Tulare County officials warn $5.4 million for Early Mart water and sewer projects at risk as PUD work lags

Tulare County grants staff told the Board of Supervisors and Early Mart residents on Tuesday that $5.4 million allocated for two local utility projects remains at risk because the Early Mart Public Utility District (PUD) has not delivered shovel‑ready engineering or billing invoices that would allow construction to proceed.

Denise England, grants and resources manager with the Tulare County Resource Management Agency, told the board the county has set aside $500,000 in ARPA funding and pursued a $1.7 million federal earmark for a Front Street well treatment project, and $1.6 million in ARPA plus a $1.6 million earmark for an interceptor sewer relief project — for a combined total of $5,400,000. “At this point, both of those funding sources are available, at $2,200,000 for the Front Street Well … The second project … would be a total of 3,200,000.0,” England said.

England said the county had expected those projects to be “shovel ready” — with design, environmental review and property acquisition complete — but that the PUD now reports the projects are not designed. “We are being told now that these projects might not be designed at all,” she said, adding that the county began a NEPA crosswalk more than a year ago and that the ARPA money “has to be spent by December 30 first of 20 26,” as she stated in the meeting record.

Residents and local officials, including town council members, school staff and the newly elected PUD director, urged the board to push the PUD and other local actors to complete designs and deliver will‑serve letters so projects can proceed. “We need the help here in this town,” said Andrea Gonzalez, an Early Mart native and health‑care worker. Oscar Silva described repeated collisions at a local intersection and asked the county to consider flashing signals or other safety measures.

Several speakers urged the board to hold PUD leadership accountable and to provide technical assistance. Crystal Bueno, an Early Mart resident and newly elected PUD board director, asked county staff for a briefing so she could reconcile the information she receives from the district’s engineers and attorneys with county staff reports. “I would like to see who I would be able to sit down and speak to so that way I can see both of them what information is being presented to us,” she said.

County staff and supervisors said the funds are available in county coffers but cannot be reallocated easily if deadlines are missed. Chair (name not specified) and Supervisor (name not specified) emphasized the urgency of obligating funds while construction costs remain lower than they will be in future years. Mike Washam, Resource Management Agency staff, said developers have paused projects because will‑serve letters were not available: “We have building permits for a hotel and a restaurant … which, again, couldn't go forward because … without will‑serve letters.”

Residents requested sidewalks, road repairs and other safety improvements around the school and park. Early Mart town council member Gloria (last name not specified) recounted a 15‑year campaign to build a community park and urged continued county support for small unincorporated towns. Superintendent Mary Robles said the school and community rely on infrastructure improvements to sustain enrollment and community services.

The board did not take formal action on the Early Mart projects at the meeting but directed RMA staff to continue coordination with the PUD and to return with a more detailed status of design milestones and options for obligating or reallocating funds. The county’s presentation and multiple public comments highlighted both technical and political obstacles — incomplete engineering, grant requirements that can depend on local rate increases, and community mistrust — that must be resolved before the $5.4 million can be spent.

If the PUD finalizes designs and can provide will‑serve letters, county staff said the projects could proceed using the ARPA and earmark allocations; if not, the board faces a risk that the funds will lapse and be returned.