dodson & Associates. The internal reviewer will conduct detailed technical review of the approach, technical findings, and project deliverables. Additionally, we value flexibility in our project management approach to meet the needs of the client, in this case the City of Beaumont, to ensure that the communication levels, management styles, and review processes meet the client’s expectations. Project Budget Approach Our team has extensive experience in developing and implementing multi-year adaptive monitoring and management programs. Preparing cost estimates for multi-year, multi-phase work can be challenging because the scope of work in later phases is directly impacted by the conclusion of preceding phases. For this reason, we have prepared a budget (See Cost Proposal under separate cover), that provides a detailed line -item estimate for the tasks in Phase 1 and a range of potential costs for the tasks in Phases 2 and 3, based on our experience in performing similar work. Page 186 of 379 Tom Dodson & Associates, West Yost, and Jacobs City of Beaumont Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan 8 8 8 D. FIRM PROFILE Tom Dodson and Associates Tom Dodson and Associates (TDA), incorporated in 1983, is a small environmental consulting and regulatory compliance firm located in San Bernardino. The principal partners, Tom Dodson (President) and Kaitlyn Dodson -Hamilton (Vice President), are directly involved in day-to-day operation of the firm and are also involved in each project undertaken by TDA. This approach provides the company owners with direct knowledge and oversight for each project, thus ensuring that each project receives the firm’s high standard for product quality. A common theme of all TDA projects is compliance with environmental requirements while meeting project schedules. TDA works with clients to meet schedules and identify reasonable and ethical environmental requirements. For every project, TDA has found there is a mutually acceptable balance between development goals and the need to protect the environment. TDA strives to define this balance for clients and regulators and present workable solutions that both parties can accept as the basis for implementation of projects. With over 50 years of collective experience in environmental problem -solving, TDA has been remarkably successful in meeting objectives. West Yost TDA has partnered with West Yost in response to this proposal. TDA shall serve as project manager overseeing the tasks required to meet the needs to the scope of services discussed under “G. Scope of Services,” while West Yost shall serve as the expert team performing the majority of the project tasks. West Yost is a consulting engineering firm that was founded in 1990. Our focus is exclusively water, wastewater, recycled water, groundwater, and stormwater. We have broad experience in providing planning, design, construction management, and program management services in these areas. West Yost is headquartered in Davis, California, and has about 225 staff members in nine offices in California, Oregon, and Arizona. Our staff includes certified or registered professionals in chemical, civil, control systems, electrical, environmental, and mechanical engineering; wastewater treatment and regulatory compliance; geology, engineering geology, and hydrogeology; architecture; GIS; cybersecurity and risk management; asset management and condition assessment; project management; and construction management and inspection services. Page 187 of 379 Tom Dodson & Associates, West Yost, and Jacobs City of Beaumont Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan 9 9 9 West Yost’s groundwater team offers a full-service approach across the entire spectrum of disciplines from which we can build diverse, multi-disciplinary teams with the skills and experience that will bring innovative and efficient solutions to meet the unique needs of our clients. Our areas of expertise include: groundwater management planning (including SGMA compliance); hydrogeologic investigations; surface and groundwater modeling; land subsidence management; salt and nutrient management planning; development and implementation of monitoring programs; monitoring and management of groundwater dependent ecosystems; water rights compliance and reporting; regulatory and permitting assistance; database management; well rehabilitation and new municipal and ASR well design; managed aquifer recharge (MAR); and funding assistance. Jacobs Engineering TDA has a relationship with Jacobs because of Lisa Patterson —their California and Southwest Operating Divisions Lead — who previously worked for TDA for more than 20 years. In total, Lisa Patterson has teamed with TDA for about 30 years as an Ecologist, Biologist, and Regulatory Specialist. Jacobs has proven expertise guiding clients through the environmental permitting and regulatory compliance process in challenging environments throughout the United States. Jacobs combines decades of experience in permitting projects in areas of sensitive water resources, threatened and endangered species and vital natural resources. In addition, Jacobs has the tools to identify potential impacts to biologic resources and develop monitoring program to characterize baseline condition pursuant to Phase 1: Tasks 5 and 6, and Phase 2b. E. FIRM LOCATION Tom Dodson and Associates Mailing Address: PO Box 2307, San Bernardino, CA 92406 Physical Address: 2150 N. Arrowhead Avenue, San Bernardino, CA 92405 F. PROPOSED TEAM Tom Dodson & Associates Tom Dodson, MA will serve as the Tom Dodson & Associates Principal-in-Charge. Tom is the President of Tom Dodson and Associates since its incorporation. He has more than 40 years of experience in the environmental consulting world. He personally prepares environmental documentation for a broad variety of projects and acts as a resource person in working with clients, governmental agencies, and decision -makers in finding solutions to complex problems. He negotiates with regulators at the federal, state, and local level, and designs formal presentations to committees. He serves as program manager on many projects undertaken by the firm and maintains close contacts with subconsultants and specialists who can provide technical information, as needed, in a timely manner. Page 188 of 379 Tom Dodson & Associates, West Yost, and Jacobs City of Beaumont Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan 10 10 10 Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton, will serve as the Tom Dodson & Associates Project Manager. Kaitlyn is an Environmental Specialist for Tom Dodson and Associates. Ms. Dodson-Hamilton has more than eight years of experience at TDA in environmental and resource management, with special expertise in CEQA and NEPA compliance. She has over 10 years of part-time experience providing support at TDA in research and mapping for CEQA, NEPA, and regulatory purposes at TDA. Ms. Dodson-Hamilton personally prepares environmental documentation for a broad variety of CEQA and NEPA projects, as well as regulatory permits for the State Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. She works in conjunction with Tom to work with clients, governmental agencies, and decision -makers to find solutions to complex problems. For this Project, she will be the CEQA lead, in preparation of the necessary CEQA documentation to complete Phase 2. Tom and Kaitlyn will work in conjunction to accomplish this task based on the results of Phase 1. West Yost Samantha Adams, MESM will serve as the West Yost Principal-in-Charge. Samantha will be a secondary point of contact for the City and will support the Project Manager by ensuring that the requisite West Yost project team resources are available and that work is performed in accordance with the approved project approach, or as directed by the City and TDA. Samantha has 17 years of professional experience in water resources management and has overseen the development of numerous groundwater management plans, salt and nutrient management plans, and monitoring and reporting programs throughout the Santa Ana River watershed and elsewhere in southern California. Andy Malone, PG will serve as the project Technical Advisor and QA/QC Reviewer. Andy has over 25 years of professional experience in water resources consulting and in geologic sciences. His technical expertise includes basin characterization, hydrogeologic and hydrologic analyses, aquifer mechanics, land subsidence, groundwater dependent ecosystems, and development of monitoring program s to support groundwater management. Andy currently serves as the technical advisor for the Chino Basin Watermaster’s Prado Basin Habitat and Sustainability Program, for which he has served an integral role in developing and implementing the Prado Basin Adaptive Monitoring and Mitigation Program since 2014. Veva Weamer, MS will serve as the Lead Project Scientist for the development of the AMMP. Veva has 15 years of experience in groundwater management. Her expertise includes SGMA compliance, surface and groundwater monitoring program design and implementation, groundwater dependent ecosystems, database management, water quality monitoring and analysis, salt and nutrient management planning, and regulatory compliance reporting. Veva is the project manager the Chino Basin Watermaster’s Prado Basin Habitat and Sustainability Program, for which she has served an integral role in developing and implementing the Prado Basin Adaptive Monitoring and Mitigation Program since 2014. Eric Chiang, PhD will serve as a project scientist, supporting review of models, developing modeling approaches, and supporting data management. Eric has 30 years of experience in the water resources industry focused on research and application of numerical groundwater and surface wat er modeling, 3D Visualization, software development, data management, planning and decision analysis, and GIS. Eric is West Yost’s chief groundwater and surface water modeler. In addition, he develops and applies HydroDaVE – a cloud based groundwater and surface water data management system that enables users to remotely Page 189 of 379 Tom Dodson & Associates, West Yost, and Jacobs City of Beaumont Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan 11 11 11 manage, visualize, analyze, and share groundwater, surface water, climatic data, model results, and gridded data sets (like NDVI) on a map based user interface. Carolina Sanchez, PE will serve as the project engineer to support surface water data analysis and modeling. Carolina has over nine years of experience in water resources engineering and groundwater management. Her expertise includes recharge master planning, surface water mod eling, salt and nutrient management planning, Watermaster services, leading multi-stakeholder groups through decision making processes, and groundwater management planning. Lucy Hedley, MESM will serve as the project engineer to support data collection and analysis. Her areas of expertise include regulatory support and compliance reporting, management of field groundwater and surface water monitoring programs, analysis of water quality data, implementation of salt and nutrient management plans, utilization of visual tools to analyze the interactions between surface water and groundwater, groundwater dependent ecosystems, and database management. Lucy currently serves as a project scientist for the Prado Basin Adaptive Monitoring and Mitigation Program. Jacobs Lisa Patterson will serve as senior project biologist, assessing potential impacts to biological resources utilizing the existing discharge point under a reduced base flow regime as outlined in the RFP to develop a monitoring program to characterize baseline habitat conditions. Lisa will work with the West Yost and TDA teams to develop a monitoring plan to determine the impacts on biological resources from further reductions in flow. With over 30 years of experience, Lisa is a Senior Ecologist and an expert delivering environmental work with IEUA, Water Districts, Light and Class 1 Rail clients nationwide. She is a regulatory specialist and is responsible for preparing and obtaining regulatory permits, managing compliance of regulatory permits, and conducting a wide range of studies and evaluations for absence or presence of endangered species (plants and animals), habitat assessments, biological assessments, impact analyses, mitigation plans, implementation plans, construction monitoring, general biological surveys protected species studies. replacements. Daniel Smith will serve as project biologist, performing the fieldwork and surveys necessary to support the development of the monitoring program. Daniel will also assist in any write ups resulting from the survey results. Daniel has 13 years of direct environmental consulting experience with BNSF Railway Company, supporting BNSF’s Structures Division. He has conducted and/or assisted in conducting protocol USFWS and CDFW threatened and endangered sp ecies surveys and jurisdictional waters assessments. He has also prepared permit applications and monitored permit compliance, providing full project cycle management and reporting. Daniel has conducted jurisdictional waters delineations conforming to USAC E and RWQCB standards on project sites throughout California. Individual Resumes can be found as Attachment 2 to this Proposal. Page 190 of 379 Tom Dodson & Associates, West Yost, and Jacobs City of Beaumont Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan 12 12 12 ORGANIZATIONAL CHART F. REFERENCES Our Team has compiled 6 project references to demonstrate our team’s experience with similar projects. For each project, client contact information is provided (name, agency, email, phone number). All projects were active within the last five years. The projects included are: TDA References INLAND EMPIRE UTILITIES AGENCY Chino Basin Program (CBP) Environmental Impact Report (2021 -2022) PROJECT TEAM: Kaitlyn Dodson Hamilton, Tom Dodson, Lisa Patterson, Daniel Smith, in addition to team members at West Yost (Carolina Sanchez, Mark Wildermuth, Garrett Rapp, Lauren Sather, and Samantha Adams) and many other technical subconsultants. REFERENCE: Ms. Elizabeth Hurst, Chino Basin Program Manager • Tel: (909) 993-1646 • Email: ehurst@ieua.org • Address: 6075 Kimball Avenue Chino, CA 91708 Team Member Affiliations: Tom Dodson & Associates West Yost Jacobs Page 191 of 379 Tom Dodson & Associates, West Yost, and Jacobs City of Beaumont Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan 13 13 13 The CBP was submitted for Proposition 1 – Water Storage Investment Program (WSIP) funding and was awarded $206.9M in conditional funding in July 2018. Under the WSIP, the CBP is proposed to be a 25 -year conjunctive use project that proposes to use advanced water purification to treat and store up to 15,000 AFY of recycled water in the Chino Basin and extract the water during call years. TDA prepared the Program Environmental Impact Report, and served as Project Manager overseeing the preparation of all technical studies, providing input to the Grant Feasibility Studies, and reviewing the Hydrology Studies prepared by West Yost in support of IEUA’s Chino Basin Program. The preparation and processing of this PEIR was notable for the short time available to prepare, process and certify the PEIR (essentially two mo nths) and team with another IEUA on-call environmental firm (Rincon) to successfully complete the effort in order to stay in the running to receive up to about $210 million dollars from the State. TDA and Rincon worked together seamlessly to produce this document and relied upon a variety of sources to produce a document with 4,534 pages, including technical appendices. The biological resources research, and preparation of the biological resources assessment and extensive responses to biological resources comments on the EIR were prepared by Jacobs in conjunction with TDA. The City of Ontario has chosen to file a legal challenge to this CEQA document which is currently in process. Regardless, this effort was commendable by the whole of the Project Team, and exemplifies the efficiency and collaboration of the Project Team that TDA worked with to complete this effort. CHINO BASIN WATERMASTER Optimum Basin Management Program (OBMP) and Optimum Basin Management Program Update (OBMPU) Environmental Impact Report (2000-present) PROJECT TEAM: Kaitlyn Dodson Hamilton, Tom Dodson, Lisa Patterson, Daniel Smith, in addition to team members at West Yost (Carolina Sanchez, Mark Wildermuth, Garrett Rapp, Lauren Sather, and Samantha Adams) and many other technical subconsultants. REFERENCE: Mr. Edgar Tellez Foster, Water Resources Management and Planning Director • Tel: (909) 484-3888 • Email: etellezfoster@cbwm.org • Address: 9641 San Bernardino Road, Rancho Cucamonga, CA, 91730 The OBMP was developed in a collaborative public process that identified the needs and wants of all Stakeholders of the Chino Groundwater Basin, described the physical state of the groundwater basin, defined a s et of management goals, characterized impediments to those goals, and developed a series of actions that could be taken to remove the impediments and achieve the management goals. In 2000, TDA prepared the PEIR for the OBMP, and has prepared all subsequent CEQA documentation for the Chino Basin Watermaster, including the current OBMPU. TDA was given from December 2019 through March 2020 to prepare and initiate processing of a major EIR which would typically require six to nine months — more than the time allotted. TDA developed the strategy to meet the deadlines; organized the project team and assigned technical studies to be prepared over a short period of time; and creatively assisted IEUA, the CEQA Lead Agency, to complete the AB 52 consultation process. TDA must acknowledge that our team member WEI (now West Yost) made major contributions to our ability to meet this schedule. We published an Initial Study in February 2020; published the SEIR by the end of March of 2020. This Project Description for this doc ument was revised and therefore, the document is being recirculated to address these updates. TDA has collaborated with Jacobs, and West Yost to work towards a final draft that will be ready for circulation summer of 2023. As the environmental consultant f or the Chino Basin Watermaster and IEUA for the past 20+ years, TDA understands the need for meeting deadlines, understanding agency collaborations and agency mechanics, and applies this to all new client relationships. Page 192 of 379 Tom Dodson & Associates, West Yost, and Jacobs City of Beaumont Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan 14 14 14 SOUTH COAST WATER DISTRICT Aliso Creek Discharge Reduction Feasibility Investigation (2022 -2023) PROJECT TEAM: Kaitlyn Dodson Hamilton, Tom Dodson, Lisa Patterson, in addition to team members at West Yost (Carolina Sanchez and Mark Wildermuth) REFERENCE: Rick Shintaku, General Manager • Tel: (949) 499-4555, ext. 3156 • Email: Rshintaku@scwd.org • Address: 6075 Kimball Avenue, Chino CA 91708 South Coast Water District (District) proposed the Aliso Creek Urb an Runoff Recovery, Reuse and Conservation Project (Project) to capture and reuse urban runoff in Aliso Creek in Laguna Beach, California. The District constructed the diversio n and related treatment plant improvements to enable the diversion, treatment, a nd conveyance of the diverted water for non-potable uses in its service area. The District had not been able to divert water from Aliso Creek due to dry -weather creek discharges being less than the permitted minimum 4.77 cfs bypass flow requirement when n on-potable water demand for creek water occurs. TDA, in conjunction with Jacobs and West Yost, aided the District in its process to amend its diversi on permit. The scope consisted of assess the hydrologic and operational feasibility of continuing to diver t at the current point of diversion and at two other points of diversion located downstream from the current point of diversion. This effort included a field survey and research: to identify (but not assess) potential impacts to biologic resources of at th e existing and potential new downstream points of diversion under a reduced base flow regime; and development of a monitoring program to characterize baseline biologic and hydrologic conditions. This effort has been completed, and the District has moved forward with the monitoring program recommendations to establish a baseline and determine the point at which future diversions would cause significant downstream impacts. West Yost Associates References CHINO BASIN WATERMASTER, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA Prado Basin Habitat Sustainability Program (2014 to Present – ongoing project) TEAM: Veva Weamer, Andy Malone, Eric Chiang, Lucy Hedley REFERENCE: Peter Kavounas, General Manager, 9641 San Bernardino Road, Rancho Cucamonga, CA, 91730, pkavounas@cbwm.org, 909-484-3888 Challenge. The Prado Flood-Control Basin in southern Chino Basin (Prado Basin) is the largest riparian forest in southern California and provides critical habitat for several threatened or endangered species. Depth to groundwater is relatively, which allows for grou ndwater/ surface-water interaction. The Chino Basin Watermaster is implementing groundwater-supply programs that include controlled overdraft of the southern basin, which could result in groundwater -level declines near the Prado Basin. The Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the groundwater-supply program identified the lowering of groundwater levels as a potential adverse impact to the riparian vegetation in the Prado Basin that consumptively use shallow groundwater. Project Details. To ensure that the riparian habitat will not incur unforeseeable significant adverse effects, the Watermaster developed and implemented an adaptive management program (AMP) that includes: (i) convening a committee of stakeholders Page 193 of 379 Tom Dodson & Associates, West Yost, and Jacobs City of Beaumont Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan 15 15 15 to supervise the AMP, (ii) conducting a comprehensive monitoring program, (iii) annual reporting on the results and conclusions of the monitoring program, and (iv) adapting the AMP and the monitoring program as appropriate to ensure habitat sustainability. West Yost developed the AMP from 2014 to 2016, which included design and construction of 16 monitoring wells located near the riparian habitat to track changes in groundwater levels within the shallow or perched aquifer systems. The monitoring program, which has been implemented by West Yost since 2016, provides for the annual collection and analysis of: • The extent and quality of the riparian habitat over time, which includes acquisition and analysis of remote -sensing data from the Landsat program (NDVI), high-resolution aerial photography, and field vegetation surveys. • High-frequency groundwater level data to characterize groundwater level trends regionally and near the riparian habitat. • Groundwater and surface water quality data to characterize the groundwater/surface water interactions that are important to sustainability of the riparian habitat. • Other factors that could potentially impact the habitat, including surface-water, precipitation, temperature, wildfire, and pests, among others. • Groundwater-flow model projections of future drawdown to identify areas of prospective impacts on riparian habitat. Successful Outcomes • The Watermaster has published seven annual reports as of 2023. • The findings have demonstrated: o There is no trend in degradation of the riparian habitat that is contemporaneous with decreasing groundwater levels. o The observed changes in habitat greenness (increases and decreases) can be attributed to trends in climate, stream discharge, and the presence (or not) of an invasive pest that harms trees. WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER AUTHORITY, RIVERSIDE, CA Monitoring and Reporting Services for the WRCRWA Adaptive Management and Monitoring Program (2018 to Present – ongoing project) TEAM: Veva Weamer, Lucy Hedley REFERENCE: Mallory Gandara, Water Resources Specialist, 14205 Meridian Parkway, Riverside, CA, 92518, mgandara@wmwd.com, 951-571-7296 Challenge. The Orange County Water District (OCWD) Santa Ana River Diversion Canal (OCWD Canal) is an unlined canal located within the Prado Flood Control Basin that provides crucial surface water diversion to the OCWD wetlands. The OCWD wetland is home to several critical habitat and endangered species such as the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and the Santa Ana Sucker. The Western Riverside County Regional Wastewater Authority (WRCWA) treatment plant often discharges its treated wastewater (effluent) into the canal, between the Santa Ana River Diversion Point and the OCWD wetlands. In 2012, WRCWA petitioned for the State Water Board to eliminate its effluent discharges. However, the State Board identified c oncerns that reduced discharge has the potential to impact the riparian habitat downstream of the WRCWA discharge location. Project Details. To address the State Board concerns, WRCRWA developed the 2017 Adaptive Management and Monitoring Program (AMMP), the objective of which is to establish baseline conditions (Phase 1), and, after discharges are reduced, Page 194 of 379 Tom Dodson & Associates, West Yost, and Jacobs City of Beaumont Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan 16 16 16 determine if the reduction of effluent discharge negatively impacts the quality of riparian habitat downstream of the discharge (Phase 2). The AMMP consists of quantitative and qualitative vegetation monitoring of riparian habitat, performing annual survey of Least Bells’ Vireo nesting/territory locations, the construction of monitoring wells, and hydrologic monitoring. WRCWRA contracted with West Yost in 2018 to perform the hydrologic monitoring, which consists of measuring groundwater and surface water levels via pressure transducers with dataloggers. In 2020, the West Yost scope of work was expanded to include partnering with a biology subconsultant to analyze the annual monitoring data and characterize the current hydrologic and riparian habitat conditions to document the baseline condition of the system prior to reducing WRCRWA’s discharges. The results are documented in an annual report that is submitted to the State Board. Key Findings Key findings from Phase 1 include: • Vegetation monitoring reports from fall 2021 and early summer 2022 showed healthy habitat, dominated by native riparian habitat. • Riparian habitat can access the shallow groundwater, (less than 15 feet below the groundwater surface) making it a groundwater dependent ecosystem (GDE). • Groundwater elevations are mainly controlled by regional recharge and pumping rather than daily variations in WRCWRA effluent discharge or flow in the OCWD canal. • In the Oxbow Pond, shallow groundwater is the main source of surface water and was found to have no relationship with the effluent discharge. In the next phase of work, these findings will inform the long-term monitoring necessary to assess impacts to the habitat as the discharges are reduced. SAN JUAN BASIN AUTHORITY, SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO/RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA, CA Water Rights Compliance, Groundwater Management, and Monitoring and Reporting Programs (2010 to Present, ongoing project) TEAM: Samantha Adams, Eric Chiang, Carolina Sanchez, Lucy Hedley REFERENCE: Dan Ferons, General Manager of Santa Margarita Water District, 26111 Antonio Parkway, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA, 92688, danf@smwd.com, 949-459-6590 Challenge. The San Juan Basin is a narrow alluvial basin adjacent to the Pacific Ocean in south Orange County, CA, which, from a water rights perspective, is regu lated by the State Water Resources Control Board as flow of an underground stream. The Authority holds a Permit for Diversion and Use of Water, which outlines numerous terms and conditions under which the SJBA may extract and use water from the San Juan Basin, including: limits on pumping; monitoring protocols for groundwater pumping, levels, storage, and quality, and riparian vegetation; protection against seawater intrusion; maintaining adequate water in storage, and maintenance of water levels that support riparian vegetation. Project Details. West Yost was retained in 2010 to implement the SJBA’s water rights monitoring and reporting program. West Yost’s routine services include: implementing and adapting field groundwater and surface -water monitoring programs, collecting environmental datasets from numerous cooperating entities, managing and analyzing the data, preparing annual reports, submitting water-level data to the DWR in compliance with CASGEM, managing biology sub -consultants, Page 195 of 379 Tom Dodson & Associates, West Yost, and Jacobs City of Beaumont Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan 17 17 17 participating in the Authority’s Technical Advisory Group through preparation of meeting materials and attendance at meetings, and preparing presentations to the SJBA’s Board of Directors. West Yost also prepares the annual Adaptive Pumping Management (APM) Plan, which sets annual pumping limits that ensure protection of water levels that are supportive of riparian vegetation and protective against seawater intrusion. Other non -routine groundwater management services include: well siting investigations, geophysical investiga tions, surface and groundwater modeling, and evaluation of groundwater management alternatives. Successful Outcomes • In 2013, West Yost prepared the San Juan Basin Groundwater Management and Facilities Plan, which expanded the Authorities monitoring and reporting program beyond what is required by water rights permits to improve water resources management. • In 2014, water levels were declining due to a combination of prolonged drought and pumping. As a result of the expanded monitoring program, West Yost was able to detect the onset of seawater intrusion and make recommendations for measures to stop and reverse it. • In 2016, West Yost developed the Adaptive Pumping Management Plan, a first of its kind report for the San Juan Basin, which sets annual pumping limits based on current basin storage and climate conditions to ensure compliance with the SJBA’s water rights permit. It includes monitoring protocols that allow for adaptation during the year, and over time. • In 2023, West Yost updated and recalibrated the integrated surface and groundwater flow model of the San Juan Basin to support the development of the 2023 APM Plan, support development and implementation of recharge project concepts, and support development of strategies to optimize pumping in the riparian habitat area and associated mitigation strategies, if needed. Jacobs References • Aliso Creek Discharge Reduction Feasibility Investigation, South Coast Water District (2022 -23) o See TDA reference and description of services. • Biological Survey, Monitoring, and Reporting for the Optimum Basin Management Program, and Optimum Basin Management Program Update, Chino Basin Watermaster (2000-Present) o See TDA reference and description of services. • Biological Survey, Monitoring, and Reporting for the Chino Basin Program (2022), Inland Empire Utilities Agency o See TDA reference and description of services. G. SCOPE OF SERVICES The full scope of services is provided as Attachment 1, per the RFP. H. PROJECT SCHEDULE The graphic on the following page depicts the estimated project schedule. For teach task the graphic shows the task duration in months. Page 196 of 379 Tom Dodson & Associates, West Yost, and Jacobs City of Beaumont Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan 18 18 18 We estimate the work will take at least three years to complete and up to three and a half years to c omplete. The precise schedule beyond Phase 1 is difficult to predict as the exact scope of work in Phases 2 and 3 will be dependent on the outcomes of the prior phase. We assumed a start date of October 1, 2023. The schedule shows: • Phase 1 work will take one year to complete (October 2023 through September 2024) • Phase 2 work will take about one and a half to two years to complete: o Shorter estimate: October 2024 through April 2026 o Longer estimate: October 2024 through September 2026 • Phase 3 work will take about one year to complete Based on the projected schedule, the AMMP could be complete sometime between August 2026 and February 2027. Page 197 of 379 Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Phase 1 - Characterize Historical and Current Conditions to Support Development of AMMP Task 1 - Phase 1 Project Management and Meetings Task 2 - Establish Initial Goals, Objectives, and Project Performance Criteria Task 3 - Characterize Historical Discharge and Surface Water Flow Hydrology Task 4 - Characterize Historical Riparian Habitat Health (NDVI) Task 5 - Characterize Historical and Existing Biological Resources Task 6 - Identify Potential Impacts to Biological Resources from Reduced Discharge to Coopers Creek Task 7 - Assess Available Tools for Analyzing Surface Water and Groundwater Impacts Task 8 - Prepare Cooper’s Creek Habitat Characterization and Sustainability Report Phase 2 - Assess Feasibility of Reduced Discharge and Perform Initial Baseline Monitoring Task 9 - Phase 2 Project Management and Meetings Phase 2A - Assess Project Hydrologic and Operational Feasibility Task 10 - Assess the Hydrologic and Operational Capacities from Operating the Discharge Under Current and Future Discharges Task 11 - Identification of Conceptual Project Mitigations to Biologic Resources Task 12 - Assess Engineering Feasibility of Operational Alternatives and Mitigation Actions Task 13 - CEQA Checklist Evaluation of Project Alternatives Task 14 - Prepare Cooper’s Creek Discharge Hydrogeologic and Operational Feasibility Report Phase 2B - Implement Baseline Monitoring Task 15 - Implement first year of Baseline Monitoring program Task 16 - Prepare scope of work and cost estimate to prepare the AMMP Phase 3 - Prepare Adaptive Monitoring and Mitigation Plan Task 17 - Phase 3 Project Management and Meetings Task 18 - Prepare the AMMP Task 19 - Implement Second Year of Baseline Monitoring Program Legend:Earliest start date Possible Extended Schedule if Phase 2 takes longer to complete 2026 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Schedule to Prepare City of Beaumont Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan 2023 2024 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q1 2027 Q3 Q4 2025Proposal Phase/Task 19 Page 198 of 379 Tom Dodson & Associates, West Yost, and Jacobs City of Beaumont Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan 19 19 19 I. OUTSTANDING CONTRACTS WITH THE CITY OF BEAUMONT TDA and our Project Team members have no outstanding contracts with the City of Beaumont. J. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND SERVICES Other Work to Support the City’s Change Petition and Approval of the AMMP In parallel to the technical work in Phases 1, 2, and 3, the Team can provide support to the City in applying a nd negotiating terms of the change petition, communicating the project to interested and impacted stakeholders, and identifying grant opportunities. This work will be performed at the direction of the City on an as-needed basis. K. LIABILITY INSURANCE TDA will furnish professional liability insurance that will go into effect at the time of contract execution to include liability at a minimum of one million per occurrence, worker’s compensation, and vehicle coverage including comprehensive and collision insurance naming the City of Beaumont as additional insured. 20 Page 199 of 379 ATTACHMENT 1: SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF BEAUMONT ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AND MITIGATION PLAN Submitted to: Submitted by: Tom Dodson and Associates P.O. Box 2307 San Bernardino, California 92406 (909) 882-3612 In Partnership with: West Yost 23692 Birtcher Drive Lake Forest, CA 92630 (949) 420-3030 and Jacobs (Lisa Patterson, Biological Resources/Regulatory Team) Proposal Due Date and Time: July 25, 2023 2:00 p.m. Page 200 of 379 Tom Dodson & Associates, West Yost, and Jacobs City of Beaumont Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan – Scope of Services 1 G. SCOPE OF SERVICES The full scope of services is provided under a separate cover, per the RFP. This section describes the proposed scope of services to develop the AMMP. As presented in Section C – Approach, our recommended approach is to perform the steps to complete the AMMP in three Phases as follows: • Phase 1 – Characterize Historical and Current Conditions to Support Development of AMMP • Phase 2 – Assess Feasibility of Reduced Discharge and Perform Initial Baseline Monitoring • Phase 3 – Prepare Adaptive Monitoring and Mitigation Plan and Continue Baseline Monitoring As noted in Section C, the recommended phasing and order of tasks is different than the order of work presented in the RFP. To help the City understand how the recommended scope of work maps to the Phases and Tasks in the RFP we prepared a table (Table 1) to show how each task of the recommended scope of work maps to the phases and tasks identified in the RFP. To the extent that an item in the recommended scope of work is understood to be in addition to the tasks in the RFP, Table 1 identifies the Task as “ADDITIONAL WORK”. The scope of work for Phases 1, 2 and 3 is below. Phase 1 is described in detail below whereas Phases 2 and 3 are described at a conceptual level that is subject to change based on the outcomes of the preceding phases and tasks. Following the description of the three Phases is a characterization of additional tasks that can be performed by the team to support the City in applying for and negotiating terms of the change petition, communicating the project to interested and impacted stakeholders, and identifying and applying for grant opportunities – as requested in the RFP. These are tasks that would be relevant to all phases of work to develop the AMMP. PHASE 1 – CHARACTERIZE HISTORICAL AND CURRENT CONDITIONS TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT OF AMMP. Task 1 - Phase 1 Project Management and Meetings. The objective of this task is to administer Phase 1 of the project in coordination with City Staff. This includes holding a project kick-off meeting, conducting monthly check-in calls on project progress, and performing routine project management activities (staffing, tracking project schedule and budget, managing subcontractors). This task also assumes the team will make one presentation to City Council, if requested. Task 2 - Establish Initial Goals, Objectives, and Project Performance Criteria. The objective of this task is to work with City staff to describe the project (recycled water operations, change petition, future recycled water reuse, study area), define the City’s goals and objectives for adaptive management and project performance. The team will hold one meeting with the City to draft the information, document the goals, objectives, and criteria in a draft task memorandum (TM), hold one meeting to review City comments, and produce a final TM that addresses the City comments. This TM will serve as a guidance document to support various efforts throughout the project. Page 201 of 379 Tom Dodson & Associates, West Yost, and Jacobs City of Beaumont Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan – Scope of Services 2 Task 3 - Characterize Historical Discharge and Surface Water Flow Hydrology. The objective of this task is to collect, review, and analyze all available data relevant to surface water flow and wastewater discharge (climate/precipitation, water conservation, discharge, surface water flow, groundwater levels, etc.). Explanatory graphics will be prepared to characterize historical surface water flow and groundwater conditions and the relationship to the factors that contribute to short term and long-term variations in the observed record. Task 4 - Characterize Historical Riparian Habitat Health (NDVI). The objective of this task is to collect historical Normalized Difference Vegetation Index information (NDVI) information that can be used to characterize the time history of the extent and health of the riparian habitat in Cooper’s Creek. NDVI is calculated from radar imaging collected by NASA satellites. NDVI data is available for a nearly 40-year period and can be used to develop a detailed understanding of how the riparian habitat has changed over time. Explanatory graphics will be prepared to characterize historical habitat conditions and the relationship to the factors that contribute to short term and long-term variations in the observed record. Task 5 - Characterize Historical and Existing Biological Resources. The objective of this task is to collect and analyze available data on the biological resources in the project area. The team will review the prior biologic resources assessment used to obtain the City’s existing discharge permit, review habitat conditions in the field, collect and review reports and data from other relevant investigations. This information will be used to identify the potential impacts to biologic resources when the City reduces its discharges to Cooper’s Creek. Exhibits will be prepared to characterize the biologic resources. Task 6 - Identify Potential Impacts to Biological Resources from Reduced Discharge to Coopers Creek. The objectives of this task are to characterize all the factors that could have supported or affected the extent/health of the biological resources over time, describe the relationships of these factors to the extent/health of the biological resources, and define preliminary metrics for habitat sustainability. In this task, any data gaps that exist will be identified. The impacts, proposed metrics, and data gaps will be documented for review and input by the City. The team will conduct one meeting with the City to refine the characterization of potential impacts, sustainability metrics, and data gaps. The City’s comments will be used to update this information for inclusion in the Phase 1 report in Task 8. Task 7 - Assess Available Tools for Analyzing Surface Water and Groundwater Impacts. The objective of this task is to collect and assess all available surface and groundwater models or analytical tools that could potentially be used to assess hydrogeologic impacts of reduced discharge to Cooper’s Creek. This will include a review of the County of Riverside’s modeling and related work for the Flow Ecology investigation into Cooper’s Creek. An outcome of this task will be articulation of the level of analysis necessary to support development of the AMMP (what is the “right size” level of work to support the City’s project) and characterize the ability to use the existing surface and groundwater models/tools in Phase 2 to assess reduced discharges to Cooper’s Creek. Task 8 - Prepare Cooper’s Creek Habitat Characterization and Sustainability Report. The objective of this task is to prepare a detailed report summarizing the results and conclusions of Tasks 2 through 7. The report will describe preliminary metrics for habitat sustainability and define a scope of work for (i) baseline monitoring/data Page 202 of 379 Tom Dodson & Associates, West Yost, and Jacobs City of Beaumont Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan – Scope of Services 3 collection and (ii) using existing, or developing new, models/tools for assessing the hydrologic and operational impacts and feasibility of reducing discharge to Cooper’s Creek. The Cooper’s Creek Habitat Characterization and Sustainability Report will form the technical basis for analyzing the feasibility of alternative discharge scenarios in Phase 2. The report can also be used to support applications for grant funding of future phases of work. PHASE 2 – ASSESS FEASIBILITY OF REDUCED DISCHARGE AND PERFORM INITIAL BASELINE MONITORING In this phase of work the scope of work defined in the Cooper’s Creek Habitat Characterization and Sustainability Report will be implemented. This work will be performed in two-parallel processes: • Phase 2A - Assess Project Hydrologic and Operational Feasibility • Phase 2B - Implement First year of Baseline Monitoring The tasks to complete Phase 2 are: Task 9 - Phase 2 Project Management and Meetings. The objective of this task is to administer the project in coordination with City Staff. This includes conducting monthly check-in calls on project progress and performing routine project management activities (staffing, tracking project schedule and budget, managing subcontractors). This task also assumes the team will make one presentation to City Council, if requested. Task 10 - Assess the Hydrologic and Operational Capacities from Operating the Discharge Under Current and Future Discharges. The objective of this task is to use surface and groundwater modeling tools (numerical or analytical) to perform predictive model simulations of the surface-water and groundwater hydrology of Cooper’s Creek with and without the Project and comparing the model results against the preliminary metrics for habitat sustainability. Depending on the state of existing models and tools as documented in Phase 1, this task may require the City to: • construct and calibrate (or update) a surface-water model that is capable of simulating: (i) historical discharge in Cooper’s Creek and (ii) future discharge in Cooper’s Creek under climate change, water conservation, and various future wastewater discharge scenarios. • Construct and calibrate (or update) a groundwater-flow model that is capable of simulating: (i) historical groundwater levels and GW/SW interactions within the alluvial aquifer and regional aquifer beneath Cooper’s Creek and (ii) future groundwater levels and GW/SW interactions in Cooper’s Creek under climate change, water conservation, and various future wastewater discharge scenarios. Once the models are ready for use, we will meet with the City to define the alternatives to be simulated. The alternatives could include those identified in the RPF or other options developed based on the outcomes of Phase 1 work. The consultant team will prepare interim work products to present the work as it is developed to obtain feedback from the City and refine the analysis, as appropriate. The work will be documented in technical memorandum. Task 11 - Identification of Conceptual Project Mitigations to Biologic Resources. The objective of this task is to define conceptual projects, operation schemes, and management actions to mitigate any impacts identified in the analysis in Task 10 and to meet the goals and objectives defined in Phase 1 for biologic resources. The team will work with the City to determine which level of impact to mitigate and use the models to simulate the Page 203 of 379 Tom Dodson & Associates, West Yost, and Jacobs City of Beaumont Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan – Scope of Services 4 mitigation actions to determine if the mitigation actions achieve the desired effect. The outcomes will be documented in technical memorandum. Task 12 - Assess Engineering Feasibility of Operational Alternatives and Mitigation Actions. The objective of this task is to perform engineering feasibility assessments of the operational alternatives and mitigation actions analyzed in Task 11 that successfully achieve the desired mitigation goals. This will include describing the facilities, developing level 5 cost opinions, and characterizing implementation feasibility. Task 13 - CEQA Checklist Evaluation of Project Alternatives. The objective of this task is to compile and process either an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) or Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to comply with the CEQA for the feasible operational alternatives and mitigation actions identified in Task 12. Because the modeling work and habitat assessments, including downstream impacts, have not yet been identified, it is unknown whether significant impacts will be identified requiring the preparation of an EIR, or whether all impacts can be mitigated to a level of less than significant. With this in mind, our approach would be to prepare an Initial Study checklist to screen out issues that can be mitigated to a level of less than significant, and if necessary, compile a Focused Environmental Impact Report to address any significant environmental impact issues. TDA will undertake the preparation of the CEQA documentation and will coordinate with the City to determine the scope necessary to reach full compliance with CEQA. Task 14 - Prepare Cooper’s Creek Discharge Hydrogeologic and Operational Feasibility Report. The objective of this task is to prepare a compiled report of the findings from tasks 10 through 13. Task 15 – Implement first year of Baseline Monitoring Program. The objective of this task is to perform the first year of baseline monitoring pursuant to the scope of work defined in the Cooper’s Creek Habitat Characterization and Sustainability Report (Task 8 deliverable). The outcomes of the monitoring will be used to inform the AMMP developed in Phase 3. This is additional work that was not included in the RFP. The purpose of performing baseline monitoring prior to development of the AMMP is that the Phase 2 feasibility work could take longer than a year to perform, depending on the modeling tools needed to support the feasibility assessments. This will allow the City to collect more robust baseline information in the AMMP, and could speed up the time until the discharge can begin to be reduced. Task 16 – Prepare scope of work and cost estimate to prepare the AMMP. The objective of this task is to detail the scope and budget to prepare the AMMP document. The purpose is to ensure that the final phase of work is adequately budgeted. PHASE 3 – PREPARE ADAPTIVE MONITORING AND MITIGATION PLAN AND CONTINUE BASELINE MONITORING In this phase of work the consultant team will prepare the AMMP. Phase 3 could also include an additional year of baseline monitoring in parallel to the development of the AMMP. The tasks to complete Phase 3 are: Page 204 of 379 Tom Dodson & Associates, West Yost, and Jacobs City of Beaumont Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan – Scope of Services 5 Task 17 - Phase 3 Project Management and Meetings. The objective of this task is to administer the project in coordination with City Staff. This includes conducting monthly check-in calls on project progress and performing routine project management activities (staffing, tracking project schedule and budget, managing subcontractors). This task also assumes the team will make one presentation to City Council, if requested. Task 18 – Prepare the AMMP. The objective of this task is to prepare the AMMP pursuant to the scope of work defined in Phase 2, Task 16. This report will include the following chapters, at a minimum: 1. Background. o Project Description and Regulatory Requirements o Description of the study area and Cooper’s Creek hydrology/habitat [taken from Cooper’s Creek Habitat Characterization and Sustainability Report] o Objectives of the AMMP 2. Predicted changes in Cooper’s Creek hydrology/habitat. This section will summarize the information documented in the Cooper’s Creek Discharge Hydrogeologic and Operational Feasibility Report. 3. Preliminary metrics for habitat sustainability. This section will be based on the information in the Cooper’s Creek Habitat Characterization and Sustainability Report and any refined information developed in Phase 2. This section will also define specific and measurable criteria for determining ecological success of mitigation and to determine if Project impacts are offset. 4. Monitoring program. This section will describe the monitoring program to track the extent/health of the Cooper’s Creek riparian habitat and the factors that could affect it. The monitoring program will consider outcomes of the initial year of baseline monitoring performed pursuant to the Cooper’s Creek Habitat Characterization and Sustainability Report. The monitoring program will be designed to compare the monitoring data versus the preliminary metrics for habitat sustainability, which could trigger mitigation measures. 5. Potential mitigation measures. This section will provide a list of potential strategies to mitigate adverse impacts to the riparian habitat in the event that such impacts are identified by the monitoring program and attributed to Project implementation. [taken from Cooper’s Creek Discharge Hydrogeologic and Operational Feasibility Report] 6. Annual reporting. This section will describe the commitment to prepare annual reports that document the monitoring program and data analysis. The AMMP will include an annotated table of contents for the Annual Report. 7. Process to update the AMMP. This section will describe the process to revise the AMMP in the future based on the results and conclusions of the monitoring program. Revisions could include modifications to the monitoring program, metrics for habitat sustainability, and need for mitigation actions. Other sections will be added, as needed or directed by the City, such as to meet the requirements of the USBR Title XVI requirements. Task 19 – Implement second year of Baseline Monitoring Program. The objective of this task is to perform the second year of baseline monitoring pursuant to the scope of work defined in the Cooper’s Creek Habitat Characterization and Sustainability Report (Task 8 deliverable). This is additional work that was not included in Page 205 of 379 Tom Dodson & Associates, West Yost, and Jacobs City of Beaumont Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan – Scope of Services 6 the RFP. The purpose of continuing baseline monitoring prior to completion of the AMMP to potentially will allow the City to potentially speed up the time until the discharge can begin to be reduced. Page 206 of 379 Proposal Phase/Task RFP Phase/Task Notes Phase 1 - Characterize Historical and Current Conditions to Support Development of AMMP Task 1 - Phase 1 Project Management and Meetings Phase 1, Task 1 - Project Management and Meetings Represents PM for Phase 1 only Task 2 - Establish Initial Goals, Objectives, and Project Performance Criteria Phase 1, Task 2 - Establish Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards This task will not develop performance standards at the level of detail described in the RFP. The detailed, numeric performance standards are set in Phase 3, Task 18 Task 3 - Characterize Historical Discharge and Surface Water Flow Hydrology Phase 1, Task 3 - Review Stream Discharge Data for Coopers Creek and Assess Changes in Discharge due to Climate Change and Water Conservation Excludes development of a hydraulic diversion model - See Proposal Phase 2, Task 10 Task 4 - Characterize Historical Riparian Habitat Health (NDVI)n/a - ADDITIONAL WORK Recommended additional work to support understanding historical changes in vegetation health Task 5 - Characterize Historical and Existing Biological Resources Phase 2, Task 6 - Identify Potential impacts to Biologic Resources and Develop Monitoring Program to Characterize Baseline Condition Recommend this is a Phase 1 Task Task 6 - Identify Potential Impacts to Biological Resources from Reduced Discharge to Coopers Creek Phase 2, Task 6 - Identify Potential impacts to Biologic Resources and Develop Monitoring Program to Characterize Baseline Condition Recommend this is a Phase 1 Task Task 7 - Assess Available Tools for Analyzing Surface Water and Groundwater Impacts Phase 1, Task 4 Investigate and Review Modeling and Related Work for the County's Flow Ecology Investigation Additional work is for assessing availability of tools to assess impacts to groundwater that support downstream biological resources, specifically groundwater dependent ecosystems Task 8 - Prepare Cooper’s Creek Habitat Characterization and Sustainability Report Phase 1, Report not assigned to a Task in the RFP Phase 2, Task 8 - Development of Monitoring Plan Phase 2 - Assess Feasibility of Reduced Discharge and Perform Initial Baseline Monitoring Task 9 - Phase 2 Project Management and Meetings Phase 1, Task 1 - Project Management and Meetings Represents PM for Phase 2 only Phase 2A - Assess Project Hydrologic and Operational Feasibility Task 10 - Assess the Hydrologic and Operational Capacities from Operating the Discharge Under Current and Future Discharges Phase 1, Task 5 - Assess the Hydrologic and Operational Capacities from Operating the Discharge Under Current and Future Discharges This task could include additional work beyond that envisioned in the RFP, depending on the usability of the available surface and groundwater modeling tools to assess the impact of reduced discharges. Task 11 - Identification of Conceptual Project Mitigations to Biologic Resources Phase 2, Task 7 - Identification of Project Mitigations to Biologic Resources Task 12 - Assess Engineering Feasibility of Operational Alternatives and Mitigation Actions Phase 1, Task 5 - Assess the Hydrologic and Operational Capacities from Operating the Discharge Under Current and Future Discharges Task 13 - CEQA Checklist Evaluation of Project Alternatives Phase 1, Task 5 - Assess the Hydrologic and Operational Capacities from Operating the Discharge Under Current and Future Discharges Task 14 - Prepare Cooper’s Creek Discharge Hydrogeologic and Operational Feasibility Report Phase 1, Task 5 - Assess the Hydrologic and Operational Capacities from Operating the Discharge Under Current and Future Discharges This report serves as the updated AMMP, based on results of Phase 2 work Phase 2B - Implement Baseline Monitoring Task 15 - Implement first year of Baseline Monitoring program n/a - ADDITIONAL WORK Recommended additional work to support understanding of baseline conditions to be documented in the AMMP. Task 16 - Prepare scope of work and cost estimate to prepare the AMMP n/a - ADDITIONAL WORK The purpose of the additional work is to ensure that the final phase of work is adequately budgeted Phase 3 - Prepare Adaptive Monitoring and Mitigation Plan Task 17 - Phase 3 Project Management and Meetings Phase 1, Task 1 - Project Management and Meetings Represents PM for Phase 3 only Task 18 - Prepare the AMMP Phase 2, Task 9 - Development of Performance Metrics Phase 2, Task 8 - Development of Monitoring Plan Phase 2 - RFP did not have a task explicitly for preparing the AMMP report Task 19 - Implement Second Year of Baseline Monitoring Program n/a - ADDITIONAL WORK The purpose of continuing baseline monitoring prior to completion of the AMMP to potentially will apotentially speed up the time until the discharge can begin to be reduced. Table 1. Mapping of Proposal Phases and Tasks to RPF Phases and Tasks to Prepare the AMMP Page 207 of 379 ATTACHMENT 2: RESUMES FOR THE CITY OF BEAUMONT ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AND MITIGATION PLAN Submitted to: Submitted by: Tom Dodson and Associates P.O. Box 2307 San Bernardino, California 92406 (909) 882-3612 In Partnership with: West Yost 23692 Birtcher Drive Lake Forest, CA 92630 (949) 420-3030 and Jacobs (Lisa Patterson, Biological Resources/Regulatory Team) Proposal Due Date and Time: July 25, 2023 2:00 p.m. Page 208 of 379 TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 209 of 379 Tom Dodson 1 of 3 Summary Tom Dodson is the President of Tom Dodson and Associates, an environmental consulting firm in San Bernardino, California. He has more than 40 years of experience in land use planning, and environmental and resource management, with special expertise in CEQA, NEPA, regulatory compliance, expert witness testimony and communication/facilitation for resolution of environmental issues. He personally prepares environmental documentation for a broad variety of projects and acts as a resource person in working with clients, governmental agencies, and decision-makers in finding solutions to complex problems. He negotiates with regulators at the federal, state and local level, and designs formal presentations to committees. Mr. Dodson has served as a facilitator in resolving environmental issues for several agencies, including the Bureau of Land Management, San Bernardino County, City of San Bernardino, and other agencies. Mr. Dodson also provides expert witness testimony on land use and environmental issues on a variety of court cases, primarily in CEQA litigation, takings, land use and regulatory cases. He serves as program manager on most projects undertaken by the firm and maintains close contacts with subconsultants and specialists who can provide technical information, as needed, in a timely manner. Mr. Dodson also serves as the environmental advisor/consultant to the San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission, San Bernardino International Airport Authority, Inland Valley Development Agency, Inland Empire Utilities Agency, Cities of Murrieta and El Monte, and several other agencies. Mr. Dodson has focused much of his career on CEQA compliance for water agencies, particularly those in the Inland Empire and throughout Southern California. Relevant Experience Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA, 1999-Present) As environmental consultant to the IEUA, TDA prepared the Program EIR for the Optimum Basin Management Program which evaluated the whole program that is proposed to be implemented to remove groundwater contamination from the Chino Basin. This EIR was prepared to meet court mandated deadlines and was certified in a timely manner by the IEUA. TDA has continued consulting with IEUA and recently completed a Program EIR for IEUA Facilities Masters Plans, which examined the long-term implementation of wastewater, recycled water and organic waste management programs. TDA is currently working or has recently worked with IEUA on the following: the RP-5 expansion, TDA is working with IEUA to obtain the RMPU regulatory permits, and is overseeing Native American monitoring for Baseline and Napa Laterals. TDA also recently completed the 2017 annual CDFW O & M Report. Site selection, due diligence, and CEQA documentation are part of the tasks that TDA has assisted with on this project. Additionally, and most recently, TDA, in conjunction with West Yost, has assisted the Chino Basin Watermaster , in conjunction with West Yost, with the Addendum to the Optimum Basin Management Program Local Storage Limit Solution Addendum that was approved by the IEUA Board in March of 2021. Mission Springs Water District (MSWD) Tom Dodson is the primary environmental consultant for MSWD. Over the past 15+ years Tom has assisted MSWD with several projects to comply with both the California Environmental Quality Act and National Environmental Policy Act for a variety of projects. TDA also assists MSWD with applying for funding through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund for various infrastructure/improvement projects. TDA has continued consulting with MSWD and recently completed the West Valley Water Reclamation Program EIR, which was approved by the MSWD Board in 2019 with Title President / Environmental Specialist Education M.A., Geography, University of California, Berkeley, 1973 B.A., Geography, University of California Berkeley, 1968 Experience 30+ years Page 210 of 379 Tom Dodson 2 of 3 full support from their Board. Tom oversaw the evolution of this this Program EIR from inception to approval. The certification of this EIR will allow/has allowed MSWD to construct a new wastewater treatment facility, along with a conveyance system that would connect existing sewered areas to the new facility as well as areas that are served by individual septic systems, which have contributed to water quality degradation within the Coachella Valley groundwater basin Garnet Hill Subbasin MZ4. Inland Valley Development Agency (IVDA)/San Bernardino International Airport Authority (SBIAA) (1992-Present) Environmental manager for the IVDA and SBIAA in their role as the redevelopment and reuse agency for Norton Air Force Base located in San Bernardino, California. Assisted the Air Force in completing its first and only air conformity determination for reuse of a closing military base. The analysis was used in presentations to the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to revise the Conformity Regulations to exclude transfers of military bases from conformity findings. TDA has been involved in every facet of base closure, working closely with the Air Force Base Closure Agency (AFBCA) at Norton and in Washington D.C. to complete the Final EIS and issue the Record of Decision. This support effort includes endangered species management programs at the former Base and consultations with the State and Federal government under endangered species laws. Negotiation of Stream Alteration Agreements and Section 404 Permits Since 1988 Mr. Dodson has been involved in numerous projects that required acquisition of Stream Alteration Agreements from the State Department of Fish and Wildlife and Section 404 Permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This includes several permits in Big Bear Valley, along the Santa Ana River and its tributaries, and southern California in general. Various Water Agency Projects TDA has worked on CEQA Projects to completion ranging from Categorical Exemptions to Initial Studies and in minimal cases, Environmental Impact Reports including, but not limited to the following water agencies, water masters, districts, and private water companies: • Monte Vista Water Company • Elsinore Valley Water District (working with West Yost to accomplish a Supplemental Environmental Document for their Salt and Nutri ent Management Plan) • Eastern Municipal Water District (working with West Yost to accomplish a Supplemental Environmental Document for their Salt and Nutrient Management Plan • Chino Basin Watermaster • San Antonio Water Company • San Gabriel Valley Water Company • Phelan Piñon Hills Community Service District • Sheep Creek Water Company • City of Ontario • East Valley Water District • East Orange County Water District • Big Bear Community Service District • Big Bear Area Regional Wastewater Agency • Big Bear Lake Department of Water and Power Page 211 of 379 Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton 1 of 3 Summary Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton is an Environmental Specialist for Tom Dodson & Associates, an environmental consulting firm in San Bernardino, California. She has more than 10 of experience in research and mapping for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA), and regulatory purposes at Tom Dodson & Associates. Ms. Dodson-Hamilton has more than seven years of experience at TDA in environmental and resource management, with special expertise in CEQA compliance. Ms. Dodson-Hamilton personally prepares environmental documentation for a broad variety of CEQA and NEPA projects, as well as regulatory permits for the State Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. She works in conjunction with Tom to work with clients, governmental agencies, and decision-makers to find solutions to complex problems. Mrs. Dodson-Hamilton has focused much of her career on CEQA compliance for water agencies, particularly those in the Inland Empire and throughout Southern California. She serves alongside Tom as an environmental consultant to San Bernardino International Airport Authority, Inland Valley Development Agency, Inland Empire Utilities Agency, Phelan Piñon Hills Community Services District, Mission Springs Water District, and several other agencies. Ms. Dodson-Hamilton attends meetings and hearings and prepares presentations for nearly all reports for which she is the author. Relevant Experience Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) TDA is one of two primary consultants for IEUA. Over the past 7+ years Kaitlyn has assisted Tom with several projects to comply with both the California Environmental Quality Act and National Environmental Policy Act for a variety of projects. TDA also assists IEUA with applying for funding through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund for various infrastructure/improvement projects. TDA has continued consulting with IEUA and recently completed a Program EIR for IEUA Facilities Masters Plans, which examined the long-term implementation of wastewater, recycled water and organic waste management programs. Kaitlyn has assisted Tom with several projects to comply with both the CEQA and NEPA for a variety of IEUA projects. TDA also assists IEUA with applying for funding through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund for various infrastructure/improvement projects. Project in which Kaitlyn has co-authored include: FMP Program EIR, Lower Day Basin Project, Fontana Water Company Recycled Water Improvement Project, and Pomona Intertie Project; all of which have been successful in accomplishing full compliance with both CEQA and NEPA and other regulatory requirements, such as Corps of Engineers and endangered species permits. Additionally, and most recently, Kaitlyn, has assisted the IEUA with the Chino Basin Program EIR that was approved by the IEUA Board in May 2022. Mission Springs Water District (MSWD) Tom Dodson is the primary environmental consultant for MSWD. Over the past 7+ years Kaitlyn has assisted Tom with several projects to comply with both the California Environmental Quality Act and National Environmental Policy Act for a variety of projects. TDA also assists MSWD with applying for funding through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund for various infrastructure/improvement projects. TDA has continued consulting with MSWD and recently completed the West Valley Water Reclamation Program EIR, which was approved by the MSWD Board in 2019 with full support from their Board. Kaitlyn was the main author of this Program EIR with Tom overseeing the evolution of the Project. The certification of this EIR will allow/has allowed MSWD to construct a new wastewater treatment facility, along with a conveyance system that would connect existing sewered areas to the new facility as well as areas that are served by individual septic systems, which have contributed to water quality degradation within the Coachella Valley Title Environmental Specialist Education B.A., English, with Honors, University of California Riverside, 2011 Experience January 2015 to present Contact W: (909) 882-3612 C: (909) 645-5478 E: kaitlyn@tdaenv.com Page 212 of 379 Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton 2 of 3 groundwater basin Garnet Hill Subbasin MZ4). More recently, TDA worked with MSWD on a new 300-000 gallon reservoir project, for which an Initial Study was prepared and approved by the District Board in September of 2021. Inland Valley Development Agency (IVDA)/San Bernardino International Airport Authority (SBIAA) Tom Dodson is the Environmental Manager for the IVDA and SBIAA in their role as the redevelopment and reuse agency for Norton Air Force Base located in San Bernardino, California. As such, Kaitlyn has worked closely with both IVDA and SBIAA on several projects. Over the past 7+ years, Kaitlyn has, in conjunction with Tom, prepared environmental documents to comply with both the California Environmental Quality Act and National Environmental Policy Act for a variety of projects. These projects include: SBIAA Land Exchange Environmental Assessment, SBIAA Unical Addendum, IVDA (in conjunction with the City of Highland and the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians) 3rd Street / 5th Street Roadway Improvements Project, and most recently, Kaitlyn worked closely with SBIAA on the Eastgate Building I Environmental Impact Report, which was approved by the Board in October of 2018. Kaitlyn also works closely with SBIAA to compile their Hazardous Waste Manifests to ensure SBIAA pays the appropriate fees to the Department of Toxic Substances Control. Currently, Tom and Kaitlyn are working with the IVDA, City of Highland, City of San Bernardino, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, and East Valley Water District to prepare the Airport Gateway Specific Plan, which would create a buffer between the airport and residential land uses to the north, and with a goal of providing greater economic development in this area. City of Highland, Various CEQA/NEPA Documents Over the past 6+ years, Kaitlyn has assisted Tom with the preparation of environmental documents to comply with both the California Environmental Quality Act and National Environmental Policy Act for a few City projects. The City retained TDA’s services for the 3rd Street / 5th Street Corridor Improvements Project. The City, IVDA, and SMBMI proposed to improve the roadway and infrastructure conditions for 3rd Street/5th Street and several intersecting local roadway segments within the City of Highland. TDA compiled an Environmental Narrative for the three agencies to apply for funding through the Economic Development Agency and assisted with NEPA compliance for the Environmental Assessment. TDA also compiled an Initial Study- Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the City. The documentation in the Initial Study was compiled to meet CEQA and NEPA requirements. The IS/MND was adopted by the City Council. The EDA recently approved the project and granted funding for the project. Additionally, TDA compiled another IS/MND for a second roadway improvement project along Victoria Avenue between Highland Avenue and 3rd Street that include storm drain improvements, which was also approved by the City Council. Various Water Agency Projects TDA has worked on CEQA Projects to completion ranging from Categorical Exemptions to Initial Studies and in minimal cases, Environmental Impact Reports including, but not limited to the following water agencies, water masters, districts, and private water companies: • Monte Vista Water Company • Elsinore Valley Water District (working with West Yost to accomplish a Supplemental Environmental Document for their Salt and Nutrient Management Plan) • Eastern Municipal Water District (working with West Yost to accomplish a Supplemental Environmental Document for their Salt and Nutrient Management Plan) • Chino Basin Watermaster • San Antonio Water Company • San Gabriel Valley Water Company and Fontana Water Company • Phelan Piñon Hills Community Service District and Sheep Creek Water Company • City of Ontario • East Valley Water District • East Orange County Water District • Big Bear Community Service District • Big Bear Area Regional Wastewater Agency • Big Bear Lake Department of Water and Power Page 213 of 379 WEST YOST Page 214 of 379 Samantha Adams, MESM Samantha has 17 years of professional experiences in water resources management. Her technical expertise includes salt and nutrient management planning, groundwater management planning, Watermaster services, regulatory support and compliance reporting, development and implementation of field monitoring programs, and database management. Samantha has extensive experience leading multi-stakeholder groups through collaborative decision-making processes that rely on complex technical information and regulatory compliance considerations. She has managed, developed and negotiated, and/or implemented salt and nutrient management compliance plans for the Eastern MWD, Elsinore Valley MWD, Chino Basin Watermaster, Inland Empire Utilities Agency, City of Beaumont, South Orange County Wastewater Authority, Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, and Coachella Valley Water District. EXPERIENCE Maximum Benefit Demonstration for the Elsinore Groundwater Management Zone (2014 – ongoing), Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (District), Lake Elsinore, CA: Project Manager and Lead Scientist. Led the development of a maximum benefit demonstration to raise the total dissolved solids (TDS) and nitrate concentration objectives for the Elsinore Groundwater Management Zone (GMZ) in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (Basin Plan). The District was seeking new, maximum benefit based TDS and nitrate concentration objectives so it can have the flexibility to develop and invest in a water resources plan that optimizes the management and use of all its water supply assets to achieve a reliable water supply in an environmentally sound manner. The District’s maximum benefit proposal is designed to facilitate the maximum reuse of recycled water, to protect the beneficial uses of groundwater in the Elsinore GMZ and downstream GMZs for future generations, and to be consistent with Executive Order 68-16, Water Code Section 13241, and State Board orders and policies that promote recycled water reuse. Samantha was responsible for: developing the technical basis of the demonstration; developing alternative salinity management alternatives for evaluation; managing a team of scientists that are using numerical groundwater modeling tools to develop TDS and nitrate concentration projections for the Elsinore GMZ; developing a long term compliance strategy to verify that the beneficial uses of the Elsinore GMZ will be protected under the maximum benefit program; leading negotiations with the Santa Ana Regional Board; and stakeholder outreach. The proposal was accepted by the Regional Board staff in February 2020 and the team completed the process to prepare an amendment to the Basin Plan to incorporate the new maximum benefit objectives and management plan. Samantha now serves as the Principal-in-Charge of the team leading the implementation phase. STAFF TITLE: Scientist Manager I YEARS OF EXPERIENCE: 17 EDUCATION ƒMaster of Environmental Science and Management (MESM), Water Resources Management, Donald Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, 2006 ƒBS, Environmental Science, University of Notre Dame, 2002 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS ƒGroundwater Resources Association of California (GRA) ƒNational Groundwater Association Page 215 of 379 Samantha Adams, MESM | Page 2 Compliance Strategy for the Use of Recycled Water at the San Jacinto Wildlife Area, Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), Perris, CA: Project Scientist assisting the EMWD with the development and implementation of a compliance strategy for its recycled water use at the San Jacinto Wildlife Area (SJWA). The EMWD delivers about 3,000 acre feet per year of tertiary treated recycled water to the SJWA to maintain their wetland habitat. The total dissolved solids (TDS) and total inorganic nitrogen (TIN) concentrations of recycled water exceed the water quality objectives of the underlying management zone. As such, the Regional Board required mitigation of the salt loading if the discharge of recycled water to groundwater was greater than a de minimis impact. Samantha was part of the team that developed a technical work plan to characterize the potential for impacts using cone penetrometer tests to demonstrate whether a continuous layer of clays exists beneath the SJWA, preventing the infiltration of recycled water to the water table. Samantha managed the implementation of the project, which was completed and presented to the Regional Board in 2011. As a result of the study, the EMWD can continue to deliver recycled water for use at the SJWA. Watermaster Engineering Services, Beaumont Basin Watermaster (2005 – 2012), Beaumont, CA: Project Scientist provided engineering and hydrogeologic support services to the Cities of Banning and Beaumont, the Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District, the South Mesa Water Company, the Yucaipa Valley Water District, and other groundwater pumpers in the Beaumont Basin adjudication, including development of the physical solution incorporated into the stipulated agreement in 2004 and subsequently served as the Watermaster Engineer from 2005 through 2012. As a Project Scientist, Samantha was responsible for the implementation of the Watermaster database, coordinating the production and groundwater level monitoring program, maintaining the Watermaster website, and preparation of the Watermaster Annual Report to the Court. FY 2021/22 Basin Planning Priorities to Update the Santa Ana River Watershed SNMP, Basin Monitoring Program Task Force (administered by the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority), Riverside County, CA: Principal Scientist for regulatory and technical support in assessing the Santa Ana River Basin Plan SNMP for compliance with the 2019 Recycled Water Policy. For this project, West Yost prepared an updated watershed wide groundwater monitoring program, a surface water monitoring program, and recommendations for updated technical methods to assess assimilative capacity through periodic computation of ambient water quality. Administrative and Technical Services, Borrego Springs Watermaster, Borrego Springs, CA: Samantha serves as Executive Director for the Borrego Springs Watermaster. The Watermaster was created as an arm of the Court through a Stipulated Judgment in the adjudication of groundwater rights for the Borrego Springs Subbasin (Basin). The Basin was adjudicated to enable the sustainable management of its groundwater resources in a manner consistent with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), including requiring a 75 percent reduction in groundwater use over 20 years. As Executive Director, Samantha is responsible for organizing, overseeing, and/or performing the administrative and management aspects of the Judgment, Rules and Regulations, and Groundwater Management Plan, including running Board, Technical Advisory Committee, and Environmental Working Group meetings; providing accounting and financial services (banking, reporting, audits); preparing the annual budget; document and website management; annual water rights accounting and reporting to Court; and all technical activities (implementation of field monitoring programs, data collection and database management, groundwater modeling, periodic recomputation of sustainable yield, and SGMA compliance reporting). Water Rights Compliance and Basin Management Monitoring and Reporting Program (2010 – ongoing), San Juan Basin Authority (SJBA), Various, CA: Principal in Charge and previously served as the Project Manager (2013 – 2019) and Project Scientist (2010 – 2012) for the SJBA’s water rights compliance and basin management monitoring and reporting programs from. The objectives of the program are to collect, analyze, and report on the data used to demonstrate compliance with the SJBA’s water rights diversion permit, estimate groundwater storage and recommend annual pumping limits, evaluate the threat of seawater intrusion, and assess riparian vegetation health along San Juan Creek. As the project manager, Samantha directed the design and implementation of the field and cooperative data collection program, supported the preparation of the annual report of compliance to the State Board, oversaw CASGEM compliance, managed biology subconsultants, managed the implementation of a watershed wide surface and groundwater monitoring program in support of the Salt and Nutrient Management Plan for the San Juan Creek, participated in Technical Advisory Group meetings, supported the development of the annual budget, and gave monthly presentations to the Board of Directors. In 2016, she managed the development of the Adaptive Pumping Management Plan, a first of its kind report for the San Juan Basin, that sets annual sustainable pumping limits based on current basin storage and climate conditions. Samantha now serves as the technical advisor to the team that manages the SJBA programs. Page 216 of 379 Andy Malone, PG Hydrogeologist Andy is a Hydrogeologist with over 25 years of professional experience in water resources consulting and in geologic sciences. His technical expertise includes sedimentary geology, tectonics, basin characterization, hydrogeologic and hydrologic analyses, aquifer mechanics, geographic information systems (GIS), and database design and implementation. Andy develops investigative strategies for hydrogeologic studies, leads stakeholder technical committees, manages projects and staff, works to increase the technical expertise of the company, and mentors and guides junior staff as they develop into the next generation of expert water resources professionals. At present, Andy is managing engineering services for the Chino Basin Watermaster, where he is leading sophisticated hydrogeologic investigations in pumping induced land subsidence, groundwater/surface water interactions, and the monitoring of groundwater dependent ecosystems; leading an effort with the Six Basins Watermaster to develop and implement an improved water resources management program in the Six Basins to maximize the beneficial use of the groundwater basin; leading an effort to develop a Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the Spadra Basin; leading all technical services for the newly established Borrego Springs Watermaster; and, developing a groundwater monitoring program in the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin to support a Salt and Nutrient Management Plan. Earlier in his career, Andy was the Lead Geologist in the development of a hydrogeologic conceptual model of the Chino Basin that was subsequently translated into a very well calibrated numerical groundwater flow model. Andy continues to work with the modeling team to refine the conceptual model based on new geologic and monitoring data and to use the model to inform numerous basin management initiatives, such as the management of land subsidence. Andy’s professional experience also includes employment as a Field Geologist for the Indiana State Geological Survey and as a geology instructor at Saddleback College in Southern California. EXPERIENCE Prado Basin Habitat Sustainability Program, Chino Basin Watermaster, Riverside, San Bernardino and Orange Counties, CA: Project Manager. Andy is conducting ongoing investigations to determine whether the groundwater management plan in the Chino Basin is having adverse impacts on a groundwater dependent riparian habitat in the downgradient portion of the basin. The investigation is a monitoring and mitigation requirement of the EIR for the groundwater management plan. The intent of this investigation is to characterize the historical, current, and future extent and quality of riparian habitat, and if degradation of the riparian habitat is documented, to provide information on the cause(s) of that degradation. If the cause(s) of degradation are attributed to the implementation of the groundwater management plan, the data from the investigation will aid in the development of efficient and effective mitigation STAFF TITLE: Principal Geologist II YEARS OF EXPERIENCE: 25 PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS ƒProfessional Geologist, California No. 8700 EDUCATION ƒMS, Geological Sciences, Indiana University Bloomington ƒBA, Geological Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara ƒBA, Environmental Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS ƒNational Ground Water Association ƒGroundwater Resources Association of California (GRA) ƒSouth Coast Geological Society Page 217 of 379 Andy Malone, PG | Page 2 Lead Technical Consultant, Borrego Springs Watermaster, Borrego Springs, CA: Lead Technical Consultant for the Borrego Springs Watermaster. In this role, Andy leads a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and an Environmental Working Group (EWG). TAC responsibilities include making recommendations to the Board on all technical matters, including the periodic redetermination of Sustainable Yield and the implementation of a 75% ramp down in groundwater pumping through 2040 to achieve sustainability. EWG responsibilities include making recommendations to the Board on all environmental matters as it implements the Stipulated Judgment to comply with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. Major activities and areas of interest of the EWG include groundwater dependent ecosystems, management of fallowed lands and the potential for participating in biological mitigation projects, addressing improperly abandoned wells, and management of non native (invasive) species for water conservation purposes. Wasteload Allocation for the Santa Ana River Watershed, Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority – Basin Monitoring Program Task Force, Orange County, CA: Project Manager. Andy led this study of the existing wasteload allocation for the Santa Ana River Watershed. The purpose of the study was to evaluate whether the existing wasteload allocation for Public Owned Treatment Works (POTW) discharge of total dissolved solids (TDS) and total inorganic nitrogen (TIN) was compliant with the water quality standards in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Basin (Basin Plan). To conduct this study, Andy and the modeling team updated and used the Wasteload Allocation Model (WLAM)—a numerical computer simulation model of surface water discharge, quality, and streambed recharge. The WLAM simulated updated plans for wastewater discharge and stormwater conservation and used a set of elegant procedures and explanatory data graphics to evaluate the existing wasteload allocation with respect to the surface water and groundwater standards in the Basin Plan. The Regional Board uses the results of the wasteload allocation studies to review and revise the Basin Plan and POTW discharge permits if necessary. measures. Andy and his team designed the monitoring program and investigation, and they are now implementing it. The investigation includes remote sensing and field surveys of the riparian habitat, the construction of monitoring wells and ongoing monitoring of water levels and quality, monitoring of surface water discharge and quality, monitoring of climatic trends, and analysis of other factors that can affect riparian habitat such as pests and wildfire. These data are analyzed and reported annually to a Watermaster subcommittee, which is led by Andy. The annual reports include recommendations for modifications to the monitoring program and a proposed budget for the following fiscal year. Coachella Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP) Update, Coachella Valley Water District, Coachella, CA: Project Manager and Principal Geologist. The State Water Board’s Recycled Water Policy requires the stakeholders in the Coachella Valley to develop an SNMP that sustainably manages salt and nutrient loading in the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin (Basin) to protect its beneficial uses. In 2015, the Coachella Valley stakeholders submitted an SNMP to the Regional Board (2015 SNMP); however, the Regional Board found the 2015 SNMP insufficient. Of concern to the Regional Board was the insufficiency of the proposed monitoring program to fill data gaps and adequately characterize the spatial and vertical distribution of water quality conditions; lack of an antidegradation analysis to support salt and nutrient loading from the use and recharge of Colorado River water; and the absence of proposed implementation measures to manage salt and nutrient loading on a sustainable basis. Of concern to the Coachella Valley stakeholders was the ability for continued use and recharge of Colorado River water, which is a critical source of supplemental water to support the sustainability of the Basin and the economy of the Coachella Valley. In 2020/21, Andy led a multi stakeholder effort, including the Regional Board staff, in the development of a workplan to update the 2015 CV SNMP (CV SNMP Development Workplan). The workplan includes a major redesign of the SNMP groundwater monitoring program and a technical process to set numeric TDS objectives for the Basin. The Regional Board approved the proposed groundwater monitoring program in February 2021 and approved the CV SNMP Development Workplan in October 2021. Currently, Andy is leading a multi-stakeholder effort to implement the CV-SNMP Development Workplan. Page 218 of 379 Veva Weamer Veva has 15 years of professional experience in environmental and geological science. Veva is a Supervising Scientist with a focus on the managing the implementation of various regulatory compliance programs for agencies in Southern California. Her areas of expertise include database management, data analysis, water quality monitoring and analysis, salt and nutrient analysis, Geographical Information Systems (GIS), and groundwater and surface water monitoring program implementation and evaluation. Veva graduated from California State University, Fullerton in 2005 with a Bachelors in Geological Sciences. In 2007, she completed her Master’s in Environmental Studies degree from California State University, Fullerton with an emphasis in water resources management. Her master’s research involved the quantification of groundwater movement and aquifer characterization of the Harper Lake Basin located in Mojave Desert, California, using GIS tools and bore log data. Veva was awarded the 2006 Prem K. Saint award for outstanding work in hydrogeology for her research. EXPERIENCE Prado Basin Habitat Sustainability Program, Prado Basin Habitat Sustainability Committee, Chino Basin Watermaster, Rancho Cucamonga, CA: Project Manager. Veva leads the Prado Basin Habitat Sustainability Program (PBHSP), which is implemented by the Prado Basin Habitat Sustainability Committee (PBHSC). The PBHSC is comprised of Chino Basin Stakeholders. The key element of the PBHSP is an adaptive monitoring program intended to characterize the historical, current, and future extent and quality of the riparian habitat in the Prado Basin Management Zone in the southern portion of the Chino Basin, and to provide information on the cause(s) of riparian habitat degradation if documented. Data from the monitoring program will aid in the development of efficient and effective mitigation measures if the cause(s) of degradation are conclusively attributed to Peace II Implementation. The monitoring program consists of integrated programs for the monitoring of riparian habitat and monitoring of factors that can potentially affect riparian habitat, which include groundwater, surface water, weather, and climate. Data from the monitoring program is analyzed, interpreted, and reported on annually. The annual reporting and analysis form the basis to adjust the monitoring program, if necessary, to achieve the objectives of the PBHSP. Veva is responsible for managing all components of the monitoring program for the PBHSP. Veva is also responsible for writing an annual report that discusses and interprets the monitoring data and any related groundwater- modeling results, describes recommended measures to mitigate significant adverse impacts to the riparian habitat (if applicable), and recommends activities for the subsequent year monitoring program. Veva presents the annual report contents to the PBHSC to facilitate Stakeholder input and suggested revisions for the recommendations for the monitoring program and mitigation measures, if necessary. Veva is also responsible for preparing the subsequent fiscal year budget for the PBHSP based on the recommendations for modifications to the monitoring program in the annual report. STAFF TITLE: Principal Scientist I YEARS OF EXPERIENCE: 15 EDUCATION ƒMS, Environmental Studies, California State University, Fullerton, December 2007 ƒBS, Geological Sciences, California State University, Fullerton, June 2005 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS ƒGroundwater Resources Association of California Page 219 of 379 Veva Weamer | Page 2 attain hydraulic control of the Chino-North Groundwater Management Zone, which is a requirement of the maximum- benefit commitments in the Watermaster’s and IEUA’s Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP) for the Chino Basin are related to hydraulic control and Chino Desalter pumping. West Yost used the Chino Valley Model and other modeling tools to assess the potential for a temporary loss of hydraulic control from various scenarios of pumping reductions at the Chino Desalter wells. The results were used to prepare new regulatory hydraulic control definitions related to Chino Desalter pumping and the updated Mitigation Plan for Temporary Loss of Hydraulic Control. The 2022 Mitigation Plan was submitted to the Santa Ana Regional Board in June 2022. Veva developed the various scenarios to simulate with the modeling tools, reviewed results with the Watermaster, IEUA, and the Chino Basin Desalter Authority, and helped prepare the 2022 Mitigation Plan that was submitted to the Santa Ana Regional Board. FY 2021/22 Basin Planning Priorities to Update the Santa Ana River Watershed SNMP, Basin Monitoring Program Task Force (administered by the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority), Riverside County, CA: Project Manager and Senior Scientist. Veva provided regulatory and technical support through a stakeholder process to assess the Santa Ana River Basin Plan SNMP for compliance with the 2019 Recycled Water Policy. For this project, West Yost prepared an updated watershed-wide groundwater monitoring program, a surface water monitoring program, and recommendations for updated technical methods to assess assimilative capacity through periodic computation of ambient water quality. Veva is the Project Manager leading the development and preparation of the updated surface water monitoring program for the Santa Ana River to assess compliance with the TDS and nitrogen surface water objectives in the Basin Plan. CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS/ PROCEEDINGS ƒWeamer, V.M. (2020) Utilizing the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) to Monitoring Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems with Satellites and Groundwater Level Data. Presented at the Groundwater Resources Association Western Groundwater Congress Goes Virtual Hollywood. September 14-17, 2020. ƒWeamer, V.M. (2021) Utilizing the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) to Monitor Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (GDEs). Presented at the Groundwater Resources Association of California, The Future of Water Conference. February 23-24, 2021. Monitoring and Reporting for the Adaptive Management and Monitoring Program to Evaluate the Potential Effects of Reduction of Treated Wastewater Discharged by Western Riverside County Regional Wastewater Authority (WRCRWA), West Riverside County, CA: Project Manager. Veva led the adaptive monitoring program to evaluate trends in groundwater and vegetation near and downstream of the discharge location of WRCRWA treatment plant to determine whether the planned reduction in wastewater discharge will cause declining groundwater levels and/or reduction in the riparian vegetation health. West Yost helped setup and performed high-frequency groundwater elevation monitoring at nine dedicated monitoring wells and surface water level monitoring at the Oxbow Pond and coordinate the bi- annual vegetation monitoring. Annual reports are prepared summarizing the monitoring results, conclusions, and recommendations. Thus far the monitoring and reporting is for Phase One prior to the reduction in wastewater discharge. Preparation of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan, Spadra Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA), Walnut, CA: Project Manager. Veva led the development of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the Spadra Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency, which was a collaborative effort of the Walnut Valley Water District and the City of Pomona. The Spadra Basin is a groundwater basin located in eastern Los Angeles County. The project included supporting the GSA in stakeholder engagement; preparation of a hydrogeologic database; monitoring well construction to fill data gaps; construction and calibration of a groundwater-flow model; development of sustainable management criteria for the basin; evaluation of sustainability of future “Baseline” conditions; description of new projects or management actions to achieve sustainability for four “Basin Optimization Scenarios”; conduct modeling evaluation of the Basin Optimization Scenarios; preparation of long-term cost analyses for Baseline and Basin Optimization Scenarios; identification of the preferred Basin Optimization Scenario; and preparation of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan through a public-review process. The final GSP for the Spadra Basin was completed and adopted in May 2022. Updated Plan for Mitigation of Temporary Loss of Hydraulic Control in the Chino Basin, Chino Basin Watermaster and Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA), Rancho Cucamonga, CA: Senior Scientist. Veva supported development of a 2022 update to the 2005 Mitigation Plan of Temporary Loss of Hydraulic Control in the Chino Basin (2022 Mitigation Plan), required by the Santa Ana Regional Board. The operation of the Chino Desalters is necessary to Page 220 of 379 Carolina Sanchez, PE Carolina has eight years of professional experience in the water resources industry. Her skills include groundwater monitoring, numerical analysis, water resources, and GIS. As a Senior Engineer, Carolina is involved in a variety of projects. Her tasks include: analysis of groundwater level and water quality data; data management; California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) compliance; developing charts and contour maps to characterize groundwater flow systems and associated water quality; conducting hydrologic and hydraulic analyses of groundwater recharge using imported, recycled, and storm waters; modeling groundwater production trends; creating tables, charts, and maps to analyze and characterize surface water discharge and associated water quality; and reconnaissance-level design of surface water management facilities. EXPERIENCE Development of a Strategic Plan for the Six Basins, Six Basins Watermaster, Lake Forest, CA: Project Engineer. Carolina supported the development of the Strategic Plan for the Six Basins Watermaster. The objective of the Strategic Plan is to develop a water-resources management program that sustains and enhances the water supplies available to the Six Basins parties in a cost-effective manner and in accordance with the Six Basins Judgment. This effort began in early 2012 and included the preparation of a comprehensive “state of the basin” report and the articulation of the issues, needs, and wants of the Watermaster Parties—individually and collectively as a group. This information was used to define Strategic Plan project alternatives. The evaluation of the alternatives required the use of surface water and groundwater computer- simulation models. Carolina developed a project economic forecasting tool to estimate the annual water supply cost for each party for the “no strategic” plan, or baseline case, and for alternative management plans being considered in Strategic Plan development. She was responsible for analyzing water production trends; hydrologic and hydraulic modeling of increased stormwater diversion and recharge at the San Antonio and Thompson Creek Spreading Grounds; and the preparation, of maps, charts, and tables to communicate the results of groundwater model simulations of the Strategic Plan alternatives. She also worked on the final report, documenting the development of the Strategic Plan, and a planning proposal for the implementation of the Strategic Plan. Currently, she is working on the implementation of the Strategic Plan, which includes developing planning scenarios for the Six Basins Parties, coordinating with groundwater modelers, and coordinating with the environmental consultants for the preparation of the Programmatic Environmental Impact Report. San Juan Basin Groundwater and Desalination Optimization Program, San Juan Basin Authority, Orange County, CA: Project Engineer. Carolina supported the San Juan Basin Groundwater and Desalination Optimization Program. In this project, her team evaluated the physical and economic feasibility of projects to increase recharge in the basin with storm and recycled waters, implemented a seawater extraction barrier, and optimized production schemes to adaptively manage groundwater storage STAFF TITLE: Senior Engineer I YEARS OF EXPERIENCE: 8 PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS ƒProfessional Civil Engineer, California, No. 85598 EDUCATION ƒMS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University ƒBS, Civil Engineering, Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS ƒGroundwater Resources Association of California ƒTechnical Board, Thirst Project Page 221 of 379 Carolina Sanchez, PE | Page 2 Authority (VVWRA). The VVWRA is experiencing high- groundwater conditions at its Victor Valley Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). Specifically, Ponds 1-6 located at the lowest elevations on site are continuously filled with shallow groundwater. West Yost prepared maps, hydrogeologic cross-sections, Piper diagrams, and tables of water chemistry results. These work products were analyzed to demonstrate that demonstrate that (1) the surface water in Pond 6 is shallow groundwater that originates primarily from effluent discharged to the upgradient percolation ponds and (2) the quality of water in Pond 6 does not exceed the effluent limitations in the VVWRA’s Waste Discharge Requirements permits. PUBLICATIONS ƒChoy, J., Moran, T., McGhee, G., Szeptycki, L., Nelson, R., Rohde, M., Maynard, J., Sanchez, C., Van Siembrouck, P., Porath, M., Carlson, J. Water in the West: Understanding California’s Groundwater website (2014) Accessed: December 18, 2020. https://waterinthewest.stanford.edu/groundwater/ CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS/ PROCEEDINGS ƒSanchez, C., Malone, A., Abelson, J. (2020) Enhancing Groundwater Basin Management through MS4 Permit Compliance. Presented at the Groundwater Resources Association Western Conference. ƒSanchez, C. (2022) How to Comply With Non-Existent Objectives? The Need for and Development of a Salt and Nutrient Management Plan in the Upper Temescal Valley. Presented at the California WateReUse Conference. ƒSanchez, C., Rapp, G. (2022) Leveraging Existing Information to Assess the Potential Impacts of Managed Aquifer Recharge Projects. Presented at the 11th International Symposium On Manager Aquifer Recharge. in wet and dry climate cycles. Other key components of the feasibility study were to evaluate the regulatory challenges of implementing the recycled water recharge projects and issues associated with recharging water in an impaired basin. Carolina was involved in performing the surface water modeling to calculate new yield; coordinating with the groundwater flow modelers; analyzing MT3D groundwater quality modeling results; and calculating recycled water underground retention time. She was also involved in preparing preliminary designs and operating plans for a new in-stream rubber dam system to turn a stream into 2.5-mile- long recharge basin. Recharge Master Plan Update (RMPU), Chino Basin Watermaster, Rancho Cucamonga, CA: Project Engineer. Carolina supports the implementation of the 2013 Amendment to the 2010 RMPU. The 2010 RMPU utilized state-of-the-art surface water models, developed to estimate stormwater recharge in spreading basins and in localized recharge facilities that will be constructed to comply with the 2010 Municipal Separated Storm Sewer System (MS4) permits. The investigation also determined the existing recharge capacity for imported and recycled waters and future recharge capacity requirements. Subsequent to the approval of the 2010 RMPU, the 2010 Urban Water Management Plans were released, and the groundwater production projections were substantially less than assumed in the 2010 RMPU. A Stakeholder Committee (Steering Committee) was formed to conduct further analysis of the projects recommended in the 2010 RMPU, to introduce and analyze new yield enhancement and production sustainability projects, and to develop a finance and implementation plan for the recommended projects. The 2013 Amendment was approved by the stakeholders and the Court. Carolina is responsible for the preliminary hydrologic and hydraulic design work to refine recharge projects and for reviewing interim submittals from design contractors. In 2018, Carolina was the Project Engineer for the development of the 2018 RMPU. The work to develop the 2018 RMPU included working with Watermaster Staff to lead the Steering Committee meetings and workshops and presenting technical information to the Chino Basin pools and Board. Carolina was also responsible for characterizing projected availability and cost of imported water, identifying the need for additional recharge capacity in the Basin, and preparing the report. The 2018 RMPU was approved by the Watermaster Board in September 2018 to meet the October 2018 deadline of the Court submittal. Shallow-Groundwater Characterization Study (2021). Victor Valley Wastewater Reclamation Authority, CA: Project Engineer and Manager. Carolina led a hydrogeologic study for the Victor Valley Wastewater Reclamation Page 222 of 379 Lucy Hedley Lucy has five years of professional experience in the water resources industry. Her technical expertise includes data management, water quality analysis, Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and geospatial analysis, and ground and surface water monitoring program implementation. As a Project Scientist and Manager, she has experience in estimating spatially distributed groundwater contaminant concentrations through kriging, analyzing Landsat NDVI data for vegetation monitoring, and managing large water quality databases, as well as experience in the collection of surface water and groundwater quality samples, measurement of groundwater levels, and installation of pressure transducers and data retrieval. While working on her master’s degree, Lucy was awarded a Sustainable Water Markets Fellowship in 2017 from the Catena Foundation to study innovative ways to manage water and achieve multi benefit solutions. For her thesis project, she worked as part of a team for Legacy Works Group and Friends of the Teton River to develop a watershed management plan for the Teton Valley, ID, and to create a program to increase incidental groundwater recharge in the valley. EXPERIENCE Prado Basin Habitat Sustainability Program, Prado Basin Habitat Sustainability Committee (PBHSC), Chino Basin Watermaster, Rancho Cucamonga, CA: Scientist. Lucy serves as a project scientist for the Prado Basin Habitat Sustainability Program (PBHSP). The key element of the PBHSP is an adaptive monitoring program intended to characterize the historical, current, and future extent and quality of the riparian habitat in the Prado Basin Management Zone in the southern portion of the Chino Basin, and to provide information on the cause(s) of riparian habitat degradation, if documented. Data from the monitoring program will aid in the development of efficient and effective mitigation measures if the cause(s) of degradation are conclusively attributed to groundwater management practices in the Chino Basin. The program consists of monitoring of riparian habitat and the factors that can potentially affect riparian habitat health, which include groundwater levels/quality, surface water, weather, climate, invasive species, and fire. Each year, data from the monitoring program is analyzed, interpreted, and reported. The annual reporting and analysis form the basis to adapt the monitoring program, if necessary, to achieve the objectives of the PBHSP. Lucy is responsible for managing the field program data, collecting and analyzing other relevant data, including Landsat radar data and vegetation monitoring data. These data are used to prepare explanatory charts and maps of the health of the Prado Basin vegetation. Lucy contributes interpretation of the integrated data sets and any related groundwater-modeling results; and presents the annual report conclusions to the PBHSC to facilitate Stakeholder input to the PBHSP. Chino Basin Optimum Basin Management Program State of the Basin Report, Chino Basin Watermaster, Rancho Cucamonga, CA: Project Manager. Lucy was the project manager for the preparation of the 2022 State of the Basin Report, in which she managed a team of scientists, engineers, and geologists to prepare the STAFF TITLE: Associate Scientist I YEARS OF EXPERIENCE: 5 EDUCATION ƒMaster of Environmental Science and Management (MESM), Bren School of Environmental Science & Management, University of California, Santa Barbara ƒBS, Biology with a minor in economics and specialization in environmental studies, Davidson College PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS ƒGroundwater Resources Association of California Page 223 of 379 Lucy Hedley| Page 2 such as reporting for various regulatory requirements and analyses to understand changes in the basin as groundwater management strategies are implemented over time. Upper Temescal Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan, Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) and Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), Lake Elsinore, CA: Responsible for assisting in the implementation of the SNMP monitoring program by collecting biweekly and monthly water samples at seven surface water monitoring stations during the winter/spring and summer/fall. These samples are delivered to and analyzed by the EMWD laboratory. Lucy has also assisted with quarterly groundwater quality sampling. The data collected during these surface water and groundwater sampling events are being used to prepare an SNMP to support EVMWD and EMWD’s recycled water discharge and reuse plans in the Upper Temescal Valley. The data collected as part of this monitoring program are used to estimate current ambient water quality and assimilative capacity, and project future TDS and nitrogen concentrations. Chino Basin Recycled Water Groundwater Recharge Program, Chino Basin Watermaster, Rancho Cucamonga, CA: Lucy oversaw the collection of quarterly groundwater elevation data at 32 wells in the Chino Basin for the purpose of monitoring the impact of recycled water recharge on basin water levels. In addition to collecting manual groundwater elevation measurements in the field, Lucy maintained and downloaded pressure transducers and data loggers that measure piezometric head. These data are submitted to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board on behalf of the Chino Basin Recycled Water Groundwater Recharge Program, pursuant to a recharge permit with co permittees—the Inland Empire Utilities Agency and Chino Basin Watermaster. The program is part of a comprehensive water supply program to enhance water supply reliability and improve groundwater quality in Chino Basin by increasing the recharge of stormwater, imported water, and recycled water. PUBLICATIONS ƒBurchenal, K., Campbell, M., Hedley, L., Honn, E., Reeder, T. (2018). Augmenting Summer Streamflow; Innovative Approach in the Teton River, Idaho. The Water Report. Issue #173. Envirotech Publications. six sections of the report. The report is a court-ordered document, prepared pursuant to the Chino Basin Optimum Basin Management Program (OBMP) and subsequent implementation plans and agreements. The State of the Basin Report demonstrates: the current physical state of the Chino Basin with regard to climate, basin production, groundwater recharge, groundwater levels, groundwater quality, and land subsidence. It is intended to demonstrate the Watermaster’s, progress in implementing the OBMP since July 2000 when the Chino Basin Watermaster commenced implementation of the investigations, monitoring programs, and management strategies defined in the OBMP. The report features detailed exhibits that characterize and interpret key hydrogeologic conditions. Lucy is also responsible for preparing the data and analysis within the reports groundwater quality section, which includes analysis of potential contaminants of concern in the Basin, a geospatial analysis of multiple point-source contamination plumes, and exhibits characterizing the ambient TDS and nitrate concentrations in the Basin. In addition to processing and analyzing the data and compiling the exhibits for the groundwater quality section. Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Monitoring Program (SNMP), San Juan Basin Authority, Various, CA: Project Manager Lucy is responsible for the implementation of the watershed wide groundwater and surface water monitoring program that supports the San Juan Creek SNMP. The work plan for this monitoring program was completed in 2016 and included over 30 surface and groundwater monitoring sites throughout the watershed. Lucy is responsible for the field implementation of the program, as well as the data analysis and project reporting. As part of the field implementation of the program, Lucy is responsible for working with field staff to coordinate the collection of samples in the field; reviewing the data in the HydroDaVESM database; and modifying the monitoring program to meet its objectives and to improve field implementation logistics for long term implementation. Lucy is also responsible for collecting, compiling, and checking recycled water, surface water, and groundwater data collected from other entities performing monitoring in the watershed. Lucy prepares annual reports on the analysis and interpretations of the data collected for the program. Chino Basin Watermaster Groundwater and Surface Water Database, Chino Basin Watermaster, Rancho Cucamonga, CA: Lucy is responsible for the management and maintenance of the Chino Basin Watermaster’s database. She manages a team of scientists that collect, compile, and upload all publicly available datasets online, and coordinates with public and private entities within the Chino Basin on a routine basis to keep the database up to date. Lucy is responsible for the review and QA/QC of all data collected and uploaded to the database. The Chino Basin Watermaster database is critical to support a variety of Watermaster functions, Page 224 of 379 Eric W.H. Chiang, PhD Eric’s experience has focused on research and application in the areas of numerical groundwater and surface water modeling, 3D Visualization, software development, data management, planning and decision analysis, and geographic information systems (GIS). Eric develops and applies several computer software packages, notably Processing MODFLOW, a graphical user interface for groundwater and surface water flow and transport modeling with MODFLOW, MODPATH, MT3D, GSFLOW, SEAWAT, and PEST. He applies Processing MODFLOW in many modeling projects to assist in planning, decision making, regulatory compliance, and to facilitate stakeholder involvement and understanding. In addition, he develops and applies HydroDaVE – a cloud based groundwater and surface water data management system that enables users to remotely manage, visualize, analyze, and share groundwater, surface water, climatic data, and model results on a map based user interface. He incorporates innovative remote sensing or model based data in HydroDaVE, such as Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) to quantify vegetation and Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD) and Global Circulation Models (GCMs) to provide historical and future daily/hourly precipitation estimates. Eric has extensive experience in several modeling software programs including MODFLOW, GSFLOW, PRMS, HYDRUS, MT3DMS, RT3D, SEAWAT, PEST, UCODE, GSLIB, ArcGIS, SURFER, and GRAPHER, and he is well versed in the SQL Database and several programming languages such as C, C#, C++, Python, Fortran, Visual Basic, and R. Eric was a Professor at the University of the Free State, South Africa where he authored and published 3D Groundwater Modeling with PMWIN, a textbook that covers Processing MODFLOW and computer codes for groundwater flow and contaminant transport simulation. In addition, Eric served as a University Instructor at the University of Bremen, Germany where he taught Applied Groundwater Modeling short courses from 1996 to 2004. EXPERIENCE 2015 and 2020 Safe Yield Recalculation for the Chino Basin, Chino Basin Watermaster, Rancho Cucamonga, CA: Project Engineer. The safe yield of the Chino Basin is re calculated pursuant to the Peace Agreement and Watermaster rules and regulations. For the 2015 investigation to recalculate the safe yield of the Chino Basin, Eric obtained all historical precipitation and temperature data from surface stations and radar estimates, PRISM, and spatially disaggregated and bias corrected projections of precipitation and temperature from NASA for the available GCM projections. Eric compared historical and GCM projected precipitation information at various locations in the Upper Santa Ana Watershed to determine the reliability of using GCM based projections of precipitation to compute stormwater recharge and the deep infiltration of precipitation and applied water. This information was used in the estimation of safe yield in the Chino Basin. Eric served as the project engineer for the 2020 investigation to recalculate the safe yield of the Chino Basin. The 2020 safe yield estimate was STAFF TITLE: Principal Scientist II YEARS OF EXPERIENCE: 30 EDUCATION ƒPhD, Civil Engineering, University of Kassel, Germany ƒMS, Civil Engineering, University of Stuttgart, Germany ƒBS, Civil Engineering. National Central University, Taiwan PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS ƒGroundwater Resources Association of California ƒNational Ground Water Association ƒInternational Association of Hydrological Sciences Page 225 of 379 Eric W.H. Chiang, PhD | Page 2 PRMS. A benefit of GSFLOW is that both headwater, valley settings and groundwater can be simulated simultaneously so that flows throughout a watershed can be simulated comprehensively. One Dimensional Model Simulation of Aquifer System Deformation at the PX Site, Chino Basin Watermaster, Rancho Cucamonga, CA: Lead Modeler. A numerical, one dimensional, aquifer system compaction model was constructed and calibrated using the lithology data of the PX site located in the northwestern portion of the Chino Basin (Northwest MZ 1) – an area that has experienced gradual and persistent subsidence for decades. The objective of the model was to explore the future occurrence of subsidence in Northwest MZ 1 under various basin management scenarios of groundwater production and artificial recharge, and to identify potential subsidence mitigation strategies. Maximum Benefit Demonstration for the Elsinore Groundwater Management Zone, Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, Lake Elsinore, CA: Lead Groundwater Modeler. Eric provided modeling for developing a maximum benefit demonstration to raise the total dissolved solids (TDS) and nitrate concentration objectives for the Elsinore Groundwater Management Zone (GMZ) in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (Basin Plan). The District is seeking new, maximum benefit based TDS and nitrate concentration objectives such that it can have the flexibility to develop and invest in a water resources plan that optimizes the management and use of all its water supply assets to achieve a reliable water supply in an environmentally sound manner. The District’s maximum benefit proposal is designed to facilitate the maximum reuse of recycled water, to protect the beneficial uses of groundwater in the Elsinore GMZ and downstream GMZs for future generations, and to be consistent with Executive Order 68 16, Water Code section 13241, and State Board orders and policies that promote recycled water reuse. Eric is responsible for developing a numerical groundwater model to develop TDS and nitrate concentration projections for the Elsinore GMZ, based on the EVMWD’s Integrated Resources Supply Plan. The groundwater model is being developed with the Processing MODFLOW software, authored by Eric. prepared consistent with the sustainable yield requirements in the SGMA and when it was also subjected to peer review. The 2020 Safe Yield Recalculation report was published on May 15, 2020. Update of the Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP) for the Chino Basin, Chino Basin Watermaster, Rancho Cucamonga, CA: Lead Water Quality Modeler. The objective of the SNMP study was to demonstrate the long term impacts of recycled water reuse and recharge on the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration of the Chino Basin during prolonged future droughts. This work included the development of a series of numerical models, including complex fate and transport water quality models (land surface, streams, vadose zone, and groundwater) that simulated the water flow and TDS and nitrate transport processes for the entire Chino Basin, including the historical, current, and future loading associated with land use management for agriculture and dairy operations. The specific models used included R4, Hydrus 2D, MODFLOW, and MT3D. Eric developed software to iteratively run the models to honor feedback loops in the system. This enables the projected changes in groundwater quality to be represented in projected water supply and recycled water quality, the return flows of which contribute to subsequent changes in groundwater quality and Santa Ana River quality (the feedback loop). This model is the most detailed and sophisticated TDS and nitrate simulation ever done for the Santa Ana Watershed. Integrated Surface and Groundwater Model, Santa Margarita Water District (District), CA: Lead Modeler. The District retained West Yost to provide engineering and hydrogeologic services to support a preliminary design report and environmental documentation for the San Juan Watershed Project (Project) that included work to evaluate the amount of new stormwater recharge generated by the Project, to develop groundwater pumping plans to recover the new recharge, and other hydrogeologic tasks. Eric served as the lead modeler for developing an integrated surface water and groundwater model for the San Juan Watershed and San Juan Creek groundwater basin to support the advanced planning, design and implementation of the Project; ensured that the facilities and associated operating plans were reliably developed; provided accurate estimates of Project yield and unit cost of the new yield; assessed environmental responses; and developed the detailed information needed to obtain permits and allocate new yield of the Project. Using the Processing MODFLOW software as well as climate data, such as PRISM and CIMIS, collected and stored in the HydroDaVE System, the model was built with the USGS coupled surface water and groundwater flow model called GSFLOW. GSFLOW is based on USGS’s groundwater flow model MODFLOW and precipitation runoff modeling system Page 226 of 379 JACOBS Page 227 of 379 Total Years of Experience: 32 Education: B.S., Biology AB Thesis Graduate Studies, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona Specialized Knowledge: ü Expertise in avian (bird) surveys and monitoring; fish surveys; habitat and wildlife inventory and mapping ü Extensive academic background includes ecology, local flora and fauna, biology of ecosystems, conservation of natural resources, politics and planning Credentials: ü Certified Inspector, Sediment and Erosion Control ü Certified CRAM Practitioner ü USACE District(s): San Francisco, Albuquerque ü U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal 10(a) Recovery Permit (TE- 832945-3) to survey for coastal California gnat catcher (Polioptila Californica Californica) ü California Department of Fish and Game MOU – Conduct surveys for Southern Rubber Boa (Charina Bottae Umbratica) ü Qualified SWPPP Practitioner ü State Water Resources Control Board ü Wetland Policy and Delineation Training ü Conflict Management and Resolution Facilitator CALIFORNIA & SOUTHWEST OPERATING DIVISIONS LEAD | LISA PATTERSON Lisa is a Senior Ecologist and an expert delivering environmental work with IEUA, Water Districts, Light and Class 1 Rail clients nationwide. She is a regulatory specialist and is responsible for preparing and obtaining regulatory permits, managing compliance of regulatory permits, and conducting a wide range of studies and evaluations for absence or presence of endangered species (plants and animals), habitat assessments, biological assessments, impact analyses, mitigation plans, implementation plans, construction monitoring, general biological surveys protected species studies. With over 30 years of experience, she conducts wetland delineations and has secured regulatory permits for various IEUA and Class 1 rail projects ranging from facility expansions, emergency repairs, maintenance activities, and structure replacements. Additionally, Lisa has worked on public-private infrastructure projects. Projects including: IEUA OBMP thru OBMP, Program Maintenance Projects, Cajon 3MT, Structures maintenance 2000-2020, BNSF- Caltrans Richmond Connector, and San Joaquin Corridor PEIR. RELEVANT WORK EXPERIENCE Inland Empire Utilities Agency and Chino Basin Watermaster OBMPU: Role: Biological Surveying/Permitting, Biological Resources Analysis Preparation, and Permit Compliance Responsibilities: Lisa compiled the Program Biological Resources Report (BRR)for the Optimum Basin Management Program Update (OBMPU). This effort included compiling biological data from the entire Chino Basin to draft a BRR that analyzed the potential impacts to biological resources within the whole of the Basin. Additionally, this effort required drafting extensive mitigation measures that would apply to future individual OBMPU Projects in some cases, and in others, would minimize impacts from the whole of the OBMPU. This effort utilized my extensive knowledge of biological resources and regulatory procedures within the Chino Basin area, and ultimately enabled me to compile a comprehensive Program BRR. Inland Empire Utilities Agency Operation and Maintenance Long Term LSAA Agreement Compliance (Throughout the Chino Basin in Southern California) – Conduct Biological Surveys, Report Preparation, and Compliance assistance and Reporting: Years Worked on Project: 10 Years. I have worked with IEUA for the past 15 years assisting them with the development and long term permitting for routine maintenance in 18 ground water recharge facilities throughout the Chino Basin. Each year pre-maintenance general biological and focused burrowing owl surveys must be conducted. The maintenance activities must be documented, and at the end of each maintenance year a report must be prepared documenting the survey conducted, the results of the surveys, and the maintenance completed. BNSF, Caltrans Division of Rail, Richmond Connector, CA Role: Biological Surveying/Permitting and Permit Compliance Responsibilities: Biological surveys and jurisdictional delineations were conducted in order to prepare the Natural Environmental Study (NES) for Caltrans to utilize in the CEQA documents. Regulatory Permits were obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Contra Costa County Flood Control. A mitigation plan was developed and will be implemented within the next year. BNSF, South Territory Role: Structures Permitting Responsibilities: BNSF Structures moved their permitting approach to a territorial approach. Lisa has been permitting the entire south territory including California, Arizona, New Mexico, west Texas, and Colorado for regulatory permitting associated with structure maintenance and replacement since the program began. This project involves developing environmental documentation for facilities maintenance on BNSF properties. The regulatory permit includes, but are not limited to Section 404, 401, NPDES, Air Quality, Floodway, and Endangered Species permitting. BNSF, Engineering Services Role: Emergency and On-Call Environmental Compliance Responsibilities: Providing environmental permitting and compliance support as an on call consultant for emergencies and pop-up coordination for BNSF since 1995. Emergency projects include derailment or safety issues such as homeless encampments and bird nests on signal masts or interfering with routine maintenance; and regulatory compliance including QA/QC for NPDES permitting. These services have involved various resources, various emergent situations, and a wide breadth of environmental coordination and permitting. Page 228 of 379 Southwest Team Primary Support Staff Lo c a l Su p p o r t S t a f f Kurt Sanderson | Site Evaluation/Project Management, Permitting, SWPPP Compliance, and Project Compliance Local Geography: CA USACE District(s): San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles 18 years of experience Education: B.S., Biology, Ohio University Credentials: BNSF Contractor Certification; Union Pacific Railroad Contractor Certification; e-RAILSAFE (BNSF) Specialized Knowledge: • BNSF structures documentation and permitting experience • NEPA/CEQA, Clean Water Act, Section 401, 402, and 404 • Endangered Species Act surveys, monitoring, and reporting Why Kurt was chosen for this team: Kurt brings over 5 years working with BNSF on projects within threatened and endangered species field surveys, jurisdictional waters delineations, and CA state and federal permit preparation and monitoring for environmental compliance on large-scale projects. Kurt lead international development analysis and site evaluations for over 15 years focusing on environmental development, US threatened and endangered (T&E) species, and US jurisdictional waters programs, environmental contract and plans development, and environmental construction compliance. Daniel Smith | Permitting, Focused Surveys, SWPPP Compliance, and Monitoring Local Geography: CA USACE District(s): San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles and Albuquerque 13 years of experience Education: B.A., California State University Fullerton Credentials: • Certified Inspector Erosion and Sediment Control • BNSF Contractor Safety Orientation Certification • OSHA 10-Hour • Yellow-billed Cuckoo Survey Workshop and Training Sessions, Southern Sierra Research Station • Willow Flycatcher Survey Training Workshop, Southern Sierra Research Station • Desert Tortoise Survey Techniques Workshop, Desert Tortoise Council • Union Pacific Railroad Contractor Orientation Certification Specialized Knowledge: • BNSF structures documentation and permitting experience • Federal and California Endangered Species Act surveys, monitoring, and reporting • NEPA/CEQA, Clean Water Act Section 401 and 404 • Agency and client coordination and consultation Why Daniel was chosen for thus team: Daniel has 13 years of direct environmental consulting experience with BNSF Railway Company, supporting BNSF’s Structures Division. He has conducted and/or assisted in conducting protocol USFWS and CDFW threatened and endangered species surveys and jurisdictional waters assessments. He has also prepared permit applications and monitored permit compliance, providing full project cycle management and reporting. Daniel has conducted jurisdictional waters delineations conforming to USACE and RWQCB standards on project sites throughout California. Page 229 of 379 COST PROPOSAL AND FEE RATE SCHEDULES FOR THE CITY OF BEAUMONT ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AND MITIGATION PLAN Submitted to: Submitted by: Tom Dodson and Associates P.O. Box 2307 San Bernardino, California 92406 (909) 882-3612 In Partnership with: West Yost 23692 Birtcher Drive Lake Forest, CA 92630 (949) 420-3030 and Jacobs (Lisa Patterson, Biological Resources/Regulatory Team) Proposal Due Date and Time: July 25, 2023 2:00 p.m. Page 230 of 379 Tom Dodson & Associates, in partnership with West Yost and Jacobs, has prepared a detailed proposal to develop an Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan (AMMP) for the City of Beaumont (City). Our team carefully reviewed the RFP and have prepared an approach and scope of work that we believe will result in the development and approval of a robust AMMP that will serve as the framework for implementing the City’s recycled water program. This document is our cost proposal to implement the “B. Approach” and “Attachment 1: Scope of Services” that are described in our full project proposal. As presented in the full proposal, our recommended approach is to perform the tasks to complete the AMMP in three Phases as follows: • Phase 1 – Characterize Historical and Current Conditions to Support Development of AMMP • Phase 2 – Assess Feasibility of Reduced Discharge and Perform Initial Baseline Monitoring • Phase 3 – Prepare Adaptive Monitoring and Mitigation Plan and Continue Baseline Monitoring As described in our schedule (Section I), the three phases will take three to three and a half years to implement. The duration is largely dependent on the outcomes of the Phase 1 work. Our project team has extensive experience in developing and implementing multi -year adaptive monitoring and management programs. Preparing cost estimates for multi-year, multi-phase work can be challenging because the scope of work in later phases is directly impacted by the conclusion of preceding phases. However, we recognize that it is necessary for the City to be able to plan and budget the multi-year effort. We have prepared a planning level budget for the City that includes: 1. A detailed line-item labor hours and cost estimate for the tasks 8 tasks defined in Phase 1 (Table C-1, enclosed) 2. A range of budget-level costs for the remaining tasks in Phases 2 and 3, based on our experience in performing similar work (Table C-2 and Table C-3 below) 3. Table C-4 summarizes the recommended budget to complete the project The total labor hours estimated to complete Phase 1 is 1,165 hours and the total cost estimated to complete Phase 1 is $267,160. The range of costs to complete Phase 2 is $270,000 to $629,000. The range of costs to complete Phase 3 is $82,000 to $141,000. The labor hours and cost of work in Phases 2 and 3 will need to be determined as the project is implemented – the cost to perform Phase 2 would be determined as a deliverable of the Phase 1 work. The cost estimates and budget level recommendations were made in consideration of the fixed rate schedules for each project team, which are included in Attachment 1. As shown in Table C-4, we recommend the City budget $997,160 for all phases of work in the first four years but initially issue a task order for consulting services only the cost of the Phase 1 work ($267,160). The recommended budget is based on the upper-end range of costs to provide maximum flexibility to the City as the project evolves. Please note that the scope of work includes a few tasks that were not explicitly described in the RFP and may be deemed additional work by the City. These items are summarized as follows: Page 231 of 379 • PHASE 1 o Historical Analysis of NDVI (Phase 1, Task 4) – Cost: $18,691. We believe that NDVI is an important dataset to invest in to develop a historical characterization of the extent and health of riparian habitat in the study area and that the use of this information will lead to a better understanding of the factors that have contributed to the habitat condition over time. • PHASE 2 o Implement first year of Baseline Monitoring program (Phase 2, Task 15) – Cost $20,000 to $40,000. Due to duration of time to set up AMMP, this task is recommended to be performed to support the understanding of Baseline conditions considered in the AMMP , and it could potentially speed up the time until the discharge can begin to be reduced. o Prepare scope of work and cost estimate to prepare the AMMP (Phase 2, Task 16) – Cost $10,000 to $12,000. Supports City in developing budget for the final phase of work based on outcomes of Phase 2. • PHASE 3 o Implement second year of Baseline Monitoring program (Phase 3, Task 1 9) – Cost $22,000 to $43,000. The purpose of continuing baseline monitoring prior to completion of the AMMP will allow the City to potentially speed up the time until the discharge can begin to be reduced. Our team is open to negotiating the scope, schedule, and cost of the project to meet t he City’s needs. Prior to entering into contract, we would propose to work with the City to review the proposed scope of work and ensure we are in alignment on the project needs and objectives. We can identify key milestones as well as “off -ramps” that would lead to revisiting the scope if initial investigations and analysis warrant a change to the project or approach. Through this process, the scope, schedule, and cost are refined as necessary to establish a final budget that considers any necessary contingencies to address challenges that may arise. Our goal will always be to perform the minimum, most-efficient work necessary to develop a robust, scientifically credible work product that will serve the City’s needs. We are available to commence work immediately after execution of the contract and can co mplete the required work within the desired schedule and allotted budget subject to the assumptions stated in this proposal. We thank you again for the opportunity to serve. Sincerely, Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton Vice President, TDA Page 232 of 379 Enclosures: Table C-1 - Work Breakdown Structure and Fee Estimate to Perform Phase 1 of the Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan Development Table C-2 - Budge-Level Range of Costs by Task to Perform Phase 2 of the Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan Development Table C-3 - Budge-Level Range of Costs by Task to Perform Phase 3 of the Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan Development Table C-4 - Recommended Budget to Develop the of the Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan Attachment 1 – Consultant Rate Sheets Page 233 of 379 Sub- task Phase/ Task Task 1 - Phase 1 Project Management and Meetings $38,690 $300 $38,990 Kick-off meeting with City (1)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 20.0 $4,224 $200 $200 $4,424 Monthly check in calls (12)4.0 18.0 12.0 6.0 12.0 52.0 $10,734 $10,734 Presentation to City Council (1)1.0 4.0 8.0 4.0 1.0 18.0 $4,139 $100 $100 $4,239 Monthly project management activities (12)6.0 48.0 6.0 24.0 6.0 12.0 102.0 $19,593 $19,593 Task 2 - Establish Initial Goals, Objectives, and Project Performance Criteria $13,636 $200 $13,836 Prepare for and meet with City to define goals, objectives, and criteria 4.0 4.0 2.0 6.0 3.0 4.0 23.0 $5,216 $200 $200 $5,416 Document goals, objectives, and criteria in a draft TM 4.0 4.0 1.0 6.0 2.0 2.5 4.0 23.5 $5,072 $5,072 Meet with City to review draft TM 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 7.0 $1,436 $1,436 Prepare final TM 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 9.0 $1,912 $1,912 Task 3 - Characterize Historical Discharge and Surface Water Flow Hydrology $39,975 $200 $40,175 Coordinate with City to collect all available data on factors affect surface water flow (climate, water supply, etc.)1.0 4.0 4.0 12.0 4.0 25.0 $6,144 $6,144 Organize data into a project database 2.0 1.0 8.0 40.0 51.0 $12,006 $12,006 Prepare explanatory graphics to characterize flow and factors that influence it 1.0 6.0 2.0 30.0 8.0 47.0 $11,042 $11,042 Perform and document field reconnaissance to observe field surface water conditions 8.0 8.0 8.0 24.0 $5,928 $200 $200 $6,128 Prepare summary findings about the factors that have influenced surface water flow over time 1.0 2.0 1.0 6.0 2.0 6.0 2.0 20.0 $4,855 $4,855 Task 4 - Characterize Historical Riparian Habitat Health (NDVI)$18,691 $0 $18,691 Review and document all NDVI from Landsat imagery for the study area from 1984 to 2023 4.0 20.0 24.0 $5,532 $5,532 Define Areas for analysis of NDVI Time Series and compile time series data from 1984 to 2023 1.0 4.0 22.0 27.0 $6,280 $6,280 Prepare explanatory graphics to characterize NDVI for various periods of interest 1.0 2.0 6.0 9.0 $2,206 $2,206 Prepare summary findings about the factors that have influenced NDVI variability over time 1.0 2.0 1.0 8.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 20.0 $4,673 $4,673 Task 5 - Characterize Historical and Existing Biological Resources $27,404 $0 $27,404 Coordinate with City to collect prior biologic resources reports and define extent of field survey 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 10.0 4.0 19.0 $4,268 $4,268 Research background biological data to establish area habitat conditions 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 12.0 4.0 21.0 $4,798 $4,798 Perform field survey of biologic resources 1.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 16.0 16.0 40.0 $7,738 $7,738 Prepare exhibits documenting historical extent of biologic resources 1.0 1.0 2.0 8.0 6.0 10.0 28.0 $5,300 $5,300 Prepare exhibits documenting current extent of biologic resources 1.0 1.0 2.0 8.0 6.0 10.0 28.0 $5,300 $5,300 Task 6 - Identify Potential impacts to Biologic Resources from Reduced Discharge to Coopers Creek $32,218 $200 $32,418 Prepare draft list of factors that have influenced biologic resources over time and describe relationships 2.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 12.0 12.0 37.0 $7,210 $7,210 Prepare list a potential impacts to biologic resources from reduced discharge 2.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 24.0 12.0 49.0 $10,390 $10,390 Develop draft metrics for habitat sustainability 1.0 2.0 2.0 8.0 2.0 8.0 4.0 27.0 $6,359 $6,359 Identify data gaps in current monitoring efforts that prevent assessment of habitat impacts 0.5 6.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 14.5 $3,630 $3,630 Meet with City to review the information and receive comments 1.0 4.0 6.0 2.0 6.0 2.0 21.0 $4,629 $200 $200 $4,829 Task 7 - Assess Available Tools for Analyzing Surface Water and Groundwater Impacts $22,955 $0 $22,955 Coordinate with City to identify and collect available surface water and groundwater models 2.0 1.0 4.0 7.0 $2,021 $2,021 Review, assess, and summarize SW Flow Ecology models and projections 8.0 2.0 16.0 26.0 $7,498 $7,498 Review, assess, and summarize other available models and projections 8.0 2.0 16.0 26.0 $7,498 $7,498 Scope out plan to use/improve develop models for Phase 2 analysis 2.0 8.0 2.0 8.0 20.0 $5,938 $5,938 Task 8 - Prepare Cooper’s Creek Habitat Characterization and Sustainability Report $49,505 $200 $49,705 Prepare initial monitoring workplan 2.0 12.0 2.0 8.0 4.0 2.0 6.0 4.0 40.0 $9,715 $9,715 Prepare draft report 1.0 2.0 4.0 32.0 4.0 30.0 10.0 6.0 16.0 10.0 115.0 $27,280 $27,280 Meet with City to review report 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 24.0 $5,346 $200 $200 $5,546 Finalize report based on City comments 1.0 2.0 1.0 8.0 1.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 31.0 $7,164 $7,164 Other Additional Work to Support City in Applying for Change Petition an Obtaining AMMP Approval $22,786 $200 $22,986 Regulatory support for change petition 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 20.0 4.0 8.0 44.0 $11,476 $200 $200 $11,676 Outreach and communication 4.0 2.0 2.0 8.0 6.0 22.0 $5,666 $5,666 Support grant opportunities 2.0 4.0 16.0 2.0 24.0 $5,644 $5,644 Phase 1 Totals 44 129 12 53 243 72 205 70 16 8 20 199 95 1,165 $265,860 $1,300 $0 $1,300 $267,160 Phase/ TaskSub-Task Total Program Costs Principal Geologist II Table C-1. Work Breakdown Structure and Fee Estimate to Perform Phase 1 of the Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan Development Other Direct Charges (ODCs) Description Admin. IV Field Tech. Associate Geologist I Principal Scientist I Equip- ment Rental Geologist II Senior Engineer II I Scientist Manager I Person Hours Total ODCs Grant Funding Specialist Phase/ Task Sub- taskTravel Labor Hours and Cost TDA Environ- mental Specialist I Environ- mental Specialist II West Yost Jacobs Snr. Environ- mental Manager Biologist Total Labor Labor Cost Page 234 of 379 Table C-2 Budge-Level Range of Costs by Task to Perform Phase 2 of the Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan Development Task Range of Costs Recommended Budget Task 9 Project Management and Meetings $25,000 to $45,000 $45,000 Task 10 - Assess the Hydrologic and Operational Capacities from Operating the Discharge Under Current and Future Discharges $50,000 to $200,000 $200,000 Task 11 - Identification of Conceptual Project Mitigations to Biologic Resources $10,000 to $12,000 $12,000 Task 12 - Assess Engineering Feasibility of Operational Alternatives and Mitigation Actions $50,000 to $75,000 $75,000 Task 13 - CEQA Checklist Evaluation of Project Alternatives $50,000 to $150,000 $150,000 Task 14 - Prepare Cooper’s Creek Discharge Hydrogeologic and Operational Feasibility Report $20,000 to $30,000 $30,000 Task 15 – Implement first year of Baseline Monitoring Program $20,000 to $40,000 $40,000 Task 16 – Prepare scope of work and cost estimate to prepare the AMMP $10,000 to $12,000 $12,000 Other Additional Work to Support City in Applying for Change Petition an Obtaining AMMP Approval $20,000 to $25,000 $25,000 Totals Range: $255,000 to $589,000 $589,000 Table C-3 Budge-Level Range of Costs by Task to Perform Phase 3 of the Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan Development Task Range of Costs Recommended Budget Task 17 Project Management and Meetings $10,000 to $13,000 $13,000 Task 18 - Prepare the AMMP $30,000 to $60,000 $60,000 Task 19 - Implement second year of Baseline Monitoring Program $22,000 to $43,000 $43,000 Other Additional Work to Support City in Applying for Change Petition an Obtaining AMMP Approval $20,000 to $25,000 $25,000 Totals Range: $82,000 to $141,000 $141,000 Page 235 of 379 Table C-4 Recommended Budget to Develop the of the Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan Phase/Task Recommended Budget Phase 1 $267,160 Phase 2 $589,000 Phase 3 $141,000 Totals $997,160 Page 236 of 379 TO M DODSON & ASSOCIATES AND JACOBS Page 237 of 379 City of Beaumont Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan 1 FEE RATE SCHEDULE Tom Dodson & Associates (TDA) Labor: Time spent on behalf of a client will be charged as follows: Environmental Specialist I (Tom Dodson) $165 / hour Environmental Specialist II (Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton) $115 / hour Environmental Specialist III $85 / hour Environmental Specialist IV $60 / hour Biologist III / Monitor $65 / hour Admin / WP / Graphics (Christine Camacho) $55 / hour Legal Expert Witness (Tom/Kaitlyn) $240 / hour The above reflects hourly rates that shall remain in place with no changes proposed during the first two years of the Master Contract. Rates may increase by $10 per hour for each of the above roles under TDA’s umbrella for the duration of the contract. Other Direct Costs: All other direct costs (travel, supplies, printing, etc.) may be charged at actual cost. There will be no mark-up on ODCs. Mileage will be billed at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) standard mileage rate for business travel. For 2023, this rate is $0.65 per mile. Subcontractors will be billed at cost. Jacobs Labor: Time spent on behalf of a client will be charged as follows: Name 2023 Lisa Patterson, National Senior Environmental Manager 262.44 Daniel Smith, Biologist 107.30 Loc Truong, Environmental Project Manager 145.58 Madelynn Bartelloni, Environmental Planner 81.29 Other Direct Costs: All other direct costs including travel, printing, mileage, are charged at actual cost. Mileage will be billed at the current IRS mileage rates, which is currently $0.65 per mile. – The 2024 and 2025 rates are anticipated to be increased by 1% each year from the 2023-2025 rates. Text Page 238 of 379 WEST YOST Page 239 of 379 2023 - 2026 Billing Rate Schedule (Effective July 1, 2023 through December 31, 2026) POSITIONS 2023 2024 2025 2026 ENGINEERING Principal/Vice President /$338 /$348 /$359 /$369 Engineer/Scientist/Geologist Manager II /$334 /$344 /$354 /$365 Engineer/Scientist/Geologist Manager I /$319 /$329 /$338 /$349 Principal Engineer/Scientist/Geologist II /$307 /$316 /$326 /$335 Principal Engineer/Scientist/Geologist I /$288 /$297 /$306 /$315 Senior Engineer/Scientist/Geologist II /$272 /$280 /$289 /$297 Senior Engineer/Scientist/Geologist I /$259 /$267 /$275 /$283 Associate Engineer/Scientist/Geologist II /$231 /$238 /$245 /$252 Associate Engineer/Scientist/Geologist I /$215 /$221 /$228 /$235 Engineer/Scientist/Geologist II /$201 /$207 /$213 /$220 Engineer/Scientist/Geologist I /$173 /$178 /$184 /$189 Engineering Aide /$101 /$104 /$107 /$110 Field Monitoring Services /$125 /$129 /$133 /$137 Administrative IV /$152 /$157 /$161 /$166 Administrative III /$138 /$142 /$146 /$151 Administrative II /$115 /$118 /$122 /$126 Administrative I /$92 /$95 /$98 /$101 ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY Engineering Tech Manager II /$334 /$344 /$354 /$365 Engineering Tech Manager I /$332 /$342 /$352 /$363 Principal Tech Specialist II /$315 /$324 /$334 /$344 Principal Tech Specialist I /$305 /$314 /$324 /$333 Senior Tech Specialist II /$291 /$300 /$309 /$318 Senior Tech Specialist I /$279 /$287 /$296 /$305 Senior GIS Analyst /$252 /$260 /$267 /$275 GIS Analyst /$239 /$246 /$254 /$261 Technical Specialist IV /$254 /$262 /$269 /$278 Technical Specialist III /$228 /$235 /$242 /$249 Technical Specialist II /$203 /$209 /$215 /$222 Technical Specialist I /$178 /$183 /$189 /$195 Technical Analyst II /$152 /$157 /$161 /$166 Technical Analyst I /$128 /$132 /$136 /$140 Technical Analyst Intern /$103 /$106 /$109 /$113 Cross-Connection Control Specialist IV /$180 /$185 /$191 /$197 Cross-Connection Control Specialist III /$162 /$167 /$172 /$177 Cross-Connection Control Specialist II /$144 /$148 /$153 /$157 Cross-Connection Control Specialist I /$133 /$137 /$141 /$145 CAD Manager /$201 /$207 /$213 /$220 CAD Designer II /$176 /$181 /$187 /$192 CAD Designer I /$156 /$161 /$166 /$170 See page 2 for important additional information on rates LABOR CHARGES (DOLLARS PER HOUR) Page 1 of 3Page 240 of 379 2023 - 2026 Billing Rate Schedule (Effective July 1, 2023 through December 31, 2026) POSITIONS 2023 2024 2025 2026 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT Senior Construction Manager /$322 /$332 /$342 /$352 Construction Manager IV /$283 /$291 /$300 /$309 Construction Manager III /$224 /$231 /$238 /$245 Construction Manager II /$211 /$217 /$224 /$231 Construction Manager I /$197 /$203 /$209 /$215 Resident Inspector (Prevailing Wage Groups 1)/$221 /$228 /$234 /$241 Resident Inspector (Prevailing Wage Groups 2) /$213 /$219 /$226 /$233 Resident Inspector (Prevailing Wage Groups 3) /$191 /$197 /$203 /$209 Resident Inspector (Prevailing Wage Groups 4)/$172 /$177 /$182 /$188 Apprentice Inspector /$156 /$161 /$166 /$170 CM Administrative II /$112 /$115 /$119 /$122 CM Administrative I /$83 /$85 /$88 /$91 Field Services /$221 /$228 /$234 /$241 LABOR CHARGES (DOLLARS PER HOUR) ■ Hourly rates include Technology and Communication charges such as general and CAD computer, software, telephone, routine in-house copies/prints, postage, miscellaneous supplies, and other incidental project expenses. ■ Outside Services such as vendor reproductions, prints, shipping, and major West Yost reproduction efforts, as well as Engineering Supplies, etc. will be billed at actual cost plus 15%. ■ The Federal Mileage Rate will be used for mileage charges and will be based on the Federal Mileage Rate applicable to when the mileage costs were incurred. Travel other than mileage will be billed at cost. ■ Subconsultants will be billed at actual cost plus 10%. ■ Expert witness, research, technical review, analysis, preparation and meetings billed at 150% of standard hourly rates. Expert witness testimony and depositions billed at 200% of standard hourly rates. ■ A Finance Charge of 1.5% per month (an Annual Rate of 18%) on the unpaid balance will be added to invoice amounts if not paid within 45 days from the date of the invoice. Page 2 of 3Page 241 of 379 2023 - 2026 Billing Rate Schedule (Effective July 1, 2023 through December 31, 2026) EQUIPMENT CHARGES 2" Purge Pump & Control Box $300 /day Aquacalc / Pygmy or AA Flow Meter $28 /day Emergency SCADA System $35 /day Field Vehicles (Groundwater)$1 /mile Gas Detector $80 /day Generator $60 /day Hydrant Pressure Gauge $10 /day Hydrant Pressure Recorder, Impulse (Transient)$55 /day Hydrant Pressure Recorder, Standard $40 /day Low Flow Pump Back Pack $135 /day Low Flow Pump Controller $200 /day Powers Water Level Meter $32 /day Precision Water Level Meter 300ft $30 /day Precision Water Level Meter 500ft $40 /day Precision Water Level Meter 700ft $45 /day QED Sample Pro Bladder Pump $65 /day Stainless Steel Wire per foot 0.03$ /day Storage Tank $20 /day Sump Pump $24 /day Transducer Components (per installation)$23 /day Trimble GPS – Geo 7x $220 /day Tube Length Counter $22 /day Turbidity Meter $30 /day Vehicle (Construction Management)$10 /hour Water Flow Probe Meter $20 /day Water Quality Meter $50 /day Water Quality Multimeter $185 /day Well Sounder $30 /day BILLING RATES Page 3 of 3Page 242 of 379 California Levine Act Statement California Government Code Sec�on 84308, commonly referred to as the "Levine Act," prohibits any Beaumont City Council Member from par�cipa�ng in any ac�on related to a contract or applica�on if he or she receives any poli�cal contribu�ons totaling more than $250 within the previous twelve months, and for three months following the date a final decision from the business or applicant. The Levine Act also requires a member of the Beaumont City Council who has received such a contribu�on to disclose the contribu�on on the record of the proceeding. Current Beaumont City Council Members are listed at: htps://www.beaumontca.gov/29/City-Council Proposers are responsible for accessing this link to review the names prior to answering the following ques�ons. 1. Have you or your company, or any agent on behalf of you or your company, made any poli�cal contribu�ons of more than $250 to any Beaumont City Council Member in the 12 months preceding the date of the submission of your proposal or applica�on, or the an�cipated date of any Council ac�on? ___ YES If yes, please iden�fy the Council Member(s): ___ NO 2. Do you or your company, or any agency on behalf of you or your company, an�cipate or plan to make any poli�cal contribu�on of more than $250 to any Beaumont City Council Member in the 12 months following any Council ac�on related to your proposal or applica�on? ___ YES If yes, please iden�fy the Council Member(s): ___ NO Answering yes to either of the two ques�ons above does not preclude the Beaumont City Council from awarding a contract or approving an applica�on or any subsequent ac�on. It does however, preclude the iden�fied Council Member(s) from par�cipa�ng in any ac�ons related to your proposal or applica�on. _________________ _____________________________ Date Signature of authorized individual _____________________________ Company/Applicant Name City of Beaumont | 550 E. 6th Street, Beaumont, CA 92223 | (951) 769-8520 | BeaumontCA.gov ✔ ✔ 08/11/23 Tom Dodson & Associates Page 243 of 379 Staff Report TO: City Council FROM: Jennifer Ustation, Finance Director DATE August 15, 2023 SUBJECT: Award a Professional Services Agreement to Willdan Financial Services for a Variety of Development Impact Fee Studies in a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $79,080 Description Award an agreement with Willdan Financial Services for professional services to conduct a development impact fee study. Background and Analysis: The City released a Request for Proposal (RFP) on June 30, 2023, for selection of qualified firms to update the City’s Development Impact Fee Studies, Sewer Capacity Fee Study and proposed updated Development Impact Fees. The City assesses a variety of development impact fees on new development to mitigate City-wide impacts on public improvements, public services, and community amenities. The City received two (2) responses to the RFP: David Taussig & Associates (DTA) and Willdan Financial Services. Below is a detail of the cost proposals for each vendor. Willdan Financial Services DTA Development Impact Fee Study $49,680.00 $56,920.00 Sewer Capacity Fee Study $17,280.00 $10,000.00 Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study $21,120.00 $8,500.00 Out-of Pocket Expenses inc. $2,500 Total $88,080.00 $77,920.00 Discount offered for 2+ Studies ($9,000.00) Any Additional Fee Studies $7,500.00 Total $79,080.00 $85,420.00 Page 244 of 379 The evaluation team consisted of three (3) executive staff members whose scoring have been included below. Interviews were held on August 8, 2023, and August 9, 2023, and the selection of Willdan Financial Services was presented to the RFP sub-committee on August 9, 2023. Willdan Financial Services was selected as the best candidate due to their understanding of the project, related experience, and overall approach to performing the services. Fiscal Impact: The Development Impact Fee and Transportation Facilities Impact Fee studies have been included in the current year budget within GL 100-1200-7068-0000. The funding for the Sewer Capacity Fee Study will be paid from project WW -03. WW-03 Wastewater Rate Study Project Accounting Summary Funding Summary Funding Year Funding Source Amount 2021-2022 Wastewater $200,000.00 Total Project Funding = $200,000.00 Budget Summary Project Component Budget Encumbered Paid to Date Remaining Budget Project Management $185,000.00 ($69,811.79) ($55,186.45) $115,188.21 Preliminary Services $15,000.00 ($12,897.00) ($8,654.06) $2,103.00 Environmental $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Design $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Construction $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Construction Management $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Permits $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Equipment $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Project Summary Totals $200,000.00 ($82,708.79) ($63,840.51) $117,291.21 RESPONDING FIRMS LOCATION BEST POSSIBLE RANKING Rater No. 1 Rater No. 2 Rater No. 3 Total Ranking Score Final Rank Willdan Financial Services Temecula, CA 1 93 78 83 85 1 David Taussig & Associates (DTA)Temecula, CA 1 97 79 62 79 2 TOTAL RANKING BY RATER Page 245 of 379 Recommended Action: Approve a professional services agreement with Willdan Financial Services at a not to exceed cost of $79,080 to conduct a variety of development impact fee studies. Attachments: A. RFP For Development Impact Fee Study B. Professional Services Agreement for Development Impact Fee Study C. Final Score Sheet D. Levine Act – Conflict of Interest Page 246 of 379 Request for Proposals for Development Impact Fees Study Proposals Due By: 5:00 P.M Monday, July 17, 2023 Contact: Grace Wichert Procurement and Contracts Specialist Gwichert@beaumontca.gov RFP Available: www.publicpurchase.com or https://www.beaumontca.gov/949/Bids-and-RFPs Website: www.beaumontca.gov Address: 550 E. 6th Street Beaumont, CA 92223 Phone: 951.769.8520 Page 247 of 379 City of Beaumont Request for Proposal Development Impact Fee Study 1 1. INTRODUCTION The City of Beaumont ("City”) requests written responses to a Request for Proposal (RFP) for selection of qualified firms (“Consultant”) to complete a comprehensive review and evaluation of current Development Impact Fees (DIF). The City would like to reevaluate its development impact fees and make any necessary changes to ensure they are aligned with the current impact on City services, staffing and facilities. Responses must conform to the requirements of this Request for Proposal (RFP). The City reserves the right to waive any irregularity in any proposal, withdraw or amend this RFP or reject any proposal that does not comply with this RFP or City policies. 2. THE CITY OF BEAUMONT The City was incorporated in November 1912 and is located in the San Gorgonio Pass portion of western Riverside County. It is bounded on the west by Calimesa and unincorporated areas, on the north by unincorporated county areas (Cherry Valley), on the south by unincorporated county areas and the City of San Jacinto, and on the east by the City of Banning. The land area within the City’s boundary is approximately 30 square miles. The City of Beaumont is rated one of the safest cities in southern California. The City has its own police department. Fire and paramedic services are contracted through Riverside County. The City of Beaumont has been one of the fastest growing cities in California over the past 15 years and has a population of approximately 55,000. An average of 500 new homes have been permitted annually since 2013 and the population has grown by approximately 1,500 residents each year. Beaumont has seen significant growth in its quality of workforce with educational levels and technical skills. The community has also seen growth in its household income levels. As a result of this growth, the City must continue to provide residents with the quality of life they expect. This involves expanding park and recreational amenities, maintaining a quality police force to keep pace with growth, construction of regional surface transportation projects, and to perform economic development activities to diversify the city’s tax base and increase employment opportunities in the region. The City Government The Beaumont City Council is comprised of five Council members, each sharing equal voting powers on all items coming before the Council. Council members are elected to at-large positions for four-year terms, with elections held in November of even-numbered years. The City Council meets annually to select one of its members to serve as Mayor and another to serve as Mayor Pro Tem for one year but no more than two consecutive years. The City Council provides legislative and policy direction to the City Manager, who implements their decisions to direct the activities of the City. The City Council responds to issues and concerns of the community by allocating resources, developing policies, and formulating strategies that support the vitality and economic viability of the City. All of their decisions must be made at public meetings. The City Council appoints the City Manager and City Attorney and members of all advisory boards, commissions, and committees. The City Council also serves as the Board of Directors for the Beaumont Financing Authority, Beaumont Utility Authority, and the Beaumont Parking Authority. 3. BACKGROUND Page 248 of 379 City of Beaumont Request for Proposal Development Impact Fee Study 2 Founded at the turn of the 20th century, Beaumont is proud of its rich history and rural charm. The town served as a welcome “stopping-off point” for early travelers making their way from the Mohave desert to Los Angeles, and later for L.A. residents eager to vacation in Palm Springs. Some, however, set down roots, drawn by the beautiful mountain vistas; clean, crisp air; and the abundance of cherry and apple orchards. Beaumont provides the very best of rustic, rural beauty and charm, combined with the planned growth, abundant recreational opportunities, and rich community life offered by the finest Southern California cities. The progressive city of over 54,000 people, sits at 2,612 feet in elevation between Riverside and Palm Springs in the Inland Empire. The city operates 18 city- owned parks, including a 20-acre sports park as well as an extensive trails system. The Beaumont School District, with 12 schools, has an outstanding reputation, and it ranks highly in the Pass Area. The city is rounded out with various local service clubs, a state-of-the-art community recreation center, a library, two four-star golf courses, and multiple churches. The City interacts with numerous other government agencies, including but not limited to the California Department of Parks and Recreation, the California Department of Transportation, the County of Riverside, Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), California Department of Housing and Community Development, the Federal Railroad Administration, the U.S. Economic Development Administration, and the U.S. Department of Justice. 4. PURPOSE The purpose of this Request for Proposal (RFP) is to select a qualified consultant to update the City’s Development Impact Fee Studies and Sewer Capacity Fee Study and Propose updated Development Impact Fees for the City of Beaumont. The City assesses a variety of development impact fees on new development to mitigate City-wide impacts on public improvements, public services, and community amenities. The City’s impact fee program must comply with the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code Section 66000 et seq., also known as Assembly Bill 1600). 5. SCOPE OF WORK The Scope of Service outlined in Exhibit A is provided as a guideline and is intended to identify the City’s initial expectations and requirements. Consultant may suggest modifications to the proposed Scope of Services and shall expand the scope to include additional and/or optional tasks if deemed necessary. 6. TERM The term of the agreement shall be determined upon need of services and consistent with the City’s policies. The initial period of the contract is for the duration of the project or a maximum of three (3) years subject to agreement terms and the Beaumont Municipal Code. City may elect to extend the term, if necessary, as approved by City Council. 7. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS The proposal shall clearly address all the information requested herein. To achieve a uniform review process and obtain the maximum degree of comparability, it is required that proposals be organized and contain all information as specified below. A. Cover Letter: Maximum of two (2) pages serving as an Executive Summary which shall include an understanding of the scope of services. The RFP shall be transmitted with a cover letter that must be signed by an official authorized to bind the trustee contractually. Page 249 of 379 City of Beaumont Request for Proposal Development Impact Fee Study 3 The letter accompanying the RFP shall also provide the name, title, address, and telephone number of individuals with the authority to negotiate and contractually bind the consultant. The cover letter constitutes certification by the consultant, under penalty of perjury, that the trustee complies with nondiscrimination requirements of the State and Federal Government. An unsigned proposal or one signed by an individual unauthorized to bind the trustee may be rejected. B. Introduction/Information: Introduction of the service proposal, including a statement of understanding for the types of services contemplated. Provide a discussion on how the objectives of the scope of services will be accomplished. Provide the name of the firm submitting the proposal, its mailing address, telephone number, and the name of the individual to contact if further information is required. Any participating firms and proposed sub-consultants shall be identified and included in the proposal (all sub-consultants must be approved by City prior to signing the agreement with City). C. Approach: The firm’s approach to delivering the scope of services. Provide a description of the firm’s approach to communicating effectively with City staff and officials, other jurisdictional stakeholders, and the public, to facilitate successful delivery of assigned tasks. D. Firm Profile: Provide a description of the firm, including number of professional personnel, years in business, office location(s), organizational structure (e.g., corporation, partnership, sole practitioner, etc.), areas of particular expertise, etc. E. Location of principal office that will be responsible for the implementation of this contract. F. Proposed Team: Provide a summary description of all personnel who will be involved in this project, their roles and responsibilities, and their experience in similar past projects. The proposal must name a project manager. In addition to this summary, full resumes limited to 2 pages per proposed team member must be provided as an attachment to the proposal. G. References: Provide at least three (3) references from previous cities, counties or other agencies for similar work completed within the last five (5) years, which include: name, address, contact person and phone number for the agency, length of time services were provided, staff assigned to each project by your firm, and a description of the services provided. All submitted materials shall become the property of the City of Beaumont. H. Scope of Services: Provide a detailed outline of tasks, sub-tasks and deliverables that will be provided. Any additional items not mentioned in Exhibit A- Scope of Services but required to obtain final approval, shall be included in the proposal as additional items for consideration. The fully recommended Scope of Services should be presented as an attachment to the proposal and shall be in a logical format that can be easily attached to the Professional Services Agreement (Exhibit B). Costing should include: • Fixed prices, including out-of-pocket expenses, for all costs associated within the scope of this proposal Page 250 of 379 City of Beaumont Request for Proposal Development Impact Fee Study 4 • Detailed hourly rates of all members of the project • Individual costs for the following studies: o Development Impact Fee Study o Sewer Capacity Fee Study o Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study o Additional Fee Studies deemed necessary • Additional billable costs for non-specified tasks • Total fees and expenses for the entire scope of the project • Any area which proposers believe should be included in the scope of work in this proposal, but which is not stipulated in this RFP, and identifies the costs associated with the services rendered I. List of all current/outstanding contracts, their status and the completion date for each contract. J. Any other information which should be considered, such as any special services or customer service philosophy, which define your firm’s practice. K. The firm will be required to maintain an active City of Beaumont Business License and professional liability insurance including general liability at a minimum of one million per occurrence, worker’s compensation, and vehicle coverage including comprehensive and collision insurance naming the City of Beaumont as additional insured. The proposal shall state whether such license and insurance will be in force at time of contract execution. 8. SUBMITTAL Two (2) bound copies, one (1) unbound copy and one (1) color digital pdf copy (flash drive) of the proposal must be submitted no later than July 17, 2023 by 5:00 P.M. The cost proposal shall be submitted in a separate sealed envelope. Proposal must be titled “RFP for Development Impact Fee Study.” All proposals shall be submitted to: City of Beaumont c/o Grace Wichert 550 E. 6th Street Beaumont, CA 92223 Electronic submittals of the proposal will not be accepted. Proposals received after the stated date and time will not be accepted. Once submitted, proposals, including the composition of the consulting staff, cannot be altered without prior written consent of the City. All costs associated with the preparation of any proposal shall be the sole responsibility of the proposer. Each proposal shall be limited to a maximum of 25 pages, using a minimum 12-point font size excluding cover, tabs, and attachments for scope of services and 2-page resumes. 9. SCHEDULE Event Date RFP Issued Friday, June 30, 2023 Proposals Due Monday, July 17, 2023 @ 5:00 P.M. Interviews (if required) TBD Page 251 of 379 City of Beaumont Request for Proposal Development Impact Fee Study 5 Award Date TBD 10. CONFIDENTIALITY Prior to the proposal submittal deadline, all proposals will be designated confidential to the extent permitted by the California Public Records Act. After the proposal submittal deadline, all responses will be regarded as public records and will be subject to review by the public. Any language purported to render confidential all or portions of the proposals will be regarded as non- effective and will be disregarded. 11. AMENDMENTS TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS The City reserves the right to amend the RFP by addendum prior to the final proposal submittal date. 12. CITY OF BEAUMONT RIGHTS AND OPTIONS This RFP does not commit the City of Beaumont to award a contract or to pay any cost incurred with the preparation of a proposal or contract for services described herein. The City may, in its sole discretion and without any obligation to act reasonably, reject any and all proposals, waive informalities and minor irregularities in any proposal reviewed, negotiate with any qualified source submitting a proposal, extend deadlines, and/or request additional information. Subsequent to negotiations, prospective trustees may be required to submit revisions to their proposals. The City may reject any proposal that does not conform to the instructions provided in this RFP. Additionally, the City reserves the right to negotiate all final terms and conditions of any proposal received before entering into final contract. The City reserves the right to postpone selection for its own convenience, to withdraw this RFP at any time, and to reject any and all proposals without indicating any reason for such rejection. As a function of the RFP process, the City of Beaumont reserves the right to remedy technical errors in response to the RFP and to modify the published scope of services and scope of work. Proposals submitted in response to the RFP will not be returned. 13. CONFLICT OF INTEREST The Trustee shall disclose any personal or professional financial, business, or other relationships with the City that may have an impact on the outcome of this contract or any resulting project. The trustee shall also list current clients who may have a financial interest in the outcome of this contract. 14. PROPOSAL EVALUATION/SELECTION The City intends to engage the most qualified trustee available that demonstrates a thorough understanding of the City’s needs. City staff will use the following criteria to evaluate the proposals: Criteria & Scoring Points Understanding the scope of services 15 Demonstrated professional skills and credentials 15 Related Experience 15 Page 252 of 379 City of Beaumont Request for Proposal Development Impact Fee Study 6 Approach to performing this type of service 15 Approach to communication and reporting 15 Familiarity with City requirements and state laws 15 Cost 10 Total 100 The City may request a qualification interview with the highest ranked consultant(s) prior to determining the final ranking. This selection will be conducted according to the City’s adopted procedures. The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals. CONTACT WITH ANY CITY EMPLOYEE OTHER THAN THE CONTACT NAMED IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED AND WILL BE CAUSE FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF THE PROPOSAL. Attachments A. Exhibit A- Proposed Scope of Services B. Exhibit B- Professional Services Agreement (PSA) Page 253 of 379 Development Impact Fee Study City of Beaumont Page 254 of 379 T 951.587.3500 ▪ 800.755.6864 | F 951.587.3510 ▪ 888.326.6864 | 27368 Via Industria, Suite 200, Temecula, CA 92590 www.willdan.com i A. Cover Letter July 14, 2023 Ms. Grace Wichert Procurement and Contract Specialist City of Beaumont 550 E 6th Street Beaumont, CA 92223 Re: Technical Proposal to Conduct a Development Impact Fee Study for the City of Beaumont Dear Ms. Wichert: Willdan Financial Services (“Willdan”) is pleased to present this proposal to the City of Beaumont (“City”) to conduct a development impact fee study. Willdan’s project approach helps to ensure the preparation of an impact fee study that will withstand technical challenges and public scrutiny. Given Willdan’s unmatched impact fee experience, we are particularly well positioned to serve the City and help achieve established long-term goals. Outlined below are the advantages and benefits that Willdan will provide to the City. Successful project completion. Willdan has successfully completed many development impact fee studies, including most recently in the Cities of Murrieta, Moreno Valley, Lake Elsinore, Indian Wells, Bell Gardens, Cudahy, Pomona, Rialto, Fountain Valley, McFarland, Riverbank, Morgan Hill, Hollister, and Pismo Beach, as well as the County of Riverside. These fee programs were approved by their respective Councils. Willdan is also currently assisting the cities of San Jacinto and Murrieta with their fee programs. Unmatched experience implementing and defending fee programs. Willdan’s impact fee staff has assisted more than 100 California government agencies with the development and/or update of all fee types and is fortunate to be in a position that will provide a tremendous benefit to the City. Each project has required defensible documentation and thorough coordination of fee program changes for different agency departments and stakeholders within the business community. In some cases, Willdan has been required to negotiate fees with stakeholders and, on occasion, defend them in meetings and public forums. We are particularly strong in advising our clients on the advantages and disadvantages of different fee schedule structures (citywide versus multiple-fee districts/zones; more versus fewer land-use categories; etc.) and methods of fee calculation that are based on the City’s and stakeholder priorities. Impact fees also need to be developed in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code Section 66000 et seq., also known as Assembly Bill 1600) so that they are defensible and trans parent. We are also current on the changes to fee programs and the adoption of nexus studies resulting from AB 602, which took effect in 2022. Innovative Methodologies. As Willdan operates nationally, we possess unique experiences in numerous jurisdictions dealing with multiple challenges. Our ability to produce studies that accommodate various options and viewpoints ensures fair-minded and sensible projects. Our methodology and approach to impact fees has proven to be effective for Cities and Counties, the development community, and the public. Utilizing focus groups, with established guidelines, during the study, fully informs the development community and the public of the justification of the impact fees, and their positive effect on community growth. Page 255 of 379 Ms. Grace Wichert Procurement and Contract Specialist City of Beaumont Proposal to Conduct a Development Impact Fee Study July 14, 2023 | Page ii Best-in-class impact fee team that can work immediately to prepare an impact fee program. The Willdan team begins a project by evaluating the agency’s current capital planning policies and funding programs. Not all capital projects are amenable to funding from impact fee programs, and we identify sources that complement fee revenues to fully fund the capital improvement program. The team’s Principal-in-Charge James Edison and Project Manager Carlos Villarreal are well respected by our clients for their skill in proactively organizing a clear, consensus-based project approach. We are excited about this opportunity to use our skills and expertise to serve the City of Beaumont. To discuss any aspect of this submittal, please contact Managing Principal James Edison, who will serve as the primary contact for this proposal, his information is provided in the table below. Contact Information Proposal Contact James Edison, JD, MPP, MA Managing Principal 27368 Via Industria, Suite 200 | Temecula, CA 92590 Tel#: (800) 755-6864 | Email: JEdison@Willdan.com Willdan has reviewed the City’s sample agreement provided in the RFP and requests no changes to the terms and conditions; this includes meeting the required insurance limits. Furthermore, Willdan will obtain and maintain a City of Beaumont Business License for the duration of the project. As a Vice President of Willdan Financial Services, I am authorized to bind the firm to the terms of this proposal, as well as the subsequent agreement. Sincerely, WILLDAN FINANCIAL SERVICES Chris Fisher Vice President / Director Page 256 of 379 Development Impact Fee Study iii City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24 Table of Contents A. Cover Letter ................................................................................................................................................................ i B. Introduction/Information .................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Understanding .......................................................................................................................................... 1 C. Approach .................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Summary of Approach .......................................................................................................................................... 2 D. Firm Profile ................................................................................................................................................................ 6 Firm Profile ............................................................................................................................................................. 6 Willdan Financial Services .................................................................................................................................... 6 E. Principal Offices ...................................................................................................................................................... 7 F. Proposed Team ....................................................................................................................................................... 8 Project Team Summaries ...................................................................................................................................... 8 G. References ................................................................................................................................................................. 9 Recent Studies ..................................................................................................................................................... 11 I. Outstanding Projects .......................................................................................................................................... 13 Project Commitment ............................................................................................................................................ 13 J. Other Information................................................................................................................................................ 14 EXHIBIT B .......................................................................................................................................................................... 16 K. Scope of Services .................................................................................................................................................. 16 Development Impact Fee Study Work Plan ....................................................................................................... 16 Project Timeline ................................................................................................................................................... 19 Appendix ..........................................................................................................................................................................20 Resumes ............................................................................................................................................................... 20 James Edison, JD, MPP, MA ................................................................................................................................. 20 Carlos Villarreal, MPP ............................................................................................................................................ 22 Cost Proposal ...................................................................................................................... Under Separate Cover Page 257 of 379 Development Impact Fee Study 1 City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24 B. Introduction/Information This section outlines Willdan Financial Services’ (“Willdan”) understanding of the City of Beaumont’s (“City”) desire to update its development impact fees, as well as identify the project objectives and discusses the background regarding public facilities financing in California. Also outlined is an overview of our impact fee project approach. Project Understanding As part of the larger financial planning effort for Beaumont General Plan, the City seeks to understand what the financial impacts of foreseeable future development will have on the City’s public services and infrastructure, and to identify potential gaps in funding for those necessary improvements. The City desires to update impact fees to ensure a fair and reasonable fee structure, while meeting the requirements of the California Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code 66000 et seq). We are also current on the changes to requirements for impact fee programs and the adoption of nexus studies resulting from AB 602, which was passed in 2021 and took effect in 2022. The resulting fees will fund new development’s share of planned facilities, while not overburdening development with unnecessary costs. Project Objectives The objective of this project is to establish development impact fees pursuant to State law. To accomplish this objective, this study will: ▪ Develop a technically defensible fee justification, based on the reasonable relationship and deferential review standards; ▪ Review and facility standards, capital facilities plans and costs, and development and growth assumptions; ▪ Provide a schedule of maximum-justified fees by land use category; and ▪ Provide comprehensive documentation of assumptions, methodologies, and results, including findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act. Public Facilities Financing in California The changing fiscal landscape in California during the past 40 years has steadily undercut the financial capacity of local governments to fund infrastructure. Four dominant trends stand out: 1. The passage of a string of tax limitation measures starting with Proposition 13 in 1978 and continuing through the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996; 2. Declining popular support for bond measures to finance infrastructure for the next generation of residents and businesses; 3. Steep reductions in Federal and State assistance; and 4. Permanent shifting by the State of local tax resources to the State General Fund to offset deficit spending brought on by recessions. Faced with these trends, many cities and counties have had to adopt a policy of "growth pays its own way." This po licy shifts the burden of funding infrastructure expansion from existing rate and taxpayers onto new development. This funding shift has been accomplished primarily through the imposition of assessments, special taxes, and development impact fees, also known as public facilities fees. Assessments and special taxes require approval of property owners or registered voters and are appropriate when the funded facilities are directly related to the developing property. Development impact fees, on the other hand, are an appropriate funding source for facilities that benefit development jurisdiction-wide. Development fees need only a majority vote of the legislative body for adoption. Page 258 of 379 Development Impact Fee Study 2 City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24 C. Approach Summary of Approach Willdan’s methodology for calculating public facilities fees is both simple and flexible. Simplicity is important so that the development community and the public can easily understand the justification for the fee program. At the same time, we use our expertise to reasonably ensure that the program is technically defensible. Flexibility is important, so we can tailor our approach to the available data, and the agency’s policy objectives. Our understanding of the technical standards established by statutes and case law suggests that a range of approaches are technically defensible. Consequently, we can address policy objectives related to the fee program, such as economic development and affordable housing. Flexibility also enables us to avoid excessive engineering costs associated with detailed facility planning. We calculate the maximum justifiable impact fee and provide flexibility for the agency to adopt fees up to that amount. Development impact fees are calculated to fund the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The four steps followed in an impact fee study include: ▪ Estimate existing development and future growth: Identify a base year for existing development and a growth forecast that reflects increased demand for public facilities; ▪ Identify facility standards: Determine the facility standards used to plan for new and expanded facilities; ▪ Determine facilities required to serve new development and their costs: Estimate the total amount and cost of planned facilities, and identify the share required to accommodate new development; and ▪ Calculate fee schedule: Allocate facilities costs per unit of new development to calculate the public facilities fee schedule. We discuss key aspects of our approach to each of these steps in the subsections that follow. Growth Projections In most cases, we recommend use of long-range market-based projections of new development. By “long-range” we suggest 20 to 30 years to: capture the total demand often associated with major public facility investments; and support analysis of debt financing, if needed. In contrast to build out projections, market -based projections provide a more realistic estimate of development across all land uses. Build out projections typically overestimate commercial and industrial development because of the oversupply of these land uses relative to residential development. Facility Standards The key public policy issue in development impact fee studies is the identification of facility standards (second bullet above). Facility standards document a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for new facilities. Standards ensure that new development does not fund deficiencies associated with existing development. Our approach recognizes three separate components of facility standards: 1. Demand standards determine the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth. Examples include park acres per thousand residents, square feet of library space per capita, or gallons of water per day. Demand standards may also reflect a level of service such as the vehicles-to-capacity (V/C) ratio used in traffic planning; 2. Design standards determine how a facility should be designed to meet expected demand, for example park improvement requirements and technology infrastructure for office space. Design standards are typically not explicitly evaluated as part of an impact fee analysis but can have a significant impact on the cost of facilities. Our approach incorporates current facility design standards into the fee program to reflect the i ncreasing construction cost of public facilities; and Page 259 of 379 Development Impact Fee Study 3 City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24 3. Cost standards are an alternate method for determining the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth based on facility costs per unit of demand. Cost standards are useful when demand standard s were not explicitly developed for the facility planning process. Cost standards also enable different types of facilities to be analyzed based on a single measure (cost or value), useful when disparate facilities are funded by a single fee program. Examples include facility costs per capita, per vehicle trip, or cost per gallon of water per day. Identifying New Development Facility Needs and Costs We can take several different approaches to identify facility needs and costs to serve new development. Typic ally, this is a two-step process: 1) identify total facility needs; and 2) allocate to new development its fair share of those needs. Total facility needs are often identified through a master facility planning process that typically takes place concurrent with or prior to conducting the fee study. Engineered facility plans are particularly important in the areas of traffic, wate r, sewer, and storm drain due to the specialized technical analysis required to identify facility needs. There are three common methods for determining new development’s fair share of planned facilities costs: 1) the existing inventory method; 2) the planned facilities method; and 3) the system plan method. Often the method selected depends on the degree to which the community has e ngaged in comprehensive facility master planning to identify facility needs. The formula used by each approach and the advantages and disadvantages of each method is summarized as follows: Existing Inventory Method The existing inventory method allocates costs based on the ratio of existing facilities to demand from existing development as follows: Current Value of Existing Facilities = $/unit of demand Existing Development Demand Under this method new development funds the expansion of facilities at the same standard currently serving existing development. By definition, the existing inventory method results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This method is often used when a long-range plan for new facilities is not available. Only the initial facilities to be funded with fees are identified in the fee study. Future facilities to serve growth are identified through an annual Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and budget process, possibly after completion of a new facility master plan. Planned Facilities Method The planned facilities method allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facility costs to demand from new development as follows: Cost of Planned Facilities = $/unit of demand New Development Demand This method is appropriate when specific planned facilities can be identified that only benefit new development. Examples include street improvements to avoid deficient levels of service or a sewer trunk line extension to a previously undeveloped area. This method is appropriate when planned facilities would not serve existing development. Under this method new development funds the expansion of facilities at the standards used for the master facility plan. System Plan Method This method calculates the fee based on the ratio of the value of existing facilities plus the cost of planned facilities divided by demand from existing plus new development: Value of Existing Facilities + Cost of Planned Facilities = $/unit of demand Existing + New Development Demand Page 260 of 379 Development Impact Fee Study 4 City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24 This method is useful when planned facilities need to be analyzed as part of a system that benefits both existing and new development. It is difficult, for example, to allocate a new fire station solely to new development when that station will operate as part of an integrated system of fire stations that work together to achieve the desired level of service. Police substations, civic centers, and regional parks are examples of similar facilities. The system plan method ensures that new development does not pay for existing deficiencies. Often, facility standards based on policies such as those found in General Plans are higher than existing facility standards. This method enables the calculation of the existing deficiency required to bring existing developm ent up to the policy-based standard. The local agency must secure non-fee funding for that portion of planned facilities, required to correct the deficiency, to ensure that new development receives the level of service funded by the impact fee. Calculating the Fee Schedule At its simplest, the fee schedule uses the cost per unit of demand discussed in the last subsection to generate the fee schedule. This unit cost is multiplied by the demand associated with a new development project to calculate the fee fo r that project. The fee schedule uses different demand measures by land use category to provide a reasonable relationship between the type of development and the amount of the fee. We are familiar with a wide range of methods for identifying appropriate land use categories and demand measures depending on the particular study. Related Approach Issues Funding and Financing Strategies In our experience, one of the most common problems with impact fee programs and with many CIPs is that the program or plan is not financially constrained to anticipated revenues. The result is a “wish list” of projects that generate community expectations that often cannot be fulfilled. Our approach is to integrate the impact fee program into the local agency’s existing CIPs while encouraging those plans to be financially constrained to available resources. We clearly state the cost of correcting existing deficiencies, if any, to document the relationship between the fee program and the need for additional non-fee funding. We can also address one of the most significant drawbacks of an impact fee program – the inability to support conventional public debt financing, so projects can be built before all fee revenues have been received. In collaboration with financial advisors and underwriters, we have developed specific underwriting criteria so that fees can be used to pay back borrowing if another source of credit exists. Typically, this approach involves the use of Certificates of Participation or revenue bonds that are calibrated so that they can be fully repaid using impact fee revenues. Economic Development Concerns The development community often is concerned that fees and other exactions will become too high for development to be financially feasible under current market conditions. Local agencies have several strategies to address this concern, including: ▪ Conducting an analysis of the total burden placed on development, by exactions, to see if feasibility may be compromised by the proposed fees; ▪ Gathering similar data on the total fee burden imposed by neighboring or competing jurisdictions; ▪ Developing a plan for phasing in the fees over several years to enable the real estate market to adjust; ▪ Providing options for developers to finance impact fees through assessment s and other types of financing districts; and ▪ Imposing less than the maximum justified fee. If less than the maximum justified fee is imposed, we will work with staff to identify alternative revenues sources for the CIP. The CIP should remain financially feasible to maintain realistic expectations among developers, policy -makers, and the public. Page 261 of 379 Development Impact Fee Study 5 City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24 Stakeholder Participation Stakeholder participation throughout the study supports a successful adoption process. Our approach is to create consensus first, around the need for facilities based on agreed upon facility standards. Second, we seek consensus around a feasible funding strategy for these needs, leading to an appropriate role for impact fees. Gaining consensus among various groups requires a balanced discussion of both economic development and community service objectives. Often, our approach includes formation of an advisory committee to promote outreach to and input from the development community and other stakeholders. We have extensive experience facilitating meetings to explain the program and gain input. Program Implementation Fee programs require a certain level of administrative support for successful implementation. Our final report will include recommendations for appropriate procedures, such as: ▪ Regularly updating development forecasts; ▪ Regularly updating fees for capital project cost inflation; ▪ Regularly updating capital facility needs based on changing demands; ▪ Developing procedures for developer credits and reimbursements; and ▪ Including an administrative charge in the fee program. Page 262 of 379 Development Impact Fee Study 6 City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24 D. Firm Profile Firm Profile Willdan Financial Services is an operating division within Willdan Group, Inc. (WGI), which was founded in 1964 as an engineering firm working with local governments. Today, WGI is a publicly traded company (WLDN). WGI, through its divisions, provides professional technical and consulting services that ensure the quality, value and security of our nation’s infrastructure, systems, facilities, and environment. The firm has pursued two primary service objectives since its inception—ensuring the success of its clients and enhancing its surrounding communities. A financially stable company, Willdan has approximately 1,500 employees working in more than a dozen states across the U.S. Our employees include a number of nationally recognized Subject Matter Experts for all areas related to the broadest definition of connected communities—including a team who will be committed to contributing their expertise throughout the duration of the City of Beaumont’s Development Impact Fee Study engagement. Willdan has solved economic, engineering and energy challenges for local communities and delivered industry -leading solutions that have transformed government and commerce. Today, we are leading our clients into a future accelerated by a change in resources, infrastructure, technology, regulations, and industry trends. Willdan Financial Services Established on June 24, 1988, Willdan Financial Services, is a national firm and is one of the largest public sector economic and financial analysis consulting firms in the United States. Since that time, we have helped over 800 public agencies successfully address a broad range of infrastructure challenges. Our staff of nearly 80 professionals support our clients by conducting year-round workshops and on-site training to assist them in keeping current with the latest developments in our areas of expertise. Willdan assists local public agencies by providing the following services: Willdan Financial Services Services ▪ User fee studies; ▪ Cost allocation studies; ▪ Utility rate and cost of service studies; ▪ Real estate economic analysis; ▪ Feasibility studies; ▪ Municipal Advisory; ▪ Arbitrage and Continuing Disclosure Services; ▪ Economic development strategic plans; ▪ Development impact fee establishment and analysis; ▪ District Administration Services; ▪ Property tax audits; ▪ Tax increment finance district formation and amendment; ▪ Housing development and implementation strategies; ▪ Debt issuance support; and ▪ Long-term financial plans and cash flow modeling. In the past five years Willdan has conducted over 125 Impact Fee Studies Page 263 of 379 Development Impact Fee Study 7 City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24 Experience and Expertise Willdan has been preparing impact fee nexus studies since the passage of the Mitigation Fee Act. Our commitment to public agencies and public solutions has helped us develop the broad finan ce expertise that will be utilized to support the City’s Development Impact Fee Study. Willdan has worked on virtually every aspect of municipal finance, including fiscal and economic impact studies related to development and re-organization, the financing of infrastructure and services through special district or supplemental taxes, and even working under contract as a department head of an entire municipality. This experience has provided Willdan team members with deep insight into the sources of municipal revenue and the costs of services. Managing Principal James A. Edison and his team have worked with public agencies on many community development projects, including the full range of analysis related to feasibility, economic and fiscal impacts, infrastructure finance, and negotiations with private developers. Willdan is thoroughly familiar with both the Act and with the technical and policy issues surrounding impact fees. Unique Qualifications Willdan is uniquely qualified to assist the City of Beaumont with the proposed Development Impact Fee Study. The following are specific advantages that we will provide for the proposed engagement. Project Dedication Willdan has assembled a project team of subject matter experts within the Financial Consult ing Services group, to conduct the City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study engagement. This team has coordinated or participated in numerous public stakeholder and staff workshops regarding fees and cost of service -based charges. Community Investment Much of our success in developing impactful programs and studies is due to our experiences in meeting with citizen / stakeholder groups and elected officials. Our ability to explain technical information in a concise, understandable manner is a fundamental reason for our high degree of success. Willdan staff takes the time to include and inform the Community. Proven Professionals The Team’s quality is often as important as the consulting firm’s reputation. Willdan is known for its personal, customized service. Our team will work with the City’s professional staff to provide the long‐term service, that is our prime goal. E. Principal Offices The City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee study will be conducted from the Engagement Offices Firm Prime Contact Willdan Financial Services James Edison, Managing Principal 27368 Via Industria, Suite 200 66 Franklin Street, Suite 300 Temecula, California 92590 Oakland, California 94607 Tel #: (951) 587-3500 | Fax #: (951) 587-3510 Tel #: (510) 912-4687 | Email: jedison@willdan.com The team presented within this proposal has worked collectively on numerous projects, such as the one requested by the City of Beaumont; an established work practice between the team members has been forged, this proven long- standing system has benefited our clients. Page 264 of 379 Development Impact Fee Study 8 City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24 F. Proposed Team Project Team Summaries Our management and supervision philosophy for the project team is very simple: s taff every position in sufficient numbers with experienced personnel to deliver a superior product and convey results to decision makers in meetings, on time and on budget. With that philosophy in mind, we have selected experienced professionals for the Ci ty’s engagement. We are confident that our team possesses the depth of experience that will successfully fulfill the desired work performance. City of Beaumont Project Team Key Team Member Project Role Experience Responsibility to the Engagement James Edison, JD, MPP, MA Managing Principal Principal-in- Charge Specializes in the nexus between public and private, with expertise in public-private partnerships. 26 years of public-sector experience includes: Local and regional economic impact studies Fiscal impact evaluations New government formation strategies Creation of impact fees, assessments, and special taxes to fund infrastructure and public facilities ▪ Ensure client satisfaction, flow of communication, and management of the project ▪ Technical guidance ▪ Project oversight ▪ Quality assurance & control, and ▪ Meeting and presentation attendance Carlos Villarreal, MPP Principal Consultant Project Manager Possesses extensive experience documenting nexus findings for development impact fees, preparing capital improvement plans, facilitating stakeholder outreach, and analyzing the economic impacts of fee programs. 17 years of experience supporting adoption of fee programs funding: ▪ Transportation ▪ Parks and recreation ▪ Library ▪ Utilities ▪ Sanitation / solid waste ▪ Fire ▪ Law enforcement ▪ General government ▪ Utility undergrounding ▪ Storm drainage ▪ Collect, interpret, and disseminate key data ▪ Day to day contact ▪ Production of key elements of the analyses ▪ Model development ▪ Report preparation, and ▪ Meeting and presentation attendance Staff Continuity Mr. Edison has been assigned to serve as the City’s principal-in-charge; he has been selected for this role due to his extensive experience, which includes the preparation and supervision of numerous fee studies, as well as his experience presenting to governing bodies, stakeholders, and industry groups. Resumes Resumes for Willdan’s project team are presented in the appendix, as requested by the City’s RFP. Page 265 of 379 Development Impact Fee Study 9 City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24 G. References Provided below are client references for projects completed by Willdan and the project team members proposed herein, which demonstrates our ability to provide the requested services. We are proud of our reputation for customer service and encourage you to contact our past clients regarding our commitment to excellenc e. County of Riverside, CA Development Impact Fee Study Willdan assisted the County of Riverside with an update of its comprehensive impact fee program. The fee categories were broad and diverse including countywide facilities such as jail detention facilities and county parks and trails; unincorporated only facilities such as fire stations and libraries; and County planning area specific facilities including storm drain and traffic improvements. Other facilities needed to be differentiated between the Eastern and Western portions of the County due to separation by distance, as well as varying level of facilities by region. The process was lengthy, initiated in January of 2008 and completed in November of 2014, involving significant efforts to inform staff of methodological differences between the Willdan method ology and the methodology of the previous consultant. Willdan has recently, through competitive bid, been selected to update the County’s development impact fees, 2030 Nexus Study Update. Client Contact: Ms. Serena Chow, Administrative Services Manager II Riverside County Economic Development Agency 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA 92501 Tel #: (951) 955-6619 | Email: schow@rivcoeda.org Project Dates: 2020 Nexus Study Update: October 2007 - November 2014 2030 Nexus Study Update: September 2019 to Ongoing Project Team: James Edison, Project Manager Carlos Villarreal, Lead Consultant City of Moreno Valley, CA Development Impact Fee Study Willdan was retained to perform a comprehensive update to the City’s impact fee program in 2020. Their program included a variety of facility fee categories including arterial streets, traffic signals, interchanges, parks, recreation, fire, police, library, corporation yard, maintenance equipment, and animal shelter facilities. The nexus study justified fees that were significantly higher than the City’s current fees, partially because the fees had not been comprehensively updated in some time. Willdan worked with City staff to recommend a phased approach to implementation, so that the City could increase their fees on a regular schedule providing developers with certainty specific to the fee amounts in the near future. Upon completion of the comprehensive update, Willdan was retained again to create a fee to fund workforce development facilities and a public arts impact fee, which were both adopted by the City in late 2022. Client Contact: Michael Lloyd, PE, Public Works Director 14177 Frederick Street, Moreno Valley, CA 92553 Tel #: (951) 413-3100 | Email: michaell@moval.org Project Dates: August 2020 – December 2022 Project Team: James Edison, Principal-in-Charge Carlos Villarreal, Project Manager Page 266 of 379 Development Impact Fee Study 10 City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24 City of Indian Wells, CA Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Willdan was retained to perform a comprehensive update to the City’s impact fee program in 202 2. The fee program was comprised of a variety of fee categories including transportation, public facilities, recreation, park and storm drain. The analysis also included a development impact fee comparison of six other neighbo ring municipalities within the Coachella Valley. Client Contact: Kevin McCarthy, Finance Director 44950 Eldorado Drive, Indian Wells, CA 92210 Tel #: (760) 346-2489 | Email: kmccarthy@indianwells.com Project Dates: February 2022 – July 2022 Project Team: James Edison, Principal-in-Charge Carlos Villarreal, Project Manager City of Morgan Hill, CA Development Impact Fee Study Willdan was initially retained by the City of Morgan Hill in 2010 to conduct a development impact fee and nexus study, which included general government, fire, police, parks and recreation, library and storm drain fee categories. T his project also included stakeholder outreach. The City once again engaged Willdan to update their impact fees in October 2017, which was completed in July 2019. This update included the following facilities: traffic (roads and bikeways), water, sewer, drainage, police, fire, p arks, library, and public facilities. Client Contact: Dat Nguyen, Finance Director 17575 Peak Avenue, Morgan Hill, CA 95037 Tel #: (408) 779-7237 | Email: dat.nguyen@morgan-hill.ca.gov Project Dates: March 2010 – July 2019 Project Team: James Edison, Principal-in-Charge Carlos Villarreal, Project Manager City of Pismo Beach, CA Development Impact Fee Study Willdan assisted the City of Pismo Beach with an update to their impact fee program. The program included the following facilities: police, fire protection, park and recreation improvements, water system improvements, wastewater, traffic, and general government/administrative facilities. This project was warranted due to the amount of time that had elapsed since the prior update, coupled with the adoption of new and revised public facility master plans that complemented the updated impact fees. Prior to fee program adoption, Willdan held a stakeholder meeting to inform the public about the project, and to solicit feedback from the development community. Client Contact: Nadia Feeser, Administrative Services Director 760 Mattie Road, Pismo Beach, CA 93449 Tel #: (805) 773-7010 | Email: nfeeser@pismobeach.org Project Dates: April 2018 – March 2019 Project Team: James Edison, Project Manager Carlos Villarreal, Lead Consultant Page 267 of 379 Development Impact Fee Study 11 City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24 Recent Studies The following table lists Willdan’s development impact fee clientele that have utilized our services in the past ten years. Willdan Financial Services Development Impact Fee Experience Partial Client List City of Alameda, CA City of Parkland, FL City of Antioch, CA City of Petaluma, CA City of Arcadia, CA City of Pismo Beach, CA City of Artesia, CA City of Pittsburg, CA City of Bakersfield, CA City of Pleasant Hill, CA City of Banning, CA City of Pomona, CA City of Bell Gardens, CA City of Rancho Mirage, CA City of Bellflower, CA City of Redwood City, CA City of Brea, CA City of Rialto, CA City of Calexico, CA City of Richmond, CA City of Calimesa, CA City of Rio Rancho, NM City of Carpinteria, CA City of Riverbank, CA City of Chino Hills, CA City of Rolling Hills Estates, CA City of Clovis, CA City of Rosemead, CA City of Coachella, CA City of San Carlos, CA City of Commerce, CA City of San Fernando, CA City of Compton, CA City of San Jacinto, CA City of Corona, CA City of San Marcos, CA City of Covina, CA City of San Ramon, CA City of Cudahy, CA City of Santa Clara, CA City of Dixon, CA City of Sebastopol, CA City of Dublin, CA City of Selma, CA City of El Monte, CA City of Sierra Madre, CA City of El Segundo, CA City of Soledad, CA City of Emeryville, CA City of South Gate, CA City of Fillmore, CA City of South San Francisco, CA City of Fountain Valley, CA City of St. Helena, CA City of Fremont, CA City of Tehachapi, CA City of Garden Grove, CA City of Thousand Oaks, CA City of Gilroy, CA City of Tracy, CA City of Gonzales, CA City of Upland, CA City of Goose Creek, SC City of Visalia, CA City of Guadalupe, CA City of Wasco, CA City of Greenfield, CA Coachella Valley Association of Governments, CA City of Grover Beach, CA Contra Costa Fire Protection District, CA City of Hawthorne, CA County of Clay, FL City of Healdsburg, CA County of Kern, CA City of Hercules, CA County of Kings, CA Page 268 of 379 Development Impact Fee Study 12 City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24 Willdan Financial Services Development Impact Fee Experience Partial Client List City of Hollister, CA County of Los Angeles, CA City of Huntington Beach, CA County of Madera, CA City of Huntington Park, CA County of Merced, CA City of Indian Wells, CA County of Placer, CA City of Irwindale, CA County of Riverside, CA City of Kingsburg, CA County of Sacramento, CA City of La Mesa, CA County of San Benito, CA City of La Verne, CA County of San Diego, CA City of Las Cruces, NM County of San Joaquin, CA City of Lake Elsinore, CA County of San Luis Obispo, CA City of Lake Forest, CA County of Santa Barbara, CA City of Lancaster, CA County of Solano, CA City of Lawndale, CA County of Sonoma, CA City of Livermore, CA County of Stanislaus, CA City of Long Beach, CA County of Tulare, CA City of McFarland, CA County of Yolo, CA City of Madera, CA East Contra Costa Fire Protection District, CA City of Manteca, CA Kern Council of Governments, CA City of Menifee, CA Nevada County Consolidated Fire District, CA City of Moreno Valley, CA Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District, CA City of Morgan Hill, CA San Gorgonio Memorial Healthcare District, CA City of Mountain View, CA Stanislaus Council of Governments, CA City of Murrieta, CA Tehachapi Valley Rec. & Park District, CA City of Newport Beach, CA Town of Mead, CO City of Oroville, CA Town of Windsor, CA City of Pacifica, CA Tulare County Association of Governments, CA City of Patterson, CA Village of Taos Ski Valley, NM Page 269 of 379 Development Impact Fee Study 13 City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24 I. Outstanding Projects Provided in the table below, are current project commitments for the team noted herein Current Projects Client Project Percent Complete County of Riverside, CA Impact Fee Study and Nexus Study 96% City of Wasco, CA Development Impact Fee Study 75% City of Irwindale, CA Linkage Fee Study 73% City of Riverbank, CA Park Impact Fee Study 57% City of Newport Beach, CA Development Impact Fee Study 51% City of Pomona, CA Industrial Parcel Fee Study 46% City of Grover Beach, CA Development Impact Fee Study 37% City of Bakersfield, CA Development Impact Fee Study 31% City of Chino Hills, CA Development Impact Fee Study 25% City of Murrieta, CA Development Impact Fee Study 5% Project Commitment Willdan’s Financial Consulting Services group is composed of a team of over 20 senior-level professional consultants. While each member of the project team currently has work in progress with other clients, the workload is at a manageable level with sufficient capacity to meet the needs of the City speci fic to the schedule and budget for this engagement. Willdan (WGI) is composed of approximately 1,500 employees, including a cadre of public finance/economic experts. If necessary, the team can recruit additional, qualified individuals from our full team roster to assist with the completion of this engagement to deliver the final materials on time and within budget. The professionals presented within this proposal have worked on numerous projects as a dedicated and committed team. We do not anticipate staffing changes during the course of the project, however, should the situation arise, any change in team members will be discussed with and approved by the City prior to a change being made. Page 270 of 379 Development Impact Fee Study 14 City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24 J. Other Information Quality Control Procedures Project Management Approach At Willdan, we utilize a Project Management Process/Approach that ensures projects are completed on tim e, within budget and most importantly yield results that match our clients’ expectations. We will document discuss ions leading to important policy decisions and/or the choice of critical assumptions used in constructing the analysis and model. Following key stakeholder discussions, we will schedule a call to summarize findings and direction with City staff, to make certain that we are in agreement with stated objectives, and that feedback is incorporated as appropriate. Through the process of providing regular updates and conducting status conference calls, potential issues will be highlighted, discussed, and resolved. Any deviances from the project timeline will be identified and plans will be developed for course corrections. If necessary, changes in approach or strategy will be discussed with City staff, to meet the needs of the City of Beaumont. In doing this, we will ensure the project stays on track and evolves, based upon current thinking and outside dynamics. Project Management Define the Project Plan the Project Manage the Project Review the Project Communicate the Project ▪ Identify the project scope, set objectives, list potential constraints, document assumptions. ▪ Define a course of action and develop an effective communication plan. ▪ Provide a forum for applying the team’s collective expertise to solving difficult analytical issues that arise in complex projects. ▪ Collaborate with the project team and client staff and agree upon timeline to meet the estimated project timeline. ▪ Assign workload functions to appropriately qualified staff to ensure milestones are met, on time. ▪ Pre-schedule quality control meetings with the project team to maintain the progressive motion of the project. ▪ Manage the execution of the project. ▪ Direct existing and upcoming project tasks. ▪ Control and monitor work in progress. ▪ Provide feedback to client and project team. ▪ Identify and resolve deviances from project timeline. ▪ Review all work product and deliverables. ▪ Utilize structured quality assurance process involving up to three levels of review at the peer level, project manager level. ▪ Procure executive officer level review. ▪ Communicate with the client regarding work status and progress. ▪ Ensure client is in receipt of regular status updates. ▪ Schedule regular conference calls to touch base. ▪ Inform client of roadblocks, work outside of projected scope. Page 271 of 379 Development Impact Fee Study 15 City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24 Quality Assurance / Quality Control Process Our quality control program is incorporated as a required element of Willdan’s day -to-day activities. There are three levels of reviews incorporated for our deliverables: 1) Peer review; 2) Project Manager review; and 3) Final quality assurance manager review. Peer reviews involve one analyst reviewing the work of another, while project manager reviews are conducted prior to delivery to the quality assurance manager. The quality assurance manager then performs a final review. This assures that our final product has been thoroughly evaluated for potential errors; thus, providing quality client deliverables, and high levels of integrity and outcomes. The primary mission of our quality control plan is to provide staff with th e technical and managerial expertise to plan, organize, implement, and control the overall quality effort, thereby ensuring the completion of a quality project within the time and budget established. Quality Assurance Goals Goal Lead Task Quality Assurance / Control Process James Edison ▪ Establish a set of planned and systematic actions for maintaining a high level of quality in the professional services performed; Emphasize quality in every phase of work; ▪ Ensure efficient use of resources; ▪ Establish a consistent and uniform approach to the services performed; and ▪ Implement appropriate quality control measures for each work task of the project. Quality Control Plan James Edison; Carlos Villareal ▪ Contract deliverables; ▪ Specific quality control procedures; ▪ Special quality control emphasis; ▪ Budget and manpower requirements; ▪ Overall project schedule and budget; and ▪ Project documentation requirements. Page 272 of 379 Development Impact Fee Study 16 City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24 EXHIBIT B K. Scope of Services Development Impact Fee Study Work Plan Willdan will work with the City to establish its impact fees consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act and other relevant laws. We want to ensure that our scope of services is responsive to the City’s needs and specific local circumstances. We will work with the City to revise our proposed scope based on input prior to approval of a contract, and as needed during the course of the study. The following work scope applies to each of the three impact fee categories (impact fees, sewer and transportation) generally, with minor adjustments for each. Willdan assumes that all fee programs will be prepared concurrently, with the same target adoption date. Task 1: Identify Policy Issues Objective: Identify and discuss potential policy issues raised by the study. Kick-off meeting with staff to review data needs, policy issues, and schedule. Description: Review agency documents related to existing capital planning policies and funding programs including existing impact fees. Bring policy issues to City staff’s attention, as appropriate, during the project and seek guidance prior to proceeding. Potential policy issues include: ▪ Changes in implementation resulting from AB 602; ▪ Changes in approach and nexus findings necessary to comply with AB 602; ▪ Potential new impact fees for consideration ▪ Adequacy of General Plan and other public facility planning policies (e.g., level of service standards); impact fee ordinances and resolutions, and prior nexus studies; ▪ Availability of existing public facility master plans and CIPs to identify needed facilities; ▪ Types of facilities to be funded by each fee; ▪ Land use categories for imposition of fees; ▪ Nexus approach to determining facility standards; ▪ Nexus approach to allocating cost burden among land uses, including need for separate fee zones; ▪ Potential alternative funding sources, if needed; ▪ Funding existing deficiencies, if identified; and ▪ Implementation concerns and strategies. Deliverables: (1) Information requests; and (2) revised project scope and schedule (if needed). Task 2: Identify Existing Development and Future Growth Objective: (1) Identify estimates of existing levels of development; and (2) identify a projection of future growth consistent with current planning policy. Description: Identify base year for estimating existing levels of development and for calculating facility standards based on existing facility inventories (see Task 3). Include entitled development that would be exempt from fee program. Consult with City staff to identify growth projections to a defined long-range planning horizon (10 to 30 years). Projections provide a basis for determining the facilities needed to accommodate growth (see Task 4). Consider projections from regional metropolitan planning agencies and other available sources - City staff to provide estimates and projections by zone if needed. Page 273 of 379 Development Impact Fee Study 17 City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24 Develop approach for converting land use data to measure of facility demand. For example, identify population and employment density factors to convert population and employment estimates to dwelling units and building square footage. Select appropriate approach for each impact fee based on: ▪ Available local data on facility demand by land use category; ▪ Approaches used by other agencies; and ▪ Support for other agency policy objectives. Changes to estimates and projections during subsequent tasks could cause unanticipated effort and require an amendment to the scope of services and budget. Obtain approval of estimates and projections from City staff prior to proceeding. Task 3: Determine Facility Standards Note: Conduct Tasks 3, 4, and 5 separately for each intended facility and fee type. Conduct tasks concurrently because of the effect of facility standards (Task 3), facility needs (Task 4), and alternative funding (Task 5) on the fee calculation. Objective: Determine standards to identify facilities required to accommodate growth. Description: Identify and evaluate possible facility standards depending upon the facility type, current facility inventory data, and available facility planning documents. Consider use of: (1) adopted policy standards (e.g., General Plan, master facility plans); (2) standards derived from existing facility inventories; or (3) standards derived from a list of planned facility projects. City staff to provide policies, inventories, and project lists. Willdan will work with the City to identify additional costs that might be eligible for funding by the DIF. Task 4: Determine Facilities Needs and Costs Objective: Identify the type, amount and cost of facilities required to accommodate growth and correct deficiencies, if any. Description: Quantify total planned facilities based on growth projection from Task 2 and facility standards from Task 3. Express planned facilities in general quantities such as acres of parkland, or as a specific list of capital projects from a master facility plan. Location of planned facilities may or may not be specified. If only a general description of planned facilities is available through the planning horizon, City staff to provide a list of specific capital projects for use of fee revenues during the short term (e.g., five years). Distinguish between: (1) facilities needed to serve growth (that can be funded by impact fees); and (2) facilities needed to correct existing deficiencies (that cannot be funded by impact fees). Use one of three cost allocation methods (existing inventory, system plan, or planned facilities). Gather planning-level data on new facilities costs based on lump sum project cost estimates, or unit costs and project quantities (acres, building square feet, lane miles, etc.). Consider recent City experience, local market data such as land transactions, and consultant team experience from prior projects. Inflate older cost estimates to base year using appropriate cost indices. The revised facility costs will form the basis of the capital improvement program needed for compliance with AB 602. This scope of work does not include additional engineering analysis to identify total facility needs (including transportation facilities), existing deficiencies, or cost estimates. Any such engineering/design work can be provided under a separate contract with Willdan Engineering or a third party. However, Willdan can use rough descriptions and comparables to calculate a reasonable cost estimate sufficient for use in the DIF study. Page 274 of 379 Development Impact Fee Study 18 City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24 Task 5: Identify Funding and Financing Alternatives Objective: Determine the extent of alternative (non-fee) funding available for new facilities. Description: If impact fees are going to only partially fund a capital project, the Mitigation Fee Act requires the agency report on the anticipated source and timing of the additional funding every five years. There are two types of alternative funding sources that we will identify: 1. Funding from non-impact fee sources to correct existing deficiencies; and 2. Funding from new development other than impact fees that must be credited against new development’s impact fee contributions, possibly including taxes paid to finance facilities. Identify anticipated alternative funding based on information from City staff or note that funds are still to be identified based on a list of probable funding alternatives. If fees will fund debt service include financing costs in the total cost of facilities. Assume facilities to be funded predominantly on a pay-as-you-go basis. Scope does not include a cash flow analysis to analyze effect of timing of fee revenues on financing costs. Task 6: Comparison and Feasibility Analysis Objective: Provide a comparison of the current and proposed impact fees to those of comparable/surrounding jurisdictions in Riverside County and an assessment of the effect of fees on development feasibility . Description: Willdan will compare a total of four Riverside County jurisdictions to be selected by the City. Willdan will also provide an assessment of the effect of the fees on project feasibility, typically using a ratio calculation to development value compared to industry benchmarks. Typically, Willdan prepares an analysis of fees charged to a series of prototype developments (such as residential, retail, etc.) to provide an “apples to apples” comparison, but the exact methodology will be determined in consultation with the City. This comparison will be limited to four other jurisdictions. Task 7: Calculate Fees and Prepare Report Objective: Provide technically defensible fee report that comprehensively documents project assumptions, methodologies, and results. Description: Generate fee schedule to apportion facility costs to individual development projects. Use facility costs per unit of demand multiplied by demand by land use category based on data developed in prior tasks. Prepare draft report tables for City staff to review, that document each step of the analysis, including schedule of maximum justified fees by facility type land use category and all other requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. Following one (1) round of comments from City staff on the quantitative analysis and fee schedules, prepare administrative draft report. Following one (1) round of comments on administrative draft, prepare public draft for presentation to interested parties, the public and elected officials. This public review draft will be presented and public stakeholder meetings and at a Council informational session. Prepare final report, if necessary, based on comments received on the public draft report. If requested, post the report on our website for public access. Note that as of January 2022, the Nexus study is adopted separately from the fees, and with a 30-day notice. Fees will be calculating residential land uses in compliance with AB 602. Provide legal counsel with copies of fee resolutions and ordinances used by other jurisdictions. Deliverables: If necessary, we will provide up to five (5) bound copies of the draft report, one (1) unbound copy, one (1) Microsoft Word copy; and up to five (5) bound copies of the final report. Page 275 of 379 Development Impact Fee Study 19 City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24 Task 8: Prepare Impact Fee Schedule Calculation Tool Objective: Provide interactive tool that will ensure predictable and intuitive fees that are easily accessible and understandable to customers interested in calculating fees on their own for a particular type of project . Description: Create impact fee calculator in Microsoft Excel that can be used by City staff and developers to calculate impact fees associated with a development project . The tool will have an input page that allows a user to identify project characteristics that d rive the fee calculation. Results will be displayed by impact fee category and will be summarized in terms of the total amount due. Deliverables: Microsoft Excel impact fee calculator model. Task 9: Meetings Objective: The project manager or other necessary Willdan staff will attend project meetings. A member of the Impact Fee project team will attend up to four (4) in-person meetings throughout the City’s engagement. Phone conferences are not considered meetings for the purposes of this scope. Optional: Optional stakeholder and Council meetings may be requested by the City. Staff Support To complete our tasks, we will need the cooperation of City of Beaumont staff. We suggest that the City assign a key individual to represent the City as the project manager who can function as our primary contact. We anticipate that the City’s project manager will: 1) Coordinate responses to requests for information; 2) Coordinate review of work products; and 3) Help resolve policy issues. Willdan will rely on the validity and accuracy of the City’s data and documentation to complete the analysis. Willdan will rely on the data as being accurate without performing an independent verification of accuracy and will not be responsible for any errors that result from inaccurate data provided by the client or a third party. Project Timeline Willdan anticipates time is of the essence for the City to begin this engagement. Typically, an impact fee study requires approximately six months from notice to proceed to adoption. The proposed schedule can only be met with the cooperation of City staff. Delays in responding to our requests for data and review will result in corresponding delays to the project schedule. If that is the case, we will notify the City immediately of the possible impact on the schedule. This schedule applies to each of the three impact fee categories. Scope of Services 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 4 11 18 25 1 8 15 22 29 5 12 19 26 4 11 18 25 Task 1: Identify & Consider Fee Categories & Policy Issues z1 Task 2: Identify Existing Development and Future Growth z2 Task 3: Determine Facility Standards z3 Task 4: Determine Facilities Needs and Costs z4 Task 5: Identify Funding and Financing Alternatives z5 Task 6: Comparison and Feasibility Analysis Task 7: Calculate Fees and Prepare Report z 6 Task 8: Prepare Impact Fee Schedule Calculation Tool Task 9: Meetings z 7 Deliverables: z 2: Development Growth Projections (table format)z6: Draft Fee Tables & Text z 3: Project List z7: Administrative/Public Draft Report(s), Final Nexus Report, Slide Presentation March City of Beaumont Impact Fee Study Project Schedule February z 1: Information Request, Meeting Agenda, Revised Schedule, Summary of Policy Decisions z4: Cost Estimates for Identified Facilities z5: Fee Comparison November December January.2024AugustSeptemberOctober Page 276 of 379 Development Impact Fee Study 20 City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24 Education Juris Doctorate, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law Master of Public Policy, Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley Bachelor of Arts, magna cum laude, Harvard University Professional Registrations Member of State Bar, California Affiliations Council of Development Finance Agencies CFA Society of San Francisco Congress for the New Urbanism Urban Land Institute Seaside Institute International Economic Development Council 26 Years’ Experience Appendix Resumes James Edison, JD, MPP, MA Principal-in-Charge Mr. James Edison specializes in the nexus between public and private, with expertise in public- private partnerships, and the benefits of economic development to municipalities and state, provincial, regional, and national governments. He possesses deep expertise in land us e economics, with a specialty in finance and implementation, including fiscal impact and the public and private financing of infrastructure and development projects, both in the U.S. and internationally. Mr. Edison’s public-sector experience includes local and regional economic impact studies; fiscal impact evaluations; new government formation strategies; and the creation of impact fees, assessments, and special taxes to fund infrastructure and public facilities. He has conducted numerous evaluations of the economic and fiscal impact of specific plans and consulted on a wide variety of land use planning topics related to community revitalization and the economic and fiscal impacts of development. As a former bond attorney, Mr. Edison understands the legal u nderpinnings and technical requirements of public financing instruments and has advised both public and private clients on the use of individual instruments, and the interaction between those instruments and the needs of developers and project finance. Related Experience County of Riverside, CA – Comprehensive Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison led the effort to establish a comprehensive fee program for the County, including facilities fees for fire, police, parks, criminal justice, libraries, and traffic. He prepared the technical and analytical documents necessary to calculate the fee and establish the necessary nexus to collect it, as well as presented the fees during public hearings to the County Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, Mr. Edison is currently leading an update to the County’s development impact fees for 2030. City of Moreno Valley, CA – Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Study: Mr. Edison was the principal-in-charge for the City’s comprehensive impact update. Fee categories included arterial streets, traffic signals, interchanges, parks, recreation, fire, police, library, corporation yard, maintenance equipment, and animal shelter facilities. City of Murrieta, CA – Master Facilities Plan and Development Impact Fee Calculation Report Update: Mr. Edison served as the principal-in-charge of the City’s study to update their Master Facilities Plan and Development Impact Fee Calculation Report, to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. Willdan was recently re-selected, through competitive bid, to update the Impact Fees. City of Indian Wells, CA – Development Impact Fee Study: Mr. Edison served as the principal- in-charge for the City Indian Wells’ update to their development impact fees. The fee program was comprised of a variety of fee categories including transportation, public facilities, recreation, park, and storm drain. City of Fillmore, CA – North Fillmore Specific Plan Nexus Study: Mr. Edison is currently assisting the City with an analysis of development impact fees needed to finance public facilities necessary for the development of the North Filmore Specific Plan. Public facilities included in this analysis include water, sewer systems, recycled water, and streets. Page 277 of 379 Development Impact Fee Study 21 City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24 City of Pismo Beach, CA – Development Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison served in the role of principal-in-charge of an update to the City’s impact fee program. The program included the following facilities: police, fire protection, park and recreation improvements, water system improvements, wastewater, traffic, and general government/administrative facilities. Prior to fee program adoption, a stakeholder meeting was held to inform the public about the project, and to solicit feedback from the development community. City of Morgan Hill, CA – Development Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison served as principal-in- charge of an update to the City’s existing nexus study, which included general government, fire, police, parks and recreation, library, and storm drain fee categories. The project scope included stakeholder outreach. City of Alameda, CA – Comprehensive Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison led the Willdan team that updated the City of Alameda’s impact fee programs, as well as created a separate impact fee program for Alameda Point, the former Alameda Naval Air Station. City of Santa Clara, CA – Parks Fee Update: Mr. Edison served as principal-in-charge of the City’s park impact fee update. This project included a demographic analysis and estimation of the cost of acquiring and improving public park land. City of Fremont, CA – Comprehensive Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison led the Willdan team in the successful update of the impact fee programs for the City of Fremont. The effort included an update of the City’s transportation impact fee program and capital improvement program. City of Manteca, CA – Fire Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison served in the capacity of project manager for the update of the City’s fire services impact fee program. J. Edison Resume Continued Page 278 of 379 Development Impact Fee Study 22 City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24 Education Master of Public Policy, Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley Bachelor of Arts, Geography, University of California, Los Angeles; Minor in Public Policy and Urban Planning Areas of Expertise Fiscal Impact Analyses Development Impact Fees Public Facilities Financing Plans GIS Analysis 17 Years’ Experience Carlos Villarreal, MPP Project Manager Mr. Carlos Villarreal, a Financial Consulting Group Principal Consultant, is proposed to serve in the role of project manager due to his experience documenting nexus findings for development impact fees, preparing capital improvement plans, facilitating stakeholder involvement , and analyzing the economic impacts of fee programs. He has supported adoption of fee programs funding a variety of facility types. Related Experience County of Riverside, CA – Comprehensive Impact Fee Update: Mr. Villarreal was the lead analyst in the effort to establish a comprehensive fee program for the County, including facilities fees for fire, police, parks, criminal justice, libraries, and traffic. He assisted in the preparation of the technical and analytical documents necessary to calculate the fees and establish the necessary nexus. Mr. Villarreal is once again serving on the project team to update the County’s impact fees through 2030. City of Moreno Valley, CA – Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Study: Mr. Villarreal served as the project manager for the City’s comprehensive impact update. Fee categories included arterial streets, traffic signals, interchanges, parks, recreation, fire, police, library, corporation yard, maintenance equipment, and animal shelter facilities . In 2022 the City added a public arts fee and workforce development facility fee. City of Murrieta, CA – Master Facilities Plan and Development Impact Fee Calculation Report Update: Mr. Villarreal served as the project manager of the City’s study to update their Master Facilities Plan and Development Impact Fee Calculation Report, to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. Willdan was recently re-selected, through competitive bid, to update the Impact Fees. City of Long Beach, CA – Park Impact Fee Update: Willdan assisted with an update to the City’s existing park impact fees, with Mr. Villarreal serving in the role of project manager. The project included updating demographic data and facility planning to properly update park facility standards. He used this information to then calculate impact fees for single family and multi-family residential dwelling units and prepare a nexus study documenting the revised fees and the required legal findings under the Mitigation Fee Act. City of Pismo Beach, CA – Development Impact Fee Update: Mr. Villarreal served in the role of project manager for the City’s impact fee project. The program included: police, fire protection, park and recreation improvements, water system improvements, wastewater, traffic, and general government/administrative facilities. Prior to fee program adoption, a stakeholder meeting was held to inform the public about the project, and to solicit feedback from the development community. City of Carpinteria, CA – Development Impact Fee Update: Mr. Villarreal was the lead analyst to update the City of Carpinteria’s impact fees, which included highways and bridges, streets and thoroughfares, traffic control, parking, storm drain, general government, aquatic, park and recreation, and open space. The City has engaged Willdan again to update their impact fees and Mr. Villarreal is serving in the role of project manager. County of San Benito, CA – Comprehensive Impact Fee Study: As project manager, Mr. Villarreal assisted the County with the preparation of an updated and e xpanded impact fee program. The study included updates to the following fees: capital improvements, road equipment, fire mitigation, and park and recreation. Page 279 of 379 Development Impact Fee Study 23 City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24 City of McFarland, CA – Development Impact Fee Study Update: Mr. Villarreal served as project manager updating the City’s development impact fee program. The study comprehensively updated the City’s fee program, incorporating new facility master planning and infrastructure costs necessary to facilitate expected development in the City through 2040. The study included the following facility fee categories; general government, law enforcement, park and recreation, fire protection, water, sewer, storm drain, and traffic. The fees were adopted by the City Council in 2020. City of Soledad, CA – Development Impact Fee Study Update: Mr. Villarreal managed the update of the City’s impact fee program, specifically changes in demographics, growth projections, project costs, and facility standards. In particular, the City had to revise its capital facilities needs to accommodate a much lower amount of growth than what was projected before 2007. The resulting fees funded new development’s share of planned facilities, while not overburdening development with unnecessary costs. City of Morgan Hill, CA – Development Impact Fee Update: Mr. Villarreal served as lead analyst assisting with an update to the City’s existing nexus study, including general government, fire, police, parks and recreation, library, and storm drain fee categor ies. The project scope included stakeholder outreach. The City engaged Willdan again to update the study and Mr. Villarreal served in the role of project manager. City of Oroville, CA – Impact Fee Study Update: Mr. Villarreal served as project manager for a study updating the City’s development impact fee program, including parks, l aw enforcement, general government, fire suppression, and traffic facilities. The fee program was adopted by the City Council in 2015. The City engaged Willdan again to update the 2015 study, and Mr. Villarreal served in the role of project manager. County of Stanislaus, CA – Impact Fee Study Update: Mr. Villarreal served in the role of project manager for a study updating the County’s existing impact fee program. The program incl udes a range of facilities, like public protection, library, and parks. The study also included a transportation facilities impact fee, with different fees calculated for two zones in the County. Considerable stakeholder outreach was an integral component of this project. County of Los Angeles/City of Santa Clarita, CA – Law Enforcement Facilities Fee Study: Mr. Villarreal assisted with the development of an impact fee program to fund law enforcement facilities serving the City of Santa Clarita, and other Antelope Valley jurisdictions within the County of Los Angeles. The analysis involved the comparison of law enforcement facilities serving incorporated and unincorporated areas. C. Villarreal Resume Continued Page 280 of 379 27368 Via Industria, Suite 200 Temecula, CA 92590-4856 951.587.3500 | 800.755.6864 | Fax: 951.587.3510 www.willdan.com Page 281 of 379 Development Impact Fee Study City of Beaumont Page 282 of 379 T 951.587.3500 ▪ 800.755.6864 | F 951.587.3510 ▪ 888.326.6864 | 27368 Via Industria, Suite 200, Temecula, CA 92590 www.willdan.com 1 July 14, 2023 Ms. Grace Wichert Procurement and Contract Specialist City of Beaumont 550 E 6th Street Beaumont, CA 92223 Re: Fee Proposal to Conduct a Development Impact Fee Study for the City of Beaumont Dear Ms. Wichert: Willdan Financial Services (“Willdan”) is pleased to present the following cost proposal to the City of Beaumont (“City”) to conduct a Development Impact Study. This submission reflects our understanding of the City’s Request for Proposal (RFP). Willdan is excited about this opportunity to serve the City. To discuss any aspect of our technical and/or cost proposal, please contact Managing Principal James Edison directly at (510) 912 -4687 or via email at jedison@willdan.com. Sincerely, WILLDAN FINANCIAL SERVICES Chris Fisher Vice President/Director Page 283 of 379 Development Impact Fee Study 1 City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24 Cost Proposal As requested, below is an itemized estimate for each of the three fee programs specified in the City’s RFP. The tables below detail the work by task and staff. Development Impact Fee Study Based on the corresponding work plan identified within the scope of services, we propose a fixed fee of $49,680 to conduct the Development Impact Fee Study. Sewer Capacity Fee Study Based on the corresponding work plan identified within the scope of services, we propose a fixed fee of $17,280 to conduct the Sewer Capacity Fee Study. J. Edison Principal-in- Charge C. Villarreal Project Manager Total $ 240 $ 210 Hours Cost Scope of Services Task 1: Identify & Consider Fee Categories & Policy Issues 8.0 20.0 28.0 6,120$ Task 2: Identify Existing Development and Future Growth 6.0 20.0 26.0 5,640 Task 3: Determine Facility Standards 6.0 20.0 26.0 5,640 Task 4: Determine Facilities Needs and Costs 6.0 20.0 26.0 5,640 Task 5: Identify Funding and Financing Alternatives 6.0 22.0 28.0 6,060 Task 6: Comparison & Feasibility Analysis 6.0 22.0 28.0 6,060 Task 7: Calculate Fees and Prepare Report 6.0 18.0 24.0 5,220 Task 8: Prepare Impact Fee Schedule Calculation Tool 2.0 10.0 12.0 2,580 Task 9: Meetings 14.0 16.0 30.0 6,720 Total – Development Impact Fee Study 60.0 168.0 228.0 49,680$ City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study Fee Proposal J. Edison Principal-in- Charge C. Villarreal Project Manager Total $ 240 $ 210 Hours Cost Scope of Services Task 1: Identify & Consider Fee Categories & Policy Issues 1.0 2.0 3.0 660$ Task 2: Identify Existing Development and Future Growth 1.0 8.0 9.0 1,920 Task 3: Determine Facility Standards 2.0 8.0 10.0 2,160 Task 4: Determine Facilities Needs and Costs 1.0 8.0 9.0 1,920 Task 5: Identify Funding and Financing Alternatives 2.0 8.0 10.0 2,160 Task 6: Comparison & Feasibility Analysis 3.0 8.0 11.0 2,400 Task 7: Calculate Fees and Prepare Report 1.0 8.0 9.0 1,920 Task 8: Prepare Impact Fee Schedule Calculation Tool 1.0 8.0 9.0 1,920 Task 9: Meetings 4.0 6.0 10.0 2,220 Total – Sewer Capacity Fee Study 16.0 64.0 80.0 17,280$ City of Beaumont Sewer Capacity Fee Study Fee Proposal Page 284 of 379 Development Impact Fee Study 2 City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24 Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study Based on the corresponding work plan identified within the scope of services, we propose a fixed fee of $21,120 to conduct the Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study. Because there are certain elements common to all of programs, combining them will result in some economies of scale (combined trips, a single adoption meeting, etc.). Therefore, if the City selects Willdan for two or more programs, an overall discount of $9,000 will apply to the total. For example, all three fee programs above total $88,500, but Willdan can prepare them for a total of $79,800 when prepared together. Notes Please note the following: ▪ The fee denoted above includes attendance at up to four in-person meetings with City staff, stakeholders, and City Council. Attendance at more than four meetings will be billed at our current hourly rates, provided below, and actual expenses. ▪ Comprehensive written responses to resolve conflicts or preparation of more than one set of major revisions to the draft report, will be classified as Additional Services, and may require additional billing at hourly rates stated in the hourly rate schedule listed below. These additional fees shall only take effect once the fixed fee stated above has been exceeded. ▪ Our fixed fee includes all direct expenses associated with the project. ▪ We will invoice the City monthly based on percentage of project completed. ▪ City shall reimburse Willdan for any costs Willdan incurs, including without limitation, copying costs, digitizing costs, travel expenses, employee time and attorneys' fees, to respond to the legal process of any governmental agency relating to City or relating to the project. Reimbursement shall be at Willdan 's rates in effect at the time of such response. ▪ Optional/Additional Services beyond the listed Scope of Services may be authorized by the City and will be billed at our then-current hourly overhead consulting rates. J. Edison Principal-in- Charge C. Villarreal Project Manager Total $ 240 $ 210 Hours Cost Scope of Services Task 1: Identify & Consider Fee Categories & Policy Issues 2.0 8.0 10.0 2,160$ Task 2: Identify Existing Development and Future Growth 2.0 8.0 10.0 2,160 Task 3: Determine Facility Standards 4.0 12.0 16.0 3,480 Task 4: Determine Facilities Needs and Costs 4.0 10.0 14.0 3,060 Task 5: Identify Funding and Financing Alternatives 2.0 2.0 4.0 900 Task 6: Comparison & Feasibility Analysis 4.0 12.0 16.0 3,480 Task 7: Calculate Fees and Prepare Report 2.0 12.0 14.0 3,000 Task 8: Prepare Impact Fee Schedule Calculation Tool 1.0 4.0 5.0 1,080 Task 9: Meetings 4.0 4.0 8.0 1,800 Total – Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study 25.0 72.0 97.0 21,120$ City of Beaumont Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study Fee Proposal Page 285 of 379 Development Impact Fee Study 3 City of Beaumont, California RFP #FIN23-24 Hourly Rates Provided below is Willdan’s hourly rate table identifying current hourly rates for additional or optional services. Willdan Financial Services Hourly Rate Schedule Position Team Member Hourly Rate Vice President/Director $250 Managing Principal James Edison $240 Principal Consultant Carlos Villarreal $210 Senior Project Manager $185 Project Manager $165 Senior Project Analyst $135 Senior Analyst $125 Analyst II $110 Analyst I $100 Page 286 of 379 27368 Via Industria, Suite 200 Temecula, CA 92590-4856 951.587.3500 | 800.755.6864 | Fax: 951.587.3510 www.willdan.com Page 287 of 379 RFP NO. FIN23-24 TITLE: Development Impact Fee Study RESPONDING FIRMS Location (1)Max Points --> Max Points -->15 15 15 15 15 15 10 100 Willdan Financial Services Temecula, CA 14 12 13 14 11 13 8 85 David Taussig & Associates (DTA) Riverside, CA 12 12 12 11 11 12 9 79 GRAND TOTAL Approach to Communicat ion and Reporting Familiarity with City Requirements and State laws Cost of Services Approach to Performing Services Demonstrated Professional Skills & Credentials Related Experience CITY OF BEAUMONT EVALUATION CRITERIA: EVALUATION CRITERIA: Understanding of Scope of Services Page 288 of 379 California Levine Act Statement California Government Code Sec�on 84308, commonly referred to as the "Levine Act," prohibits any Beaumont City Council Member from par�cipa�ng in any ac�on related to a contract or applica�on if he or she receives any poli�cal contribu�ons totaling more than $250 within the previous twelve months, and for three months following the date a final decision from the business or applicant. The Levine Act also requires a member of the Beaumont City Council who has received such a contribu�on to disclose the contribu�on on the record of the proceeding. Current Beaumont City Council Members are listed at: htps://www.beaumontca.gov/29/City-Council Proposers are responsible for accessing this link to review the names prior to answering the following ques�ons. 1. Have you or your company, or any agent on behalf of you or your company, made any poli�cal contribu�ons of more than $250 to any Beaumont City Council Member in the 12 months preceding the date of the submission of your proposal or applica�on, or the an�cipated date of any Council ac�on? ___ YES If yes, please iden�fy the Council Member(s): ___ NO 2. Do you or your company, or any agency on behalf of you or your company, an�cipate or plan to make any poli�cal contribu�on of more than $250 to any Beaumont City Council Member in the 12 months following any Council ac�on related to your proposal or applica�on? ___ YES If yes, please iden�fy the Council Member(s): ___ NO Answering yes to either of the two ques�ons above does not preclude the Beaumont City Council from awarding a contract or approving an applica�on or any subsequent ac�on. It does however, preclude the iden�fied Council Member(s) from par�cipa�ng in any ac�ons related to your proposal or applica�on. _________________ _____________________________ Date Signature of authorized individual _____________________________ Company/Applicant Name City of Beaumont | 550 E. 6th Street, Beaumont, CA 92223 | (951) 769-8520 | BeaumontCA.gov 8/11/2023 Chris Fisher Digitally signed by Chris Fisher DN: cn=Chris Fisher gn=Chris Fisher c=US United States l=US United States o=Willdan Financial Services ou=WFS e=CFisher@Willdan.com Reason: I am approving this document Location: Date: 2023-08-11 07:31-07:00 Willdan Financial Services 4 4 Page 289 of 379 Staff Report TO: City Council FROM: Robert Vestal, Assistant Director of Public Works DATE August 15, 2023 SUBJECT: Second Amendment to the Professional Service Agreement with EXP U.S. Services, Inc. Description Second Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement for Engineering Services to EXP U.S. Services, Inc. for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan (MDP) Line 2, Stage 1 Project (CIP2019-019). Background and Analysis: On March 17, 2020, City Council amended the FY19/20 Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Budget to include the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan (MDP) Line 2, Stage 1 Project (Stage 1). Stage 1 was incorporated into the CIP in the amount of $5,000,000 with the source of funds being the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) via a cooperative funding agreement. On September 1, 2020, City Council approved the cooperative agreement and on September 22, 2020, the District fully executed the agreement. On December 15, 2020, City Council awar ded a Professional Service Agreement (PSA) to EXP U.S. Services, Inc. (EXP) to perform preliminary and final engineering services. On November 15, 2022, City Council approved Amendment No. 1 which modified the scope of services to include additional hydraulic analysis and extended the term of agreement to February 16, 2024. The second amendment to the professional services agreement is proposed to accommodate increases in subconsultant fees and extend the term of agreement by one (1) year with a new termination date of February 16, 2025. No additional services are proposed. EXP and subconsultants submitted a fee rate as part of the original bid response which was good for one year. EXP and subconsultants did not request a change in fee for the first year; however, due to inflation and operating costs, the subconsultants are now requesting the fee to be adjusted. The following is a summary of the subconsultants requesting fee increases: Page 290 of 379 Subconsultant Original Fee (2020) Requested Fee (2023) DEA (Survey) $34,571.00 $41,962.96 (+21%) Epic (Utilities and R/W) $45,720.00 $46,880.00 (+ 3%) Converse (Geotechnical) $22,255.00 $33,707.00 (+51%) The proposed increase in fee for all three subconsultants is $20,003.96. The second amendment proposes a new not to exceed amount of $524,064.96 for the PSA. A summary of the allocation of funds for the original agreement and the proposed amendment is provided in the following table. Agreement Summary Original Fee (2020) Original Agreement $442,214.00 Amendment No. 1 $61,847.00 Amendment No. 2 $20,003.96_______ Total PSA: $524,064.96 Project Background and Update – During preliminary analysis, Berkshire Channel and other downstream facilities were determined to not have enough capacity to safely convey the ultimate design flow. EXP, Riverside County Flood Control, and City staff identified the need to evaluate a possible detention basin to mitigate for downstream limitations. The evaluation took an extended time due to the considerable size needed for a basin site and the limited availability of viable parcels. The preliminary results of the evaluation indicate that the modification to Berkshire Channel and potential downstream facilities may accommodate the design flow. The District tentatively approved the approach and the project is moving forward. EXP is finalizing the hydrology and hydraulic study with Riverside County Flood Control. Utility research and field survey have started. Once the Pennsylvania Widening project is completed, EXP’s field crew can finish the survey and begin preliminary alignment design. EXP is also researching the potential for CEQA exemption. Final design is anticipated to be completed in July 2024. Fiscal Impact: The cost of preparing the staff report is estimated to be $500. The funding for this contract amendment would be paid from the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan (MDP) Line 2, Stage 1 Project (CIP2019-019) budget. Refer to following table for the accounting summary. Page 291 of 379 2019-019 MDP Line 2 Project Accounting Summary Funding Summary Funding Year Funding Source Amount 19/20 RCFC $100,000 20/21 RCFC $1,500,000 21/22 RCFC $3,400,000 Total Project Funding = $5,000,000 Budget Summary Project Component Budget Encumbered Paid to Date Remaining Budget Project Management $0 $0 $0 $0 Preliminary Services $0 $0 $0 $0 Environmental $0 $0 $0 $0 Design $550,000 ($504,061) ($84,657.17) $45,939 Construction $4,450,000 $0.00 $0.00 $4,450,000 Construction Management $0 $0 $0 $0 Permits $0 $0 $0 $0 Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 Project Summary Totals $5,000,000 ($504,061) ($84,657.17) $4,495,939 Recommended Action: Approve a second amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with EXP U.S. Services, Inc. to extend the term for one-year and a new not-to-exceed amount of $524,064.96. Attachments: A. Second Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with EXP U.S. Services, Inc. B. Professional Services Agreements with EXP (Original Agreement) C. First Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with EXP U.S. Services, Inc. D. Levine Act Statement Page 292 of 379 STAFF REPORT COVER SHEET Meeting date _____/_____/_____ Subject/Project: ______________________________________________________________ Please checkmark if all requirements for staff report submission are complete, or not applicable. n/a  ____ ____ Contract/Resolution/Ordinance reviewed by city attorney. ____ ____ Public Hearing (attached copy of notice). ____ ____ Presentation by a consultant/vendor. ____ ____ Power point presentation: Staff Consultant (circle one) ____ ____ Contract mailed to vendor for signature(s). Date mailed: _____/_____/_____ NOTES: ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Submitted by ________________________________ 8 15 2023 EXP Contract Amendment Robert Vestal 4 Page 293 of 379 SECOND AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF BEAUMONT AND EXP U.S. SERVICES, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR BEAUMONT MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN (MDP) LINE 2, STAGE 1 PROJECT (CIP2019-019) THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BY INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR is made and effective as of the 15th day of August, 2023, by and between the CITY OF BEAUMONT, a general law city, (“CITY”) whose address is 550 E. 6th Street, Beaumont, California 92223 and EXP U.S. Services, Inc. whose address is 451 E. Vanderbilt Way, Suite 375, San Bernardino, CA 92408 (“CONTRACTOR”) in consideration of the mutual promises and purpose contained herein, the parties agree as follow: 1. RECITALS This Second Amendment is made with respect to the following facts and purpose that the parties agree are true and correct: A. On December 15, 2020, the City and EXP U.S. Services, Inc., entered into that certain agreement entitled “Agreement for Professional Services by Independent Contractor” for Professional Engineering Services for Beaumont Master Drainage Plan (MDP) Line 2, Stage 1 Project (CIP2019-019) (“Agreement”). B. CONTRACTOR has requested that the fee should be increased as provided in the Proposal received May 17, 2023, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference. 2. AMENDMENT Section 1 of the Agreement is hereby amended to extend the period of time during which the Services are to be provided hereunder, but not to exceed February 16, 2025. Section 4.01 of the Agreement is hereby amended to increase the maximum compensation under the Agreement as follows: Under previous amendments, compensation was set at an amount not to exceed Five Hundred Four Thousand Sixty-One Dollars ($504,061). Per this Second Amendment, compensation is increased by the maximum amount of twenty thousand and three dollars ($20,003.96) as provided in the Proposal attached hereto as Exhibit “A” resulting in total compensation under the Agreement not to exceed five hundred and twenty-four thousand and sixty-four dollars ($524,064.96). Page 294 of 379 The recitals to this Amendment are deemed incorporated herein by this reference. All other terms of the Agreement not expressly amended by this Amendment shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereby have made and executed this Second Amendment to Professional Services Agreement to be effective as of the day and year first above-written. CITY: CITY OF BEAUMONT By: ________________________________ Julio Martinez III, Mayor ATTEST City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM John Pinkney, City Attorney CONTRACTOR: EXP U.S. SERVICES, INC. By: ______________________________ Print Name: _______________________ Title: _____________________________ Page 295 of 379 EXHIBIT “A” PROPOSALS Page 296 of 379 NAME OF SUBCONSULTANT: DEA TITLE OF PROJECT BEAUMONT LINE 2 STAGE 1 Name of Firm: EXP U.S. SERVICES 1. DIRECT LABOR Robert D. Vasquez, PLS 10 $86.00 $860 Felicia Mantz 9 $39.22 $353 Kent Groh, PLS 10 $76.92 $769 Doug Fulde, PLS 84 $55.50 $4,662 Steven Steinhoff, LSIT 20 $54.50 $1,090 Jeremy Schiff, LSIT 0 $44.00 $0 Robert Muro 0 $59.51 $0 Chris Dominquez 52 $59.51 $3,095 Fulton Torreyson 0 $54.86 $0 Mike Balderston 52 $54.28 $2,823 0 $0 TOTAL 237 $13,651 237.00 2. INDIRECT COSTS (overhead, G&A - specify) Fringe Overhead G&A TOTAL INDIRECT 3. TOTAL DIRECT COST AND INDIRECT COSTS (sum of lines 1-2) 4. FIXED FEE OR PROFIT (specify, applies to line 3 only) TOTAL FEE 5. OTHER DIRECT COSTS (specify) ODC's TOTAL OTHER DIRECT 6. TOTAL PROPOSED PRICE (sum of lines 3, 4 and 5) DATE SIGNATURE AND TITLE OF AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF CONSULTANT $13,651 $16,364 $3,788 $3,788 TOTAL COST $24,224 FEE (S) COST 119.87% Cost & Price Form Year 2023-24 HOURS COST X BASE = 10.00%$37,875 $37,875 RATE $7,860 INDIRECT RATE (%) 57.58% $41,962.96 $37,875 $0 $13,651 $13,651 TOTAL DIRECT LABOR (Hours) $13,651 $300.00 $0 TOTAL DIRECT LABOR (COST) 0.00% $300 PERCENT X BASE = 1 of 1Page 297 of 379 Mike Mays 48 $57.69 $2,769 Bernadette Salto 206 $35.10 $7,231 Abigail Lopez 16 $53.37 $854 0 0 $0.00 $0 0 0 $0.00 $0 0 0 $0.00 $0 TOTAL 270 $10,854 270 2. INDIRECT COSTS (overhead, G&A - specify) Fringe Overhead G&A TOTAL INDIRECT 3. TOTAL DIRECT COST AND INDIRECT COSTS (sum of lines 1-2) 4. FIXED FEE OR PROFIT (specify, applies to line 3 only) TOTAL FEE 5. OTHER DIRECT COSTS (specify) ODC's TOTAL PRICE DATE SIGNATURE AND TITLE OF AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF CONSULTANT $15,250 $46,880 $2,875 $17,901 FEE (S)X BASE = 10.00%$28,755 $28,755 $2,875 PERCENT Cost & Price Form Year 2020-2021 HOURS COST $10,854 RAW RATE TOTAL DIRECT LABOR (COST) Name of Firm: EPIC Project: Beaumont MDP Line 2 - Stage 1 Notes and Assumptions: Escalation rates are not applied. TOTAL DIRECT LABOR (Hours) $10,854 $4,733 $10,854 COSTX BASE = 73.07% 43.61% $5,237 INDIRECT RATE (%) $10,85448.25% $7,931 1 of 1Page 298 of 379 Converse Consultants Geotechnical Engineering, Environmental & Groundwater Science, Inspection & Testing Services 2021 Rancho Drive, Suite 1, Redlands, California 92373 Telephone: (909) 796-0544 ♦ Facsimile: (909) 796-7675 ♦ www.converseconsultants.com July 22, 2021 Revised May 11, 2023 Ms. Portia Gonzalez, PE, QSD/QSP Vice President, Area Manager, Orange County EXP 451 Vanderbilt Way, Suite 375 San Bernardino, CA 92408 Subject: REVISED PROPOSAL TO PREPARE A GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Storm Drain Project Approximately 5,000 Linear Feet of 69-inch Diameter Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) City of Beaumont, Riverside County, California Converse Project No. 21-81-222-00 (01) Dear Ms. Gonzalez: Converse Consultants (Converse) appreciates the opportunity to be on your team to prepare a geotechnical investigation and water infiltration test report to assist with the design and construction of the above-referenced project. Our proposal is based on the following.  Review of the Request for Proposal (RFP) for Beaumont Master Drainage Plan (MDP) Line 2, Stage 1 issued by the City of Beaumont (City), Department of Public Works, dated May 4, 2020.  Conducted a site visit on May 12, 2020.  Reviewed City’s response to consultant’s questions.  Information provided in your emails dated July 21, 2021 and May 11, 2023. Our proposal dated July 22, 2021 has been updated to incorporate 2023 fee schedule for Converse and our outside vendors. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Beaumont MDP Line 2, Stage 1 project will consist of approximately 5,000 linear feet of 69-inch and larger diameter reinforced pipe (RCP). The general limits of Stage 1 are as follows.  Along 6th Street from Chestnut to Pennsylvania.  Along Pennsylvania Avenue from 6th Street to 1st Street.  Along 1st Street from Pennsylvania Avenue to an existing earthen channel (roughly 800 feet east of Pennsylvania). Page 299 of 379 Revised Proposal to Prepare a Geotechnical Investigation & Water Infiltration Report Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Storm Drain Project City of Beaumont, Riverside County, California July 22, 2021 Revised May 11, 2023 Page 2 Converse Consultants M:\JOBFILE\2021\81\21-81-222 EXP, MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Storm Drain\Proposal\21-81-222_rpro(01)stormdrain The following are initial constraints identified for this project.  The alignment will cross Caltrans facility.  The alignment will cross Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks.  The City is developing a widening project for Pennsylvania Avenue.  The City is planning a future grade separation for the Pennsylvania Avenue and UPRR crossing.  The City is developing a street improvement project to extend 2nd Street approximately 1,700-feet west to intersect with Pennsylvania Avenue.  Due to the future grade separation, the RCP may be up to 25-feet deep in certain areas.  There are numerous existing utilities that may conflict with the proposed alignment.  There are numerous culvert crossings along the I-10 that will need to be accommodated in the design, as part of the construction or a future project. SITE DESCRIPTION The surface condition along the storm drain alignments is presented below along with the photos. 6th Street; Chestnut Street to Pennsylvania Avenue  Approximately 1,280 linear feet in length.  Paved road with 2 lanes in each direction. Approximately 62 feet wide.  Few overhead utilities and overhanging streetlamps. No trees or other overhead obstructions.  Bike lanes on edge of roadway in each direction. Sidewalks on both sides of street. Business (non-residential) district. Drilling in the street may require the closure of one lane.  Medium to heavy traffic was observed midday. Pennsylvania Avenue; 6th Street to 1st Street  Approximately 2,800 linear feet in length.  Paved road with one lane in each direction. Approximately 45 feet wide.  Few overhead utilities, trees, and overhanging streetlamps.  Businesses and vacant land on the east side of road. Vacant land on west side of road.  Approximately 150-foot-wide freeway overpass located approximately 700 feet south of intersection of 6th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue.  The approximately 60-foot-wide train crossing zone is located approximately 170 feet south of the freeway overpass.  Wide shoulder along the majority of street potentially suitable for drilling. Drilling in the street will require the closure of one lane.  Medium traffic was observed midday. Page 300 of 379 Revised Proposal to Prepare a Geotechnical Investigation & Water Infiltration Report Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Storm Drain Project City of Beaumont, Riverside County, California July 22, 2021 Revised May 11, 2023 Page 3 Converse Consultants M:\JOBFILE\2021\81\21-81-222 EXP, MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Storm Drain\Proposal\21-81-222_rpro(01)stormdrain 1st Street; Pennsylvania Avenue to 800 Feet East of Intersection  Approximately 800 linear feet in length.  Paved road with 2 lanes in each direction and raised center median. Approximately 60 feet wide.  No overhead utilities. Sparse trees and overhanging streetlamps.  Wide shoulder along some portions of street potentially suitable for drilling. Drilling in the street will require the closure of one lane.  Medium to heavy traffic was observed midday. Photo No. 1: This photo shows the conditions of 6th St. between Chestnut Ave. & Pennsylvania Ave. facing northeast. Photo No. 2: This photo shows the conditions on Pennsylvania Ave. from 6th St. facing southwest. Page 301 of 379 Revised Proposal to Prepare a Geotechnical Investigation & Water Infiltration Report Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Storm Drain Project City of Beaumont, Riverside County, California July 22, 2021 Revised May 11, 2023 Page 4 Converse Consultants M:\JOBFILE\2021\81\21-81-222 EXP, MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Storm Drain\Proposal\21-81-222_rpro(01)stormdrain Photo No. 3: This photo shows the freeway overpass facing south. Photo No. 4: This photo shows the train crossing zone facing south. Page 302 of 379 Revised Proposal to Prepare a Geotechnical Investigation & Water Infiltration Report Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Storm Drain Project City of Beaumont, Riverside County, California July 22, 2021 Revised May 11, 2023 Page 5 Converse Consultants M:\JOBFILE\2021\81\21-81-222 EXP, MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Storm Drain\Proposal\21-81-222_rpro(01)stormdrain Photo No. 5: This photo shows the conditions of Pennsylvania Ave. from 1st Street facing north. Photo No. 6: This photo shows the conditions of 1st St. from the earthen channel facing west. Page 303 of 379 Revised Proposal to Prepare a Geotechnical Investigation & Water Infiltration Report Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Storm Drain Project City of Beaumont, Riverside County, California July 22, 2021 Revised May 11, 2023 Page 6 Converse Consultants M:\JOBFILE\2021\81\21-81-222 EXP, MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Storm Drain\Proposal\21-81-222_rpro(01)stormdrain Photo No. 7: This photo shows the conditions of the earthen channel facing southeast. Geology The alignment is mostly underlain by older surficial sediments consisting of alluvial sand and gravel of plutonic and gneissic detritus from the nearby San Bernardino mountains. The entire alignment has segments located on or within a half mile of 2 other alluvial units, both contain sand and gravel, clay from flood plains and stream channels may be present. Groundwater Groundwater data was reviewed for several locations near the proposed alignment. The shallowest reported groundwater is approximately 100 feet bgs at a location near the I- 10 and Hwy 79 connection approximately 4,200 feet west of the alignment. Shallower perched groundwater may be encountered locally, particularly at bedrock contacts. PROJECT APPROACH / SCOPE OF WORK Our scope of work will include the following tasks. Page 304 of 379 Revised Proposal to Prepare a Geotechnical Investigation & Water Infiltration Report Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Storm Drain Project City of Beaumont, Riverside County, California July 22, 2021 Revised May 11, 2023 Page 7 Converse Consultants M:\JOBFILE\2021\81\21-81-222 EXP, MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Storm Drain\Proposal\21-81-222_rpro(01)stormdrain Task 1: Project Set-up As part of the project set-up, our staff will conduct the following.  Conduct a site reconnaissance and stake/mark the boring locations along the pipe alignment so drill rig access to all the locations is available.  Obtain a no-fee encroachment permit from the City of Beaumont. We understand the City will obtain permit to drill within Caltrans and UPRR right- of-way. Converse will assist in filling out the paperwork.  Notify Underground Service Alert (USA) at least 48 hours prior to drilling to clear the boring locations of any conflict with existing underground utilities. Task 2: Subsurface Exploration In general, traffic control during our field investigation will be conducted along the proposed alignment using signs, cones, and an arrow board in accordance with the WATCH manual. Our surface investigation will include drilling exploratory borings. The purpose of the borings will be to:  Obtain subsurface information along the pipe alignment.  Collect undisturbed and bulk samples of the various soil types for laboratory testing. As indicated in the RFP, we plan to drill a total of 6 borings. Based on the existing profile, depth to pipe invert will range from 25.0 to35.0 feet below existing ground surface. We plan drill the borings between 25.0 and 50.0 feet below existing ground surface or to refusal, whichever is shallower. The borings will be drilled with a truck mounted rig (CME 75 or equivalent) equipped with 8-inch diameter hollow stem augers for soils sampling. Soils will be continuously logged and classified by the geologist/engineer in the field by visual examination in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Undisturbed ring samples of the subsurface materials will be obtained at 5-foot intervals, at changes in soil profiles, or where unusual conditions are encountered. The relatively undisturbed ring samples will be obtained using a Modified California Sampler (2.4-inch inside diameter and 3.0-inch outside diameter) lined with thin-walled sample rings. The sampler will be driven into the bottom of the borehole with successive drops of a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of successive drops of the driving weight (“blows”) required for each 6 inches of penetration will be shown on the boring log. The soil will be retained in brass rings (2.4 inches in diameter and 1.0 inch in height) and carefully sealed in waterproof plastic containers for shipment to the laboratory. Bulk samples of representative soil types will be collected in plastic bags from various depths and within a 5-foot zone of the pipe elevation. Groundwater levels, where encountered in the borings, will be recorded. Page 305 of 379 Revised Proposal to Prepare a Geotechnical Investigation & Water Infiltration Report Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Storm Drain Project City of Beaumont, Riverside County, California July 22, 2021 Revised May 11, 2023 Page 8 Converse Consultants M:\JOBFILE\2021\81\21-81-222 EXP, MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Storm Drain\Proposal\21-81-222_rpro(01)stormdrain The borings will be backfilled with soil/cement cuttings and compacted by pushing down with augers using the drill rig weight. The upper 1-foot will be filled with quick cement and the surface sprayed with black dye. If construction is delayed, the surface may settle over time. We recommend the owner monitor the boring site and backfill any settlement or depression that might occur, or provide fencing around the area of the boring locations to prevent trip and fall injuries from occurring near the area of any potential settlement. Task 3: Laboratory Testing Soil samples obtained during exploratory drilling will be tested in our laboratory to evaluate their physical characteristics and engineering properties. Laboratory testing may include, but will not necessarily be limited to, the following.  In-place moisture and density.  R-value  Expansion Index  Soils Corrosivity.  Atterberg Limits  Sieve analysis.  Laboratory maximum density.  Direct shear. Task 4: Engineering Analyses and Geotechnical Report Data obtained from the exploratory borings and laboratory testing program will be evaluated to prepare a report which will include the following.  Project description.  Present condition of the street along the storm drain alignment.  Logs of the exploratory borings.  Depth of groundwater and bedrock, if encountered.  Existing pavement structural section at the boring locations.  Discussion on the laboratory test results including soils corrosivity.  Local Geology and faulting.  Seismic parameters based on 2022 California Building Code.  Liquefaction potential along the SD alignment based on available information.  Allowable soils bearing pressures.  Allowable at-rest, active, passive and seismic lateral earth pressures.  Settlement estimates.  Soils parameters for bore and jack design.  RCP pipe bedding recommendation in accordance with RCFCD/City of Beaumont.  Excavatibility of the soils along the storm drain alignment and at the jacking and receiving pits.  Jacking and receiving pits backfilling recommendations.  Stability of temporary trench excavation.  Shoring design and construction recommendations.  Suitability of excavated materials for use as bedding and backfill. Page 306 of 379 Revised Proposal to Prepare a Geotechnical Investigation & Water Infiltration Report Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Storm Drain Project City of Beaumont, Riverside County, California July 22, 2021 Revised May 11, 2023 Page 9 Converse Consultants M:\JOBFILE\2021\81\21-81-222 EXP, MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Storm Drain\Proposal\21-81-222_rpro(01)stormdrain  Pipe subgrade preparation recommendation.  Trench backfill recommendation.  Basin slope stability evaluation and construction recommendations.  Asphalt concrete pavement section based on traffic indices provided by the City of Beaumont.  Street subgrade preparation recommendations.  Aggregate base and asphalt concrete placement recommendations. SCHEDULE / DELIVERABLES We will initiate our scope of work as soon as notice to proceed is received. The field exploration will be conducted within approximately one week after receipt of all required permits, although subject to driller availability, weather, and other factors beyond Converse’s control. 1-1/2 days will be required to complete the geotechnical investigation One electronic PDF of the draft copy will be issued within 8 weeks after completion of the fieldwork. After review comments are received, one electronic PDF copy of the final report will be issued within 2 weeks. The report will be signed by a registered engineering geologist and a geotechnical engineer. If requested, we will issue a hard copy of the report. FEE ESTIMATE Our consulting services will be provided in accordance with the Schedule of Fees and General Conditions, copies of which are attached and form a part of this proposal. Task No. and Description Cost Task 1: Project Set-up $2,050.00 Task 2: Subsurface Exploration $3,055.00 Task 4: Laboratory Testing $6,720.00 Task 5: Engineering Analyses and Geotechnical Report $9,400.00 Permit Fees from the Caltrans $1,500.00 Drill Rig Rental (Prevailing Wage- Quote No. 8721) $7,682.00 Traffic Control (1-1/2 days @ $2,200/day) $3,300.00 Total Cost $33,707.00 Our cost is based on the following assumptions.  All fieldwork will be done in one mobilization during normal weekday working hours.  1-1/2 days will be required to complete drilling.  Access to the storm drain alignment will be available during normal weekday working hours at no additional cost to us.  Permits from all agencies will be provided to us by the City at NO additional cost to Converse. Page 307 of 379 Revised Proposal to Prepare a Geotechnical Investigation & Water Infiltration Report Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Storm Drain Project City of Beaumont, Riverside County, California July 22, 2021 Revised May 11, 2023 Page 10 Converse Consultants M:\JOBFILE\2021\81\21-81-222 EXP, MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Storm Drain\Proposal\21-81-222_rpro(01)stormdrain  No traffic control plan will be required for the geotechnical investigation.  Traffic Control (if required) will be in accordance with the WATCH MANUAL.  We understand that only the driller’s work will be subject to prevailing wage as defined in Labor Code Sections 1770-1780. The cost estimate and scope of services do not include environmental study of soil and groundwater and any inspection and/or testing services during construction. We will submit our invoices on a monthly basis in accordance with the attached Schedule of Fees and General Conditions. CLOSURE During the course of this work, we will carry insurance as required by the contract. Our findings and recommendations will be prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering and engineering geological principles and practice in this area of Southern California. Unless we hear differently, we will assume that these conditions are acceptable to you. This proposal will expire 60 days from its issuance, if not accepted at that time. Our billing rates are reviewed at the beginning of each year and are subject to adjustment. Please sign 2 copies of the Authorization and Agreement Block at the end of this proposal. Retain one copy of this proposal for your files and return one signed copy to this office to formally authorize our services. Special billing instructions, including backup documentation requirements, should be mutually agreed upon and indicated in the authorization. Subsequent additions or changes should be likewise mutually agreed upon and submitted in writing with appropriate authorization. If you should have any questions, or if we can provide any additional assistance, please call the undersigned at 909-474-2847. We appreciate the opportunity to assist you on this important project. CONVERSE CONSULTANTS Hashmi Quazi, PhD, PE, GE Principal Engineer/Regional Manager Encl: Schedule of Fees, and General Conditions Dist: 1/Addressee (e-mail) HSQ/kvg Page 308 of 379 Revised Proposal to Prepare a Geotechnical Investigation & Water Infiltration Report Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Storm Drain Project City of Beaumont, Riverside County, California July 22, 2021 Revised May 11, 2023 Page 11 Converse Consultants M:\JOBFILE\2021\81\21-81-222 EXP, MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Storm Drain\Proposal\21-81-222_rpro(01)stormdrain REVISED PROPOSAL TO PREPARE A GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Storm Drain Project Approximately 5,000 Linear Feet of 69-inch Diameter Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) City of Beaumont, Riverside County, California Converse Project No. 21-81-222-00 (01) ACCEPTANCE OF AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED3 Firm Name: (Client)1 By: (Print Name) (Signature) Title: Date: Telephone No. ( ) Email: P.O. No./Billing Instructions2: 1 Invoices to be sent to the Client, who shall be responsible for payment thereof, unless notified otherwise. The Client is represented by a person with authority to financially commit to the scope of work herein and acknowledges that the person signing has read and understands the enclosed General Conditions. 2 Billing requirements, including backup documentation, should be mutually agreed upon and indicated here. Subsequent additions or changes should likewise be mutually agreed upon and submitted in writing with appropriate authorization. 3 Converse has been informed by the Client that this is not a prevailing wage project for geotechnical services as determined by local Labor Code Sections 1770-1780. Page 309 of 379 Appendix Page 310 of 379 Converse Consultants P2023 Geotech CONVERSE CONSULTANTS Non-Prevailing Wage Schedule of Fees Geotechnical Personnel Introduction It is the objective of Converse Consultants to provide its clients with quality professional and technical services and a continuing source of professional advice and opinions. Services will be performed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in the same locality under similar conditions. This fee schedule is valid through December 31, 2023. Hourly Charges for Personnel Staff assignments will depend on personnel availability, job complexity, project site location, and experience level required to satisfy the technical requirements of the project and to meet the prevailing standard of professional care. Field Technical Services (all including vehicle and equipment) Construction Inspector – ACI/ICC and/or AWS/CWI certified (concrete, post-tension, masonry, structural steel, fireproofing; includes concrete batch plant and local steel fabrication inspections) ................................. $85 Non-Destructive Testing Inspector (ultrasonic, magnetic particle, dye penetrant) ...................................................................... 85 Construction Inspector/Technician (skidmore, pull testing, torque testing, Schmidt hammer, and pachometer) ........................ 90 Coring Technician ...................................................................................................................................................................... 90 Soils Technician (soil, base, asphalt concrete, and moisture emission testing) ......................................................................... 80 Senior Soils Technician .............................................................................................................................................................. 90 Sample Pick-Up ......................................................................................................................................................................... 50 Professional Services (field and office) Staff Professional ................................................................................................................................................................... $135 Senior Staff Professional .......................................................................................................................................................... 145 Project Professional ................................................................................................................................................................. 155 Project Manager ....................................................................................................................................................................... 170 Senior Professional .................................................................................................................................................................. 170 Principal Professional ............................................................................................................................................................... 210 Principal/Consultant ................................................................................................................................................................. 235 Laboratory Testing Laboratory Technician ...................................................................................................................................................... Per Test (See Geotechnical Laboratory Testing and Materials Testing Services fee schedules.) Laboratory Supervisor .............................................................................................................................................................. $90 Office Support Clerical/Word Processing ......................................................................................................................................................... $80 Drafting ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 85 CAD Operator/Drafting Manager ................................................................................................................................................ 90 An overtime charge of 50 percent of the above hourly rates (excluding Professional Services) will be added for time in excess of eight hours per day and for all time on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. An overtime charge of 100 percent of the above hourly rates (excluding Professional Services) will be charged on Sunday if hours worked were seven continuous eight hours per day in one work week, not counting paid time off within the week. Travel time to and from the job site will be charged at the hourly rates for the appropriate personnel. Expenses 1.Exploration expenses (drilling, trenching, etc.) are charged at cost plus fifteen percent. 2.Travel and subsistence expenses (transportation, room and board, etc.) for individuals on projects requiring travel and/or living 50 miles away from the project site are charged at cost plus fifteen percent. 3.Automobile and truck expenses are charged at cost plus fifteen percent (rentals) or at the current IRS mileage rate for company- owned vehicles traveling between principal office and project. 4.Other out-of-pocket direct project expenses (aerial photos, long-distance telephone calls, permits, outside printing services, tests, etc.) are charged at cost plus fifteen percent. Invoices 1.Invoices will be submitted to the Client on a monthly basis, and a final bill will be submitted upon completion of services. 2.Payment is due upon presentation of invoice and is past-due thirty days from invoice date. In the event Client fails to make any payment to Converse when due, Converse may immediately cease work hereunder until said payment, together with a service charge at the rate of eighteen percent per annum (but not exceeding the maximum allowed by law) from the due date, has been received. Furthermore, Converse may at its sole option and discretion refuse to perform any further work irrespective of payment from Clien t in the event Client fails to pay Converse for services when said payments are due. 3.Client shall pay attorneys’ fees or other costs incurred in collecting any delinquent amount. General Conditions The terms and provisions of the Converse General Conditions are incorporated into this fee schedule as though set forth in full. If a copy of the General Conditions does not accompany this fee schedule, Client should request a copy from this office. Page 311 of 379 Converse Consultants GLT2023 CONVERSE CONSULTANTS Schedule of Fees – Geotechnical Laboratory Testing Compensation for laboratory testing services will be made in accordance with this fee schedule which includes test report(s) and engineering time. Costs of tests not on this schedule will be by quote and/or in accordance with our current hourly fee schedule. The rates are based on non-contaminated soil. A surcharge will be charged for handling contaminated material, which will be determined based on the project. IDENTIFICATION AND INDEX PROPERTIES TESTS Visual Classification, ASTM D2488 ................................... 20.00 Engineering Classification, ASTM D2487 ......................... 25.00 Moisture Content and Dry (bulk) Density, ASTM D2216 and D2937 ............................................. 25.00 Moisture Content, ASTM D2216 .................................. 20.00 Shrinkage Limit, ASTM D4943 .......................................... 85.00 Atterberg Limits, ASTM D4318 Several points ............................................................ 150.00 One Point ..................................................................... 50.00 Particle Size Analysis, ASTM D6913 Fine Sieve, from +#200 to #4 ..................................... 100.00 Coarse and Fine Sieve, from #200 to 3 in .................. 180.00 Hydrometer ................................................................ 120.00 Percent Passing #200 Sieve, ASTM D1140 ...................... 80.00 Specific Gravity Fine, passing #4 sieve, ASTM D854 .......................... 100.00 Coarse, retained on #4 sieve, ASTM C127 ................ 100.00 Sand Equivalent Test, ASTM D2419 ............................... 120.00 Double Hydrometer Dispersion, ASTM D4221 ................ 150.00 COMPACTION AND BEARING STRENGTH Standard Proctor Compaction, ASTM D698 or ASTM D1557 Method A or B ............................................................ 200.00 Method C, 6” mold...................................................... 210.00 California Impact Method, Caltrans 216 .......................... 220.00 R-value, ASTM D2844 and CTM301 ............................... 270.00 California Bearing Ratio (CBR), ASTM D1883 1 Point ........................................................................ 530.00 3 Points ...................................................................... 750.00 Relative Density 0.1 Cubic Foot Mold ................................................... 200.00 0.5 Cubic Foot Mold ................................................... 300.00 SHEAR STRENGTH Torvane/Pocket Penetrometer .......................................... 25.00 Direct Shear Quick Test .................................................................... 75.00 Consolidated, Drained, granular soil, ASTM D3080 ........................................................ 220.00 Consolidated, Drained, fine grained soil, ASTM D3080 ........................................................ 260.00 Consolidated, Undrained, fine grained soil ................. 220.00 Residual Strength, per cycle ........................................ 70.00 Remolded Specimens .................................................. 70.00 STATIC UNIAXIAL AND TRIAXIAL STRENGTH TESTS (PER POINT) Unconfined Compression, ASTM D2166 ........................ 150.00 Unconsolidated, Undrained, ASTM D2850 ..................... 160.00 Consolidated, Undrained, per point ................................ 700.00 Consolidated, Drained, per point .................................... 700.00 With Pore Pressure Measurement, per load ................... 150.00 Remolded Specimen......................................................... 90.00 CONSOLIDATION (ASTM2435) AND SWELL COLLAPSE (ASTM D4546) TESTS 8 Load Increments .......................................................... 250.00 Additional Load Increment ................................................ 50.00 Time-Ratio, per load increment ......................................... 90.00 Single Point, collapse test ................................................. 90.00 Single Load Swell, ASTM D4546 Ring Sample, Field Moisture ......................................... 95.00 Ring Sample, Air Dried ................................................. 95.00 Remolded Sample .............................................................. 70.00 Expansion Index Test, UBC 29-2/ASTM D4829 ............... 130.00 HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TESTS Constant Head, ASTM D2434 .......................................... 250.00 Falling Head Flexible Wall, ASTM D5084 ........................ 300.00 Triaxial Permeability, EPA 9100 ....................................... 350.00 Remolded Specimen .......................................................... 60.00 CHEMICAL TESTS Corrosivity (pH, resistivity, sulfates, chlorides) ................. 220.00 Organic Content, ASTM D2974 ........................................ 100.00 Conditions: Unit rates presented on this fee schedule are for routinely performed geotechnical laboratory tests. Numerous other earth material physical tests can be performed in our geotechnical laboratories, including rock core, soil cement and soil lime mixture tests. Tests not listed can be quoted upon request. This fee schedule is valid through December 31, 2023. Prices are based on the assumption that samples are uncontaminated and do not contain heavy metals, acids, carcinogens and/or volatile organics which can be measured by an organic vapor analyzer or photoionization detector with a concentration greater than 50 parts-per-million (ppm). Quoted testing fees are based on the assumption that no protective clothing will be required to handle samples. If Level D protective clothing will be required during handling of samples (as defined in Federal CFR Part 1910.120), then a 40% increase in fees presented in this schedule will be applied. Level C protective clothing will be a 60% increase in fees. Converse will not handle samples that require either Level B or Level A protection in our geotechnical laboratories. Contaminated samples will be returned to the client. Uncontaminated samples will be disposed of 30 days after presentation of test results. The client must disclose the source of samples. Samples imported from out of state will be incinerated after testing in accordance with requirements of the United States Department of Agriculture. Soil samples obtained within the State of California currently designated quarantine areas will also be incinerated in accordance with the requirement of the State of California, Department of Food and Agriculture, Division of Plant Industry, Pest Exclusion. A $5.00 incineration fee will be added to each sample that is required to be incinerated in accordance with State and Federal law. Test results requiring plots will be presented in a publishable format generated from computer programs. Otherwise, raw test numbers will be presented. A minimum laboratory fee of $50.00 will be charged to present and mail test results. Beyond the standard U.S. Mail delivery, specialized transmittal will be charged at additional cost (e.g., Federal Express, UPS, etc.). Geotechnical testing does not include engineering and/or geologic review and analysis. Typical turnaround for geotechnical laboratory testing is two weeks (or roughly ten working days). To expedite test turnaround to five working days, a 50% increase in the fees in this schedule will be applied. Many geotechnical tests require at least one week to perform in accordance with ASTM or other standard specifications. Fees presented in this schedule for relatively undisturbed direct shear, consolidation or expansion pressure tests are based on the assumption that 2.416-inch inside diameter brass ring samples will be provided to the geotechnical laboratory for testing. Remolded specimens will be compacted in standard 2.5-inch outside diameter brass rings for direct shear, consolidation and expansion pressure tests. All fees presented in this schedule are based on the assumption that the client will deliver samples to our laboratory at no additional cost to Converse. Invoices will be issued monthly and are payable on receipt unless otherwise agreed upon. Interest of 1.5% per month (but not exceeding the maximum allowed by law) will be payable on any amount not paid within thirty days; payment thereafter to be applied first to accrued interest and then to the principle unpaid amount. The Client shall pay any attorneys' fees or other costs incurred in collecting any delinquent amounts. Page 312 of 379 Converse Consultants MTS2023 CONVERSE CONSULTANTS Schedule of Fees – Materials Laboratory Testing Compensation for laboratory testing services will be based on rates in accordance with this fee schedule which includes test report(s) and engineering time. Costs of tests not on this schedule will be by quote and/or in accordance with our current hourly fee schedule. Our services will be performed in accordance with the General Conditions. This fee schedule is valid through December 31, 2023. AGGREGATES Moisture Content, ASTM D2216 ............................................... 20.00 Particle Size Analysis Coarse, ASTM C136, each ................................................ 100.00 Coarse and Fine, ASTM C136 & C137), each .................. 180.00 Specific Gravity & Absorption Coarse Aggregate, ASTM C127 ........................................ 100.00 Fine Aggregate, ASTM C128 ............................................. 100.00 Unit Weight per Cubic Foot, ASTM C29 .............................. 75.00 Soundness, Sodium or Magnesium, ASTM C88, each ..... 550.00 Potential Alkali Reactivity, ASTM D289 ............................. 700.00 Freeze Thaw Soundness ................................................... 175.00 Los Angeles Abrasion, per class, ASTM C131, C535 ....... 375.00 Sand Equivalent, ASTM D2419 ......................................... 180.00 Lightweight Particles, ASTM C123, each .......................... 300.00 Clay Lumps & Friable Particles, ASTM C142, each .......... 290.00 Stripping Test, ASTM D1664, each ..................................... 85.00 Organic Impurities, ASTM C40 .......................................... 140.00 Durability ........................................................................ By Quote CONCRETE TESTS Laboratory Trial Batch, ASTM C192 ................................... By Quote Laboratory Mix Design, Historical Data ............................... By Quote Compression Test, 6”x12” Cylinder, ASTM C39, each ............. 45.00 Lightweight Concrete Compression ........................................................................ 45.00 Unit Weight ........................................................................... 45.00 Specimen Preparation, Trimming or Coring, each .................... 60.00 Bond Strength, ASTM C321 Prepared by Converse ....................................................... 250.00 Prepared by Others ............................................................ 150.00 Core Compression Test, ASTM C12, each ............................... 80.00 Flexure Test, 6”x6” Beams, ASTM C78, each ........................ 130.00 Modulus of Elasticity, Static, ASTM C469, each ..................... 275.00 Length Change, ASTM C157, 3 bars, 5 readings each, up to 26 days ...................................................................... 550.00 Splitting Tensile, 6”x12” Cylinders, each ................................. 110.00 Field Concrete Control (sampling, slump, temperature, cast 4 cylinders, molds, cylinder pick-up, within 10 miles of office, stand-by extra), ASTM/UBC, hourly rate schedule, or each cylinder ................................................... 95.00 Field Concrete Control (same as above plus air content test), ASTM/UBC, each cylinder ................................................... 95.00 Hold Cylinder ............................................................................. 10.00 Cylinder Mold, sent to job site but not cast by Converse or returned to Converse ............................................................. 5.00 MASONRY (ASTM C140, E447, UBC STANDARD 24-22) Moisture Content, as received, each ....................................... 105.00 Absorption, each ........................................................................ 85.00 Compression, each .................................................................... 85.00 Shrinkage, ASTM C426, each ................................................. 250.00 Net Area and Volume, each ...................................................... 25.00 Masonry Blocks, per set of 9 ................................................ 1,500.00 Masonry Core Compression, each .......................................... 125.00 Masonry Core Shear, each ..................................................... 180.00 Masonry Core Trimming, each ................................................ 150.00 Compression Test, grouted prisms, 8”x8”x16”, each .............. 250.00 Compression Test, grouted prisms, 12”x16”x16”, each .......... 425.00 Compression Test 2”x4” Mortar Cylinder, each ................................................. 45.00 3”x6” Grout Prisms, each ..................................................... 45.00 2” Cubes, ASTM C109, each ............................................... 45.00 Cast by Others ........................................................................... 45.00 Mortar or Grout Mix Designs ............................................... By Quote FIREPROOFING TESTS Oven Dry Density, per sample .................................................. 70.00 MOISTURE EMISSION TEST Moisture Emission Test Kit ...................................................... 80.00 ASPHALTIC CONCRETE Stability, Flow, and Unit Weight, ASTM D6927 ..................... 500.00 Marshall ASTM D1559, ASTM D2726 ................................... 450.00 Measured Maximum Specific Gravity of Mix, ASTM D2041, Rice Method, each ........................................................... 350.00 Void Analysis of Cores or Marshall Specimens, Calculations Only, ASTM D3203, set of 2 or 3 .................. 60.00 Laboratory Mixing of Asphalt & Concrete, per sample ............ 75.00 Complete Asphalt Concrete Mix Design Hveem or Marshall ....................................................... By Quote Extraction of Asphalt and Gradation, ASTM D2172, Method B, or California 310, including ash correction, each ............. 455.00 Extraction of Rubberized Asphalt & Gradation, each ............ 350.00 Specific Gravity, ASTM D2726 or ASTM D1188 Uncoated ............................................................................ 95.00 Coated .............................................................................. 125.00 Immersion-Compression ........................................................ 650.00 Particle Coating, ASTM D2489 ................................................ 95.00 Stripping, ASTM D1664 ........................................................... 85.00 Moisture or Volatile Distillates in Paving Mixtures, or Materials Containing Petroleum Products or By-Products ...................................................................... 350.00 Retained Strength, ASTM D1074/D1075, 6 specimens .... By Quote Retained Stability, Mil, Std, 520A, Method 104, 6 specimens ................................................................. By Quote CBR, ASTM D1883, including M/D Curve, 1 point ................ 400.00 Asphalt Temperature ............................................................... 15.00 STRUCTURAL STEEL Tensile Test #9 Bar or Smaller, each ...................................... 60.00 Bend Test #9 Bar or Smaller, each ......................................... 60.00 Tensile Test #10 Bar or Greater, each .................................. 280.00 Tensile Test #14 Bar, each .................................................... 310.00 Rebar Coupler Tensile Test ................................................... 140.00 Tensile Test, Welded #9 Bar or Smaller, each ...................... 140.00 Tensile Test, Welded #10 Bar or Greater, each .................... 280.00 Tensile Test, Welded #14 Bar, each ..................................... 310.00 Tensile Test, Mechanically Spliced, #9 Bar or Smaller, each .................................................................................. 210.00 Tensile Test, Mechanically Spliced, #10 Bar or Greater, each .................................................................................. 350.00 HIGH STRENGTH BOLT, NUT, AND WASHER TESTING Wedge Tensile Test, A490 Bolts Under 100,000 lbs., each ................................................. 130.00 Over 100,000 lbs., each ................................................... 140.00 Wedge Tensile Test, A325 Bolts Under 100,000 lbs., each ................................................. 160.00 Tensile Test, Anchor Bolts, tested with displacement transducers, each ............................................................. 300.00 Nut Hardness, Proof & Cone Proof Load Test, each .............. 60.00 Washer Hardness, each .......................................................... 50.00 A325 or A490, Bolt Hardness Only, each ................................ 50.00 Bolt A325 or A490 Wedge Tensile Under 100,000 lbs. & Hardness, each ............................. 130.00 Over 100,000 lbs. & Hardness, each ............................... 170.00 Bolt, Nut & Washer, all tests per set with bolts Under 100,000 lbs. ........................................................... 400.00 Over 100,000 lbs. ............................................................. 500.00 See Schedule of Fees – Geotechnical Laboratory Testing for soil testing. Hourly rates are available upon request. Field Laboratory rates are available upon request. Listed unit rates are based upon the assumption that samples will be delivered to our laboratory at no cost to Converse. Page 313 of 379 Converse Consultants GC99-1 CONVERSE CONSULTANTS General Conditions – Right of Entry Client warrants to Converse that it has full legal right to authorize Converse's entry upon the real property where Converse's services are to be performed ("Site" herein) and upon all property, if any, required for ingress and egress to the Site. Client authorizes Converse to enter upon the Site and such adjoining property as is necessary to allow Converse to perform its services. Converse will take reasonable precautions to minimize any damage to the Site; however, Client acknowledges that during the normal course of the performance of Converse's services, some damage to the Site may occur. The correction of any damage to the Site (surface or subterranean) shall be the obligation of the Client. Information Supplied by Client Client warrants the accuracy of any information supplied by it to Converse, acknowledges that Converse will not verify the accuracy of such information, and agrees that Converse is entitled to rely upon any such information. Client shall immediately notify Converse in writing of any data, information or knowledge in the possession of or known to Client relating to conditions existing at the Site and shall provide Converse with the location, size and depth of any and all underground tanks, piping or structures existing upon the Site. Client shall defend, indemnify and save harmless Converse, its officers, agents and employees from and against any and all claims, costs, suits and damages, including attorneys' fees, arising out of errors, omissions and inaccuracies in documents and information provided to Converse by Client. Ownership of Data and Documents; Samples All reports, boring logs, field data, field notes, laboratory test data, calculations, estimates and other documents prepared by Converse shall remain the sole property of Converse. Client shall have the right to the use of all data, recommendations, proposals, reports, design criteria and similar information provided to it by Converse ("information" herein); provided, however, that the information shall not be used or relied upon by any party other than Client, save and except as may be required by the design and licensing requirements of the project for which the information is provided; further, such use shall be limited to the particular site and project for which the information is provided. To the extent Client utilizes Converse’s information by providing or making the same available to any third party (a) Client agrees to give written notice to any such third party that it may not utilize or rely on any aspect of Converse’s information and (b) Client agrees to defend, indemnify and hold Converse harmless against any and all claims, demands, costs, losses, damages and expenses, including attorneys fees, that may be asserted against or sought from Converse by any such third party. Client's right to the use of the information is expressly conditioned upon Client's prompt payment to Converse of all sums due under the Client/Converse agreement. In the event of Client's nonpayment or partial payment of said amounts, Client agrees that it shall not use any of the information for any purpose whatsoever and shall return the same to Converse within 2 business days upon demand. Converse will retain all samples of soil, rock or other materials obtained in the course of performing its services for a period of thirty (30) days. Thereafter, further storage or transfer of samples to Client may be made at Client's expense upon written request from Client to Converse received by Converse prior to the expiration of the 30-day period. Converse shall retain permanent records relating to the Converse services for a period of five (5) years following submittal of Converse's report, during which period the records will be made available to Client upon reasonable notice given by Client and upon payment to Converse of an amount sufficient to reimburse Converse for its necessary and reasonable expenses in making said records available. Standard of Care and Professional Responsibility Client acknowledges that the services to be performed by Converse involve the use of tests, calculations, analyses and procedures which are in a constant state of development, improvement and refinement and that, as such, improvements, changes in methods, and modifications of procedures have been made in the past, are now being made, and are expected to continue to be made in the future. Further, Client recognizes that, while necessary for investigations, commonly used exploration methods, such as drilling borings or excavating trenches, involve an inherent risk. For example, exploration on a site containing contaminated materials may result in inducing cross- contamination, the prevention of which may not be complete using presently recognized sealing methods. Client recognizes that the state of practice, including but not limited to the practice relating to contamination or hazardous waste conditions, is changing and evolving and that standards existing at the present time may subsequently change as knowledge increases and the state of the practice continues to improve. Client recognizes that projects containing contaminated materials may not perform as anticipated by Client, even though Converse's services are performed in accordance with the level of care and skill required of it. Further, certain governmental regulations relating to hazardous waste sites may purport to require achievement of results which cannot be accomplished in an absolute sense. It is recognized that a satisfactorily designed, constructed and maintained monitoring system may assist in the early detection of environmental changes allowing for early correction of problems. Unless it is specifically included in the scope of services to be performed by Converse, Client understands that Converse shall not perform such monitoring. The services to be provided by Converse pursuant to the agreement to which these General Conditions are a part shall be provided in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering, environmental, and geologic practice in the area where these services are to be rendered and at the time that services are rendered. Client acknowledges that the present standard in the engineering and environmental professions does not include, and Converse does not extend to Client, a guarantee of perfection of the work contemplated hereby; further, that even in the exercise of normal and reasonable care, errors or omissions may from time to time occur. Except as expressly set forth in these General Conditions, no other warranty, express or implied, is extended by Converse. Converse shall have no duty to supervise, coordinate or otherwise be involved in the performance of services or work by any third-party consultant, contractor or subcontractor. Where Converse's services involve field observation of grading, filling and compaction (or any of them), it is agreed: a.That Converse shall in no way be responsible for the manner in which such work is performed by any third party. b.That in the event Converse is to provide periodic observation, Client acknowledges that Converse cannot be responsible for any work performed at a time or times when Converse was not performing its observation services. Converse will not provide an opinion concerning the performance of any third party, save and except to the extent that said work was in fact observed and tested by Converse during the course of construction. c.That where Converse's services include continuous observation, Client agrees not to allow grading, filling or compaction to be performed at any time or times when Converse is not physically present upon the Site and shall restrict the amount and extent of such grading, filling and compaction to that which can be properly observed by Converse personnel present on the Site. d.That in the event Converse is to conduct test borings for Client, Client acknowledges that the accuracy of said test borings relates only to the specific location in which the boring itself was performed and that the nature of many sites is such that differing subsurface soil characteristics can be experienced within a small distance. As such, Client acknowledges that greater accuracy is obtained when the number of test borings is increased. Technical Limitations Client acknowledges and agrees that: (1) it is unreasonable to expect Converse to be able to completely evaluate subsurface conditions, even after the most comprehensive exploratory program; (2) site conditions change frequently due to the passage of time, human activities, and climatic conditions and uncertainties are therefore inherent in the nature of Converse’s services and impossible to avoid; (3) the identification of geotechnical and environmental conditions and the prediction of future or concealed conditions is an inexact scientific endeavor; (4) the state of the art of geotechnical and environmental practice is such that Converse cannot guarantee that its recommendations will prove adequate on this project and the Client assumes the risk of any such failure, except as otherwise provided in these General Conditions and that (5) these General Conditions contains specific LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY. Indemnity of Client and Limitation of Liability Converse shall indemnify Client, its officers, directors, agents or employees from any claim, demand or liability arising from personal injury or property loss or damage caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of Converse. Anything to the contrary in the agreement to which these General Conditions are attached or in these General Conditions notwithstanding, Converse's liability shall be limited to the lesser of the fees charged to Client by Converse for the services performed for Client, or the sum of fifty thousand dollars. Client may, at its option, increase the maximum amount for which Converse shall be liable by payment of an additional fee. For the maximum liability sum of one hundred thousand dollars, the additional amount to be paid shall be four percent of the total Converse fee charged hereunder; for the maximum liability sum of one million dollars, the additional amount to be paid shall be five percent of the total Converse fees charged hereunder Client acknowledges and agrees that its recovery, if any, shall be satisfied, in the first instance, from the proceeds of Converse’s insurance, and to the extent of any deficiency in the available insurance proceeds, then and only then, by Converse. Client acknowledges that Converse has agreed to charge Client a reduced fee for services in exchange for the above limitation of liability and that said reduction in fees is consideration for said limitation. Client shall defend and save harmless Converse, its officers, directors, agents and employees from all liability, claims and demands, including expenses of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees arising from personal injuries, including disease and death, property loss or damage, injury to others (including personnel of Client, Converse or Page 314 of 379 Converse Consultants GC99-1 subcontractors performing work hereunder), and air or ground pollution or environmental impairment arising out of or in any manner connected with or related to the performance of Converse's services, except where there is a judicial determination that such injury, loss or damage shall have been caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of Converse. Client acknowledges that Converse has charged Client a reduced fee for services to be performed by it in exchange for this hold harmless and that the reduction in fees is consideration for said hold harmless provision. Converse will not be liable for consequential damages of any kind, nature or description. Hazardous Waste, Pollution and Health Hazard Projects ("Hazardous Projects" Herein) Prior to the commencement of services by Converse on any hazardous project, Client agrees to advise Converse in writing of any known hazardous waste or materials existing on or near the Site or if any of said services are to be performed in an area where dust, fumes, gas, noise, vibrations or other particulate or nonparticulate matter is in the atmosphere where it raises a potential or possible health hazard or nuisance to anyone working within the area. Anything in these General Conditions notwithstanding, Client shall indemnify and hold Converse, its officers, directors, agents, servants and employees, harmless from any claim, demand or action brought by any party whomsoever, including employees of Converse which claim, demand or action is based upon injury or damage caused or alleged to have been caused by hazardous wastes or hazardous materials whether or not such waste or materials were known to exist prior to the commencement of services. Client agrees to be responsible for the removal and disposal of any hazardous waste uncovered as a result of the site investigation, including drill cuttings, unless specifically included within the scope of work It is agreed that the discovery of unanticipated hazardous materials constitutes a changed condition mandating an immediate renegotiation of the scope of services or termination of services. Converse will at all times endeavor to perform in a faithful and trustworthy manner. Client understands that Client or Converse may be required by local and/or state and/or federal statute to report the discovery of hazardous materials to a government agency. Client also understands that Converse may be required by local and/or state and/or federal statute to report the discovery of hazardous materials to a government agency, and that Converse, when practical, will do so only after notifying Client. In the event Converse discovers hazardous material that we believe poses an immediate threat to public health and safety, Converse will use its best judgment to notify appropriate emergency personnel for immediate containment. Client agrees to take no action of any kind against Converse when Converse makes a good-faith effort to fulfill its obligations. Client's Responsibilities Client shall immediately provide Converse with full information in writing as to Client's requirements for the services to be provided by Converse and shall designate in writing within five (5) days of the effective date of the agreement to which these General Conditions are a part, a representative to act on Client's behalf in conjunction with the services to be provided hereunder. Client shall promptly review all documents, reports, data and recommendations submitted by Converse and shall communicate with Converse concerning such reviews for the purpose of avoiding delay in the performance of the services to be rendered by Converse. Client shall notify any third party who may perform on the Site of the standard of care being undertaken by Converse pursuant hereto and of the limitations of liability contained herein. Client shall require as a condition to the performance of any su ch third party a like indemnity and limitation of liability on their part against Converse. Confidentiality Converse shall hold all information provided to it by Client and the results of the work performed by it confidential and shall not disclose the same to any third party except where required by Governmental regulatory agencies or as otherwise required by law. Disputes Converse shall have the right to bring a legal action in a state or federal court against Client for any sums due or alleged to be due to it or for services rendered. Except for this right, Converse and Client agree that as an express condition to the right of either party to bring a legal action against the other, they shall first submit any dispute to mediation by a neutral person acceptable to both parties. Each party shall bear its own attorneys' fees, costs and other expenses, except that each party shall be responsible and pay for one-half of the costs and expenses of the mediator. In the event that legal action is required, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all of its costs incurred in connection therewith including, without limitation, staff time, court costs, attorneys' fees, consultant and expert witness fees and any other related expenses. In this regard, in order to make the prevailing party whole, the parties acknowledge and agree that the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all of its costs incurred in connection with the legal action and shall not be limited to “reasonable attorneys fees” as defined in any statute or rule of court. The obligations, responsibilities, warranties and liabilities of the parties shall be solely those expressly set forth herein. Remedies and limitations of liability shall apply regardless of whether an action is brought in contract, or is based on either party’s negligence, or another theory of law. All of the rights, remedies, obligations, terms, conditions and limitations of liability stated herein shall extend collectively to and be binding upon the parties’ partners, joint ventures, licensors, successors, assigns, insurers, and affiliates. Client and Converse agree that any legal action with respect to the services to be performed under these General Conditions shall be brought against the parties, and not against individual officers, employees or former employees of the parties. All legal actions by either party against the other for breach of these General Conditions or for the failure to perform in accordance with the applicable standard of care, however framed, that are essentially based upon such breach or failure shall be barred two (2) years from the time claimant knew or should have known of its right to make a claim, but, in any event, not later than four (4) years from substantial completion of Converse’s services. Jobsite Safety Converse shall be responsible for its activity and that of its employees on the Site. This shall not be construed to relieve the Client, its general contractor or any subcontractor of their obligation to maintain a safe jobsite. Neither the professional activities nor the presence of Converse or its employees and subcontractors shall be understood to control the operations of others, nor shall it be construed to be an acceptance of the responsibility for jobsite safety. Converse will not direct, supervise or lay out the work of the Client, contractor, or any subcontractors. Converse's services will not include a review or evaluation of the adequacy of the contractor's safety measures on or near the Site. Schedules Unless otherwise specified in the agreement, Converse shall be obligated to perform within a reasonable period of time. Converse shall not be responsible for delays in the completion of its services created by reason of any unforeseeable cause or causes beyond the control and/or without the fault or negligence of Converse, including but not restricted to acts of God or the public enemy, acts of the Government of the United States or of the several states, or any foreign country, or any of them acting in their sovereign capacity, acts of other contractors with Client, fire, floods, epidemics, riots, quarantine restrictions, strikes, civil insurrections, freight embargoes, and unusually severe weather. Should completion of any portion of the services to be rendered by Converse be delayed beyond the estimated date of completion for any reason which is beyond the control of or without default or negligence of Converse, then and in that event Client and Converse shall mutually agree on the terms and conditions upon which the services may be continued or terminated. Invoices Converse shall submit monthly progress invoices to Client, and a final bill shall be submitted upon completion of the services. Within thirty (30) days after receipt of an invoice, Client shall pay the full amount of the invoice. If Client objects to all or any portion of any invoice, it shall so notify Converse of the same within fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of said invoice and shall pay that portion of the invoice not in dispute, and the parties shall immediately make every effort to settle the disputed portion of the invoice. If Client fails to make payment within thirty (30) days after receipt of an invoice, then Client shall pay an additional monthly service charge of one and one -half percent (1½ %) on all such amounts outstanding. The additional charge shall not apply to any disputed portion of any invoice resolved in favor of Client. In the event Client fails to pay any undisputed amount to Converse when due, Converse may immediately cease work until said payment together with a service charge at the rate of 1½ % per month, as specified above, from the due date has been received. Further, Converse may, at its sole option and discretion, refuse to perform any further work irrespective of payment from Client. In the event that all or any portion of the 1½ % service charge provided for herein is deemed to be an interest charge, then and in that event said interest charge shall be limited to the maximum amount legally allowed by law. Client acknowledges Converse’s fee schedules are revised annually and agrees that the fee schedule in effect at the time the services are performed shall apply to such services. Insurance Converse represents that it now carries, and will continue to carry during the term of the contract to which these General Conditions are a part, Workers Compensation insurance and that, if requested, Converse shall provide to Client certificates as evidence of the aforementioned insurance. Assignments Client shall not assign this contract or any portion thereof to any other person or entity without the express written consent of Converse. Nothing contained in this contract or any part thereof shall be construed to create a right in any third party whomsoever, and nothing herein shall inure to the benefit of any third party. Severability If any provision of these General Conditions is finally determined to be contrary to, prohibited by, or invalid under applicable laws or regulations, such provision will be renegotiated so as to give effect to the intent of the parties to the maximum possible extent. Such determination and renegotiation shall not affect of invalidate the remaining provisions or these General Conditions. Governing Law These General Conditions shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of California. Page 315 of 379 Page 316 of 379 Page 317 of 379 Page 318 of 379 Page 319 of 379 Page 320 of 379 Page 321 of 379 Page 322 of 379 Page 323 of 379 Page 324 of 379 Page 325 of 379 Page 326 of 379 Page 327 of 379 Page 328 of 379 Page 329 of 379 Page 330 of 379 Page 331 of 379 Page 332 of 379 Page 333 of 379 Page 334 of 379 FIRST AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF BEAUMONT AND EXP U.S. SERVICES, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR BEAUMONT MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN (MDP) LINE 2, STAGE 1 PROJECT (CIP2019-019) THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BY INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR is made and effective as of the 1st day of November, 2022, by and between the CITY OF BEAUMONT, a general law city, (“CITY”) whose address is 550 E. 6th Street, Beaumont, California 92223 and EXP U.S. Services, Inc. whose address is 451 E. Vanderbilt Way, Suite 375, San Bernardino, CA 92408 (“CONTRACTOR”) in consideration of the mutual promises and purpose contained herein, the parties agree as follow: 1. RECITALS This First Amendment is made with respect to the following facts and purpose that the parties agree are true and correct: A. On December 15, 2020, the City and EXP U.S. Services, Inc., entered into that certain agreement entitled “Agreement for Professional Services by Independent Contractor” for Professional Engineering Services for Beaumont Master Drainage Plan (MDP) Line 2, Stage 1 Project (CIP2019-019) (“Agreement”). B. City has requested a further change in scope to the work under the Agreement regarding additional engineering services and grant application assistance and CONTRACTOR has requested that the scope of work should be increased as provided in the Proposal dated October 6, 2022, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, and incorporated herein by this reference. 2. AMENDMENT Section 1 of the Agreement is hereby amended to extend the period of time during which the Services are to be provided hereunder, but not to exceed February 16, 2024. Section 2 of the Agreement is hereby amended to add to the Services those services identified in the Proposal attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. Section 4.01 of the Agreement is hereby amended to increase the maximum compensation under the Agreement as follows: Under the original Agreement, compensation was set at an amount not to exceed Four Hundred Forty-Two Thousand Two Hundred Fourteen Dollars ($442,214). Per this First Amendment, compensation of Four Hundred Forty-Two Thousand Two Hundred Fourteen Dollars ($442,214) is increased by the maximum amount of Sixty-One Page 335 of 379 Thousand Eight Hundred Forty-Seven Dollars ($61,847.00) as provided in the Proposal attached hereto as Exhibit “A” resulting in total compensation under the Agreement not to exceed Five Hundred Four Thousand Sixty-One Dollars ($504,061). The recitals to this Amendment are deemed incorporated herein by this reference. All other terms of the Agreement not expressly amended by this Amendment shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereby have made and executed this Third Amendment to Professional Services Agreement to be effective as of the day and year first above-written. CITY: CITY OF BEAUMONT By: ________________________________ Lloyd White, Mayor ATTEST City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM John Pinkney, City Attorney CONTRACTOR: EXP U.S. SERVICES, INC. By: ______________________________ Print Name: _______________________ Title: _____________________________ Page 336 of 379 EXHIBIT “A” PROPOSAL DATED OCTOBER 6, 2022 Page 337 of 379 California Levine Act Statement California Government Code Sec on 84308, commonly referred to as the "Levine Act," prohibits any Beaumont City Council Member from par cipa ng in any ac on related to a contract or applica on if he or she receives any poli cal contribu ons totaling more than $250 within the previous twelve months, and for three months following the date a final decision from the business or applicant. The Levine Act also requires a member of the Beaumont City Council who has received such a contribu on to disclose the contribu on on the record of the proceeding. Current Beaumont City Council Members are listed at: h-ps://www.beaumontca.gov/29/City-Council Proposers are responsible for accessing this link to review the names prior to answering the following ques ons. 1. Have you or your company, or any agent on behalf of you or your company, made any poli cal contribu ons of more than $250 to any Beaumont City Council Member in the 12 months preceding the date of the submission of your proposal or applica on, or the an cipated date of any Council ac on? ___ YES If yes, please iden fy the Council Member(s): __X_ NO 2. Do you or your company, or any agency on behalf of you or your company, an cipate or plan to make any poli cal contribu on of more than $250 to any Beaumont City Council Member in the 12 months following any Council ac on related to your proposal or applica on? ___ YES If yes, please iden fy the Council Member(s): _X__ NO Answering yes to either of the two ques ons above does not preclude the Beaumont City Council from awarding a contract or approving an applica on or any subsequent ac on. It does however, preclude the iden fied Council Member(s) from par cipa ng in any ac ons related to your proposal or applica on. __August 11, 2023_ _____________________________ Date Signature of authorized individual ________EXP U.S. Services Inc.____ Company/Applicant Name City of Beaumont | 550 E. 6th Street, Beaumont, CA 92223 | (951) 769-8520 | BeaumontCA.gov Page 338 of 379 Staff Report TO: City Council FROM: Jeff Hart, Director of Public Works DATE August 15, 2023 SUBJECT: Service Agreement between the County of Riverside and the City of Beaumont for Brookside Avenue Slurry Seal Improvements Description Cooperative Agreement with the County of Riverside. Background and Analysis: On June 28, 2023, Riverside County received bids for a street improvement project to slurry seal several County roads, including Brookside Avenue. A portion of the County’s project along Brookside Avenue, from approximately 500 feet west of Deodar Drive to Snowberry Road, is coincident with the City of Beaumont’s corporate boundary. Refer to figure 1 – Vicinity Map for location. The County is requesting to partner with the City of Beaumont to improve the full width of Brookside, along the stated limits, being approximately 2,600 linear feet and 46,800 square feet. The work will include crack sealing, application of a slurry seal, and restoration of all striping. The project is anticipated to be awarded on August 29, 2023 , with construction commencing shortly after. The County included an alternative bid item in the Request for Bids for the City’s portion. The following is a summary of the bid result and additional costs specific to the City’s portion: Task Cost___ Construction (bid results) $59,876.60 Contingency $6,000.00 Administration, Inspection & Testing $9,000.00_ Total Cost $74,876.60 The County will act as the lead agency on behalf of the City for the completion of the project. The total cost includes the complete construction cost, inspection cost, and the material testing cost for the City’s portion. Page 339 of 379 Staff recommends entering into a service agreement with the County of Riverside for the proposed improvements along Brookside Avenue. Figure 1 - Vicinity Map Fiscal Impact: The cost of preparing the staff report is estimated to be $750. The funding for this service agreement would be paid from the Citywide Street Rehabilitation and Maintenance Project FY22/23 Project (CIP R-24) budget. Refer to following table for accounting summary. R-24 Citywide Street Rehabilitation and Maintenance 23/24 Project Accounting Summary Funding Summary Funding Year Funding Source Amount 22/23 SB1 $1,117,898 22/23 Measure A $1,641,210 22/23 CDBG $503,086 Page 340 of 379 22/23 General $3,101,170 Total Project Funding = $6,363,364 Budget Summary Project Component Budget Encumbered Paid to Date Remaining Budget Project Management $0 $0 $0 $0 Preliminary Services $0 $0 $0 $0 Environmental $0 $0 $0 $0 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $6,363,364 $0 $0 $6,363,364 Construction Management $0 $0 $0 $0 Permits $0 $0 $0 $0 Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 Project Summary Totals $6,363,364 $0 $0 $6,363,364 Recommended Action: Approve Cooperative Agreement between the County of Riverside and City of Beaumont for Brookside Avenue Slurry Seal Improvements and authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement in the amount not to exceed $74,876.60. Attachments: A. Service Agreement by and Between County of Riverside and City of Beaumont for Brookside Avenue Slurry Seal Improvements. Page 341 of 379 Brookside Avenue Slurry Seal Improvements County of Riverside & City of Hemet Service Agreement 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 SERVICE AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE AND CITY OF BEAUMONT FOR BROOKSIDE AVENUE SLURRY SEAL IMPROVEMENTS This Agreement is entered into this ______ day of ______________________, 20__, by and between the County of Riverside, a political subdivision of the State of California, on behalf of its Transportation Department (hereinafter "COUNTY") and the City of Beaumont, a municipal corporation, (hereinafter “CITY”) for slurry seal improvements located within the jurisdictional boundaries of CITY. The COUNTY and CITY are sometimes hereinafter referred to individually as a “PARTY” and collectively as the “PARTIES”. RECITALS A. WHEREAS, CITY has determined to seal the existing asphalt surface on Brookside Ave. which consists of the following segments: segment 1 is Brookside Ave. from 508’ W Deoder Dr. to 214’ E Morgan Ave. (approximately 1433 linear feet by 18 feet wide), segment 2 is Brookside Ave. from 214’ E Morgan Ave to Snowberry Rd (approximately 1239 linear feet by 24 feet wide) in the Beaumont area of Riverside County (hereinafter “CITY PROJECT”). B. WHEREAS, CITY has determined that it requires construction services to place the slurry seal on Brookside Ave. as shown in Exhibit A and that a Slurry Seal will be applied that consists of the application of a mixture of water, asphalt emulsion, aggregate, and chemical additives to an existing asphalt concrete pavement surface. C. WHEREAS, COUNTY is fully qualified to administer the work that includes traffic control, rout and seal random cracks, replacement of any pavement markings, including cross walks, striping and raised pavement markers. D. WHEREAS, COUNTY has Slurry Seal improvement projects within the jurisdictional boundaries of COUNTY, which Slurry Seal improvement projects are sometimes hereinafter referred to collectively as Page 342 of 379 Brookside Avenue Slurry Seal Improvements County of Riverside & City of Hemet Service Agreement 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 “COUNTY PROJECT”. E. WHEREAS, CITY will benefit from the cost savings associated with a larger improvement project, and CITY desires to work with the COUNTY to construct the CITY PROJECT, together with the COUNTY PROJECT since COUNTY has extensive experience in the development and implementation of similar type projects . F. WHEREAS, COUNTY will therefore provide the administrative, technical, managerial, and support services necessary for the implementation of the CITY PROJECT as part of the COUNTY PROJECT. G. WHEREAS, COUNTY and CITY desire to define herein the terms and conditions under which said CITY PROJECT is to be administered, engineered, coordinated, and constructed. AGREEMENT NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the PARTIES hereto agree as follows: SECTION 1 • COUNTY AGREES to: 1. Act as the lead agency on behalf of the CITY for the overall implementation of the CITY PROJECT. The COUNTY is providing services on a reimbursable basis and has no obligation to fund any portion of the CITY PROJECT. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to commit the COUNTY to provide replacement funding for or to continue with the CITY PROJECT, if funds are not available. 2. Furnish CITY with Maps, Plans, Specifications & Estimate (PS&E) documents for the CITY PROJECT. Final plans for improvements are prepared to COUNTY standards and signed by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California. Deviations from standards shall be coordinated with and approved by CITY. COUNTY shall not begin construction within CITY until CITY has approved the CITY PROJECT portion of the PS&E documents, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 3. Direct COUNTY’s contractor to identify any existing surface utility facilities within the limits of the CITY PROJECT and to protect the facilities as detailed in the Special Provisions of the PS&E. 4. Direct COUNTY’s contractor to make written application to CITY for an encroachment permit authorizing entry into CITY right of way for the purposes of constructing COUNTY PROJECT and CITY PROJECT. 5. Advertise, award, and administer a public works contract for the construction of the COUNTY PROJECT and the CITY PROJECT in accordance with all applicable federal, state or local statutes, ordinances, Page 343 of 379 Brookside Avenue Slurry Seal Improvements County of Riverside & City of Hemet Service Agreement 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 orders, governmental requirements, laws or regulations, including but not limited to the local agency public construction codes, California Labor Code, and California Public Contract Code, and in accordance with the encroachment permits issued by CITY. 6. Furnish a representative to perform the function of Resident Engineer during construction of CITY PROJECT. 7. Furnish qualified support staff to assist the Resident Engineer in, but not limited to, construction surveys, soils and compaction tests, measurement and computation of quantities, testing of construction materials, checking submittals, preparation of estimates and reports, preparation of as -built drawings, and other inspection and staff services necessary to assure that the construction is performed in accordan ce with the PS&E documents. 8. Construct the CITY PROJECT in accordance with approved PS&E documents. 9. Submit any contract change order that causes the construction contract to exceed 10% of the contract bid amount for CITY PROJECT improvements to CITY for review and approval prior to final authorization by COUNTY. If any contract change order causes the construction contract to change by less than 10% of the bid amount for CITY PROJECT, COUNTY is authorized by CITY approval of this Agreement to move forward with such change. 10. Furnish CITY a final reconciliation of CITY PROJECT expenses within ninety (90) days following the completion and acceptance of the COUNTY PROJECT and CITY PROJECT construction contract. If final costs associated with the CITY PROJECT are in excess of the Deposit provided in Section 2, COUNTY shall include a final bill with the financial reconciliation. If final costs associated with the CITY PROJECT are less than the Deposit provided in Section 2, COUNTY shall include a reimbursement for the difference with the financial reconciliation. 11. Provide CITY one complete set of reproducible as-built plans and all contract documents including calculations, estimates, and other documents produced as part of this contract within ninety (90) days after completion and acceptance of the CITY PROJECT. SECTION 2 • CITY AGREES to: 1. Fund one hundred percent (100%) of the cost of the CITY PROJECT, as shown in Exhibit “B”. CITY agrees Page 344 of 379 Brookside Avenue Slurry Seal Improvements County of Riverside & City of Hemet Service Agreement 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 that should unforeseen circumstances arise which result in an increase o f any costs over those shown in Exhibit “B”, CITY will pay such costs pursuant to Subsection 9 and Subsection 10 of Section 1. 2. Deposit with COUNTY, prior to COUNTY start of work and upon written request by COUNTY, Seventy Four Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Six Dollars and Sixty Cents ($74,876.60) (the “Deposit”), which represents one hundred percent (100%) of the estimated costs to complete construction including construction administration, inspection and materials testing and contingency for CITY PROJECT, as provided in Exhibit “B”. 3. Prepare and approve CEQA clearance for the CITY PROJECT. 4. Issue, at no cost to COUNTY or its contractor, upon proper application by COUNTY or COUNTY‘s contractor, an encroachment permit authorizing entry onto CITY right-of-way to complete construction, including traffic control, construction survey, inspection and materials testing for the COUNTY PROJECT and CITY PROJECT. 5. Provide at no cost to the COUNTY, oversight of the CITY PROJECT, to provide prompt reviews and approvals, as appropriate, of submittals by COUNTY, and to cooperate in timely processing of the CITY PROJECT. 6. Provide at no cost to COUNTY, a representative to coordinate and assist the COUNTY Resident Engineer during the construction of the CITY PROJECT and to verify facilities are constructed as required by this Agreement. 7. Pay COUNTY for any final costs associated with the C ITY PROJECT that are in excess of the Deposit as determined pursuant to Subsection 10 of Section 1. SECTION 3 • IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. If upon opening of bids for construction of the CITY PROJECT the bids indicate a cost overrun of no more than ten percent (10%) of the construction cost estimate will occur, as described in Exhibit “B”, COUNTY may award the contract. 2. If upon opening of bids it is found that a cost overrun exceeding ten percent (10%) of the construction cost estimate will occur, COUNTY and CITY shall endeavor to agree upon an alternative course of action. If, after fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of bid opening, an alternative course of action is not agreed Page 345 of 379 Brookside Avenue Slurry Seal Improvements County of Riverside & City of Hemet Service Agreement 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 upon, this Agreement shall be deemed to be terminated by mutual consent. COUNTY shall reimburse CITY with any unspent portion of the Deposit within forty-five (45) days of termination. 3. COUNTY and CITY acknowledge and agree that any funding shortfall for the completion of the CITY PROJECT will be the sole responsibility of CITY. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to commit the COUNTY to funding any portion of CITY PROJECT or shall be construed as obligating the COUNTY to provide replacement funding for any anticipated funding or to continue with the CITY PROJECT, if funds are no longer available. In the event that adequate funds are not available to move forward or to complete CITY PROJECT, PARTIES agree to meet and confer and collectively work to identify adequate funding for CITY PROJECT. 4. The total cost to CITY to complete construction, including construction administration, inspection and materials testing and a contingency for CITY PROJECT is estimated to be Seventy Four Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Six Dollars and Sixty Cents ($74,876.60) as detailed in Exhibit “B”. 5. COUNTY shall not be obligated to commence the CITY PROJECT until after receipt of CITY's Deposit as required in Section 2. 6. Construction by COUNTY of improvements for CITY PROJECT shall not be commenced until an Encroachment Permit to COUNTY, or COUNTY's contractor, authorizing such work has been issued by CITY. 7. COUNTY shall cause COUNTY's contractor to maintain in force, until completion and acceptance of the Slurry Seal improvements, a policy of Commercial Liability Insurance, including coverage of Bodily Injury Liability and Property Damage Liability, in the amount of $2,000,000 minimum single limit coverage, and a policy of Automobile Liability Insurance in the amount of $1,000,000 minimum. Endorsements to each policy shall be required which name CITY, its officers, agents and employees, as additionally insured. COUNTY shall also require COUNTY's contractor to maintain Worker's Compensation Insurance. COUNTY shall cause COUNTY’s contractor to provide Certificates of Insurance and Additional Insured Endorsements which meet the requirements of this section to CITY prior to the start of construction. 8. Ownership and title to all materials, equipment, and appurtenances installed as p art of this Agreement will be automatically vested with the jurisdiction in which the improvements reside, and no further agreement Page 346 of 379 Brookside Avenue Slurry Seal Improvements County of Riverside & City of Hemet Service Agreement 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 will be necessary to transfer ownership. 9. CITY shall be responsible for the maintenance of the improvements provided by CITY PROJECT within CITY right of way except as specified in this Agreement or future agreements. 10. No alteration or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by all PARTIES and no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein shall be binding on each PARTY hereto. 11. Neither COUNTY nor any officer or employee thereof shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of any act or omission of CITY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to CITY under this Agreement. It is further agreed that pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, CITY shall fully indemnify and hold COUNTY harmless from any liability imposed for injury (as defined by Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of any act or omission of CITY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to CITY under this Agreement. 12. Neither CITY nor any officer or employee thereof shall be responsible for any damage or lia bility occurring by reason of any act or omission of COUNTY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to COUNTY under this Agreement. It is further agreed that pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, COUNTY shall fully indemnify and hold CITY harmless from any liability imposed for injury (as defined by Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of any act or omission of COUNTY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to COUNTY und er this Agreement. 13. In the event that CITY defaults in the performance of any of its obligations under this Agreement or materially breaches any of the provisions of this Agreement, the COUNTY shall have the option to terminate this Agreement upon ninety (90) days written notice to CITY. 14. CITY and COUNTY shall retain or cause to be retained for audit, all records and accounts relating to the CITY PROJECT for a period of minimum three (3) years from the date of Notice of Completion of the CITY PROJECT. 15. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which will be an original, but all of which together will constitute one instrument. Each PARTY to this Agreement agrees to the use of electronic signatures, such as digital signatures that meet the requirements of the California Uniform Page 347 of 379 Brookside Avenue Slurry Seal Improvements County of Riverside & City of Hemet Service Agreement 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Electronic Transactions Act ((“CUETA”) Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1633.1 to 1633.17), for executing this Agreement. The PARTIES further agree that the electronic signatures of the PARTIES included in this Agreement are intended to authenticate this writing and to have the same force and effect as manual signatures. Electronic signature means an electronic sound, symbol, or process attached to or logically associated with an electronic record and executed or adop ted by a person with the intent to sign the electronic record pursuant to the CUETA as amended from time to time. The CUETA authorizes use of an electronic signature for transactions and contracts among parties in California, including a government agency. Digital signature means an electronic identifier, created by computer, intended by the PARTY using it to have the same force and effect as the use of a manual signature, and shall be reasonably relied upon by the PARTIES. For purposes of this section, a digital signature is a type of "electronic signature" as defined in subdivision (i) of Section 1633.2 of the Civil Code. 16. All notices, demands, invoices, and other communications required or permitted hereunder shall be in writing and delivered to the following addresses or such other address as the PARTIES may designate: COUNTY: CITY: Riverside County Transportation Department City of Beaumont Attn: Mark Lancaster Attn: Jeff Hart Director of Transportation Public Works Director 4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor 550 E 6th Street Riverside, CA 92501 Beaumont, CA 92223 Phone: (951) 955-6740 Phone: (951) 769-8522 [Signature Page Follows] Page 348 of 379 Brookside Avenue Slurry Seal Improvements County of Riverside & City of Beaumont Service Agreement 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 APPROVALS COUNTY Approvals RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: MARK LANCASTER Director of Transportation APPROVED AS TO FORM: COUNTY COUNSEL By______________________________________ DANIELLE MALAND Deputy County Counsel APPROVAL BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS _______________________________________ PRINTED NAME Chair, Riverside County Board of Supervisors ATTEST: ______________________ ________________ KIMBERLY A. RECTOR Clerk of the Board (SEAL) CITY OF BEAUMONT Approvals APPROVED BY: _____________________________________ PRINTED NAME City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________________ PRINTED NAME City Attorney ATTEST: _____________________________________ PRINTED NAME City Clerk Page 349 of 379 Brookside Avenue Slurry Seal Improvements County of Riverside & City of Beaumont Service Agreement 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 EXHIBIT A VICINITY/ CITY PROJECT MAP Page 350 of 379 Brookside Avenue Slurry Seal Improvements County of Riverside & City of Beaumont Service Agreement 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 EXHIBIT B CITY PROJECT BUDGET ESTIMATED COSTS: TASK COSTS Construction $59,876.60 Contingency $6,000.00 Administration, Inspection & Testing $9,000.00 TOTAL COST $74,876.60 Page 351 of 379 Staff Report TO: City Council FROM: Doug Story, Community Services Director DATE August 15, 2023 SUBJECT: Approve a Purchase Order in an Amount Not to Exceed $479,358.56 to Santa Margarita Ford for the Purchase of Nine Ford F-250s for Community Services and Transit Departments Description The purchase of seven (7) replacement vehicles and one (1) new vehicle for the Community Services Department through the approved FY 23/24 City-wide budget; and one (1) vehicle maintenance vehicle for the Transit Department funded by the State Transit Assistance grant. Background and Analysis: On June 6, 2023, the City Council, by resolution, adopted the City-wide budget for Fiscal Year 23/24. In the City-wide budget, the Parks and Grounds Department was allocated $547,170.34 for the replacement of 11 vehicles through the Internal Service Fund (ISF) and $230,000 for the purchase of 3 new vehicles. Additionally, in FY 22/23, Capital Improvement Project T-13 was approved by the City Council using State Transit Assistance grant funds in the amount of $150,000 for the purchase of a shop truck for the Transit Department. Beaumont Municipal Code Section 3.01.050 - Bidding requirements for materials, supplies and equipment states that, “Purchases of materials, supplies and equipment of more than $200,000.00 shall, except as otherwise provided in this chapter, be awarded by the City Council pursuant to the non-public project formal bidding procedure provided for in Section 3.010.080.” Furthermore, Beaumont Municipal Code Section 3.01.110 – Exceptions to Competitive Bidding on Non-Public Projects states, in part, “…any alternative procedure, including no bidding, may be used with the City Manager’s approval…..(E) When the City Manager determines that it is in the best interest of the City and its administrative operations to dispense with public bidding for non-public projects under this chapter. Prior City Council concurrence with the City Manager’s determination shall be required for non-public project purchases over $200,000.” Page 352 of 379 As vehicle costs continue to rise, lack of available inventory, and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Alternative Clean Fleets (ACF) Regulations, it is being recommended by staff to authorize the purchase of the nine vehicles for $479,358.56 utilizing the exception to Formal Bidding in Section 3.01.110. Staff has obtained quotes and reached out to multiple dealerships; however, many have been nonresponsive or lack adequate inventory. Other quotes obtained have well exceeded the budget allocation per vehicle in the ISF. Santa Margarita Ford has nine Ford F-250s currently on the lot that meet the needs of both Community Services and Transit. This purchase will allow both departments to remain within spending authority for the purchase of vehicles in FY 23/24. Fiscal Impact: The total expense allocation will be $414,794.72 to the Community Services Department and $64,563.84 to the Transit Department. The replacement of eight vehicles for the Community Services Department is funded by the Vehicle ISF and the approved FY 23/24 City-wide budget. The funding has been previously allocated, and this purchase has no further impact on the general fund. The shop truck for the Transit Department is fully funded by the State Transit Assistance grant through the Riverside County Transportation Commission (CIP T-13) and has no fiscal impact on the general fund. T-13 Shop Truck Funding Summary Funding Year Funding Source Amount FY 22/23 STA Grant $150,000 Total Project Funding = $150,000 Budget Summary Project Component Budget Encumbered Paid to Date Remaining Budget Project Management $0 $0 $0 $0 Preliminary Services $0 $0 $0 $0 Environmental $0 $0 $0 $0 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction Management $0 $0 $0 $0 Page 353 of 379 Permits $0 $0 $0 $0 Equipment $150,000 ($0) ($71,241.62) $78,758.38 Project Summary Totals $150,000 ($0) ($71,241.62) $78,758.38 The cost to prepare this staff report is estimated to be $480. Recommended Action: Approve a Purchase Order in an amount not to exceed $479,358.56 to Santa Margarita Ford for the Purchase of eight (8) 2022 Ford F-250s for the Community Services Department and one (1) 2023 Ford F-250 for the Transit Department. Attachments: A. Quotes for Eight Community Services Vehicles B. Quote for Transit Shop Truck Page 354 of 379 BUYERS ORDER 222412 DATE 8/8/2023 30331 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA, CA 92688 Phone 949-459-6800 Fax 949-459-6948 Invoice For: Name Prepared by:TONY MERTEN Company Name CITY OF BEAUMONT ROBBIE MOORE Street Address 550 E. 6TH ST. City, ST ZIP CodeBEAUMONT, CA. 92223 Phone (951)572-3191 Comments or Special Instructions:OUT OF STOCK PURCHASE SALESPERSON P.O. NUMBER SHIP DATE SHIP VIA F.O.B. POINT TERMS TM/RM OT Due on receipt QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT 1 2022 FORD F250 XL 4X4 GAS 176''WB 48,000.00$ 48,000.00$ WG ALUM TOOLBOX, BEDLINER, STEPS, PINTLE HTCH INCLUDED FOUR CORNER STROBES, FIRE EXT,FIRST AID KIT BK UP ALARM, DOC HOLDER, TRI REFLECTORS -$ SUBTOTAL 48,000.00$ LIC/REG -$ SALES TAX 3,726.59$ DOC/TIRE FEE 122.75 TOTAL 51,849.34$ DESCRIPTION "We Get It" OTHER : MATTHEW MENDOZA 1FT7W2B63NEE26186 THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS! ACH INSTRUCTIONS: COMERICA BANK 1717 MAIN ST. DALLAS, TX. ROUTING #072000096 Page 355 of 379 BUYERS ORDER 222417 DATE 8/8/2023 30331 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA, CA 92688 Phone 949-459-6800 Fax 949-459-6948 Invoice For: Name Prepared by:TONY MERTEN Company Name CITY OF BEAUMONT ROBBIE MOORE Street Address 550 E. 6TH ST. City, ST ZIP CodeBEAUMONT, CA. 92223 Phone (951)572-3191 Comments or Special Instructions:OUT OF STOCK PURCHASE SALESPERSON P.O. NUMBER SHIP DATE SHIP VIA F.O.B. POINT TERMS TM/RM OT Due on receipt QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT 1 2022 FORD F250 XL 4X4 GAS 176''WB 48,000.00$ 48,000.00$ WG ALUM TOOLBOX, BEDLINER, STEPS, PINTLE HTCH INCLUDED FOUR CORNER STROBES, FIRE EXT,FIRST AID KIT BK UP ALARM, DOC HOLDER, TRI REFLECTORS -$ SUBTOTAL 48,000.00$ LIC/REG -$ SALES TAX 3,726.59$ DOC/TIRE FEE 122.75 TOTAL 51,849.34$ DESCRIPTION "We Get It" OTHER : MATTHEW MENDOZA 1FT7W2B62NEE52858 THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS! ACH INSTRUCTIONS: COMERICA BANK 1717 MAIN ST. DALLAS, TX. ROUTING #072000096 Page 356 of 379 BUYERS ORDER 222420 DATE 8/8/2023 30331 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA, CA 92688 Phone 949-459-6800 Fax 949-459-6948 Invoice For: Name Prepared by:TONY MERTEN Company Name CITY OF BEAUMONT ROBBIE MOORE Street Address 550 E. 6TH ST. City, ST ZIP CodeBEAUMONT, CA. 92223 Phone (951)572-3191 Comments or Special Instructions:OUT OF STOCK PURCHASE SALESPERSON P.O. NUMBER SHIP DATE SHIP VIA F.O.B. POINT TERMS TM/RM OT Due on receipt QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT 1 2022 FORD F250 XL 4X4 GAS 176''WB 48,000.00$ 48,000.00$ WG ALUM TOOLBOX, BEDLINER, STEPS, PINTLE HTCH INCLUDED FOUR CORNER STROBES, FIRE EXT,FIRST AID KIT BK UP ALARM, DOC HOLDER, TRI REFLECTORS -$ SUBTOTAL 48,000.00$ LIC/REG -$ SALES TAX 3,726.59$ DOC/TIRE FEE 122.75 TOTAL 51,849.34$ DESCRIPTION "We Get It" OTHER : MATTHEW MENDOZA 1FT7W2B62NEE52861 THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS! ACH INSTRUCTIONS: COMERICA BANK 1717 MAIN ST. DALLAS, TX. ROUTING #072000096 Page 357 of 379 BUYERS ORDER 222422 DATE 8/8/2023 30331 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA, CA 92688 Phone 949-459-6800 Fax 949-459-6948 Invoice For: Name Prepared by:TONY MERTEN Company Name CITY OF BEAUMONT ROBBIE MOORE Street Address 550 E. 6TH ST. City, ST ZIP CodeBEAUMONT, CA. 92223 Phone (951)572-3191 Comments or Special Instructions:OUT OF STOCK PURCHASE SALESPERSON P.O. NUMBER SHIP DATE SHIP VIA F.O.B. POINT TERMS TM/RM OT Due on receipt QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT 1 2022 FORD F250 XL 4X4 GAS 176''WB 48,000.00$ 48,000.00$ WG ALUM TOOLBOX, BEDLINER, STEPS, PINTLE HTCH INCLUDED FOUR CORNER STROBES, FIRE EXT,FIRST AID KIT BK UP ALARM, DOC HOLDER, TRI REFLECTORS -$ SUBTOTAL 48,000.00$ LIC/REG -$ SALES TAX 3,726.59$ DOC/TIRE FEE 122.75 TOTAL 51,849.34$ DESCRIPTION "We Get It" OTHER : MATTHEW MENDOZA 1FT7W2B66NEE52863 THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS! ACH INSTRUCTIONS: COMERICA BANK 1717 MAIN ST. DALLAS, TX. ROUTING #072000096 Page 358 of 379 BUYERS ORDER 222425 DATE 8/8/2023 30331 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA, CA 92688 Phone 949-459-6800 Fax 949-459-6948 Invoice For: Name Prepared by:TONY MERTEN Company Name CITY OF BEAUMONT ROBBIE MOORE Street Address 550 E. 6TH ST. City, ST ZIP CodeBEAUMONT, CA. 92223 Phone (951)572-3191 Comments or Special Instructions:OUT OF STOCK PURCHASE SALESPERSON P.O. NUMBER SHIP DATE SHIP VIA F.O.B. POINT TERMS TM/RM OT Due on receipt QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT 1 2022 FORD F250 XL 4X4 GAS 176''WB 48,000.00$ 48,000.00$ WG ALUM TOOLBOX, BEDLINER, STEPS, PINTLE HTCH INCLUDED FOUR CORNER STROBES, FIRE EXT,FIRST AID KIT BK UP ALARM, DOC HOLDER, TRI REFLECTORS -$ SUBTOTAL 48,000.00$ LIC/REG -$ SALES TAX 3,726.59$ DOC/TIRE FEE 122.75 TOTAL 51,849.34$ DESCRIPTION "We Get It" OTHER : MATTHEW MENDOZA 1FT7W2B63NEE69913 THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS! ACH INSTRUCTIONS: COMERICA BANK 1717 MAIN ST. DALLAS, TX. ROUTING #072000096 Page 359 of 379 BUYERS ORDER 222428 DATE 8/8/2023 30331 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA, CA 92688 Phone 949-459-6800 Fax 949-459-6948 Invoice For: Name Prepared by:TONY MERTEN Company Name CITY OF BEAUMONT ROBBIE MOORE Street Address 550 E. 6TH ST. City, ST ZIP CodeBEAUMONT, CA. 92223 Phone (951)572-3191 Comments or Special Instructions:OUT OF STOCK PURCHASE SALESPERSON P.O. NUMBER SHIP DATE SHIP VIA F.O.B. POINT TERMS TM/RM OT Due on receipt QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT 1 2022 FORD F250 XL 4X4 GAS 176''WB 48,000.00$ 48,000.00$ WG ALUM TOOLBOX, BEDLINER, STEPS, PINTLE HTCH INCLUDED FOUR CORNER STROBES, FIRE EXT,FIRST AID KIT BK UP ALARM, DOC HOLDER, TRI REFLECTORS -$ SUBTOTAL 48,000.00$ LIC/REG -$ SALES TAX 3,726.59$ DOC/TIRE FEE 122.75 TOTAL 51,849.34$ DESCRIPTION "We Get It" OTHER : MATTHEW MENDOZA 1FT7W2B69NEE69916 THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS! ACH INSTRUCTIONS: COMERICA BANK 1717 MAIN ST. DALLAS, TX. ROUTING #072000096 Page 360 of 379 BUYERS ORDER 222446 DATE 8/8/2023 30331 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA, CA 92688 Phone 949-459-6800 Fax 949-459-6948 Invoice For: Name Prepared by:TONY MERTEN Company Name CITY OF BEAUMONT ROBBIE MOORE Street Address 550 E. 6TH ST. City, ST ZIP CodeBEAUMONT, CA. 92223 Phone (951)572-3191 Comments or Special Instructions:OUT OF STOCK PURCHASE SALESPERSON P.O. NUMBER SHIP DATE SHIP VIA F.O.B. POINT TERMS TM/RM OT Due on receipt QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT 1 2022 FORD F250 XL 4X4 GAS 176''WB 48,000.00$ 48,000.00$ WG ALUM TOOLBOX, BEDLINER, STEPS, PINTLE HTCH INCLUDED FOUR CORNER STROBES, FIRE EXT,FIRST AID KIT BK UP ALARM, DOC HOLDER, TRI REFLECTORS -$ SUBTOTAL 48,000.00$ LIC/REG -$ SALES TAX 3,726.59$ DOC/TIRE FEE 122.75 TOTAL 51,849.34$ DESCRIPTION "We Get It" OTHER : MATTHEW MENDOZA 1FT7W2B65NEE95008 THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS! ACH INSTRUCTIONS: COMERICA BANK 1717 MAIN ST. DALLAS, TX. ROUTING #072000096 Page 361 of 379 BUYERS ORDER 222465 DATE 8/8/2023 30331 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA, CA 92688 Phone 949-459-6800 Fax 949-459-6948 Invoice For: Name Prepared by:TONY MERTEN Company Name CITY OF BEAUMONT ROBBIE MOORE Street Address 550 E. 6TH ST. City, ST ZIP CodeBEAUMONT, CA. 92223 Phone (951)572-3191 Comments or Special Instructions:OUT OF STOCK PURCHASE SALESPERSON P.O. NUMBER SHIP DATE SHIP VIA F.O.B. POINT TERMS TM/RM OT Due on receipt QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT 1 2022 FORD F250 XL 4X4 GAS 176''WB 48,000.00$ 48,000.00$ WG ALUM TOOLBOX, BEDLINER, STEPS, PINTLE HTCH INCLUDED FOUR CORNER STROBES, FIRE EXT,FIRST AID KIT BK UP ALARM, DOC HOLDER, TRI REFLECTORS -$ SUBTOTAL 48,000.00$ LIC/REG -$ SALES TAX 3,726.59$ DOC/TIRE FEE 122.75 TOTAL 51,849.34$ DESCRIPTION "We Get It" OTHER : MATTHEW MENDOZA 1FT7W2B65NEE36348 THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS! ACH INSTRUCTIONS: COMERICA BANK 1717 MAIN ST. DALLAS, TX. ROUTING #072000096 Page 362 of 379 CITY OF BEAUMONT 2023 FORD F-250SD XL VIN: 1FT7W2BA7PEC73545 STOCK #: 231152 SALESPERSON: ROBBIE MOORE 8/9/2023 3:11 PM Incentive programs and rebates are estimates, subject to change and verification. Tax Profile: 7.75% Tax Cash Deal Structure Market Value 65,809.00 Discount Savings -6,009.00 Vehicle Price 59,800.00 Document Prep Fee 85.00 Tire/ELT Fee Fee 37.75 Sales Tax 4,641.09 Due On Delivery 64,563.84 Tax:7.75 % 7.75% TAX © Copyright 2023 Guest Concepts, Inc. – All Rights Reserved Page 363 of 379 SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Orange County, CA T (714) 435-9591 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 New Jersey T (609) 955-3393 New York T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com BILLING DEPARTMENT accounting@sbemp.com REPLY TO: Palm Springs, California August 4, 2023 CITY OF BEAUMONT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THRU: 7/31/2023 TOTAL DUE: $94,373.23 Sincerely, SBEMP,LLP By: Accounting Department Page 364 of 379 SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Orange County, CA T (714) 435-9591 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 New Jersey T (609) 955-3393 New York T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com 1800 E Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Fed. ID #33-0833010 Telephone 760-322-2275 Facsimile 760-322-2107 August 4, 2023 City of Beaumont E-MAIL INVOICES Our file no: City of Beaumont*Cazares&Rosa Professional services through: 7/31/2023: Invoice # 81718 Amount BALANCE DUE – PLEASE SUBMIT PAYMENT: $21,569.30 Page 365 of 379 SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Orange County, CA T (714) 435-9591 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 New Jersey T (609) 955-3393 New York T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com 1800 E Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Fed. ID #33-0833010 Telephone 760-322-2275 Facsimile 760-322-2107 August 4, 2023 City of Beaumont E-MAIL INVOICES Our file no: City of Beaumont* Deryke Professional services through: 7/31/2023: Invoice # 81719 Amount BALANCE DUE – PLEASE SUBMIT PAYMENT: $6,084.53 Page 366 of 379 SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Orange County, CA T (714) 435-9591 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 New Jersey T (609) 955-3393 New York T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com 1800 E Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Fed. ID #33-0833010 Telephone 760-322-2275 Facsimile 760-322-2107 August 4, 2023 City of Beaumont E-MAIL INVOICES Our file no: City of Beaumont*I.S. Professional services through: 7/31/2023: Invoice # 81720 Amount BALANCE DUE – PLEASE SUBMIT PAYMENT: $55.00 Page 367 of 379 SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Orange County, CA T (714) 435-9591 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 New Jersey T (609) 955-3393 New York T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com 1800 E Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Fed. ID #33-0833010 Telephone 760-322-2275 Facsimile 760-322-2107 August 4, 2023 City of Beaumont E-MAIL INVOICES Our file no: City of Beaumont*Iloputaife Professional services through: 7/31/2023: Invoice # 81721 Amount BALANCE DUE – PLEASE SUBMIT PAYMENT: $1,697.00 Page 368 of 379 SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Orange County, CA T (714) 435-9591 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 New Jersey T (609) 955-3393 New York T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com 1800 E Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Fed. ID #33-0833010 Telephone 760-322-2275 Facsimile 760-322-2107 August 4, 2023 City of Beaumont E-MAIL INVOICES Our file no: City of Beaumont* Peters Professional services through: 7/31/2023: Invoice # 81722 Amount BALANCE DUE – PLEASE SUBMIT PAYMENT: $220.00 Page 369 of 379 SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Orange County, CA T (714) 435-9591 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 New Jersey T (609) 955-3393 New York T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com 1800 E Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Fed. ID #33-0833010 Telephone 760-322-2275 Facsimile 760-322-2107 August 4, 2023 City of Beaumont E-MAIL INVOICES Our file no: City of Beaumont*Police Dept Professional services through: 7/31/2023: Invoice # 81723 Amount BALANCE DUE – PLEASE SUBMIT PAYMENT: $2,891.90 Page 370 of 379 SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Orange County, CA T (714) 435-9591 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 New Jersey T (609) 955-3393 New York T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com 1800 E Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Fed. ID #33-0833010 Telephone 760-322-2275 Facsimile 760-322-2107 August 4, 2023 City of Beaumont E-MAIL INVOICES Our file no: City of Beaumont*Sandoval Professional services through: 7/31/2023: Invoice # 81724 Amount BALANCE DUE – PLEASE SUBMIT PAYMENT: $1,100.00 Page 371 of 379 SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Orange County, CA T (714) 435-9591 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 New Jersey T (609) 955-3393 New York T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com 1800 E Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Fed. ID #33-0833010 Telephone 760-322-2275 Facsimile 760-322-2107 August 4, 2023 City of Beaumont E-MAIL INVOICES Our file no: City of Beaumont*Urban Logic Professional services through: 7/31/2023: Invoice # 81725 Amount BALANCE DUE – PLEASE SUBMIT PAYMENT: $29,026.00 Page 372 of 379 SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Orange County, CA T (714) 435-9591 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 New Jersey T (609) 955-3393 New York T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com 1800 E Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Fed. ID #33-0833010 Telephone 760-322-2275 Facsimile 760-322-2107 August 4, 2023 City of Beaumont E-MAIL INVOICES Our file no: City of Beaumont*Wright Professional services through: 7/31/2023: Invoice # 81726 Amount BALANCE DUE – PLEASE SUBMIT PAYMENT: $9,708.20 Page 373 of 379 SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Orange County, CA T (714) 435-9591 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 New Jersey T (609) 955-3393 New York T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com 1800 E Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Fed. ID #33-0833010 Telephone 760-322-2275 Facsimile 760-322-2107 August 4, 2023 City of Beaumont E-MAIL INVOICES Our file no: City of Beaumont-Gen Lit Professional services through: 7/31/2023: Invoice # 81727 Amount BALANCE DUE – PLEASE SUBMIT PAYMENT: $4,316.00 Page 374 of 379 SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Orange County, CA T (714) 435-9591 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 New Jersey T (609) 955-3393 New York T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com 1800 E Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Fed. ID #33-0833010 Telephone 760-322-2275 Facsimile 760-322-2107 August 4, 2023 City of Beaumont E-MAIL INVOICES Our file no: City of Beaumont- Labor&Employ Professional services through: 7/31/2023: Invoice # 81728 Amount BALANCE DUE – PLEASE SUBMIT PAYMENT: $1,099.40 Page 375 of 379 SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Orange County, CA T (714) 435-9591 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 New Jersey T (609) 955-3393 New York T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com 1800 E Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Fed. ID #33-0833010 Telephone 760-322-2275 Facsimile 760-322-2107 August 4, 2023 City of Beaumont E-MAIL INVOICES Our file no: City of Beaumont-OverRetainer Professional services through: 7/31/2023: Invoice # 81729 Amount BALANCE DUE – PLEASE SUBMIT PAYMENT: $9,105.90 Page 376 of 379 SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Orange County, CA T (714) 435-9591 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 New Jersey T (609) 955-3393 New York T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com 1800 E Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Fed. ID #33-0833010 Telephone 760-322-2275 Facsimile 760-322-2107 August 4, 2023 City of Beaumont E-MAIL INVOICES Our file no: City of Beaumont-Retainer Professional services through: 7/31/2023: Invoice # 81730 Amount BALANCE DUE – PLEASE SUBMIT PAYMENT: $7,500.00 Page 377 of 379 P E N N S Y L V A N I A W I D E N I N G W i d e n i n g o f P e n n s y l v a n i a t o f o u r l a n e s f r o m 1 s t S t r e e t t o 6 t h S t r e e t P E N N S Y L V A N I A G R A D E S E P A R A T I O N V e r t i c a l R e a l i g n m e n t o f P e n n s y l v a n i a t o b y p a s s u n d e r t h e r a i l r o a d c r o s s i n g S E C O N D S T R E E T E X T E N S I O N E x t e n d i n g S e c o n d S t r e e t M a r k e t p l a c e w e s t b o u n d t o P e n n s y l v a n i a A v e n u e P H A S E 2 P O T R E R O I N T E R C H A N G E A d d i t i o n o f O n /O f f R a m p s t o S R 6 0 , a s w e l l a s t h e r e a l i g n m e n t o f W e s t e r n K n o l l s . S I G N A L I M P R O V E M E N T S 6 t h S t r e e t /B e a u m o n t A v e n u e p r o t e c t e d l e f t t u r n s i g n a l s S R -7 9 /1 s t S t r e e t p r o t e c t e d l e f t t u r n s i g n a l s H I G H L A N D S P R I N G S I N T E R C H A N G E R e c o n f i g u r e e x i s t i n g i n t e r c h a n g e t o i m p r o v e t r a f f i c f l o w a n d s a f e t y . O A K V A L L E Y I N T E R C H A N G E R e c o n f i g u r e e x i s t i n g i n t e r c h a n g e a n d b r i d g e t o i m p r o v e t r a f f i c f l o w a n d s a f e t y . W E S T S I D E F I R E S T A T I O N * C o n s t r u c t i o n o f a f u l l s e r v i c e f i r e s t a t i o n l o c a t e d o n P o t r e r o B l v d . e a s t o f t h e O l i v e w o o d C o m m u n i t y P O L I C E S T A T I O N /H E A D Q U A R T E R S * C o n s t r u c t i o n o f a n e w p o l i c e s t a t i o n , a s a n a d d i t i o n t o t h e P u b l i c S a f e t y C o m p l e x l o c a t e d o n P o t r e r o B l v d , e a s t o f t h e O l i v e w o o d C o m m u n i t y . *Is N O T a Tr a ns p o r t a t io n P r o je ct, bu t i s p a rt of P u bl i c Saf e t y I nf r a s t ru c t u r e A C I T Y E L E V A T E DB E A U M O N T T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P R O J E C T S A T A G L A N C E P R O J E C T D E T A I L S B e l o w i s a l i s t o f i d e n t i f i e d C a p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t P r o j e c t s (C I P ) f o r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n w i t h i n t h e C i t y o f B e a u m o n t . T h e t i m e l i n e s g i v e n a r e e s t i m a t e s b a s e d o n c o m p l e t i o n o f d e s i g n s , e n g i n e e r i n g , e n v i r o n m e n t a l s t u d i e s a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n b i d a w a r d s . T h i s l i s t d o e s n o t i n c l u d e a l l C I P p r o j e c t s i d e n t i f i e d a n d /o r b u d g e t e d f o r . F o r m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n o n t h e s eprojects a n d m o r e g o t oBeaumontCA.g o v P E N N S Y L V A N I A W I D E N I N G C o n st r u c t i o n i s u nd e r w a y a n d w i l l b e c o m p l e t e d b y t h e e n d o f 2 0 2 3. P E N N S Y L V A N I A G R A D E S E P A R A T I O N C i t y C o u n c i l h a s a p p r o v e d f u n d i n g t o c o m p l e t e d e s i g n a n d e n g i n e e r i n g , w h i c h i s e x p e c t e d t o be c o m p le t e d i n 2 0 2 4 . T h i s p r o j e c t n e e d s a p p r o x i m a t e l y $4 0 m i l l io n i n f u n d i n g . S E C O N D S T R E E T E X T E N S I O N T h i s p r oj e c t w a s i d e n t i f i e d a n d a dd e d t o t h e C I P B u d g e t i n 2 0 2 0 . I n i t i a l c o n c e p t u a l d e s i g n a n d f e a s i b i l i t y h a s b e e n c o m p l e t e d . E n g i ne e r i n g a n d f i n a l e n v i r o n m e n t al s t u d i e s h a v e b e e n c o m p l e t e d . A d v e r t i s e m e n t a n d a w ar d o f c o n t r a c t i s e x p e c t ed i n 2 0 2 3. C i t y C o u n c i l h a s a u t h o r i z e d $2 .8 m i l l i o n i n c o n s t r u c t i o n f u n d i n g , a d d i t i o n a l l y $1 .5 m i l l i o n i n f u n d i n g i s b e i n g a l l o c a t e d f r o m M e as u r e A . C o n s t ru c t i o n i s e x p e c t e d t o b e c o m p l e t e i n e a r l y 2 0 2 4 . P H A S E 2 P O T R E R O I N T E R C H A N G E T h i s p r oj e c t w a s i d e n t i f i e d a n d a dd e d t o t h e C I P B u d g e t i n 2 0 1 6 . P h a s e 1 o f t h i s p r o j e c t w a s c o mp l e t e d i n 2 0 1 9 . P h a s e 2 i s u n d e r g o i n g a r e v i s e d t r a f f i c a n a l y s i s , w h i c h i s p e n d i n g f i n a l C a l T r a n s a p p r o v a l . O n c e a p p ro v e d t h e r e v i s e d p l a n a n d e n g i n e e r i n g s h o u l d b e c o m p l e t e d i n e a r l y 2 0 24 . C o n s t r u c t i o n w i l l t a ke 2 4 -3 0 m o n t h s a n d i s a n t i c i p a t e d t o b e g i n S u m m e r 2 0 2 4 . T h e C i t y h a s r e c e n t l y o b t a i n e d $3 3 .5 M i n T r a d e C o r r i d or E n h a n c e m e n t P r o g r a m f u n d i n g a nd $8 M i n f un d in g f r o m R C T C w h i c h i s i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e $8 m i l l i o n i n T U M F p r e v i ou s l y a l l o c a te d . T h i s p r o j e c t i s n o w f u l l y f u n d e d . R E V : 8 /2 /2 0 2 3 Page 378 of 379 C o n s t r u c t i o n o n a C a p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t P r o j e c t i s a p r o c e s s t h a t , d e p e n d i n g o n s i z e a n d m a g n i t u d e , c a n t a k e m o n t h s o r e v e n y e a r s t o c o m p l e t e . C a p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t P r o j e c t s a r e d e e p l y c o m p l e x w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a r t t o f i n i s h p r o c e s s : A C I T Y E L E V A T E DB E A U M O N T C A P T I A L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T S F R O M D E S I G N T O C O N S T R U C T I O N W E S T S I D E F I R E S T A T I O N * 550 E. 6TH STREET (951) 769-8520 BEAUMONTCA.GOV B E A U M O N T C I V I C C E N T E R S T A G E 1 : I d e n t i f y I d e n t i f y C i t y I n f r a s t r u c t u r e t o b e i m p r o v e d , s u c h a s p a r k s , s t r e e t s , t r a n s i t , c o m m u n i t y f a c i l i t i e s , e t c . S T A G E 2 : O b t a i n F u n d i n g D e p e n d i n g o n t h e t y p e o f p r o j e c t a n d i t 's i m p a c t l o c a l l y , r e g i o n a l l y o r b e y o n d , f u n d i n g s o u r c e s c a n i n c l u d e o n e o r m o r e o f t h e f o l l o w i n g : G r a n t s , l o c a l , c o u n t y , s t a t e , f e d e r a l f u n d i n g , a n d /o r t a x r e v e n u e . S T A G E 3 : D e s i g n A r c h i t e c t s a n d e n g i n e e r s d e t e r m i n e t h e s c o p e o f t h e p r o j e c t a n d d e v e l o p a t i m e l i n e , w h i c h i n c l u d e s e n v i r o n m e n t a l p l a n n i n g a n d d e s i g n . T h i s pr o ce s s ca n t a k e 6 -4 8 mo n th s de p en d i n g on th e c o mp le x it y o f t he pro je c t . S T A G E 4 : C o n s t r u c t i o n A t t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n p h a s e , t h e p u b l i c w i l l s e e t h e p r o j e c t s t a r t t o t a k e s h a p e . S T A G E 5 : C o m p l e t i o n Every completed project ELEVATES our City! H I G H L A N D S P R I N G S I N T E R C H A N G E T h i s p r o j e c t , c o o r d i n a t e d b y t h e R i v e rs id e C o u n t y T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C om m i s si o n (R C T C ), b e g a n i n 2 0 1 9 w i t h a c o o p e ra t i v e a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e Ci t y o f B e a u m o n t , C it y o f B a n n i n g, R C T C a n d C a l T r a n s. A p r o j e c t s t u d y r e p o r t w a s c o m p l e t e d i n N o v e m b e r o f 2 0 2 1. C u rr e n t l y R C T C h a s a w a r d e d a c o n t r a c t f o r t h e P r o je c t A p p r o v a l a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l D e s i g n (P A E D ) r e p o r t , w hi c h i s e xp e c t e d t o b e c o m p l e t e d i n 2 0 2 5 . A f t e r t h i s i s c o m p l e t e d t h e pr o j e c t w i l l g o t o d e s i gn a n d e n g i n e e r i n g , w h i c h i s a n o t he r 2 4 m o n t h p r o c e s s a n d t h e n a n o t h e r 2 4 -3 0 m on t h p r o c e s s f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n . F u n d i n g f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n i s s t i l l be i n g i d e n t i f i e d . O A K V A L L E Y I N T E R C H A N G E T h i s p r o j e ct w a s i d e n t i f i e d a n d a d d e d t o t h e C I P B u d g e t i n 2 0 2 0 . A p r o j e c t s t u d y r e p o r t w a s c o m p l e t e d i n 2 0 0 9 . C u r r e n t l y a r e q u e s t f o r p r o p o s a l (R F P ) f o r t h e P A E D w i l l b e r e l e a s e d i n s u m me r o f 2 0 2 3 .T h e P A E D t a k e s 2 4 m o n t h s . D e s i g n an d E n g in e e r i n g w i l l n e e d t o b e c o m p l e t e d a f t e r t h at , t h e n t h e p r o j e ct w i l l g o o u t t o b i d f o r c o n s t ru c t i o n . F u n d i ng f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n i s s t i l l b e i n g i d e n t i f i e d . T h i s p r o j e c t w a s i d en t i f i e d an d a d d e d t o t h e C I P B u d g e t i n 2 0 1 6 . C o n st r u c t i o n h a s b e g u n a n d i s e x p e c t e d t o b e c o mp l et e b y t h e e n d o f 2 0 2 3 . T h i s p r o j e c t i s f u l ly f u n d e d . P O L I C E S T A T I O N /H E A D Q U A R T E R S * T h i s p r o j e ct w a s i d e n t i f i e d a n d a d d e d t o t h e C I P B u d g e t i n 2 0 2 0 . A c o n c e p t u a l p la n w a s p r e s e n t e d t o C i ty C o u n c i l i n S e p t e m b e r . F u n d i n g f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n i s s t i l l be i n g i d e n t i f i e d . R E V : 8 /2 /2 0 2 3 P R O J E C T D E T A I L S (C O N T I N U E D ) S I G N A L I M P R O V E M E N T S C o n s t r uc t i o n f o r t h e t r a f f i c s i g n a l u p gr a d e s a t 6 t h S t r e e t /B e a u m o n t A v e n u e h a v e b e g u n a n d a r e e x p e c t e d t o b e c o m p l e te d i n A u g u s t . T h e t r a f f i c si g na l i m p r o v e m e n t s a t 1 s t S t r e e t an d H i g h w a y 7 9 h a v e b e en a u t h o r i z e d a nd c o n s t r u c t i on w i l l b e g i n i n A u g u s t . Page 379 of 379