Atwater City Council
September 22, 2025

In-person participation by the public will be permitted. In addition, remote public participation is available in the following ways:
o Livestream online at www.atwater.org (Please be advised that there is a broadcasting delay. If you would like to participate in public comment, please use the option below).
o Submit a written public comment prior to the meeting: Public comments submitted to [email protected] by 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting will be distributed to the City Council, and made part of the official minutes but will not be read out loud during the meeting.

Assistance will be provided to those requiring accommodations for disabilities in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Persons requesting accommodation should contact the City in advance of the meeting, and as soon as possible, at (209) 357-6241.

CITY OF ATWATER
City Council
AGENDA
Council Chambers
750 Bellevue Road
Atwater, California
September 22, 2025
REGULAR SESSION: (Council Chambers)
CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 PM
INVOCATION:

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG:

ROLL CALL: (City Council)
Ambriz ____, Cale ____, Raymond ____, Rochester ____, Nelson _____ SUBSEQUENT NEED ITEMS: (The City Clerk shall announce any requests for items requiring immediate action subsequent to the posting of the agenda. Subsequent need

City Council Agenda for Meeting of September 22, 2025 Page 2 items require a two-thirds vote of the members of the City Council present at the meeting.)
APPROVAL OF AGENDA AS POSTED OR AS AMENDED: (This is the time for the City Council to remove items from the agenda or to change the order of the agenda.) PRESENTATIONS:
• Monthly report by Merced County District 3 Supervisor McDaniel CONSENT CALENDAR:

NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
Background information has been provided on all matters listed under the Consent Calendar, and these items are considered to be routine. All items under the Consent Calendar are normally approved by one motion. If a Councilmember requests separate discussion on any item, that item will be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action.

TREASURER’S REPORT:

1. July 31, 2025
Staff's Recommendation: Acceptance of report as listed.

WARRANTS:

2. September 22, 2025
Staff's Recommendation: Approval of report as listed.

MINUTES: (City Council)

3. August 11, 2025 - Regular meeting
Staff's Recommendation: Approval of minutes as posted.

RESOLUTIONS:

4. Approving a General Services Agreement with Joe's Landscaping and Concrete Inc. for Landscape Maintenance Services in Landscape Maintenance Assessments (Public Works Director Vinson)
Staff's Recommendation: Adoption of Resolution No. 3569-25 approving a General Services Agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, to Joe's Landscaping and Concrete of Newman, California for Landscape Maintenance in the Maintenance Districts; and authorizes and directs the City Manager to execute an agreement on behalf of the City.

5. Opposition to California Proposition 50
Staff's Recommendation: Adoption of Resolution No. 3570-25 opposing California Proposition 50 and directing the City Clerk's office to transmit copies of the Resolution to the Governor of California and the California Secretary of State.

City Council Agenda for Meeting of September 22, 2025 Page 3 ***END OF CONSENT CALENDAR***

PUBLIC HEARINGS

6. Waive the First Reading by Title only, and introduce an Ordinance Approving Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No. 25-09-0100 Amending Chapter 17.71 “Conditional Use Permit” of the Atwater Municipal Code (City Manager Hoem)
Staff's Recommendation: Open the public hearing and receive any testimony from the public; and
Close the public hearing; and
Motion to waive the first reading by title only, and introduce Ordinance No. CS 1073 approving Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No. 25- 09-0100 amending Chapter 17.71 “Conditional Use Permit” of the Atwater Municipal Code.

Motion to approve staff's recommendation as presented.

REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS FROM STAFF:

7. Adopting the City of Atwater Public Safety Master Plan (CAL Fire Battalion Chief Randol and Police Chief McEachin)
Staff's Recommendation: Motion to adopt Resolution No. 3571-25 approving the City of Atwater Public Safety Master Plan as prepared by Griffin Structures, Inc; or
Motion to approve staff's recommendation as presented.

8. Vacant Commercial Building and Property Ordinance or Enhanced Enforcement of the Atwater Municipal Code (City Manager Hoem) Staff's Recommendation: Direct staff to prepare a Vacant Commercial Building and Property Ordinance establishing requirements for registration, maintenance, and security of abandoned commercial properties; or
Direct staff to prioritize enhanced enforcement of the existing provisions of the Atwater Municipal Code related to property maintenance, nuisance abatement, and commercial blight: or Continue current operations to address both new and ongoing code enforcement violations.

9. Discussion and Possible Action on Modifying the Review Process for the City’s Warrant Register (City Manager Hoem)
Staff's Recommendation: Discuss and provide direction on modifying the City’s warrant register review process to remove it as a standing approval item on the City Council agenda.

City Council Agenda for Meeting of September 22, 2025 Page 4 COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC:

NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
At this time any person may comment on any item which is not on the agenda. You may state your name and address for the record; however, it is not required. Action will not be taken on an item that is not on the agenda. If it requires action, it will be referred to staff and/or placed on a future agenda. Please limit comments to a maximum of three (3) minutes.

CITY COUNCIL REPORTS/UPDATES:
• City Council Member Cale, District 1
• City Council Member Rochester, District 2
• City Council Member Ambriz, District 3
• City Council Member Raymond, District 4
• Mayor Nelson
CITY MANAGER REPORTS/UPDATES:

10. Update from the City Manager
CLOSED SESSION:
• Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8, Conference with Real Property Negotiations regarding property price and terms of payment.

Agency Negotiators: City Manager Hoem and Public Works Director Vinson. Negotiating Parties: National Retail Properties,LP Property Location: 303 E. Bellevue Road, Atwater, CA 95301 APN 156-060-011 • Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation — Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1)) Name of cases: US Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York Case. No. 19-23649 and US District Court, Northern District of Ohio Eastern Division Case No. 1:17-md-2804 (National Opioid Class Action Settlements)
• Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957, Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Title: City Manager
MAYOR OR CITY ATTORNEY REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION:

ADJOURNMENT:

City Council Agenda for Meeting of September 22, 2025 Page 5 CERTIFICATION:

I, Kory J. Billings, City Clerk of the City of Atwater, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing agenda was posted at City Hall a minimum of 72 hours prior to the meeting. _______________________________
KORY J. BILLINGS

CITY CLERK
SB 343 NOTICE
In accordance with California Government Code Section 54957.5, any writing or document that is a public record, relates to an open session agenda item and is distributed less than 72 hours prior to a regular meeting will be made available for public inspection in the office of the City Clerk during normal business hours at 1160 Fifth Street, Atwater, California.

If, however, the document or writing is not distributed until the regular meeting to which it relates, then the document or writing will be made available to the public at the location of the meeting, as listed on this agenda at 750 Bellevue Road, Atwater, California.

In compliance with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, upon request, the agenda can be provided in an alternative format to accommodate special needs. If you require special accommodations to participate in a City Council, Commission or Committee meeting due to a disability, please contact the City Clerk’s Office a minimum of three (3) business days in advance of the meeting at (209) 357-6241. You may also send the request by email to [email protected] .

Unless otherwise noted, City Council actions include a determination that they are not a “Project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and therefore, that CEQA does not apply to such actions.

LEVINE ACT PUBLIC PARTY/APPLICANT DISCLOSURE OBLIGATIONS:

Applicants, parties, and their agents who have made campaign contributions totaling more than $250 (aggregated) to a Councilmember over the past 12 months, must publicly disclose that fact for the official record of that agenda item. Disclosures must include the amount of the campaign contribution aggregated, and the name(s) of the campaign contributor(s) and Councilmember(s). The disclosure may be made either in writing to the City Clerk prior to the agenda item consideration, or by verbal disclosure at the time of the agenda item consideration.

The foregoing statements do not constitute legal advice, nor a recitation of all legal requirements and obligations of parties/applicants and their agents. Parties and agents are urged to consult with their own legal counsel regarding the requirements of the law.

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 30 31
Scan QR Code for info
regarding mobile
office hours
S E P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5

S U N M O N T U E W E D T H U F R I S A T
City Council
Meeting - 6:00 PM
City Council
Meeting - 6:00 PM
Audit & Finance
Meeting - 5:00 PM
Planning
Commission
Meeting - 6:00 PM
Movie in the Park
🦁 Mufasa
Veterans Park
Citizens’
Oversight Committee
Meeting - 6:00 PM
City Holiday
Trash pick up
delayed - 1 day
National Day of
Remembrance -
Community Center
8:30AM

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 30 31
O C T O B E R 2 0 2 5

S U N M O N T U E W E D T H U F R I S A T
City Council
Meeting - 6:00 PM
Audit & Finance
Meeting - 5:00 PM
City Council
Meeting - 6:00 PM
Planning
Commission
Meeting - 6:00 PM
Scan QR Code for info
regarding mobile
office hours
Atwater National
Night Out -
Ralston Park
4:00-6:00 PM
Movie in the Park
🌙 Hocus Pocus
Bloss Mansion
2025 Atwater Fall
Clean Up Event
2877 Atwater Blvd,
Atwater CA
7:00 AM - 12:00 PM
Pumpkin Decorating
Contest - Atwater
Community Center -
6:00-8:00 PM

STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN CASH BALANCE, UNAUDITED

BY FUND
AS OF 7/31/2025
FUND BEG.BALANCE CASH DEBITS CASH CREDITS ENDING BAL.
0001 General Fund 20,601,710.21 1,239,388.29 3,761,098.38 18,080,000.12 0003 General Fund Capital 2:525.18 13,901.25 12,716.94 3,709.49 0004 Public Safety Trans & Use Tax 2,452,709.54 480,228.99 713,627.78 2,219,310.75 0005 Ferrari Ranch Project Fund 2,360.37 0.00 0.00 2,360.37 0007 Measure V Fund 4,310,133.67 65,285.95 285,009.60 4,090,410.02 0008 Measure V 20% Alternative Modes 1,073,073.32 16,321.49 1,647.61 1,087,747.20 0009 Abandoned Veh Abatement Fund (10,923.10) 4,117.77 6,327.40 (13,132.73) 0010 Measure V Regional Fund (31,133.15) 0.00 118,814.78 (149,947.93) 1005 Police Grants Fund 88,856.67 0.00 0.00 88,856.67
1010 ARPA-American Rescue Plan Act 1,061,678.47 0.00 2,937.03 1,058,741.44 1011 Gas Tax/Street Improvement 330,514.48 77,737.52 167,986.37 240,265.63 1013 Local Transportation Fund 599,361.45 0.00 3,563.60 595,797.85 1014 CRP Carbon Reduction Proj Fund (24,114.47) 0.00 0.00 (24,114.47) 1015 Traffic Circulation Fund 1,596,908.46 0.00 0.00 1,596,908.46 1016 Applegate Interchange 814,431.99 0.00 0.00 814,431.99 1017 RSTP-Regional Surface Transp Prag 3,024,189.52 0.00 992,070.45 2,032,119.07 1018 SB1-Road Maint & Rehab RMRA 676,129.93 72,632.12 77,368.50 671,393.55 1019 LPP-Local Partnership Prg Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1020 Parks and Recreation Fund 2,008,668.17 0.00 102.36 2,008,565.81 1021 Parks Grants Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1040 General Plan Update-Housing Element (10,800.00) 0.00 0.00 (10,800.00) 1041 General Plan Update Fund 1,756,710.04 0.00 0.00 1,756,710.04 1055 Neighborhood Stabilization 233,235.69 0.00 0.00 233,235.69 1059-80 Housing Grant Funds 1,378,487.14 1,000.00 135,640.73 1,243,846.41 1091 Police Facility Impact Fee 205,815.85 0.00 0.00 205,815.85 1093 Fire Facility Impact Fee 284,494.40 0.00 0.00 284,494.40 1095 Government Building Facility 300,983.07 0.00 0.00 300,983.07 3064-67 Redevelopment/Successor Agency Funds 1,564,094.83 883.94 1,087.50 1,563,891.27 4020 Performance Bond Trust 231,863.44 0.00 0.00 231,863.44 4030 Narcotics Program Trust 2,189.88 0.00 0.00 2,189.88

STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN CASH BALANCE, UNAUDITED
BYFUND
AS OF 7/31/2025
FUND BEG.BALANCE CASH DEBITS CASH CREDITS ENDING BAL.
4060 Section 125 Medical 1,737.50 105.00 0.00 1,842.50
4070 Section 125 Dependent Care 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4080 Pension Rate Stblztn 115 Trust 616,660.24 3,615.21 0.00 620,275.45 4090 CFO No. 1 Trust 138,253.53 0.00 0.00 138,253.53
5001-55 All Maintenance Districts 1,331,152.08 0.00 25,061.76 1,306,090.32 5050 CFO Districts 61,147.84 0.00 266,048.17 (204,900.33) 6000 Water Enterprise Fund 16,465,408.20 748,705.08 356,547.92 16,857,565.36 6001 Water Fund Capital Replacement (2,283,026.35) 0.00 341,141.89 (2,624,168.24) 6002 DBCP Settlement 21,719.67 0.00 0.00 21,719.67
6004 Water Well- Buhach Colony 196,047.78 0.00 0.00 196,047.78 6005 Water Capital Impact Fees 2,912,026.87 0.00 0.00 2,912,026.87 6006 Water Operating Reserve Fund 190,331.08 0.00 0.00 190,331.08 6007 1,2,3-TCP Fund 15,114,331.73 36,026.54 272,227.95 14,878,130.32 6010 Sewer Enterprise Fund 15,906,009.50 882,775.06 902,339.30 15,886,445.26 6011 Sewer Fund Capital Replacement 4,032,937.29 0.00 0.00 4,032,937.29 6020 Sanitation Enterprise 2,788,378.51 337,586.21 466,789.26 2,659,175.46 7000 Internal Service Fund 1,069,931.15 0.00 166,516.43 903,414.72 7001 ISF EquipmenUBldg Replacement 299,624.83 0.00 0.00 299,624.83 7010 Employee Benefits Fund 699,813.54 6,798.67 89,823.24 616,788.97 7020 Risk Management 1,231,421.09 0.00 9,452.31 1,221,968.78 7030 Information Technology 761,301.67 0.00 99,424.29 661,877.38 9090 Accrued Interest Fund 755,070.31 753,297.30 0.00 1,508,367.61 TOTAL 106,834,433.11 4,740,406.39 9,275,371.55 102,299,467.95 Prepared by:
7 9-"'""= '=- Approved by: ....,,.,,__

Statement of Changes in Cash Balan~e
by Bank
As of 7/31/2025
Beg. Period Cash
Balance Debits
City- LAIF 68,459,282.50 750,042.73
City - RMA Long-Term Investment Fund 1,223,314.51 3,254.57 City Checking & Investment Accounts 5,748,732.91 3,947,457.23 Wastewater Checking 6,514,055.87
RA Obligation Retirement Fund 12,954.50 10.11
US Bank/Chandler Asset Mgt. 24,259,432.58 36,026.54
PARS Post-Employment Benefits Trust 616,660.24 3,615.21 Totals 106,834,433.11 4,740,406.39
Cash
Credits
8,904,633.52
370,738.03
End Period
Balance
69,209,325.23
1,226,569.08
791,556.62
6,143,317.84
12,964.61
24,295,459.12
620,275.45
9,275,371.55 102,299,467.95
Prepared by: ,r , ,,. L - -- Approved by_,_: --=----------+---- (The following statements are required by California Govt. Code Section 53646 (b) (2,3)) Investments are made pursuant to the City Council approved Investment Policy and Guidelines.

The City of Atwater has the ability to meet its pooled expenditure requirements for the next six months.

Bank Account Detail
City LAIF
Chandler Asset Mgt.

US Bank/Chandler Asset Mg!.

PARS Pension

PARS OPES
-----
69,209,325.23
1,226,569.08
24,295,459.12
620,275.45
620,275.47
Chase General Checking
Chase Wastewater Checking
Chase Redevelopment Checking
Chase Savings Account
2,909,940.69
6,143,317.84
12,964.61

0.00

Warrant Summary September 22, 2025
Prepared By: Joseph Murillo, Accounting Technician
Accounts Payable Warrant
9/22/2025 Warrant
Prewrittens (Checks Processed Between Warrants)
Total Accounts Payable Warrants:

Amount
$ 1,497,199.39
$ 634,212.44
$ 2,131,411.83
Additional Warrants
Date
9/5/2025
9/9/2025
Description
PERS Health - September 2025
AFSCME District Council 57
9/9/2025 Atwater Police Officers Association
9/9/2025 CALPERS Employee 457 Plan
9/9/2025 EPARS Employee 457 Plan (PNC Bank)
9/9/2025 PERS Retirement 8/14/25-8/24/25
9/9/2025 State Disbursement - Child Support 9/4/25 Payroll Total Additional Warrants:

Amount
$ 125,373.57
$ 1,088.22
$ 2,763.60
$ 1,602°.oo
$ 1,888.00
$ 65,050.03
$ 353.64
$ 198,119.06
Payroll
Date Description
9/4/2025 Net Payroll
9/9/2025 Federal Taxes
9/9/2025 State Taxes
Total Payroll:

Amount
$ 207,926.01
$ 68,978.53
$ 8,974.97
$ 285,879.51
Grand Total: $ 2,615,410.40
1 ~2
Anna Nicholas, Finance Director Mark Borba, City Treasurer

Accounts Payable
Checks for Approval
User:

Printed:
jmurillo
9/18/2025 - 11:59 AM
A
Cltyof
rwarer
Car,unu:uily Pridr C'it.~ H';,I,,
760 BelLe\/1""3 Road, ,AtlAlatef CA 96JQ1
Check Number Check Date
0 09/05/2025
0 09/05/2025
0 09/05/2025
0 09/05/2025
0 09/05/2025
0 09/05/2025
Fund Account Name Vendor Name Void Amount
0001 General Fund
7010 Employee Benefits Fund
7010 Employee Benefits Fund
7010 Employee Benefits Fund
000 I General Fund
7010 Employee Benefits Fund
Miscellaneous Bills
General Administration-Ins
Health Insurance, Retirees
Health Insurance, Retirees
Pers Health Payable
Health Insurance, Retirees

PERS-HEALTH

PERS-HEALTH

PERS-HEALTH

PERS-HEALTH

PERS-HEALTH

PERS-HEALTH

1.53 89.66
11,218.00
1,918.35
112,079.76

66.27 Check Total: 125,373.57
Report Total: 125,373.57
AP-Checks for Approval (9/18/2025 - I 1:59 AM) Page I

Accounts Payable
Checks for Approval
User:

Printed:
jmurillo
9/18/2025 • 12:01 PM
A
Ci(~of
r
:
,
t
m
""
rmul'fi
a
tyP
t
ri'c
e
le C
r
ity Wid>f"
760 Bellevue ROGct, ~Gier GA 96J:01
Check Number Check Date Fund Account Name Vendor Name Void Amount 0 09/09/2025 000 I General Fund State Income Tax Withheld PAYROLL TAXES-STATE 8,561.47 0 09/09/2025 0001 General Fund Deferred Compensation PNC BANK 1,458.00 0 09/09/2025 0001 General Fund Fica/Medicare-Employer PAYROLL TAXES-FEDERAL 56.49 0 09/09/2025 7010 Employee Benefits Fund Professional Services PERS-RETIREMENT 400.00 0 09/09/2025 0001 General Fund Fica/Medicare-Ernployer PAYROLL TAXES-FEDERAL 4,161.99 0 09/09/2025 0001 General Fund Federal Income Tax Withheld PAYROLL TAXES-FEDERAL 1,005.33 0 09/09/2025 0001 General Fund Pers Benefits PERS-RETIREMENT 17,884.61 0 09/09/2025 0001 General Fund Fica/Medicare • Employee PAYROLL TAXES-FEDERAL 17,796.16 0 09/09/2025 0001 General Fund Fica/Medicare - Employee PAYROLL TAXES-FEDERAL 83.33 0 09/09/2025 0001 General Fund Garnishments STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT 353.64 0 09/09/2025 0001 General Fund Pers Deduction PERS-RETIREMENT 10,408.63 0 09/09/2025 0001 General Fund Police Union Dues ATWATER POLICE OFFICERS ASSN. 2,763.60 0 09/09/2025 0001 General Fund Pers Benefits PERS-RETIREMENT 10,043.13 0 09/09/2025 0001 General Fund Miscellaneous Union Dues AFSCME DISTRICT COUNCIL 57 1,088.22 0 09/09/2025 0001 General Fund Pers Benefits PERS-RETIREMENT 10,315.28 0 09/09/2025 0001 General Fund Fica/Medicare-Ernployer PAYROLL TAXES-FEDERAL 17,796.16 0 09/09/2025 0001 General Fund Deferred Compensation CALPERS 575.00 0 09/09/2025 000 I General Fund Pers Benefits PERS-RETIREMENT 6,929.44 0 09/09/2025 000 I General Fund State Income Tax Withheld PAYROLL TAXES-STATE 413.50 0 09/09/2025 0001 General Fund Fica/Medicare · Employee PAYROLL TAXES-FEDERAL 4,161.99 0 09/09/2025 0001 General Fund Deferred Compensation PNC BANK 430.00 0 09/09/2025 0001 General Fund Fica/Medicare - Employee PAYROLL TAXES-FEDERAL 56.49 0 09/09/2025 0001 General Fund Pers Benefits PERS-RETIREMENT 1,145.04 0 09/09/2025 0001 General Fund Pers Deduction PERS-RETIREMENT 863.93 0 09/09/2025 0001 General Fund Pers Benefits PERS-RETIREMENT 3,009.06 0 09/09/2025 000 I General Fund Pers Benefits PERS-RETIREMENT 0.01 0 09/09/2025 000 I General Fund Fica/Medicare-Ernployer PAYROLL TAXES-FEDERAL 241.54 0 09/09/2025 0001 General Fund Pers Deduction PERS-RETIREMENT 2,564.32 0 09/09/2025 0001 General Fund Pers Benefits PERS-RETIREMENT 786.58 0 09/09/2025 0001 General Fund Fica/Medicare-Employer PAYROLL TAXES-FEDERAL 356.30 0 09/09/2025 000 I General Fund Federal Income Tax Withheld PAYROLL TAXES-FEDERAL 22,581.58 0 09/09/2025 0001 General Fund Deferred Compensation CALPERS 1,027.00 0 09/09/2025 7010 Employee Benefits Fund Professional Services PERS-RETIREMENT 700.00 0 09/09/2025 0001 General Fund Fica/Medicare - Employee PAYROLL TAXES-FEDERAL 356.30 AP-Checks for Approval (9/18/2025 • 12:01 PM) Page I

Check Number Check Date Fund Account Name Vendor Name Void Amount 0 0
09/09/2025
09/09/2025
000 I General Fund
000 I General Fund
Fica/Medicare - Employee
Fica/Medicare-Employer

PAYROLL TAXES-FEDERAL

PAYROLL TAXES-FEDERAL
241.54

83.33 Check Total: 150,698.99
Report Total: 150,698.99
AP-Checks for Approval (9/18/2025 - 12:01 PM) Page 2

Accounts Payable
Checks for Approval
User:

Printed:
jmurillo
9/18/2025 - 11:55 AM
~e\NV~'AS A
L'ityof
twater
Comnwnily Pride Cit~.,,- Jf'id,
760 Bellevue Road, .Alli\13fer CA 963-01
Check Number Check Date Fund Account Name Vendor Name Void Amount 28896 09/09/2025 0001 General Fund Garnishments FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 248.70 Check Total: 248.70
28897 09/09/2025 0001 General Fund Garnishments MERCED COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE 250.00 Check Total: 250.00
28898 09/11/2025 000 I General Fund Machinery & Equipment SANTANDER BANK NA 347,589.29 28898 09/11/2025 1093 Fire Facility Impact Fee Machinery & Equipment SANTANDER BANK NA 285,786.00 --
Check Total: 633,375.29
28899 09/15/2025 0004 Public Safety Trans & Use Tax Rents & Leases ENTERPRISE FM TRUST 338.45 Check Total: 338.45
--
--
Report Total: 634,212.44
AP-Checks for Approval (9/18/2025 - 11:55 AM) Page 1

Accounts Payable
Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date
User:

Printed:
jmurillo
9/18/2025 I I :57 AM
A
Cin,1of
twater 'ommtmity Pride City Wide
750 Bellevue Road, .Aiwater CA :95301
Check No Vendor No
Invoice No
ACH CHA999
8292025
8292025
8292025
8292025
8292025
8292025
8292025
8292025
8292025
8292025
8292025
8292025
8292025
8292025
8292025
8292025
8292025
8292025
8292025
8292025
8292025
8292025
8292025
8292025
8292025
8292025
8292025
8292025
8292025
8292025
Vendor Name
Description
Check Date
Reference
Check Amount
CHASE
The Home Depot - Paint
Walmart - Hose
Hilton Garden Inn - Training
Lowes - Building Improvement Supplies
Harbor Freight - Youth Center Fans
Lowes - Building Improvement Supplies
The Home Depot - Station 41 Filler Plates
The LA Empire Inc - Adult Softball Championsh
Knox - Knox Box
JamF - Subscription
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore - Webinar
Staples - Office Supplies
Garys Rent A Can - Movies In The Park
Galls - Uniform Accessories
Winton Hardware - Building Improvement Supp
Costco - Water
The LA Empire Inc - Adult Softball Championsh
Castle Veterans Organization - Community Dinn
Walmart - Station 42 Fans
Walmart - Fuel Can
The UPS Store - Shipping
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore - Webinar
Food4Less - Chlorine
Lowes - Building Improvement Supplies
VistaPrint - Business Cards
Pro Appliance Inc - Ice Maker Diagnostic
Stage Stop Sporting Goods - Amunition
Lowes - Refund
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore - Webinar
Beemerboneyard.com - #2054 Fuel Line Parts
09/22/2025
223.54

71.78 506.00

12.97 326.87

9.68 22.88
783.87
581.82
452.00
1,625.00

42.17 337.48
106.25

4.29 25.98
513.50

8.00 72.80

38.54 22.84
475.00
715.55

6.47 71.34
140.00
439.89
-12.97
600.00

78.90 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor CHA999: 8,302.44 Total for 9/22/2025: 8,302.44
Report Total (I checks): 8,302.44
AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (9/18/2025 11 :57 AM) Page I

Accounts Payable
Checks for Approval
User:

Printed:
jmurillo
9/18/2025 - 11:56 AM
A
Cityof
twater
Cornmunit,Y Pride City ff'ide
760 Bellevue Road, AllAiatBt GA s,5~101
Check Number Check Date Fund Account Name Vendor Name Void Amount 0 09/22/2025 000 I General Fund Special Departmental Expense CHASE 71.78 0 09/22/2025 7010 Employee Benefits Fund Disability Insurance FIRST UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 3,891.84 0 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Special Departmental Expense CHASE -12.97 0 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Special Departmental Expense CHASE 9.68 0 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Special Departmental Expense CHASE 4.29 0 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Office Supplies QUADIENT FINANCE USA INC 899.00 0 09/22/2025 7030 Information Technology Fund Special Departmental Expense CHASE 452.00 0 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Electronic Pmt Processing Exp GLOBAL PAYMENTS INTEGRATED 1,324.06 0 09/22/2025 6000 Water Enterprise Fund Electronic Pmt Processing Exp BLUEFIN PAYMENT SYSTEMS 2,860.13 0 09/22/2025 000 I General Fund Training CHASE 506.00
0 09/22/2025 000 I General Fund Various Classes CHASE 337.48 0 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Office Supplies QUADIENT FINANCE USA INC 2,000.00 0 09/22/2025 000 I General Fund Special Departmental Expense CHASE 715.55 0 09/22/2025 000 I General Fund Coed Summer Softball CHASE 38.54 0 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Special Departmental Expense CHASE 439.89 0 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Professional Services CHASE 140.00 0 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Special Departmental Expense CHASE 6.47 0 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Travel/Conferences/Meetings CHASE 1,625.00 0 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Special Departmental Expense CHASE 581.82 0 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Special Departmental Expense CHASE 12.97 0 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Travel/Conferences/Meetings CHASE 8.00 0 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Travel/Conferences/Meetings CHASE 475.00 0 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Office Supplies CHASE 71.34 0 09/22/2025 5037 Atwater South LNDSCP Special Departmental Expense CHASE 223.54 0 09/22/2025 000 I General Fund Castle Youth Center Expense CHASE 326.87 0 09/22/2025 000 I General Fund Special Departmental Expense CHASE 22.84 0 09/22/2025 6000 Water Enterprise Fund Electronic Pmt Processing Exp SPRINGBROOK-GROUP 579.49 0 09/22/2025 6020 Sanitation Enterprise Fund Electronic Pmt Processing Exp SPRINGBROOK-GROUP 579.48 0 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Operations & Maintenance CHEVRON USA INC. 34.35 0 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Office Supplies CHASE 42.17 0 09/22/2025 7010 Employee Benefits Fund Disability Insurance FIRST UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 1,197.16 0 09/22/2025 7010 Employee Benefits Fund Life Insurance FIRST UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 2,053.50 0 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Special Departmental Expense CHASE 72.80 0 09/22/2025 60 IO Sewer Enterprise Fund Electronic Pmt Processing Exp BLUEFIN PAYMENT SYSTEMS 2,860.13 AP-Checks for Approval (9/18/2025 - 11:56 AM) Page I

Check Number Check Date Fund Account Name Vendor Name Void Amount 0 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Office Supplies QUADIENT FINANCE USA INC 549.00 0 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Special Departmental Expense CHASE 22.88 0 09/22/2025 6020 Sanitation Enterprise Fund Electronic Pmt Processing Exp BLUEFIN PAYMENT SYSTEMS 2,860.12 0 09/22/2025 6001 Water Fund Capital Replacement Installation-New Water Meters AQUA METRIC 5,284.34 0 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Special Departmental Expense CHASE 25.98 0 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Operations & Maintenance CHASE 78.90 0 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Uniform & Clothing Expense CHASE 106.25 0 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Men's Summer Softball CHASE 783.87 0 09/22/2025 6010 Sewer Enterprise Fund Electronic Pmt Processing Exp SPRINGBROOK-GROUP 579.49 0 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Travel/Conferences/Meetings CHASE 600.00 0 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Coed Summer Softball CHASE 513.50 Check Total: 35,854.53
28900 09/22/2025 60 IO Sewer Enterprise Fund Professional Services ABS DIRECT INC 300.51 28900 09/22/2025 6000 Water Enterprise Fund Professional Services ABS DIRECT INC 300.51 28900 09/22/2025 6020 Sanitation Enterprise Fund Professional Services ABS DIRECT INC 300.52 Check Total: 901.54
28901 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Professional Services ADVANCED HEATING & AIR 1,535.00 -
28901 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Special Departmental Expense ADVANCED HEATING & AIR 2,886.23 Check Total: 4,421.23
28902 09/22/2025 0003 General Fund Capital Project Retention AGEE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION -10,770.21 28902 09/22/2025 0008 Measure V 20% AlternativeModes Project Retention AGEE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION -1,395.39 28902 09/22/2025 0008 Measure V 20% AlternativeModes Project Retention AGEE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION -1,123.56 28902 09/22/2025 0008 Measure V 20% AlternativeModes Phase 2 Ped Imp Proj Downtown AGEE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION 22,471.00 28902 09/22/2025 0003 General Fund Capital Phase 2 Ped Imp Proj Downtown AGEE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION 215,404.11 28902 09/22/2025 1014 CRP Carbon Reduction Prog Fund Phase 2 Ped Imp Proj Downtown AGEE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION 333,265.29 28902 09/22/2025 0008 Measure V 20% AlternativeModes Project Retention AGEE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION -2,158.90 28902 09/22/2025 0008 Measure V 20% AlternativeModes Phase 2 Ped Imp Proj Downtown AGEE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION 27,907.89 28902 09/22/2025 0008 Measure V 20% AlternativeModes Phase 2 Ped Imp Proj Downtown AGEE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION 43,178.05 28902 09/22/2025 IO 14 CRP Carbon Reduction Prog Fund Project Retention AGEE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION -16,663.26 Check Total: 610,115.02 .
28903 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Special Departmental Expense AIRGAS USA, LLC 134.27 Check Total: 134.27
28904 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Professional Services ALBONETTI INVESTIGATIONS LLC 5,051.80 ---
Check Total: 5,051.80
28905 09/22/2025 000 I General Fund Towing Fees ALLWAYS TOWING LLC 2,150.00 AP-Checks for Approval (9/18/2025 - 11:56 AM) Page 2

Check Number Check Date Fund Account Name Vendor Name Void Amount Check Total: 2,150.00 -
28906 09/22/2025 000 I General Fund Communications AT&T 219.35 Check Total: 219.35 -
28907 09/22/2025 6000 Water Enterprise Fund Communications AT&TCALNET 343.96 28907 09/22/2025 000 l General Fund Communications AT&TCALNET 172.30 28907 09/22/2025 000 I General Fund Communications AT&TCALNET 285.94 28907 09/22/2025 6010 Sewer Enterprise Fund Communications AT&TCALNET 532.60 28907 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Communications AT&TCALNET 608.27 Check Total: 1,943.07
28908 09/22/2025 000 I General Fund Communications AT&T MOBILITY 255.33 28908 09/22/2025 000 l General Fund Communications AT&T MOBILITY 219.72 28908 09/22/2025 6000 Water Enterprise Fund Communications AT&T MOBILITY 129.98 28908 09/22/2025 60 IO Sewer Enterprise Fund Communications AT&T MOBILITY 483.67 28908 09/22/2025 IO 11 Gas Tax/Street Improvement Communications AT&T MOBILITY 44.87 28908 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Communications AT&T MOBILITY 43.97 28908 09/22/2025 l 0 11 Gas Tax/Street Improvement Communications AT&T MOBILITY 262.62 28908 09/22/2025 000 I General Fund Communications AT&T MOBILITY 87.94 28908 09/22/2025 7030 Information Technology Fund Communications AT&T MOBILITY 129.49 28908 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Communications AT&T MOBILITY 388.39 28908 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Communications AT&T MOBILITY 83.91 28908 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Communications AT&T MOBILITY 1,297.42 28908 09/22/2025 6000 Water Enterprise Fund Communications AT&T MOBILITY 569.68 28908 09/22/2025 000 I General Fund Communications AT&T MOBILITY 85.11 28908 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Communications AT&T MOBILITY 885.28 28908 09/22/2025 0009 Abandoned Yeh Abatement Fund Communications AT&T MOBILITY 94.78 28908 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Communications AT&T MOBILITY 43.97 28908 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Communications AT&T MOBILITY 43.97 28908 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Communications AT&T MOBILITY 129.98 28908 09/22/2025 000 I General Fund Communications AT&T MOBILITY 43.97 28908 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Communications AT&T MOBILITY 482.88 28908 09/22/2025 000 l General Fund Communications AT&T MOBILITY 174.85 28908 09/22/2025 000 I General Fund Communications AT&T MOBILITY 314.50 28908 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Communications AT&T MOBILITY 91.72 28908 09/22/2025 7030 Information Technology Fund Communications AT&T MOBILITY 44.87 Check Total: 6,432.87 ,I
28909 09/22/2025 1011 Gas Tax/S tree! Improvement Special Departmental Expense ATWATER CHIROPRACTIC, INC. 130.CI0 28909 09/22/2025 000 l General Fund Special Departmental Expense ATWATER CHIROPRACTIC, INC. 130.00 AP-Checks for Approval (9/18/2025 - 11:56 AM) Page 3

Check Number Check Date Fund Account Name Vendor Name Void Amount Check Total: 260.00
28910 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Professional Services ATWATER ELECTRIC 125.00 28910 09/22/2025 1011 Gas Tax/Street Improvement Professional Services ATWATER ELECTRIC 200.00 28910 09/22/2025 6000 Water Enterprise Fund Professional Services ATWATER ELECTRIC 3,900.00 28910 09/22/2025 1018 SB I-Road Maint & Rehab RMRA Pavement Repairs ATWATER ELECTRIC 4,960.00 Check Total: 9,185.00
28911 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Professional Services B & B PLUMBING CONSTRUCTION INC 2,800.00 Check Total: 2,800.00
28912 09/22/2025 7010 Employee Benefits Fund Dental Insurance BENEFIT COORDINATORS CORPORATION (BC 4,075.30 28912 09/22/2025 7010 Employee Benefits Fund Dental Insurance BENEFIT COORDINATORS CORPORATION (BC 4,774.93 28912 09/22/2025 7010 Employee Benefits Fund Dental Insurance BENEFIT COORDINATORS CORPORATION (BC 504.78 28912 09/22/2025 7010 Employee Benefits Fund Dental Insurance BENEFIT COORDINATORS CORPORATION (BC 3,715.40 28912 09/22/2025 7010 Employee Benefits Fund Dental Insurance BENEFIT COORDINATORS CORPORATION (BC 5,841.40 Check Total: 18,911.81
28913 09/22/2025 6000 Water Enterprise Fund Professional Services BEST BEST & KRIE GER 1,381.80 28913 09/22/2025 6020 Sanitation Enterprise Fund Professional Services BEST BEST & KRIEGER 268.80 28913 09/22/2025 7020 Risk Management Fund Professional Services BEST BEST & KRIEGER 6,790.50 28913 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Professional Services BEST BEST & KRIEGER 41,325.36 ---
Check Total: 49,766.46
28914 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Special Departmental Expense BRADY INDUSTRIES 713.54 Check Total: 713.54 ....
28915 09/22/2025 6000 Water Enterprise Fund Professional Services BSK ASSOCIATES 50.25 28915 09/22/2025 6000 Water Enterprise Fund Professional Services BSK ASSOCIATES 213.04 28915 09/22/2025 6000 Water Enterprise Fund Professional Services BSK ASSOCIATES 2,490.00 28915 09/22/2025 60 IO Sewer Enterprise Fund Professional Services BSK ASSOCIATES 1,481.25 28915 09/22/2025 6007 1,2,3-TCP Fund Professional Services BSK ASSOCIATES 999.40 28915 09/22/2025 6000 Water Enterprise Fund Professional Services BSKASSOCIATES 122.24 28915 09/22/2025 6000 Water Enterprise Fund Professional Services BSK ASSOCIATES 3,090.00 28915 09/22/2025 6007 1,2,3-TCP Fund Professional Services BSK ASSOCIATES 999.40 28915 09/22/2025 6000 Water Enterprise Fund Professional Services BSK ASSOCIATES 3,090.00 Check Total: 12,535.58
28916 09/22/2025 000 I General Fund Special Departmental Expense CAL FARM SERVICES 136.02 28916 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Professional Services CAL FARM SERVICES 80.00 AP-Checks for Approval (9/18/2025 - 11:56 AM) Page4

Check Number Check Date Fund Account Name Vendor Name Void Amount 28916 09/22/2025 000 I General Fund Professional Services CAL FARM SERVICES 80.00 28916 09/22/2025 1011 Gas Tax/Street Improvement Professional Services CAL FARM SERVICES 80.00 28916 09/22/2025 1011 Gas Tax/Street Improvement Special Departmental Expense CAL FARM SERVICES 4.31 28916 09/22/2025 IO 11 Gas Tax/Street Improvement Special Departmental Expense CAL FARM SERVICES 14.57 28916 09/22/2025 IO 11 Gas Tax/Street Improvement Professional Services CAL FARM SERVICES 80.00 28916 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Special Departmental Expense CAL FARM SERVICES 55.07 28916 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Special Departmental Expense CAL FARM SERVICES 73.60 Check Total: 603.57
28917 09/22/2025 6007 1,2,3-TCP Fund Professional Services CARBON SUPPLY INC 15,155.00 Check Total: 15,155.00
28918 09/22/2025 000 I General Fund Community Center Deposits VERONICA CASTRO 210.00 Check Total: 210.00
28919 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Uniform & Clothing Expense CINTAS CORP 35.00 28919 09/22/2025 6010 Sewer Enterprise Fund Uniform & Clothing Expense CINTAS CORP 83.99 28919 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Special Departmental Expense CINTAS CORP 35.00 28919 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Uniform & Clothing Expense CINTAS CORP 35.00 28919 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Uniform & Clothing Expense CINTAS CORP 35.00 28919 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Uniform & Clothing Expense CINTAS CORP 35.00 28919 09/22/2025 6000 Water Enterprise Fund Uniform & Clothing Expense CINTAS CORP 86.24 28919 09/22/2025 IO 11 Gas Tax/Street Improvement Uniform & Clothing Expense CINTAS CORP 36.53 28919 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Uniform & Clothing Expense CINTAS CORP 43.04 28919 09/22/2025 000 I General Fund Uniform & Clothing Expense CINTAS CORP 43.04 28919 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Uniform & Clothing Expense CINTAS CORP 35.00 28919 09/22/2025 6010 Sewer Enterprise Fund Uniform & Clothing Expense CINTAS CORP 83.99 28919 09/22/2025 6000 Water Enterprise Fund Uniform & Clothing Expense CINTAS CORP 86.24 28919 09/22/2025 1011 Gas Tax/Street Improvement Uniform & Clothing Expense CINTAS CORP 43.02 28919 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Special Departmental Expense CINTAS CORP 35.00 28919 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Uniform & Clothing Expense CINTAS CORP 35.00 Check Total: 786.09 -
28920 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Professional Services CIVICPLUS LLC 3,608.01 -
Check Total: 3,608.01
28921 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Communications COMCAST 1,680.49 ---
Check Total: 1,680.49
28922 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Utilities COMCAST 266.34 28922 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Utilities COMCAST 125.01 AP-Checks for Approval (9/18/2025 - 11:56 AM) Page 5

Check Number Check Date Fund Account Name Vendor Name Void Amount Check Total: 391.35
28923 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Special Departmental Expense CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTOR! 1,353.13 28923 09/22/2025 1011 Gas Tax/Street Improvement Special Departmental Expense CONSOLIDATED ELECTRlCAL DISTRlBUTOR! 1,255.70 Check Total: 2,608.83
28924 09/22/2025 000 I General Fund Special Departmental Expense CPS HR CONSULTING 572.00 28924 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Special Departmental Expense CPS HR CONSULTING -70.00 28924 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Special Departmental Expense CPS HR CONSULTING 792.00 28924 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Special Departmental Expense CPS HR CONSULTING -35.00 28924 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Special Departmental Expense CPS HR CONSULTING 792.00 28924 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Special Departmental Expense CPS HR CONSULTING -70.00 28924 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Special Departmental Expense CPS HR CONSULTING -70.00 Check Total: 1,911.00 __..,
28925 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Professional Services D & D PEST CONTROL 44.00 28925 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Professional Services D & D PEST CONTROL 44.00 28925 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Professional Services D & D PEST CONTROL 38.00 28925 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Professional Services D & D PEST CONTROL 55.00 28925 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Professional Services D & D PEST CONTROL 38.00 28925 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Professional Services D & D PEST CONTROL 56.00 28925 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Professional Services D & D PEST CONTROL 56.00 28925 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Professional Services D & D PEST CONTROL 38.00 28925 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Professional Services D & D PEST CONTROL 38.00 Check Total: 407.00 ..,
28926 09/22/2025 7030 Information Technology Fund Memberships & Subscriptions DATA PATH 760.00 28926 09/22/2025 7030 Information Technology Fund Memberships & Subscriptions DATAPATH 1,089.00 28926 09/22/2025 7030 Information Technology Fund Memberships & Subscriptions DATA PATH 2,841.50 28926 09/22/2025 7030 Information Technology Fund Memberships & Subscriptions DATA PATH 3,431.00 28926 09/22/2025 7030 Information Technology Fund Memberships & Subscriptions DATAPATH 2,806.00 28926 09/22/2025 7030 Information Technology Fund Professional Services DATA PATH 8,321.00 Check Total: 19,248.50
28927 09/22/2025 1041 General Plan Update Fund Professional Services DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP 27,418.50 Check Total: 27,418.50 ..,
28928 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Operations & Maintenance DELRAY TIRE 2,296.86 Check Total: 2,296.86
--
AP-Checks for Approval (9/18/2025 - 11 :56 AM) Page 6

Check Number Check Date Fund Account Name Vendor Name Void Amount 28929 09/22/2025 6010 Sewer Enterprise Fund Special Departmental Expense DENAIR FENCING INC 523.73 28929 09/22/2025 5043 Aspenwood LD Professional Services DENAIR FENCING INC 462.50 28929 09/22/2025 6010 Sewer Enterprise Fund Special Departmental Expense DENAIR FENCING INC 53.94 28929 09/22/2025 5008 Shaffer Lakes East LD Professional Services DENAIR FENCING INC 417.50 Check Total: 1,457.67 -
28930 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Community Center Rental GURTEJ DHILLON -75.00 28930 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Community Center Deposits GURTEJ DHILLON 350.00 Check Total: 275.00 ,.,
28931 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Professional Services ELITE IRON FENCING 2,155.00 28931 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Special Departmental Expense ELITE IRON FENCING 3,965.00 28931 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Professional Services ELITE IRON FENCING 3,250.00 ---
Check Total: 9,370.00 .
28932 09/22/2025 1011 Gas Tax/Street Improvement Professional Services ELITE MAINTENANCE & TREE SERVICE 1,500.00 28932 09/22/2025 !Oil Gas Tax/Street Improvement Professional Services ELITE MAINTENANCE & TREE SERVICE 2,237.80 Check Total: 3,737.80 .
28933 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Uniform & Clothing Expense ELITE UNIFORMS 89.00 28933 09/22/2025 000 I General Fund Uniform & Clothing Expense ELITE UNIFORMS 214.37 Check Total: 303.37
28934 09/22/2025 6000 Water Enterprise Fund Special Departmental Expense EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS INC. 39.37 Check Total: 39.37
28935 09/22/2025 6000 Water Enterprise Fund Small Tools FERGUSON WATERWORKS 924.38 Check Total: 924.38
28936 09/22/2025 0004 Public Safety Trans & Use Tax Special Departmental Expense FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION 1,070.00 Check Total: 1,070.00 ..
28937 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Operations & Maintenance FORD PRO 215.91 Check Total: 215.91
28938 09/22/2025 000 I General Fund Professional Services FOSTER & FOSTER INC 3,000.00 Check Total: 3,000.00
--
AP-Checks for Approval (9/18/2025 - 11 :56 AM) Page 7

Check Number Check Date Fund Account Name Vendor Name Void Amount 28939 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Operations & Maintenance GARTON TRACTOR INC 1,370.25 Check Total: 1,370.25
28940 09/22/2025 6000 Water Enterprise Fund Uniform & Clothing Expense GCP WW HOLDCO LLC 173.19 Check Total: 173.19
28941 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Professional Services GUARDIAN ALLIANCE TECHNOLOGIES INC 50.00 Check Total: 50.00
28942 09/22/2025 000 I General Fund Special Departmental Expense HENRY SCHEIN, INC. 433.11 28942 09/22/2025 000 I General Fund Special Departmental Expense HENRY SCHEIN, INC. 223.37 28942 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Special Departmental Expense HENRY SCHEIN, INC. 433.11 Check Total: 1,089.59
28943 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Operations & Maintenance HERWALDT MOTORSPORTS 165.78 Check Total: 165.78
28944 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Professional Services HI-TECH EVS INC 1,352.00 28944 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Operations & Maintenance HI-TECH EVS INC 189.46 Check Total: 1,541.46
28945 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Professional Services HOFFMAN SECURITY 525.00 28945 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Professional Services HOFFMAN SECURITY 30.67 Check Total: 555.67
28946 09/22/2025 000 I General Fund Special Departmental Expense HORIZON 391.65 28946 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Special Departmental Expense HORIZON 7.29 28946 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Maint, Buildings & Grounds HORIZON 639.66 28946 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Special Departmental Expense HORIZON 260.83 28946 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Special Departmental Expense HORIZON 189.07 Check Total: 1,488.50
28947 09/22/2025 IO 11 Gas Tax/Street Improvement Professional Services JLB TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC 991.93 28947 09/22/2025 1011 Gas Tax/Street Improvement Professional Services JLB TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC 2,728.64 28947 09/22/2025 0007 Measure V Fund City Wide Traffic Signal Synch JLB TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC 47.48 _,
Check Total: 3,768.05
28948 09/22/2025 7020 Risk Management Fund Professional Services JOCELYN ROLAND PHD ABPP INC 500.00 AP-Checks for Approval (9/18/2025 - 11:56 AM) Page 8

Check Number Check Date Fund Account Name Vendor Name Void Amount Check Total: 500.00 .,
28949 09/22/2025 5016 Redwood Estates LMA Professional Services JOE'S LANDSCAPING & CONCRETE 232.49 28949 09/22/2025 5010 Price Annexation LMA Professional Services JOE'S LANDSCAPING & CONCRETE 1,354.16 28949 09/22/2025 5022 Silva Ranch LNDSCP Professional Services JOE'S LANDSCAPING & CONCRETE 511.87 28949 09/22/2025 5044 Aspenwood Lndscp Professional Services JOE'S LANDSCAPING & CONCRETE 395.05 28949 09/22/2025 5010 Price Annexation LMA Professional Services JOE'S LANDSCAPING & CONCRETE 1,679.74 28949 09/22/2025 5029 Camellia Meadows LNDSCP Professional Services JOE'S LANDSCAPING & CONCRETE 289.06 28949 09/22/2025 5027 Juniper Meadows LNDSCP Professional Services JOE'S LANDSCAPING & CONCRETE 138.72 28949 09/22/2025 5046 Applegate Ranch Lndscp Professional Services JOE'S LANDSCAPING & CONCRETE 430.75 28949 09/22/2025 50 l O Price Annexation LMA Professional Services JOE'S LANDSCAPING & CONCRETE 863.39 28949 09/22/2025 5042 Meadow View LNDSCP Professional Services JOE'S LANDSCAPING & CONCRETE 356.12 28949 09/22/2025 5040 Mello Ranch 2 LNDSCP Professional Services JOE'S LANDSCAPING & CONCRETE 592.99 28949 09/22/2025 5024 Mello Ranch LNDSCP Professional Services JOE'S LANDSCAPING & CONCRETE 382.08 28949 09/22/2025 1018 SB I-Road Maint & Rehab RMRA Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk Project JOE'S LANDSCAPING & CONCRETE 6,125.00 28949 09/22/2025 5010 Price Annexation LMA Professional Services JOE'S LANDSCAPING & CONCRETE 236.95 28949 09/22/2025 5012 Sandlewood Square LMA Professional Services JOE'S LANDSCAPING & CONCRETE 376.67 28949 09/22/2025 0008 Measure V 20% AlternativeModes Phase 2 Ped Imp Proj Downtown JOE'S LANDSCAPING & CONCRETE 8,500.00 28949 09/22/2025 5014 Pajaro Dunes LMA Professional Services JOE'S LANDSCAPING & CONCRETE 231.19 28949 09/22/2025 5031 Stone Creek LNDSCP Professional Services JOE'S LANDSCAPING & CONCRETE 827.69 28949 09/22/2025 5037 Atwater South LNDSCP Professional Services JOE'S LANDSCAPING & CONCRETE 1,084.18 28949 09/22/2025 5035 Bell Crossing LNDSCP Professional Services JOE'S LANDSCAPING & CONCRETE 232.81 28949 09/22/2025 5018 Cottage Gardens ST & LMA Professional Services JOE'S LANDSCAPING & CONCRETE 154.94 Check Total: 24,995.85 -
28950 09/22/2025 6000 Water Enterprise Fund Special Departmental Expense KELLOGG SUPPLY 43.28 Check Total: 43.28 .
28951 09/22/2025 6010 Sewer Enterprise Fund Special Departmental Expense LAWRENCE BACKHOE SERVICE INC 8,360.00 Check Total: 8,360.00
28952 09/22/2025 0004 Public Safety Trans & Use Tax Professional Services LEXISNEXIS RISK DATA MANAGEMENT 960.00 Check Total: 960.00
28953 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Miscellaneous LOOMIS 697.16 Check Total: 697.16
28954 09/22/2025 0010 Measure V Regional Fund Buhach Widening MARK THOMAS & COMPANY, INC 5,973.75 Check Total: 5,973.75
--
AP-Checks for Approval (9/18/2025 - 11 :56 AM) Page 9

Check Number Check Date Fund Account Name Vendor Name Void Amount 28955 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Operations & Maintenance MCAULEY MOTORS 164.93 Check Total: 164.93
28956 09/22/2025 000 I General Fund Printing & Advertising MCCLATCHY COMPANY LLC 441.45 Check Total: 441.45 _
28957 09/22/2025 000 I General Fund Community Center Deposits KYAH MCKELLAR 210.00 28957 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Community Center Deposits KYAH MCKELLAR 210.00 Check Total: 420.00 -
28958 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Coed Volleyball MERCED AREA SPORTS OFFICIALS, INC 90.00 28958 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Coed Volleyball MERCED AREA SPORTS OFFICIALS, INC 300.00 28958 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Men's Fall Softball MERCED AREA SPORTS OFFICIALS, INC 280.00 28958 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Coed Volleyball MERCED AREA SPORTS OFFICIALS, INC 240.00 28958 09/22/2025 000 I General Fund Coed Fall Softball MERCED AREA SPORTS OFFICIALS, INC 175.00 Check Total: 1,085.00
28959 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Operations & Maintenance MERCED CHEVROLET 238.40 Check Total: 238.40
28960 09/22/2025 60 IO Sewer Enterprise Fund Professional Services MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT 475.87 Check Total: 475.87
28961 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Professional Services MERCED TRUCK & TRAILER INC. 900.00 28961 09/22/2025 000 I General Fund Special Departmental Expense MERCED TRUCK & TRAILER INC. 679.01 Check Total: 1,579.01
28962 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Office Supplies MIMEO PRINTING 87.00 Check Total: 87.00
28963 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Professional Services MISTER CAR WASH 1,312.00 28963 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Professional Services MISTER CAR WASH 1,184.00 Check Total: 2,496.00
28964 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Operations & Maintenance MUNICIPAL MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT 3,266.86 28964 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Professional Services MUNICIPAL MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT 2,101.00 Check Total: 5,367.86
,.,,
---
AP-Checks for Approval (9/18/2025 - 11:56 AM) Page 10

Check Number Check Date Fund Account Name Vendor Name Void Amount 28965 09/22/2025 000 I General Fund Professional Services MUNISERVICES 500.00 Check Total: 500.00
28966 09/22/2025 6010 Sewer Enterprise Fund Special Departmental Expense NAPAAUTO PARTS 20.99 Check Total: 20.99
28967 09/22/2025 7030 Information Technology Fund Communications NEW HORIZON COMMUNICATIONS 2,411.67 Check Total: 2,411.67
28968 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Professional Services OLE WILLIES SERVICES 905.54 Check Total: 905.54
28969 09/22/2025 6010 Sewer Enterprise Fund Special Departmental Expense O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 25.44 28969 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Operations & Maintenance O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 55.78 28969 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Special Departmental Expense O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 80.45 28969 09/22/2025 6000 Water Enterprise Fund Special Departmental Expense O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 20.65 28969 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Operations & Maintenance O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 26.64 28969 09/22/2025 60 IO Sewer Enterprise Fund Special Departmental Expense O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 75.30 28969 09/22/2025 6000 Water Enterprise Fund Special Departmental Expense O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 108.88 28969 09/22/2025 000 I General Fund Special Departmental Expense O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 7.25 28969 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Operations & Maintenance O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 1,350.28 28969 09/22/2025 1011 Gas Tax/Street Improvement Special Departmental Expense O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 16.30 28969 09/22/2025 IO 11 Gas Tax/Street Improvement Special Departmental Expense O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 102.34 28969 09/22/2025 60 IO Sewer Enterprise Fund Special Departmental Expense O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 24.98 28969 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Operations & Maintenance O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 65.20 28969 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Operations & Maintenance O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 201.74 28969 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Operations & Maintenance O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 162.99 28969 09/22/2025 6010 Sewer Enterprise Fund Special Departmental Expense O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 26.07 Check Total: 2,350.29 ~
28970 09/22/2025 6000 Water Enterprise Fund Utilities PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 31,226.55 28970 09/22/2025 6010 Sewer Enterprise Fund Utilities PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 35.92 28970 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Operations & Maintenance PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 1,159.71 28970 09/22/2025 IO 11 Gas Tax/Street Improvement Utilities PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 25.70 Check Total: 32,447.88 -
28971 09/22/2025 1017 RSTP-Regional SurfTransp Prog Ace Train Platform PRECISION CIVIL ENGINEERING, INC. 1,965.00 28971 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Planning Deposits PRECISION CIVIL ENGINEERING, INC. 1,406.25 28971 09/22/2025 6000 Water Enterprise Fund Professional Services PRECISION CIVIL ENGINEERING, INC. 455.00 AP-Checks for Approval (9/18/2025 - 11 :56 AM) Page 11

Check Number Check Date Fund Account Name Vendor Name Void Amount Check Total: 3,826.25
28972 09/22/2025 60 IO Sewer Enterprise Fund Castle Sewer Interceptor QUAD KNOPF 1,886.50 Check Total: 1,886.50
28973 09/22/2025 6010 Sewer Enterprise Fund Professional Services RAFTELIS FINANCIAL 1,956.25 28973 09/22/2025 6010 Sewer Enterprise Fund Professional Services RAFTELIS FINANCIAL 3,615.00 ---
Check Total: 5,571.25 :-_
28974 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Operations & Maintenance RICHS AUTO BODY INC 3,182.90 -~ 28974 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Professional Services RICHS AUTO BODY INC 1,784.80 Check Total: 4,967.70
28975 09/22/2025 3064 RDVLPMNT Obligation Retiremer Professional Services RSGINC 556.25 _ Check Total: 556.25
28976 09/22/2025 1011 Gas Tax/Street Improvement Special Departmental Expense SAFE-T-LITE 2,395.25 Check Total: 2,395.25
28977 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Community Center Rental MARIA SALAZAR -280.00 28977 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Community Center Deposits MARIA SALAZAR 350.00 28977 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Community Center Deposits MARIA SALAZAR 210.00 Check Total: 280.00
28978 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Professional Services SELF-HELP ENTERPRISES 1,750.00 28978 09/22/2025 1064 CDBG Program Income Loans & Grants (Rehab) SELF-HELP ENTERPRISES 2,010.60 28978 09/22/2025 1064 CDBG Program Income Activity Delivery (Rehab) SELF-HELP ENTERPRISES 4,093.01 28978 09/22/2025 1078 HOME Grant Fund General Administration SELF-HELP ENTERPRISES 1,636.50 28978 09/22/2025 1080 PLHA-Perm Local Housing Alloc Professional Services SELF-HELP ENTERPRISES 9,627.74 Check Total: 19,117.85
28979 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Coed Fall Softball SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO. 85.63 28979 09/22/2025 000 I General Fund Men's Fall Softball SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO. 85.64 Check Total: 171.27
28980 09/22/2025 60 IO Sewer Enterprise Fund Utilities SIEMENS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. 15,844.60 Check Total: 15,844.60
-·
AP-Checks for Approval (9/18/2025 - 11 :56 AM) Page 12

Check Number Check Date Fund Account Name Vendor Name Void Amount 28981 09/22/2025 000 I General Fund Community Center Deposits MANJINDER SINGH 350.00 28981 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Community Center Rental MANJINDER SINGH -75.00 28981 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Community Center Deposits MANJINDER SINGH 210.00 Check Total: 485.00 ,.,
28982 09/22/2025 7030 Information Technology Fund Professional Services SPRINGBROOK HOLDING COMPANY LLC 100.00 28982 09/22/2025 6000 Water Enterprise Fund Special Departmental Expense SPRINGBROOK HOLDING COMPANY LLC 687.50 Check Total: 787.50
28983 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Professional Services STATE PRO BUILDERS INC. 1,800.00 28983 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Special Departmental Expense STATE PRO BUILDERS INC. 654.80 Check Total: 2,454.80 •
28984 09/22/2025 6000 Water Enterprise Fund Special Departmental Expense SUPERIORPOOLPRODUCTSLLC 1,068.53 28984 09/22/2025 6000 Water Enterprise Fund Special Departmental Expense SUPERIOR POOL PRODUCTS LLC 771.02 Check Total: 1,839.55
28985 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Utilities TERRAFORM PHOENIX II ARCADIA HOLDING 2,643.56 28985 09/22/2025 6000 Water Enterprise Fund Utilities TERRAFORM PHOENIX II ARCADIA HOLDING 3,573.79 28985 09/22/2025 6000 Water Enterprise Fund Utilities TERRAFORM PHOENIX II ARCADIA HOLDING 14,739.43 28985 09/22/2025 6000 Water Enterprise Fund Utilities TERRAFORM PHOENIX II ARCADIA HOLDING 6,450.06 Check Total: 27,406.84
28986 09/22/2025 60 IO Sewer Enterprise Fund Lower Shaffer Storm Drain Imp TESCO CONTROLS, INC. 150,500.00 Check Total: 150,500.00
28987 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Special Departmental Expense THE SIGN GUYS 80.81 Check Total: 80.81
28988 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Special Departmental Expense THE UPS STORE 25.00 Check Total: 25.00 ~
28989 09/22/2025 000 I General Fund Professional Services TRANS UNION RISK AND ALTERNATIVE DATA 118.00 Check Total: 118.00 -
28990 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Operations & Maintenance TURF STAR INC 142.28 28990 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Operations & Maintenance TURF STAR INC 1,424.64 AP-Checks for Approval (9/18/2025 - 11:56 AM) Page 13

Check Number Check Date Fund Account Name Vendor Name Void Amount Check Total: 1,566.92
28991 09/22/2025 000 I General Fund Rents & Leases US BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCE 137.14 Check Total: 137.14
28992 09/22/2025 000 I General Fund Maint. Buildings & Grounds VAK PAK INC 79. 13 Check Total: 79.13 _
28993 09/22/2025 6000 Water Enterprise Fund Professional Services VALLEY UTILITIE CONSTRUCTION, INC. 1,000.00 28993 09/22/2025 6000 Water Enterprise Fund Professional Services VALLEY UTILITIE CONSTRUCTION, INC. 1,000.00 28993 09/22/2025 6000 Water Enterprise Fund Professional Services VALLEY UTILITIE CONSTRUCTION, INC. 1,000.00 28993 09/22/2025 6000 Water Enterprise Fund Professional Services VALLEY UTILITIE CONSTRUCTION, INC. 1,000.00 Check Total: 4,000.00 -
28994 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Operations & Maintenance VAN DE POL 12,147.36 Check Total: 12,147.36
28995 09/22/2025 6010 Sewer Enterprise Fund Professional Services VEOLIA WATER NORTH AMERJCA 196,406.03 ---
Check Total: 196,406.03
28996 09/22/2025 6010 Sewer Enterprise Fund Special Departmental Expense VERIZON WIRELESS 38.01 28996 09/22/2025 000 I General Fund Communications VERJZON WIRELESS 38.36 28996 09/22/2025 6000 Water Enterprise Fund Communications VERJZON WIRELESS 78.96 28996 09/22/2025 6010 Sewer Enterprise Fund Communications VERIZON WIRELESS 38.85 28996 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Utilities VERJZON WIRELESS 80.00 28996 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Special Departmental Expense VERJZON WIRELESS 40.01 28996 09/22/2025 6010 Sewer Enterprise Fund Utilities VERIZON WIRELESS 40.01 Check Total: 354.20
28997 09/22/2025 7010 Employee Benefits Fund Vision Insurance VISION SERVICE PLAN (CA) 986.21 Check Total: 986.21
28998 09/22/2025 6001 Water Fund Capital Replacement Canal Creek Utility Crossing VVH CONSULTING SERVICES 1,350.00 28998 09/22/2025 IO 14 CRP Carbon Reduction Prog Fund Phase 2 Ped Imp Proj Downtown VVH CONSULTING SERVICES 9,543.53 28998 09/22/2025 0003 General Fund Capital Phase 2 Ped Imp Proj Downtown VVH CONSULTING SERVICES 2,850.67 28998 09/22/2025 0008 Measure V 20% AlternativeModes Phase 2 Ped Imp Proj Downtown VVH CONSULTING SERVICES 1,236.47 28998 09/22/2025 0008 Measure V 20% AlternativeModes Phase 2 Ped Imp Proj Downtown VVH CONSULTING SERVICES 369.33 28998 09/22/2025 0007 Measure V Fund Fruitland Ave Rd Improvements VVH CONSULTING SERVICES 225.00 28998 09/22/2025 0008 Measure V 20% AltemativeModes Phase 2 Ped Imp Proj Downtown VVH CONSULTING SERVICES 725.48 28998 09/22/2025 6010 Sewer Enterprise Fund Canal Creek Utility Crossing VVH CONSULTING SERVICES 1,350.00 AP-Checks for Approval (9/18/2025 - 11:56 AM) Page 14

Check Number Check Date Fund Account Name Vendor Name Void Amount 28998 09/22/2025 0003 General Fund Capital Phase 2 Ped Imp Proj Downtown WH CONSULTING SERVICES 4,548.34 28998 09/22/2025 0003 General Fund Capital Phase 2 Ped Imp Proj Downtown WH CONSULTING SERVICES 5,599.52 28998 09/22/2025 0008 Measure V 20% AlternativeModes Phase 2 Ped Imp Proj Downtown VVH CONSULTING SERVICES 2,428.77 28998 09/22/2025 0008 Measure V 20% AlternativeModes Phase 2 Ped Imp Proj Downtown WH CONSULTING SERVICES 589.29 28998 09/22/2025 0008 Measure V 20% AlternativeModes Phase 2 Ped Imp Proj Downtown WH CONSULTING SERVICES 1,972.83 28998 09/22/2025 0008 Measure V 20% AlternativeModes Phase 2 Ped Imp Proj Downtown WH CONSULTING SERVICES 900.00 28998 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Professional Services WH CONSULTING SERVICES 13,950.00 28998 09/22/2025 1014 CRP Carbon Reduction Prog Fund Phase 2 Ped Imp Proj Downtown WH CONSULTING SERVICES 15,227.04 28998 09/22/2025 0007 Measure V Fund City Wide Traffic Signal Synch VVH CONSULTING SERVICES 112.50 28998 09/22/2025 60 IO Sewer Enterprise Fund Lower Shaffer Storm Drain Imp WH CONSULTING SERVICES 112.50 28998 09/22/2025 1014 CRP Carbon Reduction Prog Fund Phase 2 Ped Imp Proj Downtown WH CONSULTING SERVICES 18,746.23 28998 09/22/2025 6010 Sewer Enterprise Fund Atwater Blvd Drainage Imprvmts VVH CONSULTING SERVICES 112.50 Check Total: 81,950.00
28999 09/22/2025 000 I General Fund Special Departmental Expense WARD ENTERPRISES 92.38 28999 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Special Departmental Expense WARD ENTERPRISES 36.87 Check Total: 129.25 -
29000 09/22/2025 000 I General Fund Special Departmental Expense WATERFORD IRRIGATION SUPPLY, INC 35.34 29000 09/22/2025 6000 Water Enterprise Fund Special Departmental Expense WATERFORD IRRIGATION SUPPLY, INC 8.10 Check Total: 43.44
29001 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Utilities WEST COAST GAS CO. INC. 29.97 Check Total: 29.97
29002 09/22/2025 7000 Internal Service Fund Special Departmental Expense WINTON HARDWARE 16.13 Check Total: 16.13
29003 09/22/2025 0001 General Fund Castle Park Deposits ULYSES ZAMBRANO 200.00 Check Total: 200.00
Report Total: 1,497,199.39
AP-Checks for Approval (9/18/2025 - 11 :56 AM) Page 15

CITY OF ATWATER
Minutes

CITY COUNCIL

ACTION MINUTES
August 11, 2025
Council Chambers – 750 Bellevue Road, Atwater, California

CALL TO ORDER
The City Council meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM.

ROLL CALL

Present: Mayor Nelson, Mayor Pro Tem Cale, Council Members Ambriz, Raymond, Rochester

Absent: None
INVOCATION:

Provided by Chaplain Mead.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:

Led by City Council Member Raymond.

SUBSEQUENT NEED ITEMS: None
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

Motion to approve the agenda as posted.

MOTION: Raymond
SECOND: Ambriz
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.

PRESENATIONS:
• Proclamation of Recognition – Proclamation presented to the 4th of July Committee
• Certificate of Recognition – Michael Gozales

City Council Meeting Action Minutes for August 11, 2025 Page 2

CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion to approve Consent Calendar as presented.

MOTION: Rochester
SECOND: Raymond
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.

Approved Items:
• Item 1: Warrant Registers – July 28, 2025, and August 11, 2025 • Item 2: City Council Minutes – May 31, 2025 (Special meeting) • Item 3: Resolution No. 3558-25 Approving Amendment to Joint Powers Agreement of the Central San Joaquin Valley Risk Management Authority • Item 4: Resolution No. 3559-25 Approving a General Construction Contract with Taylor Backhoe Service, Inc. for the Replacement of a Water Service Line Located at 325-329 E. Bellevue Road Purchase Agreement – Granulated Activated Carbon Exchange at Well 18
• Item 5: Resolution No. 3560-25 Approving Agreement between City of Atwater and Atwater Elementary School District for School Resource Officer for 2025-26 School Year
• Item 6: Resolution No. 3546-25 Approving Budget Amendment Amending Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Budget to Establish a New Fund for an Approved Capital Improvement Project, Downtown Pedestrian Improvements Project- Phase 2 • Item 7: Purchase Agreement with Xybix Systems, Inc. for Purchase and Installation of Dispatch furniture
• Item 8: Resolution No. 3561-25 Approving a Lease Agreement with Enterprise Fleet Management for four (4) Ford Police Interceptor Utility vehicles • Item 9: Resolution No. 3562-25 Awarding a Cooperative State and Local Government Agreement for File Conversion Services and Cloud-Based Document Management Software
• Item 10: Awarding a Sole Source Purchase From JWC Environmental For One (1) Rotor and Gearbox Assembly for "Muffin Monster" Wastewater Influent Screenings Washer Compactor for the Wastewater Treatment Plant • Item 11: Approving specifications and authorizing advertising and Call for Bids for the purchase of an Electric Street Sweeper
REPORTS AND PRESETATIONS FROM STAFF:

Adopting the City of Atwater Public Safety Transactions and Use Tax Program Guidelines
MOTION: Council Member Rochester Adopting Resolution No. 3563-25 approving the City of Atwater Public Safety Transactions and Use Tax Program Guidelines; seconded by Council Member Raymond.

VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.

City Council Meeting Action Minutes for August 11, 2025 Page 3

COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC
Public comments were received regarding various public signs, city staff, public safety staffing, and upcoming community events.

COUNCIL MATTERS
Council Members and Mayor provided individual updates.

CITY MANAGER REPORT
Update provided by City Manager Hoem.

CLOSED SESSION
Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation - Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2): Number of cases (2)
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8, Conference with Real Property Negotiations regarding property price and terms of payment. Agency Negotiators:

City Manager Hoem and Public Works Director Vinson. Negotiating Parties:

National Retail Properties, LP Property Location: 303 E. Bellevue Road, Atwater, CA 95301 APN 156-060-011
Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation - Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1): Name of case: City of Atwater v. Robert Hugo Carbajal, et al. (Merced County Superior Court, Case No. 23CV-00807)
REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION:

City Attorney reported there was no reportable action.

ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:33 PM.

APPROVED:
________________________________

MIKE NELSON
MAYOR

City Council Meeting Action Minutes for August 11, 2025 Page 4 ATTEST:
_______________________________

JANELL MARTIN

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA REPORT

MEETING
DATE:

September 22, 2025
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Justin Vinson, Public Works Director

PREPARED
BY:

Justin Vinson, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Approving a General Services Agreement with Joe's Landscaping and Concrete Inc. for Landscape Maintenance Services in Landscape Maintenance Assessments (Public Works Director Vinson)

RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION
Adoption of Resolution No. 3569-25 approving a General Services Agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, to Joe's Landscaping and Concrete of Newman, California for Landscape Maintenance in the Maintenance Districts; and authorizes and directs the City Manager to execute an agreement on behalf of the City.

I. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:

On October 25, 2021, the City Council approved a contract with Joe's Landscaping to perform landscaping in the 19 landscape districts located throughout the City of Atwater.

The initial term of the Agreement was for one (1) year, in the amount of $115,061.04.

The City, at its sole discretion, could extend the Agreement in one (1) year increments up to a total term of three (3) years. For each successive renewal term, the rate would be adjusted annually in accordance with an increase in the All-Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Area. It would not decrease in the event there is any year-to-year or cumulative decrease in the CPI during the term of the Agreement. Any increase in the amount because of an increase to the CPI was to be rounded up to the nearest dollar. In the final year of the contract, the monthly cost for maintenance in the districts was $10,370.85 a month for a total of $124,450.20. This amount was still $25,000.00 cheaper than the second lowest bid in 2021.

The city exercised its right to extend the agreement up to three years, which was allowed in the original agreement. On October 25, 2024, the city entered into Amendment No.1 with Joe's Landscaping for a cost to perform the work from October 26, 2024, to October 25, 2025. The contractor agreed to perform the work at the same price as the last year of the original contract with no cost increase for the city. Staff reviewed the quote and deemed the work being performed by Joe's Landscaping as acceptable. Staff recommended the city enter into Amendment No.1 with Joe's

CITY COUNCIL
Mike Nelson, Mayor
Danny Ambriz Brian Raymond
John Cale Kalisa Rochester

Agenda Report - Approving a General Services Agreement with Joe's Landscaping and Concrete Inc. for Landscape Maintenance Services in Landscape Maintenance Assessments (Public Works Director Vinson) Page 2

Landscaping extending the original contract one more year with no additional cost, at $10,370.85 a month, for a total of $124,450.20.

This year, staff released an RFP for Landscape Maintenance Services in the Maintenance Districts to evaluate other companies as well to see if the city was still getting the most cost-efficient contract. The city received 5 proposals, and staff evaluated the proposals. Joe's Landscaping still met all the qualifications and submitted the lowest cost by over $1,000 per month. The amount of the contract will not change for a third consecutive year, staying at $10,375.85 a month for a total of $124,450.20, but starting in year 2 of this three-year contract, the contract will increase annually by the CPI just like the original contract.

II. FISCAL IMPACTS:

Sufficient funding is available in the Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget, Maintenance District Fund, Professional Services Account No. 5000.3038.3030.

This item has been reviewed by the Finance Department.

III. LEGAL REVIEW:

This item has been reviewed by the City Attorney's Office.

IV. EXISTING POLICY:

This item is consistent with goals number one (1) and six (6) of the 2026-2030 City of Atwater's Strategic Plan: to ensure the City's continued financial solvency and improve quality of life.

V. ALTERNATIVES:

N/A
VI. INTERDEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

This item has been reviewed by all relevant departments.

VII. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:

The public will have an opportunity to provide comments on this item prior to the City Council action.

VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

This item is not considered a "project" under section 21065 of the Public Resources Code as it will not directly or reasonably indirectly affect the physical environment and therefore is not subject to review of analysis.

IX. STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL:

Upon City Council approval, staff will route the General Services Agreement for

Agenda Report - Approving a General Services Agreement with Joe's Landscaping and Concrete Inc. for Landscape Maintenance Services in Landscape Maintenance Assessments (Public Works Director Vinson) Page 3

execution.

Submitted by:

Justin Vinson, Public Works Director
Approved by:

Chris Hoem, City Manager
Attachments:

1. XXXX-25 Joe's Landscaping General Services Agreement

RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-25

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF ATWATER APPROVING A GENERAL
SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH JOE’S

LANDSCAPING AND CONCRETE OF NEWMAN,

CALIFORNIA FOR LANDSCAPING SERVICES IN

THE LANDSCAPE DISTRICTS
WHEREAS, the Parties entered into a General Services Agreement dated October 26, 2021 (“Original Agreement”) for the purpose of providing landscaping services in the city landscaping districts with a term ending October 26, 2022 (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, The City at its sole discretion could extend the Agreement in one (1) year increments up to a total term of three (3) years. For each successive renewal term, the rate would be adjusted annually in accordance with an increase in the All-Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Area. It would not decrease in the event there is any year-to-year or cumulative decrease in the CPI during the term of the Agreement.

Any increase in the amount because of an increase to the CPI was to be rounded up to the nearest dollar.; and
WHEREAS, the City exercised its right to extend the agreement two additional years: and WHEREAS, in the final year of the approved contract, the compensation amount was $124,450.20 per year after CPI increases; and
WHEREAS, the Parties entered into Amendment No. 1 to extend the original contract for one year with no increase to the compensation; and
WHEREAS, the city released an RFP for Landscape Maintenance in the Assessment Districts to evaluate contractors qualifications and pricing to ensure the city is receiving the best product as the best price as possible; and
WHEREAS, staff reviewed the proposals and are recommending Joe’s Landscaping and Concrete be awarded a new three-year General Services Contract for the landscaping services in the maintenance districts; and

CITY COUNCIL
OF THE

CITY OF ATWATER

Resolution No. XXXX-24 Page 2
WHEREAS, for the first year, the cost will not increase from the previous contract amendment of $124,450.20 a year, after the first year the contract will annually increase in accordance with the All-Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Area.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Atwater as follows does hereby approve a General Services Agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, to Joe's Landscaping and Concrete of Newman, California for Landscape Maintenance in the Maintenance Districts; and authorizes and directs the City Manager to execute agreement on behalf of the City.

The foregoing resolution is hereby adopted on the 22nd day of September 2025.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:

MICHAEL G. NELSON, MAYOR
ATTEST:

KORY J. BILLINGS, CITY CLERK

CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA REPORT

MEETING
DATE:

September 22, 2025
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM:

PREPARED
BY:

Janell Martin, Assistant City Clerk/Records Coordinator SUBJECT: Opposition to California Proposition 50

RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION
Adoption of Resolution No. 3570-25 opposing California Proposition 50 and directing the City Clerk's office to transmit copies of the Resolution to the Governor of California and the California Secretary of State.

I. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:

In 2008, California voters approved Proposition 11, and in 2010, Proposition 20, to establish the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. These measures were intended to ensure a fair, transparent, and nonpartisan redistricting process that removed political influence from the drawing of legislative and congressional district boundaries.

Redistricting occurs once every ten years following the U.S. Census. The most recent process was completed in 2021, following the 2020 Census, and was carried out by the Citizens Redistricting Commission with significant public input and transparency.

Proposition 50, scheduled to appear on the November 4, 2025 ballot, seeks to temporarily suspend the authority of the independent Citizens Redistricting Commission and transfer redistricting authority back to the California State Legislature for the 2026, 2028, and 2030 election cycles. This change would reverse the voter-approved mandate for independence in redistricting and reintroduce the potential for political influence in the process.

The California Supreme Court declined to block Proposition 50 from placement on the ballot, leaving the decision to the voters. Adoption of this Resolution would align the City of Atwater with other jurisdictions in opposing Proposition 50. The Resolution underscores the City Council’s support for transparency, fairness, and voter intent in redistricting matters, and communicates these concerns to state leadership.

II. FISCAL IMPACTS:

CITY COUNCIL
Mike Nelson, Mayor
Danny Ambriz Brian Raymond
John Cale Kalisa Rochester

Agenda Report - Opposition to California Proposition 50 Page 2

There is no direct fiscal impact to the City of Atwater related to the adoption of this Resolution.

III. LEGAL REVIEW:

This item has been reviewed by the City Attorney.

IV. EXISTING POLICY:

This item is consistent with goals number three (3) of the 2026-2030 City of Atwater's Strategic Plan: Promote transparency through communication.

V. ALTERNATIVES:

N/A
VI. INTERDEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

This item has been reviewed by all relevant departments.

VII. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:

The public will have an opportunity to speak prior to City Council action.

VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

This item is not a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as this activity does not cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21065.

IX. STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL:

Upon adoption, the resolution will be signed and will be forwarded to the Governor of California and Secretary of States' office.

Approved by:

Chris Hoem, City Manager
Attachments:

1. XXXX-25 Opposition to Prop 50

CITY COUNCIL
OF THE

CITY OF ATWATER
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-25

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ATWATER OPPOSING CALIFORNIA PROPOSITION 50 AND

DIRECTING THIS RESOLUTION BE SENT TO THE

GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA AND CALIFORNIA

SECRETARY OF STATE TO RAISE AWARENESS ABOUT
THE IMPLICATIONS OF PROPOSITION 50
WHEREAS, California voters approved the creation of the California Citizens Redistricting Commission through Proposition 11 (2008) and Proposition 20 (2010) to ensure independent, nonpartisan, and transparent redistricting processes free from political interference; and
WHEREAS, California redistricting cycles occur every 10 years to correspond with the United States Census, and the most recent redistricting process occurred in 2021 following completion of the 2020 Census; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 50 seeks to temporarily suspend the authority of the independent Citizens Redistricting Commission and transfer the power to draw congressional district maps to the California State Legislature for the 2026, 2028, and 2030 elections, thereby reversing the will of California voters; and
WHEREAS, the California Supreme Court has declined to block the measure from appearing on the November 4, 2025 ballot, leaving the decision to the voters.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Atwater does hereby oppose California Proposition 50 and directs the City Clerk’s office to transmit copies of this Resolution to the Governor of California and the California Secretary of State to raise awareness about the implications of Proposition 50.

The foregoing resolution is hereby adopted this 22nd day of September 2025.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Resolution No. XXXX-25 Page 2
APPROVED:

________________________________
MICHAEL G. NELSON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________________
KORY J. BILLINGS, CITY CLERK

CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA REPORT

MEETING
DATE:

September 22, 2025
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Christopher Hoem, City Manager

PREPARED
BY:

Christopher Hoem, City Manager
SUBJECT: Waive the First Reading by Title only, and introduce an Ordinance Approving Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No. 25-09-0100 Amending Chapter 17.71 “Conditional Use Permit” of the Atwater Municipal Code (City Manager Hoem)

RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION
Open the public hearing and receive any testimony from the public; and Close the public hearing; and
Motion to waive the first reading by title only, and introduce Ordinance No. CS 1073 approving Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No. 25-09-0100 amending Chapter

17.71 “Conditional Use Permit” of the Atwater Municipal Code.

Motion to approve staff's recommendation as presented.

I. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:

1. BACKGROUND:

The regulations for Conditional Use Permits were first adopted in 1983 and revised in 1984 and 1987. While other nearby cities have modernized their corresponding regulations, the City of Atwater is in need of an update in this matter.

Currently, the Code has a six-month expiration for newly approved Conditional Use Permits. This Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (ZOTA) proposes to amend the expiration to five years.

2. ANALYSIS:

CITY COUNCIL
Mike Nelson, Mayor
Danny Ambriz Brian Raymond
John Cale Kalisa Rochester

Agenda Report - Waive the First Reading by Title only, and introduce an Ordinance Approving Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No. 25-09-0100 Amending Chapter 17.71 “Conditional Use Permit” of the Atwater Municipal Code (City Manager Hoem) Page 2

Many projects—particularly those involving larger-scale development or significant site improvements—require extended timeframes for financing, design development, and construction staging. A six-month window is often unrealistic, especially in today's economic and regulatory environment. Extending the expiration period to five years provides a more practical timeline that reflects the realities of project delivery.

A longer validity period reduces the need for applicants to request extensions or reapply, which in turn reduces staff time spent on processing minor extensions for valid, ongoing projects. This change promotes administrative efficiency and reduces unnecessary costs for applicants, especially those navigating complex or phased developments.

While the CUP would be valid for five years, staff retains authority to monitor compliance and enforce permit conditions throughout that period. Furthermore, the City may still revoke a CUP if it is not in compliance or becomes a nuisance, ensuring accountability without imposing rigid time constraints.

Economic fluctuations, construction delays, and supply chain disruptions have become increasingly common. Extending the expiration period provides applicants flexibility to adapt to market conditions without jeopardizing entitlements prematurely.

Lastly, this amendment will also apply to existing Conditional Use Permits. Any CUP approved within the past five years, including those that may have lapsed under the prior six-month expiration rule, will be deemed valid and extended to a five-year term measured from their original date of approval. CUPs approved more than five years prior to the effective date of this ordinance will remain expired and will not be reinstated.

If a project includes a Condtional Use Permit and other permit types, such as a site plan approval or a tentative map, and if there are different expiration dates for each approval, then the earliest expiration of those permits will apply to the whole project.

This report is accompanied by the following attachments:
• Exhibit A - clean version of the new code. This exhibit is also attached to the accompanying ordinance.
• Exhibit B - redline version, showing the changes between the original code and the new code.
• Exhibit C - original version of the code.

II. FISCAL IMPACTS:

No negative fiscal impacts are anticipated with the approval of this project. This item has been reviewed by the Finance Department.

Agenda Report - Waive the First Reading by Title only, and introduce an Ordinance Approving Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No. 25-09-0100 Amending Chapter 17.71 “Conditional Use Permit” of the Atwater Municipal Code (City Manager Hoem) Page 3

III. LEGAL REVIEW:

This item has been reviewed by the City Attorney’s Office.

IV. EXISTING POLICY:

The ordinance will amend Chapter 17.71, “Conditional Use Permit,”.

The draft ordinance does not conflict with any policies of the General Plan or other City policies or guidelines.

V. ALTERNATIVES:

VI. INTERDEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

This item was coordinated with all relevant departments.

VII. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:

The public hearing was noticed and advertised for the regularly scheduled City Council hearing. The public can provide comments on this item prior to City Council action.

VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the draft ordinance is categorically exempt under section 15061, (b)(3). This exemption states that the activity is covered by the common sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, the activity is not subject to CEQA.

IX. STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL:

The second reading and adoption of the ordinance will be scheduled for the next regular City Council meeting.

Submitted and Approved by:

Chris Hoem, City Manager
Attachments:

1. RSO 0271-25 Draft Ordinance

2. Exhibit A - CHAPTER_17.71__CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - clean update

3. Exhibit B - CHAPTER_17.71__CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - redline

Agenda Report - Waive the First Reading by Title only, and introduce an Ordinance Approving Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No. 25-09-0100 Amending Chapter 17.71 “Conditional Use Permit” of the Atwater Municipal Code (City Manager Hoem) Page 4

4. Exhibit C - CHAPTER_17.71__CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - original (1)

5. RSO 0271-25 Resolution Signed

CITY COUNCIL
OF THE

CITY OF ATWATER

ORDINANCE NO. XXXX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF ATWATER ADOPTING ZONING
ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT (ZOTA) NO. 25-
09-0100 AMENDING CHAPTER 17.71:
“CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT” OF THE
ATWATER MUNICIPAL CODE.

WHEREAS, the City of Atwater wishes to modernize its conditional use permit ordinance; and,
WHEREAS, Chapter 17.71 “Conditional Use Permit” of the City of Atwater Municipal Code was initially adopted in 1983 and only partially revised in 1984 and 1987; and, WHEREAS, on May 21, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing and considered the staff report, recommendations by staff, and public testimony concerning this proposed Ordinance. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to forward the Ordinance to the City Council with a recommendation in favor of its adoption; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the following findings can be made for ZOTA No. 25- 09-0100:

1. The proposed ordinance is consistent with the Atwater General Plan.

2. Adoption of the ordinance is exempt from CEQA review under CEQA guideline section 15061(b)(3).

3. The public hearing for this project has been adequately noticed and advertised.

4. The project will not have a detrimental effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or any adverse effects on the community.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED, by the City Council of the City of Atwater as follows:

SECTION 1. Incorporation. The recitals above are each incorporated by reference and adopted as findings by the City Council.

SECTION 2. CEQA. this project is exempt under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guideline section 15061(b)(3), “Review for Exemption”. This exemption states, the

City Council Ordinance No. XXXX Page 2
activity is covered by the commons sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. This is not subject to CEQA.

SECTION 3. General Plan. The City Council hereby finds that the adoption of the Ordinance is consistent with the General Plan.

SECTION 4. Code Amendment. Chapter 17.71: “Conditional Use Permit,” of the Atwater Municipal Code is hereby amended and restated to read in its entirety as provided in “Exhibit A,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 5. Effective Date. Within fifteen (15) days from and after adoption, this Ordinance shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in Merced County and circulated in Atwater, in accordance with California Government Code Section 36933. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption.

SECTION 6. Publication. The City Clerk is directed to certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and post or publish this Ordinance as required by law.

SECTION 7. Custodian of Records. The custodian of records for this Ordinance is the City Clerk and the records comprising the administrative record are located at 1160 Fifth St, Atwater, CA 95301.

SECTION 8. Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity has no effect on the other provisions or applications of the Ordinance that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this extent, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance irrespective of the invalidity of any portion thereof.

INTRODUCED:

ADOPTED:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:

City Council Ordinance No. XXXX Page 3
__________________________________

MIKE NELSON, MAYOR

ATTEST:
______________________________
KORY J. BILLINGS, CITY CLERK

Title 17 – ZONING
CHAPTER 17.71 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Atwater, California, Code of Ordinances Created: 2024-07-10 14:49:31 [EST] (Supp. No. 10)

CHAPTER 17.71 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT

17.71.010 Purpose.

The purpose of the conditional use permit is to allow for the appropriate integration of certain land uses into the community which may be suitable only in specific locations within a zoning district, or only if designed and laid out in a particular manner.

A conditional use permit is required for all uses listed as conditional uses in the district regulations or elsewhere in this chapter that are hereafter created, changed, converted, or enlarged, either wholly, or in part.

When considering an application for a conditional use, the Planning Commission shall give due consideration to the nature and condition of all adjacent uses and structures. In authorizing a conditional use, the Planning Commission may impose requirements and conditions relating to location, construction, maintenance, operation, and site planning, in addition to those expressly required by this Code, as necessary to ensure that the proposed use is consistent with all general plan goals and policies, and will not create negative impacts to adjacent properties or the general public.
(Ord. CS 532, 1983)

17.71.015 Changes or reestablishment of uses.

Any use, established pursuant to an approved conditional use permit, that has been discontinued for less than five years may be reestablished or changed to a similar or less intensive use without the need for a new use permit. The Community Development Director shall determine whether the proposed use is similar or less intensive, and this determination shall be subject to appeal to the Planning Commission.
(Ord. CS 624, 1987)

17.71.020 Application and fee.

A. The application shall be submitted by the property owner or their authorized agent to the Community Development Director on a form prescribed by the City of Atwater. A conditional use permit may be issued for any of the uses or purposes for which such permits are required or permitted by the terms of this Code. Approval of a conditional use permit does not exempt the applicant from compliance with all applicable provisions of the Fire Code, Building Code, or other sections of this Code.

B. The application fee shall be set by resolution of the City Council in an amount consistent with the actual cost of processing the application. The fee is nonrefundable.

Exhibit A

Created: 2024-07-10 14:49:31 [EST]
(Supp. No. 10)

C. The application shall include maps and drawings sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the requirements set forth in this Code
(Ord. CS 532, 1883)

17.71.030 Public hearing.

The Community Development Director shall schedule the matter for a public hearing no sooner than 30 days after the date of application. Notice of the hearing shall be mailed to owners of all property located within 300 feet of the subject property no less than ten days prior to the hearing date. Failure of a property owner to receive such notice shall not affect the validity of any action taken.

When Council approval is required, as specified elsewhere in this title, the public hearing shall be noticed in the same manner.
(Ord. CS 532, 1983)

17.71.040 Findings for Approval.

The Planning Commission may approve the issuance of a conditional use permit (or recommend action by the City Council if the proposal includes changes that require Council approval) only if all of the following findings can be made:

1. The proposed use is consistent with the purpose and standards of the zoning district, the general plan, and any adopted area or neighborhood plan, specific plan, or community plan.

2. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use will be compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity of the subject property.

3. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare of the city.

4. The proposed use is properly located within the city and adequately served by existing or planned services and infrastructure.

(Ord. CS 532, 1483)

17.71.050 Certificate.

Upon approval of the use permit, and if no appeal from the decision is filed within five calendar days of the approval date, the Community Development Director shall issue a permit

Created: 2024-07-10 14:49:31 [EST]
(Supp. No. 10)

certificate. The certificate shall contain the permit number, effective date, expiration date, and all conditions of approval.

The certificate shall be permanently displayed in a publicly visible location on the premises at all times. Display of the certificate is a condition of every use permit and shall be acknowledged in writing by the applicant prior to the final approval by the Planning Commission.
(Ord. CS 532, 1983)

17.71.060 Building permit.

Following the issuance of a conditional use permit, the building inspector shall issue a building permit, if required, once compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter and all City rules and regulations have been confirmed. The building inspector shall ensure that development is initiated and completed in conformance with the approved plans. (Ord. CS 532, 1983)

17.71.070 Re-application.

No person, including the original applicant, shall reapply for a similar conditional use permit for the same land, building, or structure within one year of the final decision on the previous application, unless the denial was made without prejudice. (Ord. CS 532, 1983)

17.71.080 Revocation.

A use permit may be revoked by the Planning Commission if approved by the Planning Commission, or by the City Council if approved by the City Council, at any time for noncompliance with permit conditions, violation of City regulations, or if the use constitutes a nuisance to the neighborhood.
(Ord. CS 532, 1983)

17.71.085 Expiration of permit.

A. Time Limits. The conditional use permit shall expire if not exercised within five years of approval. A permit or approval shall be considered “exercised” when:

1. A building permit is issued and construction has commenced; or,

2. A certificate of occupancy is issued; or,

3. A business license is issued; or,

Created: 2024-07-10 14:49:31 [EST]
(Supp. No. 10)

4. The use is established.

B. Extension of Time. The Community Development Director may approve time extensions of up to two years, in the following manner:

1. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department a written request for an extension of time no later than ten days before the expiration of the permit or approval.

2. The Community Development Director may extend the permit or approval for an additional two year period if the applicant has proceeded in good faith and has exercised due diligence in efforts to exercise the permit or approval in a timely manner.

3. The burden of proof is on the applicant to demonstrate that the permit should be extended.

4. The Community Development Director may choose to refer any extension of time requests to the Planning Commission for review and final decision. (Ord. CS 532, 1983)

17.71.090 Appeal.

Any decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed in writing to the City Council within five calendar days of the Planning Commission’s action. If an appeal is made, notice of the hearing shall be provided as specified in Section 17.71.030. (Ord. CS 532, 1983; Ord. CS 581, 1984)

Title 17 - ZONING
CHAPTER 17.71 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Atwater, California, Code of Ordinances Created: 2024-07-10 14:49:31 [EST] (Supp. No. 10)

CHAPTER 17.71 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT

17.71.010 Purpose.

The purpose of the conditional use permit is to allow for the proper appropriate integration of certain land uses into the community of uses which may be suitable only in specific locations in thewithin a zoning district, or only if such uses are designed andor laid out on the site in a particular manner.

A conditional use permit shall beis required for all uses listed as conditional uses in the district regulations or elsewhere in this chapter that are hereafter created, changed, converted, or enlarged, either wholly, or in part.

In When considering an application for a conditional use, the Planning Commission shall give due regard consideration to the nature and condition of all adjacent uses and structures. In authorizing a conditional use, the Planning Commission may impose such requirements and conditions with respectrelating to location, construction, maintenance, and operation, and site planning, in addition to those expressly stipulated inrequired by this Code for the particular use, as they deem necessary to ensure that the proposed use is consistent with all general plan goals and policies, and will not create negative impacts to adjacent properties or the general public.for the protection of adjacent properties and the public interest. (Ord. CS 532, 1983)

17.71.015 Changes or reestablishment of uses.

Any use, established pursuant to an approved conditional use permit, that has been discontinued forterminated for a period of less than one five years may be reinstitutedreestablished or changed to a similar or less intensive use without the necessity of obtainingneed for a new use permit. The Community Development Director shall make the determination as todetermine whether a newthe proposed use is a similar or less intensive, use which and this determination shall be subject to appeal to the Planning Commission. (Ord. CS 624, 1987)

17.71.020 Application and fee.

A. The aApplication shall be submittedmade by the property owner or certified their authorized agent thereof to the Planning Community Development Director on a form prescribed for this purpose by the City of Atwater. A cConditional use permit, revocable, conditional, and/or valid for a term period, may be issued for any of the uses or purposes for which such permits are required or permitted by the terms of this chapterCode.

Exhibit B

Created: 2024-07-10 14:49:31 [EST]
(Supp. No. 10)

Granting Approval of a conditional use permit does not exempt the applicant from complying compliance with all requirements applicable provisions of the fFire Code, and bBuilding cCode, or other applicable sections of this Code.

B. The aApplication fee shall be set by resolution ofby the City Council in an amount consistent with the actual cost of processing thean application. No part of such fee shall be refundableThe fee is nonrefundable.

C. Accompanying Maps and Drawings. Maps and drawings necessary to demonstrate that conditions set forth herein are fulfilled. The application shall include maps and drawings sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the requirements set forth in this Code (Ord. CS 532, 1883)

17.71.030 Public hearing.

The Planning Community Development Director shall set schedule the matter for a public hearing not lessno sooner than 30 days after the date of application. and shall send notice Notice of the hearing shall be mailed to owners of all property located within 300 feet of the subject property for which a conditional use permit is requested not less than ten days prior to the hearing date of such hearing. Failure of a property owners to receive such notice of hearing shall in no waynot affect the validity of any action taken.

When Council approval is required, as indicated specified elsewhere in this title, the public hearings shall be advertised noticed in the same manner. (Ord. CS 532, 1983)

17.71.040 Findings for ApprovalPlanning Commission Action.

Provided that the Planning Commission is satisfied that the proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of this Code and the Atwater General Plan, that any additional conditions stipulated by the Planning Director as deemed necessary in the public interest will be met, and that such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community, the Planning Commission may approve the issuance of a conditional use permit except for those permits that require Council approval.

The Planning Commission may approve the issuance of a conditional use permit (or recommend action by the City Council if the proposal includes changes that require Council approval) only if all of the following findings can be made:

1. The proposed use is consistent with the purpose and standards of the zoning district, the general plan, and any adopted area or neighborhood plan, specific plan, or community plan.

Created: 2024-07-10 14:49:31 [EST]
(Supp. No. 10)

2. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use will be compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity of the subject property.

3. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare of the city.

4. The proposed use is properly located within the city and adequately served by existing or planned services and infrastructure.

(Ord. CS 532, 1483)

17.71.050 Certificate.

Upon approval of the use permit, and if no appeal from the decision has beenis filed within five calendar days fromof the approval date of approval, the Planning Community Development Director shall issue a permit certificate. Said The certificate shall contain the permit number, effective date, and expiration date, of permit, as well asand all conditions attached toof approval of permit.

The certificate shall be permanently displayed in a publicly visible location on the premises view at all times. Such posting shall beDisplay of the certificate is a condition of every use permit and shall hbe agreed acknowledgedto in writing by the applicant prior to the final approval by the Planning Commission.
(Ord. CS 532, 1983)

17.71.060 Building permit.

Following the issuance of a conditional use permit, the building inspector shall issue a building permit, if required, at such time as once compliance with all applicable provisions other sections of this chapter and all City rules and regulations have been confirmedof the City are ascertained, and. The building inspector shall ensure that development is undertaken initiated and completed only in conformity toconformance with the approved plans. (Ord. CS 532, 1983)

17.71.070 Re-application.

No person, including the original applicant, shall reapply for a similar conditional use permit foron the same land, building, or structure within a period of one year from date of the final decision on such the previous application, unless such decision is a denialthe denial was made without prejudice.
(Ord. CS 532, 1983)

Created: 2024-07-10 14:49:31 [EST]
(Supp. No. 10)

17.71.080 Revocation.

A Uuse Ppermit can may be revoked by the Planning Commission if approved by the Planning Commission, or by the City Council if approved by the City Council, at any time for noncompliance with permit conditions, or other violation of City regulations, or if the use constitutesit creates a nuisance to the neighborhood.
(Ord. CS 532, 1983)

17.71.085 Expiration of permit.

Use permits associated with site plans shall expire six months after approval, if no building permit has been issued by then and construction started. All other types of use permits shall expire six months after approval if operation has not started. A use permit shall also expire if the use has been discontinued six months or longer.

A. Time Limits. The conditional use permit shall expire if not exercised within five years of approval. A permit or approval shall be considered “exercised” when:

1. A building permit is issued and construction has commenced; or,

2. A certificate of occupancy is issued; or,

3. A business license is issued; or,

4. The use is established.

B. Extension of Time. The Community Development Director may approve time extensions of up to two years, in the following manner:

1. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department a written request for an extension of time no later than ten days before the expiration of the permit or approval.

2. The Community Development Director may extend the permit or approval for an additional two year period if the applicant has proceeded in good faith and has exercised due diligence in efforts to exercise the permit or approval in a timely manner.

3. The burden of proof is on the applicant to demonstrate that the permit should be extended.

1.4. The Community Development Director may choose to refer any extension of time requests to the Planning Commission for review and final decision. (Ord. CS 532, 1983)

Created: 2024-07-10 14:49:31 [EST]
(Supp. No. 10)

17.71.090 Appeal.

Any decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed in writing to the City Council within five calendar days after of the Planning Commission’s action. If such an appeal is made, notice of the hearing on the appeal shall be given as provided as specified for in Section

17.71.030.
(Ord. CS 532, 1983; Ord. CS 581, 1984)

Title 17 - ZONING
CHAPTER 17.71 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Atwater, California, Code of Ordinances Created: 2024-07-10 14:49:31 [EST] (Supp. No. 10)

CHAPTER 17.71 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT

17.71.010 Purpose.

The purpose of the conditional use permit is to allow the proper integration into the community of uses which may be suitable only in specific locations in the zoning district or only if such uses are designed or laid out on the site in a particular manner.

A conditional use permit shall be required for all uses listed as conditional uses in the district regulations or elsewhere in this chapter that are hereafter created, changed, converted, or enlarged, either wholly, or in part.

In considering an application for a conditional use, the Planning Commission shall give due regard to the nature and condition of all adjacent uses and structures. In authorizing a conditional use, the Planning Commission may impose such requirements and conditions with respect to location, construction, maintenance and operation, and site planning, in addition to those expressly stipulated in this Code for the particular use, as they deem necessary for the protection of adjacent properties and the public interest. (Ord. CS 532, 1983)

17.71.015 Changes or reestablishment of uses.

Any use terminated for a period of less than one year may be re-instituted or changed to a similar or less intensive use without the necessity of obtaining a new use permit. The Community Development Director shall make the determination as to whether a new use is a similar or less intensive use which determination shall be subject to appeal to the Planning Commission.
(Ord. CS 624, 1987)

17.71.020 Application and fee.

A. Application shall be made by the property owner or certified agent thereof to the Planning Director on a form prescribed for this purpose by the City of Atwater. Conditional use permit, revocable, conditional, and/or valid for a term period, may be issued for any of the uses or purposes for which such permits are required or permitted by the terms of this chapter. Granting of a conditional use permit does not exempt the applicant from complying with all requirements of the fire and building code, or other applicable sections of this Code.

B. Application fee shall be set by resolution by the Council in an amount consistent with the actual cost of processing an application. No part of such fee shall be refundable.

Exhibit C

Created: 2024-07-10 14:49:31 [EST]
(Supp. No. 10)

C. Accompanying Maps and Drawings. Maps and drawings necessary to demonstrate that conditions set forth herein are fulfilled.
(Ord. CS 532, 1883)

17.71.030 Public hearing.

The Planning Director shall set the matter for public hearing not less than 30 days after date of application and shall send notice to owners of all property located within 300 feet of the property for which a conditional use permit is requested not less than ten days prior to the date of such hearing. Failure of owners to receive notice of hearing shall in no way affect the validity of action taken.

When Council approval is required as indicated elsewhere in this title, public hearings shall be advertised in the same manner.
(Ord. CS 532, 1983)

17.71.040 Planning Commission Action.

Provided that the Planning Commission is satisfied that the proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of this Code and the Atwater General Plan, that any additional conditions stipulated by the Planning Director as deemed necessary in the public interest will be met, and that such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community, the Planning Commission may approve the issuance of a conditional use permit except for those permits that require Council approval.
(Ord. CS 532, 1483)

17.71.050 Certificate.

Upon approval of the use permit, and if no appeal from the decision has been filed within five calendar days from date of approval, the Planning Director shall issue a certificate. Said certificate shall contain the permit number, effective date and expiration date of permit, as well as conditions attached to approval of permit.

The certificate shall be permanently displayed in public view at all times. Such posting shall be a condition of every use permit and shall he agreed to in writing by the applicant prior to the approval by the Planning Commission.
(Ord. CS 532, 1983)

Created: 2024-07-10 14:49:31 [EST]
(Supp. No. 10)

17.71.060 Building permit.

Following the issuance of a conditional use permit, the building inspector shall issue a building permit if required, at such time as compliance with all other sections of this chapter and all rules and regulations of the City are ascertained, and shall ensure that development is undertaken and completed only in conformity to the approved plans. (Ord. CS 532, 1983)

17.71.070 Re-application.

No person, including the original applicant, shall reapply for a similar conditional use permit on the same land, building or structure within a period of one year from date of the final decision on such previous application unless such decision is a denial without prejudice. (Ord. CS 532, 1983)

17.71.080 Revocation.

A Use Permit can be revoked by the Planning Commission if approved by the Planning Commission, or by the City Council if approved by the City Council, at any time for noncompliance with conditions or other City regulations, or if it creates a nuisance to the neighborhood.
(Ord. CS 532, 1983)

17.71.085 Expiration of permit.

Use permits associated with site plans shall expire six months after approval, if no building permit has been issued by then and construction started. All other types of use permits shall expire six months after approval if operation has not started. A use permit shall also expire if the use has been discontinued six months or longer.
(Ord. CS 532, 1983)

17.71.090 Appeal.

Any decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed in writing to the City Council within five calendar days after Planning Commission action. If such an appeal is made, notice of the hearing on the appeal shall be given as provided for in Section 17.71.030. (Ord. CS 532, 1983; Ord. CS 581, 1984)

CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA REPORT

MEETING
DATE:

September 22, 2025
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Richard McEachin, Police Chief, Josh Randol, CAL FIRE-Battalion Chief

PREPARED
BY:

Richard McEachin, Police Chief, Josh Randol, CAL FIRE-Battalion Chief
SUBJECT: Adopting the City of Atwater Public Safety Master Plan (CAL Fire Battalion Chief Randol and Police Chief McEachin)

RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION
Motion to adopt Resolution No. 3571-25 approving the City of Atwater Public Safety Master Plan as prepared by Griffin Structures, Inc; or
Motion to approve staff's recommendation as presented.

I. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:

The City of Atwater is committed to maintaining a safe and secure community for its residents and visitors. To achieve this, a comprehensive, forward-thinking strategy is necessary to address the city’s public safety needs, both in the short and long term. As such, the development of a Public Safety Master Plan was initiated to assess current public safety conditions and establish a framework for enhancing public safety services across the city.

This Master Plan encompasses key aspects of emergency response, crime prevention, fire safety, community policing, disaster preparedness, and overall coordination between law enforcement and the fire department. It also considers demographic growth, the changing nature of crime, and the evolving needs of the community.

II. FISCAL IMPACTS:

The City Council adopted the Fiscal Year 2023/24 and 2024/25 budgets, which included a line item for the Public Safety Master Plan – Police and Fire (0004-1050-3030).

Payments totaling $125,000 for Fiscal Year 2023/24 and $65,800 for Fiscal Year 2024/25 have been made to Griffin Structures, Inc. for all services rendered. No additional fiscal impacts to the city.

This item has been reviewed by the Finance Director.

CITY COUNCIL
Mike Nelson, Mayor
Danny Ambriz Brian Raymond
John Cale Kalisa Rochester

Agenda Report - Adopting the City of Atwater Public Safety Master Plan (CAL Fire Battalion Chief Randol and Police Chief McEachin) Page 2

III. LEGAL REVIEW:

This item has been reviewed by the City Attorney's office.

IV. EXISTING POLICY:

This item is consistent with goal numbers one (1), two (2), four (4) and six (6) of the City's 2026-2030 Strategic Plan: to ensure the City's continued financial solvency, to improve public safety, optimize organizational structure, and improve quality of life respectively.

V. ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council may choose not to adopt the Public Safety Master Plan or request specific revisions to the plan. However, without the adoption of a comprehensive plan, Atwater may face challenges in addressing future public safety needs, as the current strategy may not adequately account for the city’s growth or evolving challenges.

VI. INTERDEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

The Fire and Police Departments will coordinate with the City Manager to execute all necessary documents.

VII. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:

The public will have an opportunity to provide comments on this item prior to City Council action.

VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

This item is not a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as this activity does not cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21065.

IX. STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL:

Following adoption, the City Clerk's office will finalize the Resolution and execute all necessary documentation.

Submitted by:

Josh Randol,CAL Fire Battalion Chief and Richard McEachin, Police Chief

Agenda Report - Adopting the City of Atwater Public Safety Master Plan (CAL Fire Battalion Chief Randol and Police Chief McEachin) Page 3

Approved by:

Chris Hoem, City Manager
Attachments:

1. Atwater Public Safety Master Plan Report

2. XXXX-25 Adopts Public Safety Master Plan-c1 (3)

CITY OF ATWATER
Atwater Public Safety
Master Plan
FEBRUARY 14, 2025

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments 2
Executive Summary 3
Recommended Plans & Budget 6
Appendix 1A. Citygate Study - Fire Services Master Plan 15 Appendix 1B. Citygate Study - Police Services Master Plan 83 Appendix 2A. Space Program - Fire Station 41 108
Appendix 2B. Space Program - Fire Station 42 112
Appendix 2C. Space Program - Fire Station 43 116
Appendix 2D. Space Program - Police Department 120
Appendix 3. Detailed Project Budget 127
PUBLIC SAFETY NEEDS ASSESSMENT REPORT GRIFFIN STRUCTURES 1

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS GRIFFIN STRUCTURES 2
Griffin Structures
(Program & Construction
Manager)
Prime Consultant
• Dustin Alamo, Project Manager
• Ariana Ramzian, Program
Analyst
• Ryan Craven, Cost Estimator
Citygate Associates, LLC
(Operational Assessment)
• Stewart Gary, Public Safety
Principal
• Gary Elliott, Police Services
Specialist
COAR Design Group
(Project Architect)
• Jeff Katz, Principal
• Christie Jewett, Principal
• Courtney Sluder, Job Captain
Acknowledgments
We sincerely appreciate the City of Atwater, along with its Police Department and Fire Department / CAL FIRE, for the opportunity to contribute to this important project. We are especially grateful to those who provided valuable input and assistance throughout the process.

A special thank you to City Manager, Chris Hoem, and Deputy City Manager / Community Development Director, Greg Thompson, for their leadership, as well as the Atwater Police Department Command Staff— including former Chief Salvador, newly appointed Chief McEachin, and Lieutenant Novetzke—for their insight and collaboration.

We also extend our gratitude to the Atwater Fire Department / CAL FIRE Command Staff, including Merced County Fire Assistant Chief Mark Pimentel and Battalion Chiefs Ayuso, Lopes, and Carvalho, for their clear guidance, timely responses, and unwavering support. Your collective efforts were instrumental in shaping this project, and we truly appreciate your partnership.

C O N S ULTA NT TE A M

E x ecuti v e S ummary & KE Y FINDINGS GRIFFIN STRUCTURES 3

PROJECT PROCESS

1. Data Collection & Facility Review
We began by reviewing building plans,
organizational charts, staffing lists, population
projects, service calls, crime statistics, response
times, and operational reports from both
departments.
• Fire Department: Analysis revealed that
the City’s two fire stations struggle to meet
demand, particularly as northwest Atwater
continues to develop. Fire Station 41 is aging
and does not meet modern seismic and safety
standards, requiring significant upgrades or
replacement.
• Police Department: The current police facility
is outdated, failing to meet modern essential
facility and ADA requirements. The 9-1-1
Communications Center was flagged for noncompliance with accessibility regulations, requiring urgent upgrades.

During our site walks, we captured detailed
documentation of existing conditions to better
understand how spaces are being used today and
how they can be optimized in the future.

2. Public Safety Gap Analysis
Our team conducted a summary-level gap analysis
to compare Atwater’s public safety programs,
staffing, and facilities with expected population
growth and industry best practices.
• Fire Department: Analysis indicated that
current response times are barely adequate
and will worsen without a third fire station.

The existing two-station model is insufficient,
particularly given anticipated 595 additional
emergency calls per year by 2032.
• Police Department: The officer-to-population
ratio (0.78 officers per 1,000 residents) is below
the state average, limiting the department’s
ability to respond to service demands. Evidence
storage is nearing capacity, and workspaces are
inadequate for modern policing.

See Appendix 1A/1B for a more in-depth analysis on each respective department.

3. Staffing & Operational Projections
To plan for long-term operational needs, we
interviewed department leadership and analyzed
staffing levels, response trends, and citywide
growth projections.
• Fire Department: Future staffing will require
an increase from six to twelve personnel per
shift across three stations to ensure adequate
response capabilities at full city buildout.
• Police Department: Future facility planning
must accommodate a growing force, expanded
dispatch services, and modernized workspaces.

Additional space for investigations, records, and
property storage is also needed.

We also explored regional collaborations for
Executive Summary & Key Findings
The City of Atwater hired our Team, Griffin Structures, to assess the current and future space needs for its Fire and Police Departments, ensuring facilities, staffing, and resources align with projected growth and evolving service demands. Our structured process included data collection, public safety gap analysis, staffing and space projections, conceptual design, and cost estimation. This report summarizes our findings and recommendations, integrating key insights from our Team providing the City with a Public Safety Master Plan.

E x ecuti v e S ummary & KE Y FINDINGS GRIFFIN STRUCTURES 4 dispatch, forensic labs, and training as a potential
way to optimize funding and resource sharing.

4. Space Needs Assessment
Through focused workshops, we worked with
Battalion Chiefs, Police Command Staff, and
department staff to determine how space is
currently used and how future needs can be met.

Fire Department Facility Needs
Each fire station’s facility program was reviewed in
detail to ensure future functionality:

Fire Station 41 (Existing Facility - Central
Command)
• Requires updated administration offices, living
quarters, and conference space.
• Apparatus bay expansion needed to house five
drive-thru bays, supporting engine companies,
reserve engines, and utility vehicles.
• Improved fitness, decontamination, and
turnout gear storage needed for firefighter
health and efficiency.

Fire Station 42 (Existing Facility)
• Space upgrades required to accommodate
additional firefighter dormitories and
modernized living areas.
• Expansion of training and conference spaces to
support multi-agency collaboration.
• Apparatus bay and support functions require
enhanced SCBA storage, medical supply
storage, and a decontamination room.

Fire Station 43 (Proposed New Facility)
• Designed to accommodate a full three-shift
rotation of captains, engineers, and firefighters.
• Includes two drive-thru bays with future
capacity for additional emergency response
units.
• Features dedicated office space, dormitories,
and fitness/training areas for fire personnel
Police Department Facility Needs
• Administrative space for the Chief, Lieutenants,
and support staff is undersized, requiring larger
offices and conference areas.
• Patrol division requires additional briefing
rooms, holding cells, and secure evidence
storage to align with modern policing
demands.
• Dispatch center expansion is a priority,
increasing capacity from two to four
workstations to meet call volume growth.
• A larger locker room and fitness center are
necessary for physical readiness of officers.
• Property and evidence storage space is critically
limited, requiring expansion or relocation.

See Appendix 2A/2B/2C/2D for a more in-depth analysis
on each respective department.

5. Conceptual Design Development
Based on our findings, we developed multiple
planning options for each department, carefully
balancing immediate operational improvements
with long-term infrastructure needs. While our
initial concepts were guided by the programmatic
priorities identified in the space needs assessment,
we refined our approach to ensure that practical,
cost-effective solutions could be implemented
within the constraints of existing facilities and
budgetary realities. Our goal was to align strategic
planning with financial feasibility, delivering a
roadmap for both near-term enhancements and
future expansion. The options follow this section.

• Fire Department: A new (third) station in
northwest Atwater is essential, Fire Station 41
must be replaced or significantly remodeled,
and Fire Station 42 includes adding an
additional dorm to accommodate a larger shift.
• Police Department: A new police facility
is the preferred long-term solution.

However, if immediate replacement is not
feasible, a temporary remodel or relocation
to a repurposed commercial facility is
recommended.

6. Project Budgeting
Once design solutions were identified, cost
estimates were developed to support informed
decision-making. These estimates were based on
quantitative space requirements, existing building
conditions, and conceptual options, incorporating
local construction conditions and market trends.

The cost model accounted for total project costs,
including site preparation, construction, design,
management, fees, permits, and contingencies,
ensuring a comprehensive financial outlook.

Additionally, alternative material and design
options were evaluated to provide cost-saving
opportunities for the City.

Maintaining full operational capacity for the Police
Department was a key consideration, influencing
cost factors such as project timing and escalation.

By aligning financial feasibility with operational
needs, the estimates provide a clear roadmap for
implementation. The costs for each facility can be
found following the conceptual design options.

CONCLUSION & NEXT STEPS
Our analysis confirms the City of Atwater’s
current public safety facilities and staffing
levels are insufficient for future demand. Key
recommendations include:

Fire Department
• Replace Fire Station 41 and add a third fire
station (43) in northwest Atwater.
• Increase daily staffing from six to twelve
personnel to meet future service needs.
• Establish clear response time goals and
monitoring policies.

Police Department:
• Pursue ADA-compliant dispatch upgrades
immediately.
• Plan for a new police facility, with a short-term
option to remodel or relocate.
• Expand evidence storage, workspaces, and staff
facilities to support a growing force.

By implementing these recommendations, the City
of Atwater can enhance public safety operations,
improve response times, and ensure facilities are
designed to serve the community for decades to
come.

E x ecuti v e S ummary & K EY FINDINGS GRIFFIN STRUCTURES 5 

5 
 






),5(67$7,21

a
6)

3$7,2





67$))3$5.,1*


67$))3$5.,1*


38%/,&
3$5.,1*


6(&85,7<*$7(
(175<
)/$*
75$16)250(5
*(1(5$725
75$6+
 

6,7(3/$1 1(:67$7,21
$7:$7(532/,&(),5(678'<
&21&(373/$16  11/25/24
CONCEPT SITE PLAN - NEW FIRE STATION 43

GRIFFIN STRUCTURES 6
Recommended Plans & Budget
FIRE STATION 41 RENO V A T ION —

E X ISTING
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
EXISTING FLOOR PLAN - STATION 41 RENOVATION

ATWATER POLICE-FIRE STUDY
CONCEPT PLANS 11/25/24

RECOMMENDED PLANS & BUDGET

GRIFFIN STRUCTURES 7
FIRE STATION 41 RENO V A T ION —
OPTION 1
DORM
120 SF

CAPT DORM
205 SF

CAPT RR
105 SF

RR/ SHOWER
90 SF
DORM
120 SF
DORM
120 SF DAY ROOM
325 SF

ENG/ FF OFFICE
164 SF

CAPTAIN'S OFFICE
152 SF

ADMIN ASSISTANT
OFFICE
147 SF

KITCHEN
350 SF
DINING
500 SF

VESTIBULE

OPEN OFFICE
160 SF
BATT. CHIEF
OFFICE
200 SF

FITNESS ROOM
800 SF

TURNOUTS
300 SF

FILE ROOM
110 SF

APPARATUS BAY
4,430 SF

UTILITIES
135 SF LOBBY
65 SF

PUBLIC RR
70 SF
ACC. RR/ SHOWER
110 SF
DORM
120 SF

LAUNDRY /
LINEN
80 SF

JAN/ UTILITIES
45 SF

POTENTIAL FITNESS
PATIO

CONFERENCE ROOM
320 SF
DECON
160 SF

COMPRESSOR
/ HOSE / ICE
150 SF
SCBA
110 SF

WORKSHOP
130 SF

LANDSCAPE
STOR.
90 SF
RR
65 SF
MED STOR.
80 SF

STORAGE
110 SF
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
OPTION 1 - STATION 41 RENOVATION

ATWATER POLICE-FIRE STUDY
CONCEPT PLANS 11/25/24

RECOMMENDED PLANS & BUDGET

GRIFFIN STRUCTURES 8
FIRE STATION 41 RENO V A T ION —
OPTION 2

LAUNDRY /
LINEN
80 SF

ENG/ FF OFFICE
275 SF

ADMIN ASSISTANT
OFFICE
150 SF
JAN/

UTILITIES
45 SF

FILE ROOM
100 SF
RR
65 SF
STOR.
45 SF
DORM
120 SF RR/ SHOWER
90 SF

RR/ SHOWER
110 SF
DORM
120 SF
DORM
120 SF
DORM
120 SF DAY ROOM
380 SF

KITCHEN
350 SF
DINING
490 SF

FITNESS ROOM
810 SF

VESTIBULE

TURNOUTS
300 SF
DECON
160 SF
RR
65 SF

COMPRESSOR
/ HOSE / ICE
140 SF
SCBA
120 SF

WORKSHOP
130 SF

LANDSCAPE
STOR.
80 SF
MED STOR.
80 SF

CAPTAIN'S
OFFICE
160 SF
BATT. CHIEF
OFFICE
200 SF

OPEN OFFICE
120 SF

UTILITIES
125 SF
LOBBY
100 SF

CONFERENCE ROOM
300 SF

STORAGE
40 SF

CAPT DORM
200 SF

CAPT RR
100 SF

APPARATUS BAY
5,430 SF

POTENTIAL FITNESS
PATIO
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
OPTION 2 - STATION 41 RENOVATION

ATWATER POLICE-FIRE STUDY
CONCEPT PLANS 11/25/24

RECOMMENDED PLANS & BUDGET

GRIFFIN STRUCTURES 9
FIRE STATION 42 RENO V A T ION —

E X ISTING
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
EXISTING FLOOR PLAN - STATION 42 RENOVATION

ATWATER POLICE-FIRE STUDY
CONCEPT PLANS 11/25/24

RECOMMENDED PLANS & BUDGET

GRIFFIN STRUCTURES 1 0
FIRE STATION 42 RENO V A T ION —
OPTION 1

CAPT DORM
145 SF
DORM
145 SF

FITNESS
400 SF
DORM
110 SF
OFFICE
130 SF

SHOWER/ RR
211 SF SHOWER/
RR
90 SF
DORM
110 SF
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
OPTION 1 - STATION 42 RENOVATION

ATWATER POLICE-FIRE STUDY
CONCEPT PLANS 11/25/24

RECOMMENDED PLANS & BUDGET

GRIFFIN STRUCTURES 11
FIRE STATION 42 RENO V A T ION —
OPTION 2

STORAGE

CAPT DORM
150 SF
CAPT. RR / SHOWER
ACC. RR/ 100 SF
SHOWER
100 SF

FITNESS
400 SF
OFFICE
220 SF
ACC. RR/
SHOWER
100 SF
DORM
145 SF
DORM
145 SF
DORM
145 SF
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
OPTION 2 - STATION 42 RENOVATION

ATWATER POLICE-FIRE STUDY
CONCEPT PLANS 11/25/24

RECOMMENDED PLANS & BUDGET

GRIFFIN STRUCTURES 12
FIRE STATION 43 NEW CONSTRUCTION —

SITE PLAN


5 
 






),5(67$7,21

a
6)

3$7,2





67$))3$5.,1*


67$))3$5.,1*


38%/,&
3$5.,1*


6(&85,7<*$7(
(175<
)/$*
75$16)250(5
*(1(5$725
75$6+
6&$/(
  

6,7(3/$1 1(:67$7,21
$7:$7(532/,&(),5(678'<
&21&(373/$16  11/25/24

RECOMMENDED PLANS & BUDGET

GRIFFIN STRUCTURES 13
FIRE STATION 43 NEW CONSTRUCTION —

FLOOR PLAN
23%$77 /2%%<
&+,()2)),&(
&$37$,16
2)),&(
'523,1
2)),&(
55 55
/$81'5<
/,1(1-$1
.,7&+(1',1,1*
55 ))2)),&(
$33$5$786%$<
+26(
'(&21
6&%$
:25.6+23
'$<5220
),71(66
9(67,%8/(
78512876
55 0('6725
(/(&87,/,7,(6
),71(66
3$7,2
&$3755 &$37'250 '250 '250 '250
&200
9(67,%8/(
)5
+:+
$,5
3$7,2
6&$/(
  

)/2253/$1 1(:67$7,21
$7:$7(532/,&(),5(678'<
&21&(373/$16 
 11/25/24

RECOMMENDED PLANS & BUDGET

GRIFFIN STRUCTURES 14
POLICE DEPARTMENT RENO V A T ION —

SITE PLAN

BUILDING EXPANSION
(~4,100 SF)

EXISTING BUILDING
(~12,000 SF)

EXISTING COUNCIL

CHAMBERS
(~1,900 SF)

SALLY PORT
(~1,200 SF)

NEW ENTRY

NEW PARKING
( 6 SPOTS)
SCALE: 1" = 30'-0"

SITE PLAN - POLICE DEPARTMENT RENOVATION

ATWATER POLICE-FIRE STUDY
CONCEPT PLANS 01/30/25

RECOMMENDED PLANS & BUDGET

GRIFFIN STRUCTURES 15
POLICE DEPARTMENT RENO V A T ION —

E X ISTING

EXISTING PARKING

TO REMAIN

EXISTING PLAZA

TO REMAIN
SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"

EXISTING FLOOR PLAN - POLICE DEPARTMENT RENOVATION

ATWATER POLICE-FIRE STUDY
CONCEPT PLANS 01/30/25

RECOMMENDED PLANS & BUDGET

GRIFFIN STRUCTURES 1 6
POLICE DEPARTMENT RENO V A T ION —
OPTION 1

EXISTING PARKING

TO REMAIN

EXISTING PLAZA

TO REMAIN
ADMIN

OPERATIONS

SUPPORT SERVICES

COMMON AREAS

UTILITIES / RESTROOMS

EVIDENCE TECH
130 SF
LOCKER
ROOM
SHOWER

STAFF RR
111 SF

STORAGE
60 SF
HALL

EXECUTIVE

ASSISTANT
163 SF

LIEUTENANT
177 SF
CODE

ENFORCEMENT
390 SF OFFICE
130 SF

IT ROOM

CITY COUNCIL

COUNCIL CHAMBER TO
REMAIN

COUNCIL

CONFERENCE
340 SF

RECORDS
240 SF
SERVER
GEAR

STORAGE

BRIEFING ROOM

HOLDING CELL
AV

REPURPOSED ROOM NEW ROOM

DISPATCH
426 SF

DISPATCH

SUPERVISOR
173 SF

SERGEANT
290 SF

RECORDS

SUPERVISOR
150 SF

STAFF RR
60 SF

BREAK ROOM
220 SF

STAFF RR
60 SF
SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"
OPTION 1 - POLICE DEPARTMENT RENOVATION

ATWATER POLICE-FIRE STUDY
CONCEPT PLANS 02/05/25

RECOMMENDED PLANS & BUDGET

GRIFFIN STRUCTURES 17
POLICE DEPARTMENT RENO V A T ION —
OPTION 2

EXISTING PARKING

TO REMAIN

EXISTING PLAZA

TO REMAIN

STAFF RR
111 SF

QUIET ROOM
110 SF

LIEUTENANT

DETECTIVES
450 SF
CODE

ENFORCEMENT
450 SF

VOLUNTEERS OFFICE

IT ROOM

COUNCIL CHAMBER TO
REMAIN

COUNCIL

CONFERENCE
340 SF RECORDS
480 SF

RECORDS

MANAGER
150 SF

DISPATCH RR
60 SF

LUNCH ROOM / LOUNGE
600 SF
GYM
1,000 SF
WATER

FOUNTAIN

SWORN / RESERVE

LOCKERS

DAY USE

LOCKERS

TOILET/ LAV/
SHOWERS (3)

TOILET/ LAV
CHANGING (4)
GYM

STORAGE

POTENTIAL
PATIO

EVIDENCE BAG TAG &

SUPPORT AREAS
1,075 SF

DISPATCH
300 SF
ARMORY
175 SF

EVIDENCE
TECH
150 SF
K9 STORAGE
& BATTERY
PACKS
100 SF

DISPATCH

SUPPORT
225 SF

ENTRY VESTIBULE
JAN
50 SF
SERVER
GEAR

STORAGE
AV

CONFERENCE ROOM

W/ COFFEE BAR
258 SF

HOLDING CELL

INTERVIEW
100 SF

STORAGE
65 SF

REPORT WRITING & SCHOOL

RESOURCE OFFICER
290 SF

BRIEFING ROOM

DISPATCH

MANAGER
130 SF
ADMIN

OPERATIONS

SUPPORT SERVICES

COMMON AREAS

UTILITIES / RESTROOMS

CITY COUNCIL

REPURPOSED ROOM NEW ROOM

EXECUTIVE

ASSISTANT
130 SF

LIEUTENANT
177 SF

VOLUNTEERS OFFICE
130 SF

WORK ROOM
150 SF

SERGEANTS
OFFICE
370 SF
SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"
OPTION 2 - POLICE DEPARTMENT RENOVATION

ATWATER POLICE-FIRE STUDY
CONCEPT PLANS 01/30/25

RECOMMENDED PLANS & BUDGET

RECOMMENDED PLANS & BUDGET GRIFFIN STRUCTURES 18
Atwater Public Safety Master Plan
Conceptual Statement of Probable Cost
Fire Station 43
Option 1 Option 2 Option 1 Option 2 Option 1 Option 1 Option 2 1 CONSTRUCTION COSTS 8,013,000 8,528,000 1,447,000 2,143,000 17,679,000 3,853,000 13,946,000 Building Materials and Labor 6,976,200 7,441,280 1,242,930 1,864,395 9,712,500 3,171,000 11,508,000 Site Improvements 250,000 250,000 50,000 50,000 5,514,740 304,000 504,000 Escalation to Midpoint of Construction (varies) 786,478 837,096 154,320 228,496 2,452,244 378,209 1,934,451 2 GEOTECHNICAL 15,000 15,000 0 0 30,000 15,000 30,000
Soils Reports (Buildings, Parking Areas) 15,000 15,000 N/A N/A 30,000 15,000 30,000 Allowance 3 ENVIRONMENTAL 5,000 5,000 0 0 0 5,000 5,000
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) / CEQA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Site expected to be clear ACM/LBP Report 5,000 5,000 N/A N/A N/A 5,000 5,000 N/A
4 DEPUTY TESTING AND INSPECTION 50,000 50,000 10,000 10,000 270,000 60,000 210,000 Soils Testing (Deputy Inspections) 10,000 10,000 0 0 90,000 20,000 70,000 Allowance Materials Testing (Deputy Inspections) 40,000 40,000 10,000 10,000 180,000 40,000 140,000 Allowance 5 A/E SERVICES 810,000 860,000 150,000 220,000 1,770,000 390,000 1,400,000 Conceptual Design 810,000 860,000 150,000 220,000 1,770,000 390,000 1,400,000 Based on 10% fee Schematic Design Incl abv Incl abv Incl abv Incl abv Incl abv Incl abv Incl abv Design Development Incl abv Incl abv Incl abv Incl abv Incl abv Incl abv Incl abv Construction Administration Incl abv Incl abv Incl abv Incl abv Incl abv Incl abv Incl abv FF&E Procurement Incl abv Incl abv Incl abv Incl abv Incl abv Incl abv Incl abv 6 FIXTURES, FURNISHINGS, & EQUIPMENT (FF&E) 225,000 250,000 50,000 50,000 570,000 155,000 755,000 Buildings 120,000 130,000 20,000 20,000 460,000 150,000 330,000 Allowance of $50/SF Lockers 40,000 40,000 N/A N/A 40,000 N/A 150,000 Allowance Fitness Room Equipment 60,000 60,000 30,000 30,000 45,000 N/A 250,000 Allowance Site 5,000 20,000 N/A N/A 25,000 5,000 25,000 Allowance 7 TEMPORARY FACILITIES AND RELOCATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Temporary Facilities N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Relocation Expenses N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
8 ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS AND SPECIAL EQUIPMENT 320,000 340,000 60,000 80,000 700,000 160,000 560,000 Computers, Phones, Servers, Etc. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A City to advise on requirement, if any AV Systems 160,000 170,000 30,000 40,000 350,000 80,000 280,000 Based on 2% of Construction Costs Security Equipment 160,000 170,000 30,000 40,000 350,000 80,000 280,000 Based on 2% of Construction Costs 9 PROGRAM & CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 400,000 400,000 75,000 75,000 900,000 190,000 400,000 Overhead, Fee & Administration costs 400,000 400,000 75,000 75,000 900,000 190,000 400,000 Allowance 10 UTILITY COMPANY CONNECTION SERVICES AND FEES 25,000 25,000 10,000 2,500 100,000 10,000 50,000 Electric Service 5,000 5,000 2,500 2,500 20,000 2,500 10,000 Allowance Water Service 5,000 5,000 2,500 N/A 20,000 2,500 10,000 Allowance Sewer Service 5,000 5,000 2,500 N/A 20,000 2,500 10,000 Allowance Gas Service 5,000 5,000 2,500 N/A 20,000 2,500 10,000 Allowance Phone/Data/Cable Service 5,000 5,000 N/A N/A 20,000 N/A 10,000 Allowance 11 CITY OF ATWATER FEES AND ADMINISTRATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plan Check, Permit Fees, and Building Inspections N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Assumes exempt from fees 12 CONTINGENCY: CITY OF ATWATER 1,696,000 1,803,000 307,000 451,000 1,985,000 820,000 1,566,000 Course of Construction Contingency 1,603,000 1,706,000 289,000 429,000 1,768,000 771,000 1,395,000 20% for renovation; 10% for new construction Soft Cost Contingency 93,000 97,000 18,000 22,000 217,000 49,000 171,000 5% Allowance on all Soft Costs TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $11,559,000 $12,276,000 $2,109,000 $3,031,500 $24,004,000 $5,658,000 $18,922,000 NOTES:

1. Construction costs are based on February 2025 values and include escalation depending on the start and duration of construction.

2. This Statement of Probable Cost is based on current level of documentation available which is a visual observation of current facilities. Estimates are developed on reasonable best efforts to assess geographic considerations, assumed building type, construction methods, current labor rates and material costs, and local market conditions to generate an opinion of possible project specific costs. Adjustments to this estimate could produce amendments to subsequent and future project budget updates based upon changes in project specific requirements, program refinement or unforeseen adjustments in local market conditions affecting both direct and indirect costs.

Component
Fire Station 41 Fire Station 42
Comment
Police Department

CONCEPTUAL STATEMENT OF PROBABLE COST
See Appendix 3 for the detailed project budget.

APPENDI X 1 A. CITYGATE STUDY - FIRE SER V I C ES MASTER PLAN GRIFFIN STRUCTURES 19 Appendix 1A.

Citygate Study
Fire Services Master Plan

CITY OF ATWATER, CA

FIRE SERVICES MASTER PLAN
JULY 15, 2024
600 COOLIDGE DRIVE, SUITE 150
FOLSOM, CA 95630
PHONE: (916) 458-5100
FAX: (916) 983-2090
WWW.CITYGATEASSOCIATES.COM

F I R E & E M S

F I R E & E M S

This page was intentionally left blank

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Table of Contents page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 Policy Choices Framework.............................................................................................................................. 1 Fire Service Deployment Summary................................................................................................................. 1 Staffing and Station Locations Summary ........................................................................................................ 2 Facility Summary............................................................................................................................................. 3 Findings and Recommendations...................................................................................................................... 3 Findings3
Recommendations............................................................................................................................. 4 Next Steps........................................................................................................................................................ 5 Near Term.......................................................................................................................................... 5 Longer Term...................................................................................................................................... 6 Section 1—Introduction and Background................................................................................................................. 7

1.1 Report Organization .......................................................................................................................... 7

1.1.1 Goals of the Report............................................................................................................. 8

1.1.2 Limitations of the Report.................................................................................................... 8

1.2 Project Approach and Scope of Work............................................................................................... 8

1.2.1 Project Approach and Research Methods........................................................................... 8

1.2.2 Project Scope of Work ........................................................................................................ 9

1.3 Service Area Overview ..................................................................................................................... 9

1.4 Fire Department Overview................................................................................................................ 9 Section 2—Standards of Coverage Assessment....................................................................................................... 11

2.1 Standards of Coverage Process Overview....................................................................................... 11

2.2 Current Deployment........................................................................................................................ 13

2.2.1 Response Time Measures and Goals ................................................................................ 14

2.3 Outcome Expectations..................................................................................................................... 15

2.4 Community Risk Assessment.......................................................................................................... 16

2.4.1 Risk Assessment Methodology......................................................................................... 17

2.4.2 Risk Assessment Summary............................................................................................... 19

2.4.3 Population and Housing Unit Growth Projections............................................................ 20

2.5 Critical Task Time Measures—What Must Be Done over What Time Frame to Achieve the Stated Outcome Expectation? .................................................................................................................... 21

2.5.1 Critical Firefighting Tasks................................................................................................ 22

2.5.2 Critical Medical Emergency Tasks................................................................................... 24

2.5.3 Critical Task Analysis and Effective Response Force (ERF) Size ................................... 25

2.6 Historical Incident Demand Analysis.............................................................................................. 26

2.6.1 Historical Response Time Measures................................................................................. 28

2.6.2 Incident Demand Projection ............................................................................................. 29

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Table of Contents page ii

2.7 Fire Station Facility and Headquarters Staff Review...................................................................... 30

2.7.1 Fire Administrative Personnel and Spaces Review .......................................................... 30

2.8 Fire Station Location Review.......................................................................................................... 31 Appendix A—Risk Assessment................................................................................................................................. 33 A.1 Community Risk Assessment.......................................................................................................... 33 A.1.1 Risk Assessment Methodology......................................................................................... 33 A.1.2 Risk Assessment Summary............................................................................................... 34 A.1.3 Values at Risk to Be Protected.......................................................................................... 34 A.1.4 Hazard Identification ........................................................................................................ 38 A.1.5 Probability of Occurrence ................................................................................................. 40 A.1.6 Impact Extent.................................................................................................................... 40 A.1.7 Impact Severity ................................................................................................................. 41 A.1.8 Overall Risk ...................................................................................................................... 43 A.1.9 Building Fire Risk............................................................................................................. 44 A.1.10 Vegetation Fire Risk ......................................................................................................... 46 A.1.11 Medical Emergency Risk.................................................................................................. 47 A.1.12 Hazardous Material Risk................................................................................................... 49 A.1.13 Technical Rescue Risk...................................................................................................... 50 Appendix B—Facility Assessment Worksheets....................................................................................................... 53 Table of Tables
Table 1—Standards of Coverage Process Elements....................................................................................................12 Table 2—Fire Service Deployment Paradigm............................................................................................................. 13 Table 3—Response Plan by Incident Type.................................................................................................................. 14 Table 4—Overall Risk by Hazard................................................................................................................................ 19 Table 5—First Alarm Residential Fire Critical Tasks (13 Personnel)......................................................................... 23 Table 6—Cardiac Arrest Critical Tasks – Engine and Ambulance (5 Personnel)....................................................... 24 Table 7—Emergency Incident Counts by Type (2023)............................................................................................... 27 Table 8—Overall Risk by Planning Zone.................................................................................................................... 34 Table 9—Key Demographic Data – Atwater............................................................................................................... 35 Table 10—Critical Facilities........................................................................................................................................ 37 Table 11—Probability of Occurrence Categories........................................................................................................ 40 Table 12—Impact Extent Categories........................................................................................................................... 41 Table 13—Impact Severity Categories........................................................................................................................ 42 Table 14—Overall Risk Categories – Negligible Impact Extent................................................................................. 43 Table 15—Overall Risk Categories – Limited Impact Extent..................................................................................... 43 Table 16—Overall Risk Categories – Significant Impact Extent................................................................................ 43 Table 17—Overall Risk Categories – Extensive Impact Extent.................................................................................. 44 Table 18—Building Fire Risk Assessment.................................................................................................................. 46 Table 19—Vegetation/Wildland Fire Risk Assessment .............................................................................................. 47 Table 20—Medical Emergency Risk Assessment....................................................................................................... 49

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Table of Contents page iii
Table 21—Hazardous Materials Risk Assessment...................................................................................................... 50 Table 22—Technical Rescue Risk Assessment........................................................................................................... 51 Table of Figures
Figure 1—Building Fire Progression Timeline............................................................................................................ 18 Figure 2—Survival Rate versus Time of Defibrillation............................................................................................... 19 Figure 3—Response Time to Incidents by Category (2023) ....................................................................................... 29 Figure 4—Commission on Fire Accreditation International Hazard Categories......................................................... 39 Figure 5—Building Fire Progression Timeline............................................................................................................ 45 Figure 6—Survival Rate versus Time to Defibrillation............................................................................................... 48

This page was intentionally left blank

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Executive Summary page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Atwater (City) retained Citygate Associates, LLC (Citygate) to conduct a high-level Fire Services Master Plan update based on nationally recognized guidelines and best practices, federal and state mandates, and relevant local and regional operating procedures. This assessment is intended to evaluate the City’s current fire service staffing and response performance and recommend appropriate staffing, deployment, and fire stations adequacy as part of a Citywide Public Safety master plan.

This planning effort reviews the firefighting and emergency medical service resources to best protect the values at risk within the City’s service area from fire and non-fire hazards. The master plan is intended to provide recommendations for potential future improvement of services and incorporate relevant data analysis and benchmarking to recommended best practice standards and City-established performance goals.

This report is presented in multiple parts, including this Executive Summary; study introduction and background information; the detailed Standards of Coverage (SOC) assessment supported by response statistics; all findings and recommendations; next steps; and a community risk assessment (Appendix A). Overall, there are 9 key findings and 6 actionable recommendations.

POLICY CHOICES FRAMEWORK
There are no mandatory federal or state regulations directing the level of fire service staffing, response times, or outcomes. If services are provided, however, local, state, and federal regulations must be followed to ensure the safety of the public and the personnel providing the services. The level of service provided, and any resultant cost, is a local policy choice. Thus, there is often a constructive tension between the desired level of fire service and the level that can be funded, and many communities may not have the level of fire services they desire.

The City’s previous Fire Services Master Plan was delivered in 2008 and was also conducted by Citygate Associates.

FIRE SERVICE DEPLOYMENT SUMMARY
Fire service deployment, simply summarized, is about the speed and weight of response.

Speed refers to initial response resources—typically engines, squads, or ambulances— strategically deployed across a jurisdiction within a specified time interval to mitigate routine-tomoderate emergencies to achieve desired outcomes.

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Table of Contents page 2
Weight refers to multiple-unit responses for more serious emergencies such as building fires, multiple-patient medical emergencies, vehicle collisions with extrication required, or technical rescue incidents where enough firefighters must be assembled within a time interval to safely control the emergency and prevent it from escalating into an even more serious event.

Adequate incident response is not defined by the number of physical apparatuses responding to a particular emergency; rather, it is defined as the appropriate number of firefighters with the right training and equipment to safely mitigate the emergency. Within the fire service deployment process, positive outcomes are the goal. From that goal, staffing and travel time can be calculated to determine appropriate fire station spacing (distribution and concentration). Serious medical emergencies and building fires have the most severe time constraints.

Even where state or local fire codes require fire sprinklers in residential dwellings, it will be several decades before enough homes within the City’s service area are remodeled or replaced with automatic fire sprinklers. If desired outcomes include confining fire damage to only part of the inside of an affected building or minimizing permanent impairment or death resulting from a medical emergency, then the City will need a response performance that is consistent with a best practices-based recommendation of first-due unit arrival within 7:30–8:30 minutes of a 9-1-1 dispatch notification.

STAFFING AND STATION LOCATIONS SUMMARY
The existing staff complement of six personnel on duty, plus one command Chief Officer , does not provide a minimally sufficient weight of response to complete the critical tasks necessary to safely resolve even a moderately complex incident, let alone a more serious event such as a building fire, multiple-patient EMS emergency, vehicle collision with extrication required, or technical rescue. Given the travel distance and low staffing, mutual aid units are needed to achieve a barely adequate acceptable weight of response. Additionally, there is the possibility of some County Fire Station closures in the summer of 2024 as well.

With the exception of its west by northwest sides, the City's growth is constrained by neighboring jurisdictions. This area, particularly with recent annexations, has extended well beyond the reasonable reach of 1.5 miles or a 5:00-minute travel time from either existing fire station.

As substantial growth occurs, Citygate recommends the City add a third fire station with one three‑person crew in the northwest area of the City. This would increase the number of fire station personnel on duty to nine, providing capacity to complete at least the key critical tasks related to serious and simultaneous emergencies in sufficient time.

As the City approaches its final buildout size sometime in the late 2030s, the City should add a fourth firefighter to each of the three crews, raising Citywide staffing to 12 and decreasing dependence on mutual aid.

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Executive Summary page 3

FACILITY SUMMARY
Fire Station 41, at 699 Broadway Avenue in the western core area of the City, was the City’s first fire station. Station 41 is large in size, but it is also 42 years old. Most of its square footage is apparatus parking bays which allows for ample indoor equipment storage. The station was built in the era of volunteers and did not provide for administrative spaces or overnight on-duty firefighters. Over the decades, modest remodels have expanded the office and crew living quarters sections. Given its age, the station was built long before the California Essential Facilities Act required seismic hardening and other regulatory bodies required health and safety standards for fire stations to protect personnel.

Fire Station 42, at 2006 Avenue Two, is in the southeastern side of the City. It houses the City’s most recently added second fire crew of three personnel. The building is only 18 years old and meets some seismic, essential facility, and firefighter safety standards. It contains office and living spaces for the on-duty crew and serves as the City’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC).

In summary, Fire Station 41 is approaching the end of its useful life and replacement with a modern facility should be considered by the City. In the near term, one apparatus bay can be repurposed to increase administrative spaces. Fire Station 42 is adequate and will require repairs as it ages.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following are all findings and recommendations from this assessment.

Findings
Finding #1: Currently, the City is not annually reporting response time measures (either average or percent of goal) and does not have a response time policy that has been adopted by City Council.

Finding #2: For purposes of projecting future Fire Department incident demand, Citygate will use a resident per 1,000 population incident demand rate of 1.49 percent.

Finding #3: The City’s two fire crews could both be responding to incidents during peakdemand daylight hours and, in total, are insufficient to handle a serious fire without mutual aid.

Finding #4: The current fire unit response times are barely adequate for the existing City; however, ensuring response time coverage to the built-out City will require a minimum of three fire stations.

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Table of Contents page 4
Finding #5: By 2032, modest population growth and the resulting increase of approximately 595 annual emergency incidents will exacerbate the need for a third fire station.

Finding #6: Due to its age, Station 41 does not meet legacy or current seismic and essential facility safety standards. Replacement options should be considered for this facility and, as an interim step, key renovations should be implemented to address administrative needs.

Finding #7: Until Station 41 is replaced, one apparatus bay adjacent to the office/crew spaces could be remodeled for administrative office space.

Finding #8: To maintain response times as the City grows to the northwest, a third fire station and crew should be added.

Finding #9: As fire stations are replaced, added, or remodeled, fire crew spaces should be designed to support four firefighters on duty. This would be closer to City buildout, needing 12 firefighters per day.

Recommendations
Recommendation #1: Adopt Response Goal Policies: The City should adopt response performance measures to aid deployment planning and monitor response performance. The measures of time should be designed to deliver outcomes that will save EMS patients, when possible, upon arrival and prevent minor fires from escalating into more serious situations. With this is mind, Citygate recommends the following measures.

1.1 First-Due Unit: To treat pre-hospital medical emergencies and control small fires, the first-due unit should arrive within 8:00 minutes, 90 percent of the time, from receipt of the 9-1-1 call at CAL FIRE dispatch to incidents within the City’s service area. This equates to 1:00 minute for call processing / dispatch, 2:00 minutes for crew turnout, and 5:00 minutes for travel.

1.2 Multiple-Unit Effective Response Force for Serious Emergencies:

To confine building fires near the room or rooms of origin, keep vegetation fires under one acre in size, and treat multiple medical patients at a single incident, a multiple-unit ERF of at least 16 personnel, including at least 1 Chief Officer, should arrive as soon as possible in the City from the time of call receipt at the CAL FIRE dispatch center.

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Executive Summary page 5

1.3 Hazardous Materials Response: To protect the City’s service area from hazards associated with uncontrolled release of hazardous and toxic materials, the fundamental mission of the City’s response is to isolate the hazard, deny entry into the hazard zone, and minimize impacts on the community. This can be achieved with a first-due total response time of 8:00 minutes or less within the service area to provide initial hazard evaluation and mitigation actions. After the initial evaluation is completed, a determination can be made whether to request additional resources to mitigate the hazard.

1.4 Technical Rescue: To respond to technical rescue emergencies as efficiently and effectively as possible with enough trained personnel to facilitate a successful rescue, a first-due total response time of 8:00 minutes or less within the service area is required to evaluate the situation and initiate rescue actions. Additional resources should assemble as soon as possible to safely complete rescue/extrication and delivery of the victim to the appropriate emergency medical care facility.

Recommendation #2: Remodel Fire Station 41 to provide more administrative space during the five years it could take to replace the entire station.

Recommendation #3: Fire Station 41 should be completely replaced.

Recommendation #4: A third fire station will be needed in the north to northwest area of the City once annexations and development patterns are approved.

Recommendation #5: As the pace of new growth exceeds the capacity of the single Fire Marshal, add one Fire Inspector.

Recommendation #6: As the City approaches buildout, add a fourth firefighter to each of the three fire crews, increasing the number of on-duty fire personnel to 12 per day.

NEXT STEPS
Near Term
 Review and consider the content, findings, and recommendations of this report.  Adopt response performance goals as recommended.
 Develop a facilities plan to remodel Station 41 for administrative space.

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Table of Contents page 6
Longer Term
 Seek capital funding to completely replace Station 41.  As growth and annexations become approved, site, construct, and staff a third fire station in the northwest area of the City.
 Add a Fire Inspector position as workloads increase beyond what can be managed by one Fire Marshal.
 Monitor response performance against adopted goals.
 As the City approaches buildout, increase daily staffing in the three fire stations from nine to twelve per day by adding a fourth firefighter to each of the three fire crews.

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Section 1—Introduction and Background page 7
SECTION 1—INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The City of Atwater (City) retained Citygate Associates, LLC (Citygate) to conduct a high-level Fire Services Master Plan update based on nationally recognized guidelines and best practices, federal and state mandates, and relevant local and regional operating procedures. This assessment is intended to evaluate the City’s current fire service staffing and response performance and recommend appropriate staffing and deployment of firefighting and emergency medical service resources to best protect the values at risk within the City’s service area from fire and non-fire hazards.

Citygate’s Work Plan reflects Citygate’s Project Team members’ experience in fire administration and deployment. Citygate utilizes various National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and Insurance Services Office (ISO) publications as best practice guidelines, along with the selfassessment criteria of the Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI). This is a systems-based approach using local risk and demographics to determine the level of protection best fitting the City’s needs.

1.1 REPORT ORGANIZATION
This report is organized into the following sections.

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY
A summary of current services and significant challenges, including all findings and recommendations.

SECTION 1
Introduction and Background: An introduction to the study and background information about the City.

SECTION 2
Standards of Coverage (SOC) Assessment: An overview of the SOC process and detailed analysis of the City’s existing deployment model, emergency outcome expectations, community risk assessment summary, staffing needed for different emergencies (critical tasks), reliability and historical response measures effectiveness, and a concluding overall deployment evaluation.

APPENDIX
A
Community Risk Assessment: A comprehensive assessment of the values at risk to be protected within the City service area and evaluation of the fire and non-fire hazards likely to impact the service area as related to services provided by the City.

APPENDIX
B
Fire Station Physical Assessment: A detailed Facilities Assessment of the conditions of the City’s fire stations to meet building, safety, and functional requirements.

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Section 1—Introduction and Background page 8

1.1.1 Goals of the Report
This report cites findings and makes recommendations, as appropriate, related to each finding.

Throughout the report, findings and recommendations are sequentially numbered.

This document provides technical information about how fire services are provided and legally regulated and how the City is currently providing fire and first responder emergency medical services (EMS). This information is presented in the form of recommendations and policy choices for the City to consider.

The outcome is a robust technical foundation that enables City leadership to comprehensively assess the pros and cons of available options in service provision. This includes determining the desired level of outcomes and associated expenses.

1.1.2 Limitations of the Report
There are no federal or state regulations mandating the level of fire service staffing, response performance, or outcomes. During the public policy process, every community or jurisdiction is tasked with comprehending local fire and non-fire risks, as well as its capacity to finance fire services. Subsequently, it can then select its desired level of services accordingly. If fire services are provided at all, federal and state regulations specify how to safely provide them, both for the public and the personnel providing services.

While this report and technical explanation can provide a framework for the discussion of the City’s fire and emergency medical services, neither this report nor the Citygate team can make the final decisions or cost out every possible alternative in detail. Once final policy choices receive City Council direction, City staff can conduct any final cost and fiscal analyses as typically completed in the City’s normal budget preparation process.

1.2 PROJECT APPROACH AND SCOPE OF WORK

1.2.1 Project Approach and Research Methods
Citygate utilized multiple sources to gather, understand, and model information about the City and its Fire Department. Citygate requested a substantial amount of relevant background data and information to better understand current service levels, the history of service level decisions, and other prior studies.

In virtual meetings, Citygate performed focused interviews of the Department’s project team members and other project stakeholders. Citygate reviewed demographic information about the service area, including the potential for future growth and development. Citygate also obtained response data from which to model current and projected fire service deployment, with the goal to

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Section 1—Introduction and Background page 9
identify the location(s) of station(s) and crew quantities needed to best serve the service area as it currently exists and facilitate future deployment planning.

Once Citygate gained an understanding of the City’s service area and its fire and non-fire risks, Citygate developed a model for fire services that was tested against prior response data to ensure an appropriate fit. Citygate also considered future City growth and service demand to address both current and longer-range needs. The result is a framework for maintaining or enhancing City services while meeting reasonable community expectations and fiscal realities.

1.2.2 Project Scope of Work
Citygate’s approach to this assessment involved:
 Reviewing data and information provided by the Department and conducting listening sessions with designated project stakeholders.  Reviewing the Department’s current incident demand workloads.  Identifying and evaluating future City service area population and related development growth.
 Recommending appropriate response performance goals.

1.3 SERVICE AREA OVERVIEW
The City of Atwater, on State Route 99 in Merced County, is about 8 miles west-northwest of Merced, the County seat. The City is approximately 6.57 square miles in size. It includes Castle Air Museum but does not include the former Castle Air Force Base, now repurposed as Castle Airport on the northeast side of the City. The City is governed by a five-member City Council using the City Manager form of government. The City’s adopted General Fund budget for 2023/2024 is $22.3 million dollars.

1.4 FIRE DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW
The City contracts with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) for its fire response staffing and administration services with the City retaining ownership of the physical assets used to provide those services.

The Department’s service capacity for fire and non-fire risk consists of six personnel on duty daily staffing two engines or one engine and one ladder truck, 1 plus a Battalion Chief, operating from
the Department’s two fire stations. Full-time staffing is augmented by a shrinking cadre of eight 1 One crew cross-staffs either an engine or ladder truck depending on the type of incident.

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Section 1—Introduction and Background page 10
reserve firefighters who are each required to work a minimum of 36 hours per month, including one 24-hour shift and one 12-hour shift. Most of the reserve firefighters are also seasonal firefighters for CAL FIRE during the summer/fall months. Thus, they are not available to the City as reserve firefighters during that period annually.

All response personnel are trained to either the Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) level, capable of providing Basic Life Support (BLS) pre-hospital emergency medical care, or the Public Safety First Aid (PSFA) level. Ground paramedic ambulance service is provided by Riggs Ambulance, a private-sector ambulance provider under an exclusive operating area contract administered by the Merced County Emergency Medical Services Agency.

Response personnel are also trained to the U.S. Department of Transportation Hazardous Material First Responder Operational (FRO) level to provide initial hazardous material incident assessment, hazard isolation, and support the regional hazardous material technical response team from Merced County Fire Station 61 southeast of the City.

All response personnel are further trained to the Confined Space Awareness level as required by OSHA. Additional technical rescue capability is available through mutual aid from Merced County Fire Station 71 in Los Banos.

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Section 2—Standards of Coverage Assessment page 11
SECTION 2—STANDARDS OF COVERAGE ASSESSMENT
This section provides a detailed assessment of the City’s current ability to deploy and mitigate emergency hazards within its service area. The response analysis uses prior response statistics to help the Department and the community understand the capabilities and limitations of the current response system.

2.1 STANDARDS OF COVERAGE PROCESS OVERVIEW
The core methodology used by Citygate in the scope of its deployment analysis work is Standards of Cover, fifth and sixth editions, which is a systems-based approach to fire department deployment published by the CFAI. This approach uses local risk and demographics to determine the level of protection best fitting a community’s needs.

The SOC method evaluates deployment as part of a fire agency’s selfassessment process. This approach uses risk and community outcome expectations to help elected officials make informed decisions regarding fire and EMS first responder deployment levels. Citygate has adopted this methodology as a comprehensive tool to evaluate fire station locations and staffing levels. Depending on the needs of the assessment, the depth of the components may vary.

Such a systems-based approach to deployment, rather than a one-size-fits-all prescriptive formula, allows for local determination. In this comprehensive approach, an agency can match local needs (risks and expectations) with the costs of various levels of service. In an informed public policy discussion, a governing board “purchases” the fire and emergency medical service levels the community needs and can afford.

While working with multiple components to conduct a deployment analysis is admittedly more work, it yields a much better result than using only a singular component. For instance, if only travel time is considered and frequency of multiple calls is not, the analysis could miss overworked companies. If a risk assessment for deployment is not considered and deployment is based only on travel time, a community could under-deploy to incidents.

The following table describes the eight elements of the SOC process.

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Section 2—Standards of Coverage Assessment page 12
Table 1—Standards of Coverage Process Elements
SOC Element Description
1 Existing Deployment Describing the current deployment model and response performance goals the agency has in place today.
2 Community Outcome
Expectations
Reviewing the expectations of the community for responses to emergencies.
3 Community Risk Assessment
Identifying and quantifying the assets at risk to fire and nonfire hazards likely to impact the community. (For this report, see Appendix A—Community Risk Assessment.)
4 Critical Task Analysis Reviewing the tasks that must be performed and the personnel required to deliver the stated outcome expectation. 5 Distribution Analysis Reviewing the spacing of first-due response resources (typically engines) to control routine emergencies.
6 Concentration Analysis
Reviewing the spacing of fire stations so that more complex emergencies can receive sufficient resources and personnel in a timely manner (First Alarm Assignment or ERF).
7 Reliability and Historical
Response Effectiveness Analysis
Using prior response statistics to determine the percent of compliance the existing system delivers.
8 Overall Evaluation Proposing Standard of Coverage statements by risk type, as necessary.

Source: CFAI, Standards of Cover, Fifth Edition
Simply summarized, fire service deployment is about the speed and weight of the response.

Speed refers to initial response (first-due), all-risk intervention resources (e.g., engines, ladder trucks, squads, or ambulances) strategically deployed across a jurisdiction for response to emergencies within a specified time interval to control routine-to-moderate emergencies to achieve desired outcomes and prevent the incident from escalating to greater size or severity.

Weight refers to multiple-unit responses for more serious emergencies, such as building fires, multiple-patient medical emergencies, vehicle collisions with extrication required, or technical rescue incidents where enough firefighters must be assembled within a reasonable time interval to safely control the emergency and prevent it from escalating into a more serious event and achieve desired outcomes.

The following table illustrates this deployment paradigm.

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Section 2—Standards of Coverage Assessment page 13
Table 2—Fire Service Deployment Paradigm
Element Description Purpose
Speed of Response
Travel time of first-due, all-risk
intervention units strategically
located across a jurisdiction.

To control routine-to-moderate
emergencies to achieve desired
outcomes and prevent the incident
from escalating in size or complexity.

Weight of Response
Number of firefighters in a multipleunit response for serious emergencies.

To assemble enough firefighters
within a reasonable time frame to
safely control a more complex
emergency without escalation and
achieve desired outcomes.

Thus, smaller fires and less complex emergencies require a single-unit or two-unit response (fully staffed engine or specialty resource) within a relatively short response time. Larger or more complex incidents require more units and personnel to control. In either case, if the crews arrive too late or the total number of personnel is too few for the emergency, they are drawn into an escalating and more dangerous situation.

The science of fire crew deployment is to spread crews out across a community or jurisdiction for quick response to keep emergencies small with positive outcomes without spreading resources so far apart that they cannot assemble quickly enough to effectively control more serious emergencies.

2.2 CURRENT DEPLOYMENT
The City’s contract with CAL FIRE provides fire
suppression, first responder pre-hospital emergency
medical, and initial hazardous material release and rescue services. Given these hazards, the City utilizes a tiered response plan calling for different types and numbers of resources depending on incident/hazard type. The CAL
FIRE dispatch system selects and dispatches the most appropriate resource types pursuant to the City’s response plan, as shown in the following table.

SOC ELEMENT 1 OF 8

EXISTING DEPLOYMENT

POLICIES

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Section 2—Standards of Coverage Assessment page 14
Table 3—Response Plan by Incident Type
Incident Type Resources Dispatched Total
Personnel1
EMS 1 Engine or Ladder (2) and private Ambulance (2) 5
Vehicle Accident Engine, Truck, Ambulance (Chief only with entrapment) 8 or 9 Vehicle Fire – Passenger Engine, Truck 6
Building Fire – Residential 1 Engine, 1 Ladder, Chief Officer 1 – Mutual Aid Engines
7 2
Vegetation Fire 2 Engines 6
Hazardous Material Release Engine
Regional Hazardous Materials Team as/if needed
3 Varies
1 City plus mutual aid resources

2.2.1 Response Time Measures and Goals
Nationally recognized standards and best practices suggest using several incremental measurements to define response time. Ideally, the clock starts when the CAL FIRE Unit Emergency Communications Center (ECC) dispatcher receives the emergency call. For Atwater, the response time clock starts when the ECC receives the 9-1-1 call into its computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system. Response time increments include ECC call processing / dispatch, crew response unit boarding (commonly referred to as crew turnout), and actual drive (travel) time.

Response performance best practices include specific time goals for each of these three increments which, when combined, equal total response time, also known as or call-to-arrival time. Call-toarrival time is a fire agency’s true customer service metric. Response performance goals should also address response performance to other risks within the service area, such as hazardous materials and technical rescue, as recommended by the CFAI.

Currently, NFPA Standard 1710, a recommended deployment standard for career fire departments in urban/suburban areas, recommends initial (first-due) intervention unit arrival within a 4:00- minute travel time and arrival of all resources comprising the multiple-unit First Alarm within 8:00 minutes’ travel, all at 90 percent or better reliability.2 If the travel time measures recommended by the NFPA (and Citygate) are added to dispatch processing and crew turnout times recommended by Citygate and best practices, then a realistic 2 Source: NFPA 1710 – Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments (2020 Edition).

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Section 2—Standards of Coverage Assessment page 15
90 percent first-unit total response time goal for urban/suburban response zones is 7:30 minutes from when the ECC receives the call. This includes 1:30 minutes for call processing / dispatch, 2:00 minutes for crew turnout, and 4:00 minutes for travel. For the City, Citygate considers a realistic 90 percent first-unit total response time goal to be 8:30 minutes, which includes 1:30 minutes call processing / dispatch, 2:00 minutes crew turnout, and 5:00 minutes travel.

2.3 OUTCOME EXPECTATIONS
The SOC process begins by reviewing existing emergency
services outcome expectations. This includes determining for what purpose the response system exists and whether the governing body has adopted any response performance
measures. If it has, the time measures used must be
understood and sound data must be available to evaluate performance.

Current national best practice is to measure percent completion of a goal (e.g., 90 percent of responses) instead of an average measure. Mathematically, this is called a fractile measure.3 Measuring the average only identifies the central or middle point of response time performance for all calls for service in the data set. Using an average makes it impossible to know how many incidents had response times that were far above or just above the average.

More importantly, within the SOC process, positive outcomes are the goal. From that goal, crew size and response time can be calculated to allow appropriate fire station spacing (distribution and concentration). Emergency medical incidents include situations with the most severe time constraints. The human brain can only survive 4:00 to 6:00 minutes without oxygen. Cardiac arrest and other events can cause oxygen deprivation to the brain. While cardiac arrests make up a small percentage, drowning, choking, trauma constrictions, or other similar events can have the same effect. In a building fire, a small incipient fire can grow to involve the entire room in a 3:00 to 5:00-minute time frame. If fire service response is to achieve positive outcomes in severe emergency medical situations and incipient fire situations, all responding crews must arrive, assess the situation, and deploy effective measures before brain death occurs or the fire spreads beyond the room of origin.

Thus, from the time the 9-1-1 call is received by the dispatch center, an effective deployment system is beginning to manage the problem within a 7:00 to 8:00-minute total response time. This is right at the point that brain death is becoming irreversible, and the fire has grown to the point of 3 A fractile is that point below which a stated fraction of the values lie. The fraction is often given in percent; the term percentile may then be used.

SOC ELEMENT 2 OF 8

COMMUNITY OUTCOME

EXPECTATIONS

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Section 2—Standards of Coverage Assessment page 16
leaving the room of origin and becoming very serious. Thus, the City needs a first-due response goal that is within a range to give hope for a positive outcome.

It is important to note that the fire or medical emergency continues to deteriorate from the time of inception, not from the time the fire engine starts to drive the response route. Ideally, the emergency is noticed immediately, and the 9-1-1 system is activated promptly. In the best of circumstances, this step of awareness—calling 9-1-1 and giving the dispatcher accurate information—takes 1:00 minute. Crew notification and travel time take additional minutes. Upon arrival, the crew must approach the injured party or emergency, assess the situation, and appropriately deploy its skills and tools. Even in easy-to-access situations, this step can take 2:00 minutes or more. This time frame may be increased considerably due to long driveways, apartment buildings with limited access, multiple-story buildings or office complexes, or shopping centers.

Unfortunately, there are times when the emergency has become too severe, even before the 9-1-1 notification or fire department response, for the responding crew to reverse. However, when an appropriate response time policy is combined with a well-designed deployment system, then only anomalies like bad weather, poor traffic conditions, or multiple emergencies slow down the response system. Consequently, a properly designed system will give the public hope of a positive outcome for their tax dollar expenditure.

Finding #1: Currently, the City is not annually reporting response time measures (either average or percent of goal) and does not have a response time policy that has been adopted by City Council.

2.4 COMMUNITY RISK ASSESSMENT
The third element of the SOC process is a community risk assessment. Within the context of an SOC study, the
objectives of a community risk assessment are to:
 Identify the values at risk to be protected within the community or service area.
 Identify the specific hazards with the potential to adversely impact the community or service area.
 Quantify the overall risk associated with each hazard.  Establish a foundation for current/future deployment decisions and riskreduction/hazard mitigation planning and evaluation.

A hazard is broadly defined as a situation or condition that can cause or contribute to harm.

Examples include fire, medical emergency, vehicle collision, earthquake, flood, etc. Risk is SOC ELEMENT 3 OF 8

COMMUNITY RISK

ASSESSMENT

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Section 2—Standards of Coverage Assessment page 17
broadly defined as the probability of hazard occurrence in combination with the likely severity of resultant impacts to people, property, the environment, and the community.

2.4.1 Risk Assessment Methodology
The methodology employed by Citygate to assess community risks as an integral element of an SOC study incorporates the following elements:
 Identification of geographic planning sub-zones (risk planning zones) appropriate to the community or jurisdiction.
 Identification and quantification, to the extent data is available, of the values at risk to various hazards within the community or service area.  Identification of the fire and non-fire hazards to be evaluated.  Determination of the probability of occurrence for each identified hazard over the ensuing 12 months.
 Determination of probable impact severity of a hazard occurrence by risk planning zone.
 Determination of overall risk by hazard and risk planning zone.

One of the primary hazards in any community is building fire. Building fire risk factors include building density, size, age, occupancy, and construction materials and methods, as well as the number of stories, the required fire flow, the proximity to other buildings, built-in fire protection/alarm systems, an available fire suppression water supply, building fire service capacity, fire suppression resource deployment (distribution/concentration), staffing, and response time.

The following figure illustrates the building fire progression timeline and shows that flashover, which is the point at which the entire room erupts into fire after all the combustible objects in that room reach their ignition temperature, can occur as early as 3:00 to 5:00 minutes from the initial ignition. Human survival in a room after the point of flashover has been reached is extremely improbable.

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Section 2—Standards of Coverage Assessment page 18
Figure 1—Building Fire Progression Timeline
Source: http://www.firesprinklerassoc.org
Medical Emergency Risk
Fire service demand in most jurisdictions is predominantly for medical emergencies. The following figure illustrates the reduced survivability of a cardiac arrest victim as time to defibrillation increases.

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Section 2—Standards of Coverage Assessment page 19
Figure 2—Survival Rate versus Time of Defibrillation

2.4.2 Risk Assessment Summary
The Department’s overall risk for the five hazards related to emergency services provided by the Department range from Moderate to Low, as summarized in the following table. See Appendix A for the full risk assessment.

Table 4—Overall Risk by Hazard
Hazard Citywide
Building Fire Moderate
Vegetation Fire Low
Medical Emergency Moderate
Hazardous Material Low
Technical Rescue Moderate

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Section 2—Standards of Coverage Assessment page 20

2.4.3 Population and Housing Unit Growth Projections
Currently, Atwater is updating its General Plan and growth projections. This study reviewed the draft work to date, the Merced County Association of Governments 2023–2031 Draft City MultiJurisdictional Housing Element, the Association’s 2022 County Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan for Atwater, and the California Department of Finance historical population numbers for Atwater, upon which sales taxes allocations are based. Based on these documents, Citygate observed the following:
 2023–2031 Draft City Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element found:
➢ The resident population for Atwater in 2010 was 28,168. By 2021, it was 31,401.
➢ For housing units, this report found there were 9,771 units in 2010. By 2020, there were 10,448—an increase of 677 units at an average of 68 units per year.
 The California Department of Finance E-1 Population estimates found:
➢ In 2023, Atwater had a reported population of 31,418 residents.  The 2022, the County RHNA Plan identified:
➢ Between 2023–2032, the City will need 3,017 total additional housing units, an average of 335 per year.

Current Atwater Development Applications
 Redwood Apartments: 52 units
 Waterstone Apartments: 120 units
 Sunset Project: 25 homes
 University Park: approximately 364 multi-family units The near-term total of all units is 561. If all units were built over the next three years, the average number of units per year would be 187. A rate of 187 units per year is slightly more than 2.5 times the historic rate of 68 units per year.

Population Projection
 Starting with the E-1 2023 population of 31,418 and subtracting the 2010 population of 28,168 yields an increase of 3,250 residents—an average gain of 250 residents (0.8 percent) per year.
 The Housing Element showed a gain of 68 units per year over the past ten years.

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Section 2—Standards of Coverage Assessment page 21
 The RHNA Plan desires a gain of 335 units per year.

The historic units and population growth rates year over year were very modest. The latest number of annual units called for by the RHNA is very aggressive given current financing challenges for buyers and builders related to housing. The current City applications for housing average 187 units per year, in-between the two low/high numbers. Thus, using 187 units per year for three years, times a typical, moderate rate of 2.5 people per dwelling unit, equals a resident growth rate of 468 people per year, which is just under double the historic rate. As a percent increase of a base population of 31,418 in 2023, the first-year population growth of 468 persons is a rate of 1.49 percent. As a straight-line projection, 468 people per year until the 2032 RHNA date equals 4,212 additional residents—which is modestly higher than the 3,233-resident gain from 2010 to 2021.

It is all but impossible to accurately measure the demand for incidents generated by the inmigration of employees, tourists, the houseless, and those commuting through the City. However, they are all represented in the total incident count. Thus, using residents per 1,000 counts as a forecasting model represents a ratio of people to incidents. This measure does not say that only residents generate more (or fewer) incidents. But what can be used to project population are the dwelling units applied for, or that zoning could allow.

Finding #2: For purposes of projecting future Fire Department incident demand, Citygate will use a resident per 1,000 population incident demand rate of 1.49 percent.

2.5 CRITICAL TASK TIME MEASURES—WHAT MUST BE DONE OVER WHAT TIME FRAME TO ACHIEVE THE STATED OUTCOME EXPECTATION?
SOC studies use critical task information to determine the number of firefighters needed within a time frame to achieve desired objectives related to fire and emergency medical incidents. The following tables illustrate critical tasks typical of building fires and medical emergency incidents, including the minimum number of personnel required to complete
each task. These tables are composites from Citygate clients in suburban/rural departments like Atwater, with units staffed with 2–3 personnel per apparatus. It is important to understand the following relative to these tables:
 It can take a considerable amount of time after a task is ordered by command to complete the task and achieve the desired outcome.
 Task completion time is usually a function of the number of personnel that are simultaneously available. The fewer firefighters available, the longer some tasks SOC ELEMENT 4 OF 8

CRITICAL TASK TIME
STUDY

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Section 2—Standards of Coverage Assessment page 22
will take to complete. Conversely, with more firefighters available, some tasks are completed concurrently.
 Some tasks must be conducted by a minimum of two firefighters to comply with safety regulations. For example, two firefighters are required to search a smokefilled room for a victim.

2.5.1 Critical Firefighting Tasks
The following table illustrates the critical tasks required to control a typical single-family dwelling fire with 5 response units (4 engines, 1 ladder truck, and 1 chief officer, for a total Effective Response Force (ERF) of 13 personnel. Given Atwater only staffs two units with 3 personnel each, the other three units come from mutual aid but are typically only staffed with two firefighters each.

Even an ERF of 13 delivered quickly without mutual aid is less than a best practice of 16 personnel responding to a house fire.

The tasks in the following table are taken from typical fire departments’ operational procedures, which are consistent with the customary findings of other agencies using the SOC process. No conditions exist to override the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) two-in / two-out safety policy, which requires that firefighters enter atmospheres such as building fires that are immediately dangerous to life and health in teams of two while two more firefighters are outside and immediately ready to rescue them should trouble arise.

Scenario: Simulated approximately 2,000 square-foot, two-story, single-family residential fire with unknown rescue situation. Responding companies receive dispatch information typical for a witnessed fire. Upon arrival, they find approximately 50 percent of the second floor involved in fire.

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Section 2—Standards of Coverage Assessment page 23
Table 5—First Alarm Residential Fire Critical Tasks (13 Personnel) Critical Task Description Personnel
Required
First-Due Engine (3 Personnel)
1 Conditions report 1
2 Establish supply line to hydrant 2
3 Deploy initial fire attack line to point of building access 2 4 Operate pump and charge attack line 1
5 Establish incident command 1
6 Conduct primary search 2
Ladder Truck (3 Personnel)
1 If necessary, establish supply line to hydrant 1-2
2 Deploy a backup attack line 1–2
3 Establish Initial Rapid Intervention Crew 2
4 Establish Incident Rehab upon arrival of 3rd engine 1-2 Second-Due Engine (2 Personnel)
1 Conduct initial search and rescue, if not already completed 2 2 Deploy ground ladders to roof 1–2
3 Establish horizontal or vertical building ventilation 1–2 4 Open concealed spaces as required 2
Chief Officer
1 Transfer of incident command 1
2 Establish exterior command and scene safety 1
Third-Due Engine (2 Personnel)
2 Secure utilities 2
3 Deploy second attack line as needed 2
4 Conduct secondary search 2
5 Assist other crews as assigned 1-2
Fourth-Due Engine (2 Personnel)
1 Assist other crews as assigned 2
Grouped together, these duties form an ERF, or First Alarm Assignment. These distinct tasks must be performed to effectively achieve the desired outcome; arriving on-scene does not stop the emergency from escalating. While firefighters accomplish these tasks, the incident progression clock keeps running.

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Section 2—Standards of Coverage Assessment page 24
Many studies have shown that a small fire can spread to engulf an entire room in fewer than 3:00 to 5:00 minutes after free burning has started. Once the room is completely superheated and involved in fire (known as flashover), the fire will spread quickly both vertically and horizontally throughout the structure. For this reason, it is imperative that fire suppression and search/rescue operations commence before the flashover point occurs if the outcome goal is to keep the fire damage in or near the room of origin and to rescue persons unable to self-evacuate. In addition, flashover presents a life-threatening situation to both firefighters and any occupants of the building. Fire fatalities typically include persons under 10 and over 65 years of age and those unable to self-evacuate.

Given the locations of mutual aid fire stations, City on-duty staffing, and travel distance needed to assemble a 13-person ERF within the City service area to safely perform the above critical tasks, it would take too long to expect to confine a building fire to the room of origin prior to flashover.

2.5.2 Critical Medical Emergency Tasks
The Department responds to approximately 2,700 EMS incidents annually, including vehicle accidents, strokes, heart attacks, difficulty breathing, falls, childbirths, and other medical emergencies. For comparison, the following table summarizes the critical tasks required for a cardiac arrest patient.

Table 6—Cardiac Arrest Critical Tasks – Engine and Ambulance (5 Personnel) Critical Task Personnel
Required Critical Task Description
1 Chest compressions 1–2 Compression of chest to circulate blood 2 Ventilate/oxygenate 1–2 Mouth-to-mouth, bag-valve-mask, apply O2 3 Airway control 1–2 Manual techniques/intubation/cricothyroidotomy 4 Defibrillate 1–2 Electrical defibrillation of dysrhythmia 5 Establish I.V. 1–2 Peripheral or central intravenous access 6 Control hemorrhage 1–2 Direct pressure, pressure bandage, tourniquet 7 Splint fractures 2–3 Manual, board splint, HARE traction, spine 8 Interpret ECG 2 Identify type and treat dysrhythmia
9 Administer drugs 2 Administer appropriate pharmacological agents 10 Spinal immobilization 2–5 Prevent or limit paralysis to extremities 11 Extricate patient 3–4 Remove patient from vehicle, entrapment 12 Patient charting 1–2 Record vitals, treatments administered, etc. 13 Hospital communication 1–2 Receive treatment orders from physician 14 Treat en route to hospital 2–3 Continue to treat/monitor/transport patient

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Section 2—Standards of Coverage Assessment page 25

2.5.3 Critical Task Analysis and Effective Response Force (ERF) Size What does a deployment study derive from a critical task analysis? The time required to complete the critical tasks necessary to stop the escalation of an emergency (as shown in Table 5 and Table 6) must be compared to outcomes. As stated, after approximately 3:00 to 5:00 minutes of free burning in a room, fire will escalate to the point of flashover. At this point, the entire room is engulfed in fire, the entire building becomes threatened, and human survival near or in the room of a fire’s origin becomes impossible. Additionally, brain death begins to occur within 4:00 to 6:00 minutes of the heart stopping. Thus, the ERF must arrive in time to prevent these emergency events from becoming worse.

The Department’s daily on-duty staffing of 6 plus a chief officer is insufficient to deliver a recommended ERF of 16 firefighters4to a low/medium-hazard building fire given the locations and travel time of mutual aid resources needed to achieve that ERF staffing. Mitigating an emergency event is a team effort once the units have arrived. This refers to the weight of response analogy; if too few personnel arrive too slowly, the emergency will escalate instead of improving.

The outcome times, of course, will be longer and yield less-desirable results if the arriving force is later or smaller.

The number of personnel and the arrival time frame can be critical in a serious fire. Fires in older or multiple-story buildings could require the initial firefighters to rescue trapped or immobile occupants. If the ERF is too small, rescue and fire suppression tasks cannot be conducted simultaneously. Thus, achieving good performance requires adequate staffing (and training).

Fires and complex medical incidents require additional units to arrive in time to complete an effective intervention. Time is one factor that comes from proper station placement and the staffing model used. When fire stations are spaced too far apart and one unit must cover another unit’s area or multiple units are needed, the units may be too far away, and the emergency will escalate and result in a lessthan-desirable outcome. When only one, or a subset of fire stations are staffed, response times are frequently inadequate to meet the speed or weight metrics outlined earlier.

Previous critical task studies conducted by Citygate and NFPA Standard 1710 identify that all units need to arrive at a building fire with 15–17 firefighters within 11:30 minutes (from the time of a 9-1-1 call) to effectively perform the tasks of rescue, fire suppression, and ventilation. 4 NFPA 1710 Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments (2020 Edition).

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Section 2—Standards of Coverage Assessment page 26
If fewer firefighters arrive, all tasks may not be completed. Most likely, the search team would be delayed, as would ventilation. The attack lines would only consist of two firefighters, which does not allow for rapid movement of the hose line above the first floor in a multiple-story building.

Because rescue is conducted with at least two two-person teams, when rescue is essential, other tasks are not completed in a simultaneous, timely manner. Therefore, effective deployment is about the speed (travel time) and the weight (number of firefighters) of the response.

While 6 initial Atwater response personnel plus a chief officer may begin to manage a moderaterisk, confined residential fire, even a full ERF will be seriously slowed if the fire is above the first floor in a low-rise apartment building or commercial/industrial building. This is where the capability to add additional personnel and resources to the standard response within a reasonable time frame to facilitate positive outcomes becomes critical.

The fact the City (with mutual aid) delivers an ERF of only 13 personnel to a moderate-risk building fire within the service area reflects the real-world difficulty of confining serious building fires to or near the room of origin and preventing the spread of fire to adjoining buildings. This is a typical desired outcome in urban/suburban areas and requires more firefighters to arrive more quickly than the typical rural outcome of keeping the fire contained to the building, rather than the room, of origin.

2.6 HISTORICAL INCIDENT DEMAND ANALYSIS
A review of actual emergency incident data provides a
picture of the types of demand for Department services.

These types of incidents drive not just the count of fire stations or apparatus, but the quantity of personnel to conduct the critical tasks as described in the section just above.

The incident counts and types in the following table are from the CAL FIRE incident reporting system. These numbers are for the most recent calendar year of 2023. Citygate also reviewed years 2021 and 2022 and found small variances over the three years. This is to be expected as human activity, and other factors such as accidents caused by bad weather, will vary the demand for services.

SOC ELEMENT 7 OF 8

RELIABILITY AND

HISTORICAL RESPONSE

EFFECTIVENESS STUDIES

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Section 2—Standards of Coverage Assessment page 27
Table 7—Emergency Incident Counts by Type (2023)
Both Fire Stations 2023 Count Percent
Alarm Sounding 186 4.3%
Carbon Monoxide 17 0.4%
Cover Assignment 0 0.0%
Debris 143 3.3%
Dispatched Cancelled En-Route 409 9.4%
Medical Aid 2,665 60.9%
EMS Code Blue 70 1.6%
False Alarm 151 3.5%
Fire Menace Standby 36 0.8%
Fire Other 3 0.1%
HazMat 12 0.3%
Plane/Helicopter Crash 0 0.0%
Public Assist 248 5.7%
Structure Fire 84 1.9%
Technical Rescue 0 0.0%
Vegetation Fire 80 1.8%
Vehicle Accident 244 5.6%
Vehicle Accident with Entrapment 2 0.0%
Vehicle Fire 22 0.5%
Emergency Stand-By 2 0.0%
Total 4,374 100.0%
At present, finding a fire department’s incident demand activity to be 62.5 percent emergency medical-related is not surprising. Incident demand in western cities such as Atwater is always highest from mid-morning to early evening when human activity is the highest. 4,374 incidents in a year represents a daily demand of 12 per day. It would be common to have two or even three EMS incidents all active at the same time during peak hours. For a three-crew, two-station department, this is a problem.

When a third incident occurs, or a more serious incident such as a building fire, Atwater has no fire units with which to respond. There were 84 structure fires in 2023, representing a rate of 1.6 per week. Thus, while slight, the City does have a real risk of not having any personnel available to send to a third incident.

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Section 2—Standards of Coverage Assessment page 28
The other issue highlighted in the critical tasking section of this study is that even if all six onduty firefighters are available to respond to a building fire or very serious technical rescue incident, they still represent a number that is insufficient to conduct all required tasks simultaneously, effectively, and safely.

For serious, multi-unit incidents and simultaneous call-for-service occurrences, the City is dependent on the nearby County Fire units to be immediately available to respond. While the City has mutual aid agreements with fire departments in the area, the closest units are from County Fire and are only staffed with two firefighters each. As a result, even if three County units were to arrive in 8:00–15:00 minutes, this would only amount to six additional firefighters available to manage an incident. Added to the City’s daily on-duty staffing of six, that would equal a total of 12 fire crew personnel. This number is below a desirable and safe minimum of 15 personnel plus a command chief.

Finding #3: The City’s two fire crews could both be responding to incidents during peak-demand daylight hours and, in total, are insufficient to handle a serious fire without mutual aid.

2.6.1 Historical Response Time Measures
In 2023, the Department responded to 4,374 calls for service of all types. Citywide, the average response time from the beginning of the fire crew alert to the unit arriving at the incident location was 8:15 minutes. As shown in the following figure, 7.25 percent of arrivals occurred in less than 5:00 minutes and 17.5 percent occurred in more than 10:00 minutes. This means 74 percent of responses occurred between 5:00 and 10:00 minutes.

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Section 2—Standards of Coverage Assessment page 29
Figure 3—Response Time to Incidents by Category (2023)
Finding #4: The current fire unit response times are barely adequate for the existing City; however, ensuring response time coverage to the built-out City will require a minimum of three fire stations.

2.6.2 Incident Demand Projection
The prior three years of incident demand totaled: 4,479 incidents in 2021; 4,648 incidents in 2022; and 4,374 incidents in 2023. Thus, a three-year average including 2023 would be 4,500 annual incidents. If a 4,500-per-year incident demand is divided per 1,000 residents using the 2023 population of 31,418, the result is 143 incidents per 1,000 residents. If the 2032 population grew to 35,630 using Citygate’s projection, total Department incidents could increase to 5,095 annually over nine years—which represents a total increase of 595 incidents, or a straight-line annual rate of 66 additional incidents per year, or 0.18 per day.

Two stations staffed with three firefighters each could handle this increased incident demand, but with slow response times to sections of the growing City. More importantly, some of the increased incidents will occur at peak-demand hours, increasing the risk of the City running out of crews to respond to a third incident or a serious building fire.

Finding #5: By 2032, modest population growth and the resulting increase of approximately 595 annual emergency incidents will exacerbate the need for a third fire station.
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Less Than 5 Minutes 5–10 Minutes More Than 10 Minutes Response Time Percentages

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Section 2—Standards of Coverage Assessment page 30

2.7 FIRE STATION FACILITY AND HEADQUARTERS STAFF REVIEW For this portion of the study, Citygate received floor plans of the two fire stations, interviewed staff, and had Department personnel complete a fire department facility requirements checklist for each facility. The completed checklists are attached to this report as Appendix B.

Overall, Fire Station 41, at 699 Broadway Avenue in the western core area of the City, was the City’s first fire station. Station 41 is large but is also 42 years old. Most of its square footage is apparatus parking bays. The station was built in the era of volunteers and did not provide for administrative spaces or overnight on-duty firefighters. Over the decades, modest remodels have expanded the office and crew living quarters sections. Given its age, the station was built long before the California Essential Facilities Act required seismic hardening and other regulatory bodies required health and safety standards for fire stations to protect personnel.

Fire Station 42, at 2006 Avenue Two, is in the southeastern side of the City. It houses the City’s recently added second fire crew of three personnel. The building is only 18 years old and meets some seismic, essential facility, and firefighter safety standards. It contains office and living spaces for the on-duty crew. It also provides a training classroom space utilized as the City’s Emergency Operations Center and a small office space for fire administration use. It is in good physical condition and only needs routine, ongoing maintenance. The Station was built for planned growth in the southeastern area of the City; however, to date, most of that growth has not occurred, nor is building/planning associated with that growth currently under City planning review.

Finding #6: Due to its age, Station 41 does not meet legacy or current seismic and essential facility safety standards. It needs to be completely replaced and, in the meantime, essential repairs need to be made.

2.7.1 Fire Administrative Personnel and Spaces Review
At this time, the office spaces at either fire station are too small for the entire fire headquarters team of a Fire Chief, Fire Marshal (CAL FIRE contract employees), and a recently added Office Technician (CAL FIRE employee) for support. There are also two three-firefighter crews on-duty that need office space, training, and living quarters suitable to the crews’ 24-hour schedule.

Given the tight space in office areas, the Fire Chief and Fire Marshal also utilize office space at Fire Station 42. However, the space there is also insufficient for all three administrative staff plus a three-person fire crew. Even if it did provide enough space, Station 42 is not close to the City core or City Hall for the public and staff who must go between facilities, such as for fire incident report copies or fire prevention construction plan reviews.

As City growth occurs, the need for fire prevention construction plan reviews and inspections will also grow accordingly. At present, all inspection of new construction and existing commercial

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Section 2—Standards of Coverage Assessment page 31
buildings is performed by the City’s one 72-hour (three-day) Fire Marshal. As the pace of growth increases, the workload in a city the size of Atwater will exceed what one person can do. Many cities the size of Atwater have a Fire Inspector to conduct field inspections for new and existing buildings. The Fire Marshal coordinates advance planning review and plan check reviews in cooperation with the city’s building and planning functions.

As will be stated in the next section of this report, the City will likely need a third fire station in the northwest area of the City in three to nine years, once substantial growth has occurred. Until then, the City could remodel part of Station 41 to add administrative spaces that would accommodate all administrative personnel in one location.

Finding #7: Until Station 41 is replaced, one apparatus bay adjacent to the office/crew spaces could be remodeled for administrative office space.

2.8 FIRE STATION LOCATION REVIEW
The City’s two fire stations were sited to cover first, the core City, and second, expected growth in the southeast areas. While significant growth has not occurred southeast of Station 42, there is now some infill growth planned from the center to the northeast edge of the City near the Castle Airport. More importantly, the recent staffing of Station 42 with three career personnel has doubled the capacity to address calls for service throughout the City—especially when there are two or more incidents occurring at the same time. In 2023, Station 42 responded to 38 percent of Citywide incidents.

To determine fire station spacing, two methods are used—a geographic travel time model that simulates driving time, or the Insurance Service Office (ISO) spacing distance formula of 1.5 miles of outward reach in all directions from a fire station. This second model (which is less expensive for the City at present) entails that a fire station covers approximately 3 square miles on an ideal, grid-type street network. Currently, the City covers 6.5 square miles; therefore, two stations are adequate.

However, the City’s growth is limited by other jurisdictions on all sides except for the westnorthwest side. This area of the City, more so with annexations, is well beyond the reasonable reach of 1.5 miles, or 5:00-minutes driving time, from either fire station.

For example, a distance of 1.5 miles from Station 41 only reaches the street segment on North Winton Way just past Bellevue Road. This coverage does not extend to applied-for residential construction near Bellevue and Redwood Avenue, or east to the University Park proposal or the envisioned rezoning west of Castle Airport. With annexation to the northwest and infill

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Section 2—Standards of Coverage Assessment page 32
development in the northern City, a third fire station will eventually be needed. A “triangle” of three stations can cover the final size of the City if that is approximately 12 square miles or less.

A third fire station with a three-person crew increases Citywide staffing to nine firefighters per day. This would improve City staffing but still leave the City co-dependent on quick mutual aid for serious fires or other multi-unit incidents requiring 15 plus firefighters and a command chief.

As the City approaches its final buildout size sometime in the late 2030s, the City should add a fourth firefighter to each of the three crews, raising Citywide staffing to 12 and decreasing dependence on mutual aid.

Finding #8: To maintain response times as the City grows to the northwest, a third fire station and crew should be added.

Finding #9: As fire stations are replaced, added, or remodeled, fire crew spaces should be designed to support four firefighters on duty. This would be closer to City build-out, needing 12 firefighters per day.

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Appendix A—Community Risk Assessment page 33
APPENDIX A—RISK ASSESSMENT
A.1 COMMUNITY RISK ASSESSMENT
The third element of the Standards of Coverage (SOC)
process is a community risk assessment. Within the context of an SOC study, the objectives of a community risk
assessment are to:
 Identify the values at risk to be protected
within the community or service area.
 Identify the specific hazards with the potential to adversely impact the community or service area.
 Quantify the overall risk associated with each hazard.  Establish a foundation for current/future deployment decisions and riskreduction/hazard-mitigation planning and evaluation.

A hazard is broadly defined as a situation or condition that can cause or contribute to harm.

Examples include fire, medical emergency, vehicle collision, earthquake, flood, etc. Risk is broadly defined as the probability of hazard occurrence in combination with the likely severity of resultant impacts to people, property, and the community as a whole.

A.1.1 Risk Assessment Methodology
The methodology employed by Citygate to assess community risks for the City of Atwater incorporated the following elements:
 Identification and quantification, to the extent data is available, of the specific values to be protected within the community or service area.  Identification of the fire and non-fire hazards to be evaluated.  Determination of the probability of occurrence for each hazard.  Determination of the probable extent of impact of a hazard occurrence.  Determination of the probable impact severity of a hazard occurrence.  Quantification of overall risk for each hazard based on probability of occurrence in combination with impact extent and impact severity.

SOC ELEMENT 3 OF 8

COMMUNITY RISK

ASSESSMENT

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Appendix A—Community Risk Assessment page 34
A.1.2 Risk Assessment Summary
Citygate’s evaluation of the values at risk and hazards likely to impact the service area yields the following:

1. The Department serves a very diverse urban population with densities averaging 4,782 people per square mile over a varied urban land use pattern.

2. The Department’s service area population is projected to grow approximately one percent per year through 2032.

3. The service area has a large existing inventory of residential and non-residential buildings to protect.

4. The service area has significant economic and other resource values to be protected, as identified in this assessment.

5. The Department has multiple mass emergency notification options available to effectively communicate emergency information to the public in a timely manner.

The service area’s risk for five hazards related to emergency services provided by the Department range from Moderate to Low as summarized in the following table.

Table 8—Overall Risk by Planning Zone
Hazard City-Wide
Building Fire Moderate
Vegetation Fire Low
Medical Emergency Moderate
Hazardous Material Low
Technical Rescue Moderate
A.1.3 Values at Risk to Be Protected
Values at risk, broadly defined, are tangibles of significant importance or value to the community or jurisdiction potentially at risk of harm or damage from a hazard occurrence. Values at risk typically include people, critical facilities/infrastructure, buildings, and key economic, cultural, historic, or natural resources.

People
Residents, employees, visitors, and travelers in a community or jurisdiction are vulnerable to harm from a hazard occurrence. Particularly vulnerable are specific at-risk populations, including those unable to care for themselves or self-evacuate in the event of an emergency. At-risk populations

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Appendix A—Community Risk Assessment page 35
typically include children under the age of 10, the elderly, people housed in institutional settings, and households below the federal poverty level. The following table summarizes key demographic data for the City of Atwater (City).

Table 9—Key Demographic Data – Atwater
Demographic 2022
Population 32,372
Under 10 Years 14.2%
10–14 Years 9.5%
15–64 Years 63.8%
65–74 Years 7.3%
75 Years and Older 5.1%
Median Age 33.2
Daytime Population n/a
Housing Units 10,296
Owner-Occupied 54.2%
Renter-Occupied 42.7%
Vacant 3.1%
Median Household Size 3.09
Median Home Value $315,200
Race/Ethnicity
White Alone 45.5%
Black / African American Alone 4.5%
Asian Alone 5.2%
Other / Two or More Races 44.8%
Hispanic / Latino Origin 56.6%
Education (Population over 24 Years of Age) 19,896
High School Graduate or Equivalent 72.4%
Undergraduate Degree 14.7%
Graduate/Professional Degree 3.0%
Employment (Population over 15 Years of Age) 23,803
In Labor Force 63.6%
Unemployed 11.0%
Median Household Income $64,195
Population below Poverty Level 17.5%
Population Under Age 65 with Disabilities 9.5%
Population without Health Insurance Coverage 9.8%
Source: Esri and U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Appendix A—Community Risk Assessment page 36
Of note from the previous table is the following:
 Nearly 27 percent of the population is under 10 years or over 65 years of age.  The population is predominantly White Alone (46 percent), followed by Other/Two or More Races (45 percent), Asian Alone (5 percent), and Black / African American Alone (5 percent). Nearly 57 percent of the population identifies with a Hispanic or Latino origin or ethnicity.
 Of the population over 24 years of age, more than 72 percent has completed high school or equivalency.
 Of the population over 24 years of age, nearly 18 percent has an undergraduate, graduate, or professional degree.
 Of the population 15 years of age or older, nearly 64 percent is in the workforce; of those, 11 percent are unemployed.
 Median household income is slightly more than $64,000.  The population below the federal poverty level is 17.5 percent.  Nearly 10 percent of the population under age 65 does not have health insurance coverage.

Projected Growth
The City’s 2000 General Plan projected a 2020 population of nearly 39,000; however, as Table 9 shows, the 2022 population was only slightly more than 32,000.5 Buildings
The City has more than 10,000 residential housing units and numerous commercial/industrial occupancies housing manufacturing, research, technology, office, professional services, retail sales, restaurants/bars, motels, churches, schools, storage, government, healthcare, and other business types.

Building Occupancy Risk Categories
The CFAI identifies the following four risk categories that relate to building occupancy:

Low Risk – includes detached garages, storage sheds, outbuildings, and similar building occupancies that pose a relatively low risk of harm to humans or the community if damaged or destroyed by fire.
5 Source: City of Atwater 2000 General Plan, Table 2-2.

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Appendix A—Community Risk Assessment page 37
Moderate Risk – includes detached single-family or two-family dwellings; mobile homes; commercial and industrial buildings smaller than 10,000 square feet without a high hazard fire load; aircraft; railroad facilities; and similar building occupancies where loss of life or property damage is limited to the single building.

High Risk – includes apartment/condominium buildings; commercial and industrial buildings larger than 10,000 square feet without a high hazard fire load; low-occupant load buildings with high fuel loading or hazardous materials; and similar occupancies with potential for substantial loss of life or unusual property damage or financial impact.

Maximum Risk – includes buildings or facilities with unusually high risk requiring an Effective Response Force (ERF) involving a significant augmentation of resources and personnel and where a fire would pose the potential for a catastrophic event involving large loss of life or significant economic impact to the community.

Critical Facilities
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security defines critical infrastructure and key resources as those physical assets essential to the public health and safety, economic vitality, and resilience of a community, such as lifeline utilities infrastructure, telecommunications infrastructure, essential government services facilities, public safety facilities, schools, hospitals, airports, etc. The Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies 62 critical facilities and infrastructure, as shown in the following table. A hazard occurrence with significant consequence severity affecting one or more of these facilities would likely adversely impact critical public or community services.

Table 10—Critical Facilities
Critical Facility Category Quantity
Communications 7
Energy 5
Food, Water, Shelter 3
Hazardous Materials 1
Healthcare & Medical 1
Safety & Security 34
Transportation 11
Total 62
Source: Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard
Mitigation Plan, Table 4-7.

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Appendix A—Community Risk Assessment page 38
A.1.4 Hazard Identification
Citygate utilizes prior risk studies where available, fire and non-fire hazards as identified by the CFAI, and agency/jurisdiction-specific data and information to identify the hazards to be evaluated for this study. The 2021–2026 Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the following 12 hazards with potential to impact the County:

1. Agriculture Pest and Disease

2. Cyber Attacks

3. Dam Incidents

4. Drought

5. Earthquake

6. Flooding and Levee Failure

7. Hazardous Materials

8. Landslide

9. Pandemic/Epidemic

10. Severe Weather

11. Subsidence

12. Wildfire
Although the Department has no legal authority or responsibility to mitigate any hazards other than possibly wildfire, it does provide services related to many hazards, including fire suppression, emergency medical services, and initial technical rescue and hazardous materials response.

The CFAI groups hazards into fire and non-fire categories, as shown in the following figure.

Identification, qualification, and quantification of the various fire and non-fire hazards are important factors in evaluating how resources are or can be deployed to mitigate those risks.

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Appendix A—Community Risk Assessment page 39
Figure 4—Commission on Fire Accreditation International Hazard Categories Source: CFAI Standards of Cover (Fifth Edition)
Subsequent to review and evaluation of the hazards identified in the Merced County MultiJurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Action Plan, and the fire and non-fire hazards as identified by the CFAI as they relate to services provided by the Department, Citygate evaluated the following five hazards for this risk assessment:

1. Building fire

2. Vegetation fire

3. Medical emergency

4. Hazardous material release/spill

5. Technical rescue

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Appendix A—Community Risk Assessment page 40
A.1.5 Probability of Occurrence
Probability of occurrence refers to the probability of a future hazard occurrence during a specific period. Because the CFAI agency accreditation process requires an annual review of an agency’s risk assessment and baseline performance measures, Citygate recommends using the 12 months following the completion of an SOC study as an appropriate period for the probability of occurrence evaluation. The following table describes the five probability of occurrence categories and related characteristics used for this analysis.

Table 11—Probability of Occurrence Categories
Category General Characteristics
General
Frequency of
Occurrence
Rare • Hazard may occur under exceptional circumstances. > 10 years Unlikely
• Hazard could occur at some time.
• No recorded or anecdotal evidence of occurrence.
• Little opportunity, reason, or means for hazard to occur. 2–10 years
Possible
• Hazard should occur at some time.
• Infrequent, random recorded or anecdotal evidence of occurrence. • Some opportunity, reason, or means for hazard to occur. 1–23 months
Probable
• Hazard will probably occur occasionally.
• Regular recorded or strong anecdotal evidence of occurrence. • Considerable opportunity, reason, or means for hazard to occur. 1–4 weeks
Frequent
• Hazard is expected to occur regularly.
• High level of recorded or anecdotal evidence of regular occurrence. • Strong opportunity, reason, or means for hazard to occur. • Frequent hazard recurrence.

Daily to
weekly
A.1.6 Impact Extent
Impact extent refers to the probable geographic area and/or number of persons likely to be impacted by a specific hazard occurrence. The following table describes the four impact extent categories and general characteristics used for this analysis.

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Appendix A—Community Risk Assessment page 41
Table 12—Impact Extent Categories
Category General Characteristics
Negligible Less than 1 percent of planning area or
planning area population likely impacted.

Limited Less than 10 percent of planning area or
planning area population likely impacted.

Significant 10–50 percent of planning area or planning
area population likely impacted.

Extensive More than 50 percent of planning area or
planning area population likely impacted.

A.1.7 Impact Severity
Impact severity refers to the magnitude or reasonably expected loss a hazard occurrence has on people, buildings, lifeline services, the environment, and the community as a whole. The following table describes the five consequence severity categories and general characteristics used for this analysis.

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Appendix A—Community Risk Assessment page 42
Table 13—Impact Severity Categories
Category General Characteristics
Insignificant
• No injuries or fatalities
• None to few persons displaced for short duration
• Little or no personal support required
• None to inconsequential damage
• None to minimal community disruption
• No measurable environmental impacts
• None to minimal financial loss
• No wildland Fire Hazard Severity Zones
Minor
• Few injuries; no fatalities; minor medical treatment only • Some displacement of persons for less than 24 hours
• Some personal support required
• Some minor damage
• Minor community disruption of short duration
• Small environmental impacts with no lasting effects
• Minor financial loss
• No wildland Fire Hazard Severity Zones
Moderate
• Medical treatment required; some hospitalizations; few fatalities • Localized displaced of persons for less than 24 hours • Personal support satisfied with local resources
• Localized damage
• Normal community functioning with some inconvenience
• No measurable environmental impacts with no long-term effects, or small impacts with long-term effect
• Moderate financial loss
• Less than 25% of area in Moderate or High wildland FHSZ Major
• Extensive injuries; significant hospitalizations; many fatalities • Large number of persons displaced for more than 24 hours • External resources required for personal support
• Significant damage
• Significant community disruption; some services not available • Some impact to environment with long-term effects
• Major financial loss with some financial assistance required • More than 25% of area in Moderate or High wildland FHSZ; less than 25% in Very High wildland FHSZ
Extreme
• Large number of severe injuries requiring hospitalization; significant fatalities • General displacement for extended duration
• Extensive personal support required
• Extensive damage
• Community unable to function without significant external support • Significant impact to environment and/or permanent damage • Catastrophic financial loss; unable to function without significant support • More than 50% of area in High wildland FHSZ; more than 25% of area in Very High wildland FHSZ

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Appendix A—Community Risk Assessment page 43
A.1.8 Overall Risk
Overall risk was determined by considering the probability of occurrence, likely impact extent, and reasonably expected impact severity using the following tables.

Table 14—Overall Risk Categories – Negligible Impact Extent Probability of
Occurrence
Impact Severity
Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Extreme
Rare Low Low Low Low High
Unlikely Low Low Low Low High
Possible Low Low Low Moderate High
Probable Low Low Low Moderate High
Frequent Low Low Low Moderate High
Table 15—Overall Risk Categories – Limited Impact Extent Probability of
Occurrence
Impact Severity
Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Extreme
Rare Low Low Low Moderate High
Unlikely Low Low Low Moderate High
Possible Low Low Moderate High High
Probable Low Low Moderate High Extreme
Frequent Low Low Moderate High Extreme
Table 16—Overall Risk Categories – Significant Impact Extent Probability of
Occurrence
Impact Severity
Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Extreme
Rare Low Low Low Moderate High
Unlikely Low Low Moderate High High
Possible Low Low Moderate High Extreme
Probable Low Moderate Moderate High Extreme
Frequent Low Moderate High High Extreme

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Appendix A—Community Risk Assessment page 44
Table 17—Overall Risk Categories – Extensive Impact Extent Probability of
Occurrence
Impact Severity
Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Extreme
Rare Low Low Moderate High Extreme
Unlikely Low Low Moderate High Extreme
Possible Low Moderate High High Extreme
Probable Low Moderate High Extreme Extreme
Frequent Moderate Moderate High Extreme Extreme
A.1.9 Building Fire Risk
One of the primary hazards in any community is building fire. Building fire risk factors include building size, age, construction type, density, occupancy, and height above ground level; required fire flow; proximity to other buildings; built-in fire protection/alarm systems; available fire suppression water supply; building fire service capacity; and fire suppression resource deployment (distribution/concentration), staffing, and response time.

The following figure illustrates the building fire progression timeline. It shows that flashover, the point at which the entire room erupts into fire after all combustible objects reach their ignition temperature, can occur as early as 3:00 to 5:00 minutes from initial ignition. Human survival in a room after flashover is extremely improbable.

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Appendix A—Community Risk Assessment page 45
Figure 5—Building Fire Progression Timeline
Source: http://www.firesprinklerassoc.org
Population Density
Population density within the City is approximately 4,800 people per square mile.6 Although risk analysis across a wide spectrum of other Citygate clients shows no direct correlation between population density and building fire occurrence, it is reasonable to conclude that building fire risk relative to potential impact on human life is greater as population density increases, particularly in areas with high-density, multiple-story buildings.

Water Supply
A reliable public water system providing adequate volume, pressure, and flow duration in close proximity to all buildings is a critical factor in mitigating the potential consequence severity of a community’s building fire risk. According to Department staff, available fire flow volume and 6 Source: U.S. Census Bureau Quick Facts.

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Appendix A—Community Risk Assessment page 46
pressure are adequate throughout the service area except for annexed areas of the County in the Valley Drive, East Broadway, and Manchester/Station areas.

Building Fire Risk Assessment
The following table summarizes Citygate’s assessment of the City’s building fire risk.

Table 18—Building Fire Risk Assessment
Building Fire Risk Citywide
Probability of Occurrence Probable
Impact Extent Limited
Impact Severity Moderate
Overall Risk Rating Moderate
A.1.10 Vegetation Fire Risk
Some areas within and adjacent to the City are susceptible to a vegetation fire. Vegetation/wildland fire risk factors include vegetative fuel types and configuration, weather, topography, prior fires, water supply, mitigation measures, and vegetation/wildland fire service capacity.

Vegetative Fuels
Vegetative fuel factors influencing fire intensity and spread include fuel type (vegetation species), height, arrangement, density, and moisture. In addition to decorative landscape species, vegetative fuels within the city consist of a mix of annual grasses and weeds, invasive species, and mixed deciduous and conifer tree species. Once ignited, vegetation fires can burn intensely and contribute to rapid fire spread under the right fuel, weather, and topographic conditions.

Weather
Weather elements, including temperature, relative humidity, wind, and lightning, also affect vegetation/wildland fire potential and behavior. High temperatures and low relative humidity dry out vegetative fuels, creating a situation where fuels will more readily ignite and burn more intensely. Wind is the most significant weather factor influencing vegetation/wildland fire behavior, with higher wind speeds increasing fire spread and intensity. Fuel and weather conditions most conducive to vegetation/wildfires generally occur from about May through October; however, above-normal temperatures and drought can increase that period on either end.

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Appendix A—Community Risk Assessment page 47
Topography
Vegetation/wildland fires tend to burn more intensely and spread faster when burning uphill and up-canyon, except for a wind-driven downhill or down-canyon fire. The generally flat topography of the City has minimal effect on vegetation fire behavior and spread.

Water Supply
Another significant vegetation fire consequence severity factor is water supply immediately available for fire suppression. According to Department staff, available fire flow and hydrant spacing is adequate throughout the City except for some annexed County areas.

Wildland Fire Threat Zones
The Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the City as a low hazard for wildland fire with a low annual probability of a wildland fire.7 Vegetation Fire Risk Assessment
The following table summarizes Citygate’s assessment of the City’s vegetation fire risk.

Table 19—Vegetation/Wildland Fire Risk Assessment
Vegetation/Wildland
Fire Risk Citywide
Probability of Occurrence Possible
Impact Extent Negligible
Impact Severity Minor
Overall Risk Rating Low
A.1.11 Medical Emergency Risk
Medical emergency risk in most communities is predominantly a function of population density, demographics, violence, health insurance coverage, and vehicle traffic.

Medical emergency risk can also be categorized as either a medical emergency resulting from a traumatic injury or a health-related condition or event. Cardiac arrest is one serious medical emergency among many where there is an interruption or deprivation of oxygen to the brain.

The following figure illustrates the reduced survivability of a cardiac arrest victim as time to defibrillation increases. While early defibrillation is one factor in cardiac arrest survivability, other 7 Source: Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Figures 4-38 and 4-40.

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Appendix A—Community Risk Assessment page 48
factors can influence survivability as well, such as early CPR and pre-hospital advanced life support interventions.

Figure 6—Survival Rate versus Time to Defibrillation
Population Density
Population density within the City is approximately 4,800 people per square mile.8 Risk analysis across a wide spectrum of other Citygate clients shows a direct correlation between population density and the occurrence of medical emergencies, particularly in high urban population density zones.

Demographics
Medical emergency risk tends to be higher among older, poorer, less educated, and uninsured populations. As shown in Table 9, 12.4 percent of the service area population is 65 and older; nearly 30 percent of the population over 24 years of age has less than a high school education or equivalent; 17.5 percent of the population is at or below poverty level; and nearly 10 percent of the population under age 65 does not have health insurance coverage. 8 Source: U.S. Census Bureau Quick Facts.

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Appendix A—Community Risk Assessment page 49
Vehicle Traffic
Medical emergency risk tends to be higher in areas of a community with high daily vehicle traffic volume, particularly areas with high traffic volume traveling at high speeds. The City’s transportation network includes Highway 99 carrying an aggregate annual average daily traffic volume of more than 54,000 vehicles.9
Medical Emergency Risk Assessment
The following table summarizes Citygate’s assessment of the City’s medical emergency risk.

Table 20—Medical Emergency Risk Assessment
Medical Emergency
Risk Citywide
Probability of Occurrence Frequent
Impact Extent Limited
Impact Severity Moderate
Overall Risk Rating Moderate
A.1.12 Hazardous Material Risk
Hazardous material risk factors include fixed facilities that store, use, or produce hazardous chemicals or waste; underground pipelines conveying hazardous materials; aviation, railroad, maritime, and vehicle transportation of hazardous commodities into or through a jurisdiction; vulnerable populations; emergency evacuation planning and related training; and specialized hazardous material service capacity.

Fixed Hazardous Materials Facilities
The City has some sites requiring a state or County hazardous material operating permit or Hazardous Materials Business Plan. In addition, high-pressure natural gas distribution pipelines are located adjacent to the BNSF Railway alignment, Winton Way, and Bellevue Road west of Winton Way.

Transportation-Related Hazardous Materials
The service area also has transportation-related hazardous material risk because of its road transportation network, including Highway 99 carrying an aggregate annual average daily truck 9 Source: California Department of Transportation (2021 data).

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Appendix A—Community Risk Assessment page 50
traffic volume of more than 54,000 vehicles, some of which are transporting hazardous commodities.10
The service area also has transportation-related hazardous material risk due to more than 30 train movements into and through the City daily, many of which are transporting hazardous commodities.11
Population Density
Because hazardous material emergencies have the potential to adversely impact human health, it is logical that the higher the population density, the greater the potential population exposed to a hazardous material release or spill.

Vulnerable Populations
Persons vulnerable to a hazardous material release/spill include individuals or groups unable to self-evacuate, generally including children under the age of 10, the elderly, and persons confined to an institution or other setting where they are unable to leave voluntarily. As shown in Table 9, nearly 27 percent of the population is under age 10 or is 65 years and older.

Hazardous Material Risk Assessment
The following table summarizes Citygate’s assessment of the City’s hazardous materials risk.

Table 21—Hazardous Materials Risk Assessment
Hazardous Material
Risk Citywide
Probability of Occurrence Possible
Impact Extent Limited
Impact Severity Minor
Overall Risk Rating Low
A.1.13 Technical Rescue Risk
Technical rescue risk factors include active construction projects; structural collapse potential; confined spaces, such as tanks and underground vaults; bodies of water, including rivers and streams; industrial machinery use; transportation volume; and earthquake, flood, and landslide potential.
10 Source: California Department of Transportation.
11 Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Appendix A—Community Risk Assessment page 51
Construction Activity
There is ongoing residential, commercial, industrial, and infrastructure construction activity within the City.

Confined Spaces
There are confined spaces within the service area, including tanks, vaults, and open trenches.

Bodies of Water
There are multiple canals and seasonal waterways within the City.

Transportation Volume
Another technical rescue risk factor is transportation-related incidents requiring technical rescue.

This risk factor is primarily a function of vehicle, railway, maritime, and aviation traffic. Vehicle traffic volume is the greatest of these factors within the service area, with Highway 99 carrying an aggregate annual average daily traffic volume of more than 54,000 vehicles.

Earthquake Risk
The Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the County’s probability of damaging seismic ground shaking as “occasional” due to proximity to the San Andreas Fault and that fault’s history.

Flood Risk
According to the Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, significant flooding occurs within the County approximately every five years. The Plan also identifies 354 parcels and 360 buildings within the City with potential to be damaged by a flood event.

Technical Rescue Risk Assessment
The following table summarizes Citygate’s assessment of the City’s technical rescue risk.

Table 22—Technical Rescue Risk Assessment
Technical Rescue Risk Citywide
Probability of Occurrence Possible
Impact Extent Limited
Impact Severity Moderate
Overall Risk Rating Moderate

This page was intentionally left blank

City of Atwater, CA
Fire Services Master Plan (DRAFT REPORT)
Appendix B—Facility Assessment Worksheets page 53
APPENDIX B—FACILITY ASSESSMENT

WORKSHEETS

FACILITY ASSESSMENT
Fire Station 41
Address: 699 Broadway Ave, Atwater CA 95301
Ownership: Atwater City
Parcel Size (acres) .73
Building Size (sq. ft.) 14,656
Number of Stories 1
Building Age (years) 42
Daily Staffing Min. 3
Max 5
Number of Apparatus Min. 2
Max. 2
Apparatus Bays Indoor: 6
Outdoor: 0
Assessment Factor Finding
Essential Services Facility Yes No Unknown or
N/A Comments
Meets ESA Seismic Requirements X No
Meets ADA Access Requirements X
Backup Electrical Generator X Size: 8KW Fuel: NATURAL GAS On-Site Vehicle Fueling X
Facility Safety/Security
Fire Sprinkler System X
Smoke Detectors X
CO Detectors X
Vehicle Exhaust Capture System X
PPE allowed in living/sleeping areas X
Smoking and tobacco free X
Apparatus door safety features X Existing but nonoperational Station Alerting System Conformance
with NFPA 1500 X
Carcinogen Contamination Control
Zones X
PPE Storage Conformance with NFPA
1851 X
Dedicated PPE Cleaning Equipment X Located at Station 42 Dedicated PPE Decontamination Area X
Dedicated Medical Waste Disposal X
Dedicated EMS Equipment/Supply
Storage X
Secured Building Access X
Secured Employee Parking X
Annual Safety Inspections X Last Inspection: 2/10/2024

Major Facility Systems/Components
Last
Serviced
or
Repaired
Last
Replaced Condition Notes
HVAC 2019? Good Replaced around 2019
Roof 2021? Good Resurfaced around 2021
Asphalt Surfaces NA Fair Asphalt in rear is aging and front aprons are still operational but will need some repairs in the
coming years
Standby Generator
SCBA Air Compressor 2023 Good Serviced annually + a new stationary unit PPE Extractor Located at Station 42
Functional Areas Yes No Number
Total
Area
(Sq. Ft.)
Meets
Current
Needs
Meets
Anticipated
Future Needs
Office/Workspace X 3 390 Y N
Restroom(s) X 2 415 N N
Sleeping (bedrooms/beds) X 3/7 745 Y N
Kitchen/Dining X 2 700 Y Y
Living Area / Day Room X 1 270 Y N
Physical Fitness Workout Space X 1 400 Y N
Storage Space X 3 60 Y N
Workshop X 1 150 Y N
Training Room X 0 0 N N
SCBA Storage X 1 10 Y Y
SCBA Refill Station X 2 250 Y Y
Emergency Vehicle Parking/Storage YES NO Number
Total
Area
(Sq. Ft.)
Meets
Current
Needs
Meets
Anticipated
Future Needs
Drive-Through Apparatus Bays X 0 6300 N N
Front Apparatus Apron X 6 1720 N N
Rear Apparatus Apron / Parking X 0 0 N N
Comments/Recommendations
Overall facility condition:

Some remodels have taken place, and the facility is improving; however, it still needs its fair share of improvements.

This station does sit in a great geographical location although it lacks several needed features to provide for the most safety and efficiency for firefighters and the community.

FACILITY ASSESSMENT
Fire Station 42
Address: 2006 Avenue Two, Atwater, CA 95301
Ownership: City of Atwater
Parcel Size (acres) 1.1
Building Size (sq. ft.) 7,500
Number of Stories 1
Building Age (years) 18
Daily Staffing Min. 3
Max. 5
Number of Apparatus Min. 2
Max. 2
Apparatus Bays Indoor: 2
Outdoor: 0
Assessment Factor Finding
Essential Services Facility Yes No Unknown or
N/A Comments
Meets ESA Seismic Requirements ✓
Meets ADA Access Requirements ✓
Backup Electrical Generator ✓ Size: 100Kw 250 Gallon Tank Fuel: LPL On-Site Vehicle Fueling ✓ Fueling is done at city yard.

Facility Safety/Security
Fire Sprinkler System ✓
Smoke Detectors ✓
CO Detectors ✓
Vehicle Exhaust Capture System ✓
PPE allowed in living/sleeping areas ✓
Smoking and tobacco free ✓
Apparatus door safety features ✓
Station Alerting System Conformance
with NFPA 1500 ✓
Carcinogen Contamination Control
Zones ✓
PPE Storage Conformance with NFPA
1851 ✓
Dedicated PPE Cleaning Equipment ✓
Dedicated PPE Decontamination Area ✓
Dedicated Medical Waste Disposal ✓
Dedicated EMS Equipment/Supply
Storage ✓
Secured Building Access ✓
Secured Employee Parking ✓
Annual Safety Inspections ✓ Last Inspection: 2024

Major Facility Systems/Components
Last
Serviced
or
Repaired
Last
Replaced Condition Notes
HVAC 1/2024 Original Fair Recent problems 2/2024
Roof 12/2023 Original Fair Had major leaks over the years and only temporary patch jobs have been completed
Asphalt Surfaces 2006 Original Like New Not asphalt. Concrete surface.

Standby Generator 7/29/22 Original Like New
SCBA Air Compressor N/A N/A N/A No SCBA Air compressor present (Located at Station 41)
PPE Extractor 2009 Original Used
Functional Areas Yes No Number
Total
Area
(Sq. Ft.)
Meets
Current
Needs
Meets
Anticipated
Future Needs
Office/Workspace ✓ 5 1,700 Y Y
Restroom(s) ✓ 4 700 Y Y
Sleeping (bedrooms/beds) ✓ 3/6 600 Y Y
Kitchen/Dining ✓ 1 500 Y Y
Living Area / Day Room ✓ 1 800 Y Y
Physical Fitness Workout Space ✓ 1 120 N N
Storage Space ✓ 1 450 Y Y
Workshop ✓ 1 200 Y Y
Training Room ✓ 1 400 Y Y
SCBA Storage ✓ 0 0 N N
SCBA Refill Station ✓ 0 0 N N
Emergency Vehicle Parking/Storage YES NO Number
Total
Area
(Sq. Ft.)
Meets
Current
Needs
Meets
Anticipated
Future Needs
Drive-Through Apparatus Bays ✓ 2 1,800 Y Y
Front Apparatus Apron ✓ 1 2,700 Y Y
Rear Apparatus Apron / Parking ✓ 1 10,000 Y Y
Comments/Recommendations
Overall facility condition:

Overall condition of the fire station is good. There are some improvements that can be made to make for better accommodations for on-duty personnel as well as repairs in planning for future growth, but the facility is very functional.

APPENDI X 1 B. CITYGATE STUDY - POLICE SER V I C ES MASTER PLAN GRIFFIN STRUCTURES 83 Appendix 1B.

Citygate Study
Police Services Master Plan

CITY OF ATWATER, CA

POLICE SERVICES FACILITY

NEEDS MASTER PLAN
MAY 22, 2024
600 COOLIDGE DRIVE, SUITE 150
FOLSOM, CA 95630
PHONE: (916) 458-5100
FAX: (916) 983-2090
WWW.CITYGATEASSOCIATES.COM

P O L I C E S E R V I C E S

P O L I C E S E R V I C E S

City of Atwater, CA
Police Services Facility Needs Master Plan
Table of Contents Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Facilities Assessment.................................................................................................................................................... 1

1. Executive Summary........................................................................................................................... 1

2. Policy Choices Framework................................................................................................................ 2

3. General Police Service Staffing Overview........................................................................................ 2

3.1 Current Department Staffing............................................................................................... 3

3.2 Atwater Service Demand .................................................................................................... 5

4. Atwater Police Department Facility ................................................................................................ 10

5. Police Facility Regulatory Standards .............................................................................................. 12

5.1 Codes, Standards, and Legislation .................................................................................... 12

5.2 Other Facility Considerations ........................................................................................... 13

6. State Data Perspective on Atwater Growth ..................................................................................... 14

6.1 City and Regional Studies: Population and Housing Unit Growth................................... 15

6.2 Impact to Police Staffing of Growth in Population and Calls for Service ........................ 16

6.3 Facility Improvements and Remodel................................................................................ 17

7. Findings And Recommendations .................................................................................................... 17

7.2 Recommendations............................................................................................................. 18 Table of Tables
Table 1—Calls for Service by Priority and Year (2021–2023)..................................................................................................6 Table 2—Computer-Based Incident Reporting System Data (2023).........................................................................................7 Table 3—School Resource Officer Program Incidents and Comparison...................................................................................9 Table of Figures
Figure 1—Atwater Police Department Organizational Chart....................................................................................................4 Figure 2—Calls for Service by Priority and Year (2021–2023) ................................................................................................6 Figure 3—City of Atwater – Population Trend (2010–2024)..................................................................................................14 Appendices
Appendix A—Atwater PD Floor Plan (Interim Remodel)

City of Atwater, CA
Police Services Facility Needs Master Plan
Table of Contents Page 1

FACILITIES ASSESSMENT

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Atwater (City) retained Citygate Associates, LLC (Citygate) to conduct a high-level Police Facility Needs Master Plan. As part of the Master Plan effort, Citygate was to analyze current Police Department (Department) staffing, equipment, and facilities; evaluate future facility needs based on this analysis; and provide appropriate recommendations regarding Department staffing to facility needs.

The current police station significantly predates all modern building and civic essential facility requirements. The facility requires near-term enhancements and remodeling measures to ensure it can meet the short-term needs of the Department and community. If these improvements are made, the facility could serve the needs of the Department for the next three to five years.

One issue that the City and Department need to address immediately concerns the expansion or relocation of the 9-1-1 Communications Center (the City’s Public Safety Answering Point, or PSAP).

The Communications Center is where all incoming emergency calls for the Department are received.

Calls for service are then dispatched to Patrol officers for response. The Center is currently in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). The City was notified of this fact during the spring of 2023 by the state of California. There is a plan to further remodel the current building to ensure it can serve the Department and community for a further three to five years. The Department’s proposal for what the interim remodel would consist of has been attached as Appendix A to this study. In the mid to longer term, a larger, full replacement of the police facility will be required for the City to maintain adequate working space for Department personnel—including specialty services, management, and logistical support—considering projected population growth and the associated increase in calls for service.

Other cities in Atwater’s situation have found that there are only two viable choices:

1. The City could conduct a temporary remodel of the current facility while also immediately proceeding with the process of a new facility being funded, sited, designed, and constructed—meeting all regulatory requirements and being built to last 25 plus years.

2. If absent the resources to replace the police/City building in less than five years, the City could locate a vacant commercial building that would be cost effective to remodel for use as a police department, and which could serve the City for a decade or more.

At the conclusion of the analysis section of this study, Citygate makes four specific findings and five actionable recommendations for the City to consider.

City of Atwater, CA
Police Services Facility Needs Master Plan
Table of Contents Page 2

2. POLICY CHOICES FRAMEWORK
There are no official national standardsregarding law enforcement deployment and no mandatory federal or state regulations directing the level of police service staffing, response times, or outcomes. If services are provided, local, state, and federal safety and how to police regulations must be followed to ensure the safety of the public and the personnel providing the services.

It is worth noting that new, unfunded mandates are being added annually due to new laws from the California state legislature. In the past three years, hundreds of new laws have been passed in response to nationally publicized incidents involving law enforcement. Cities have little or no control over what laws are passed annually but are forced to comply with mandates—including any costs associated with the implementation of new laws. Mandates may include the collection of data related to persons arrested, time requirements pertaining to the release of body-worn camera footage from a critical incident, or new required training standards.

3. GENERAL POLICE SERVICE STAFFING OVERVIEW
Some jurisdictions in California use the number of officers per 1,000 citizens as a benchmark for police staffing. This measurement will show the physical staffing, or number of sworn officers, for a police department. However, what is necessary for any department to both respond to crime-driven demand for police services and proactively prevent future crime will vary greatly depending on the community served.

For example, a police department serving a smaller, more rural city will have a significantly different workload than that of a police department serving a medium-sized or larger city. The Department’s current staffing ratio is .78 officers per 1,000 residents. While this ratio is not necessarily an accurate indicator of staffing needs, it can provide a starting point when seeking to understand the City’s current context and situation as it pertains to police services.

A more accurate and helpful way for a police department to measure a community’s policing needs is to analyze service demand: (1) what specific tasks are being performed by the department’s personnel daily, and (2) at what volume are the tasks being performed? This is a more indicative measure of a community’s needs than simply comparing the number of officers in a police department to the number of citizens within a community.

It is crucial for police agencies to understand service demand to effectively and efficiently allocate resources, respond to community needs, and forecast future law enforcement strategies. Service demand is commonly understood through the following means and metrics.  Monitoring the type and volume of calls for service

City of Atwater, CA
Police Services Facility Needs Master Plan
Table of Contents Page 3
 Analysis of crime statistics and trends—including crime mapping via the use of geographic information systems (GIS) to identify crime “hotspots” and allocate resources accordingly
 Data analysis, including:
➢ Response times
➢ Officer committed time to incidents and utilization rates ➢ Identifying patterns in demand for police services across different times and locations
➢ Traffic incidents
➢ Citizen complaints
 Community expectations and feedback
By utilizing these methods, police agencies can continually improve their understanding of service demand and tailor their operations and performance metrics to effectively meet the needs of the communities they serve.

Increased staffing in response to crime rates, service demand, and community expectations involves other elements of police services as well. For instance, the number of personnel in a police department will naturally dictate how much space is required of a police facility.

3.1 Current Department Staffing
As of January 2024, the Department’s authorized full-time equivalent (FTE) staffing is as follows.

Sworn Peace Officers: 28 including: the Chief of Police, one Lieutenant, four Sergeants, 21 police officers, and one reserve police officer. Three positions are currently vacant.

Professional Staff: 14 including: two Community Service Officers (CSOs), one Code Enforcement Manager, one Code Enforcement officer, one Records Manager, two Records officers, and seven dispatchers.

The following organizational chart reflects the Department’s command structure.

City of Atwater, CA
Police Services Facility Needs Master Plan
Table of Contents Page 4
Figure 1—Atwater Police Department Organizational Chart The Department’s ratio of sworn personnel to resident population is .78 officers per 1,000 residents. This is less than the statewide average rate of 2.2 officers per 1,000 population (FBI, 2022), though the statewide average also includes sworn personnel such as campus police officers and sheriff’s deputies that work in jails.

The Department’s attrition rate during the year was eight percent for sworn positions, which represented a marked improvement compared to previous years. For professional personnel, the Department’s attrition rate during the previous year was zero percent. At the end of 2023, all full-time, professional positions were filled.

Patrol Staffing
The Department deploys a range of two to five officers and professional Community Service Officers per shift. Within the police station facility, Patrol and CSO officers require a common area to process evidence, complete crime reports, and manage other daily tasks. There needs to be a processing area for labeling and packaging evidence for proper booking and chain of evidence. Proper evidence storage is a critical function of law enforcement agencies and is highly regulated by the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (CA POST).

Officers also require an area for processing and interviewing arrestees prior to their transport to the Merced County Jail. This area should include a workstation with a place for the arrestee to sit in a secure setting while allowing the officer to safely process the arrest paperwork.

Scheduling
Evidence
Dispatch Fleet POST Training Field Training
Investigations
Animal
Control
Patrol Shift Patrol Shift Patrol Shift Patrol Shift Records Code
Enforcement
Administrative
Supervisor Sergeant Sergeant Sergeant Sergeant Sergeant Lieutenant
Chief of Police

City of Atwater, CA
Police Services Facility Needs Master Plan
Table of Contents Page 5
Dispatch Staffing
The level of Patrol staffing above requires two dispatchers on duty 24 hours per day. Each dispatcher needs a full workstation with multiple telephone lines and computer screens. Dispatchers are required to monitor incoming emergency telephone lines, non-emergency lines, and dispatch radio communications to and from Patrol officers. Dispatchers also monitor incoming calls from Patrol officers who may have questions regarding the calls for service they are responding to.

Detective Staffing
The Department’s officers assigned as detectives each need their own workspace with access to electronic records, supervisors, and evidence storage.

3.2 Atwater Service Demand
Calls for service (CFS) refer to requests made to law enforcement agencies for assistance, intervention, or response to various incidents or situations. There are two primary categories of CFS responded to by police officers.

Officer-initiated CFS are incidents that are initiated by police officers themselves rather than being prompted by a public request. These CFS often involve proactive policing activities, enforcement actions, or routine patrols including traffic stops.

Public-generated CFS are requests for police assistance that are initiated by members of the public, businesses, government agencies, or other entities. Public-generated CFS encompass a large variety of situations, including emergencies, crimes, disturbances, and non-emergency requests for assistance. These CFS are typically received and processed by police dispatchers or call centers, who prioritize and dispatch officers to respond based on the type and urgency of the situation.

Both officer-initiated and public-generated CFS are major components of a police department’s workload. Thus, police departments utilize CFS data to analyze workload, prioritize responses, allocate resources, and assess the effectiveness of policing strategies.

The following service demand data is from the Department’s 2023 Annual Report to the community.

The Department’s CFS data over time shows both activities generated by the public and activity generated by preventative Patrol activities. In 2021, the Department managed 24,438 CFS. In 2022, the Department managed 25,499 CFS. In 2023, the Department managed 28,208 CFS. The 2023 CFS numbers represent a 10.6 percent increase over 2022. The continued growth in the community and the addition of the public online minor incident reporting portal assisted in the increase. Officer-initiated CFS also increased by 16.6 percent from 8,854 contacts in 2022 to 10,324 in 2023. This increase is

City of Atwater, CA
Police Services Facility Needs Master Plan
Table of Contents Page 6
attributed to the addition of a new code enforcement officer, increased abandoned vehicle abatement, and the increase in contacts with the unhoused population.

The following table and figure break down CFS by priority and year. Priority 1 calls are considered emergencies and should be dispatched within a 3:00-minute period. Priority 2 calls encompass most citizen-initiated activities/incidents. Priority 3 calls are mostly officer initiated.

Table 1—Calls for Service by Priority and Year (2021–2023) Type 2021 2022 2023
Priority 1 648 741 694
Priority 2 5,883 5,878 5,280
Priority 3 17,907 18,880 22,233
Non-Classified 0 0 1
Total 24,438 25,499 28,208
Figure 2—Calls for Service by Priority and Year (2021–2023) In 2021, the Department made the commitment to begin the conversion to the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) and Computer-Based Incident Reporting System (CBIRS) formats with the upgrade of its records management system. This method of data collection can show numbers that are

City of Atwater, CA
Police Services Facility Needs Master Plan
Table of Contents Page 7
elevated and make it appear as though there is more criminal activity than is occurring in reality. The following table documents the Department’s 2023 CIBRS data.

Table 2—Computer-Based Incident Reporting System Data (2023) The number of reported property crimes represents 59 percent of the number of reportable crimes to the Department and the majority share of the CIBRS statistics. The public-reported suspicious and criminal activity rates are commensurate with the City’s population and activity levels.

Traffic Accidents
Besides the common writing of citations for traffic violations, the Department responds to and investigates all traffic accidents that occur within the City.

In 2023, the total number of traffic accidents investigated was 351, representing a decrease of approximately 11 percent from the 390 accidents investigated in 2022. It was the first year that the City did not average one traffic accident per day in the last five years.

City of Atwater, CA
Police Services Facility Needs Master Plan
Table of Contents Page 8
However, the number of vehicle accidents involving injury increased by 41.3 percent—from 29 injury accidents in 2022, to 41 in 2023. Unfortunately, this included the Department’s investigation of four fatal traffic collisions that cost six lives.

The continued decline in total traffic accidents is due to the effects of increased public awareness and traffic enforcement in the form of a part-time Motor officer and effective, directed patrols. The major causes of accidents are inattention and failure to follow posted traffic signs.

Animal Control
The Department is responsible for the animal control function for the City. Retrieved animals are housed at an animal control facility owned by the Merced County Sheriff’s Office. By contract, the County shelters captured animals and collects fees, fines, and forfeitures for the Department The Unit handled 1,144 animal control CFS for 2023, an average of 3.1 calls per day. On average, 60 percent of CFS ended in some sort of enforcement action by Animal Control officers. The other 40 percent of calls received by the Department represent incidents that were either cancelled by the caller, concerned animals that were unable to be located, or entailed animals that were being returned to their owners.

School Resource Officer Program
The Department renewed its partnership with the Atwater Elementary School District to provide law enforcement services to all elementary school sites for the 22–23 school year. Services provided to the district include:
 Outreach to students
 School Safety presentations
 Traffic and Patrol functions around the schools
 Criminal investigations.

This partnership has continued into the 23–24 school year with District and Department collaboration on several infrastructure projects to make the sites, students, and staff safer. The following table shows statistics related to incidents managed by School Resource Officers (SROs) in the first part of the most recent 23–24 school year.

City of Atwater, CA
Police Services Facility Needs Master Plan
Table of Contents Page 9
Table 3—School Resource Officer Program Incidents and Comparison Statistical Measure Total
Number
Trending 6-month
Comparison to 22–23
Calls for Service 464 15% increase
Traffic Stops 22 81% decrease
Reports Taken 120 71% decrease
Citations Issued 92 97% decrease
Arrests Made 8 75% decrease
Code Enforcement Unit
The Department oversees the responsibilities of code enforcement for the City with a Code Enforcement Unit. Responsibilities related to blight enforcement, City ordinance enforcement, home encampment monitoring, shopping cart abatement, and abandoned vehicle enforcement were consolidated to management by this Unit. In 2022, the Unit handled approximately 1,247 CFS related to a variety of blight issues and issued 1,478 notices and citations to violators. The result of these enforcement actions was a 90 percent compliance that improved the overall look of the City.

These numbers significantly increased in 2023. The increase represents the effect of expanded staffing in the Unit, which allowed for greater capacity to manage a variety of blight issues. The Unit was augmented by the addition of a full-time Code Enforcement Officer to bolster its capacity to manage cases. In 2023, the Unit also handled 272 abandoned vehicle calls and generated 14 reports with 38 vehicles stored.

The Unit provides service in the following areas:
 Daily citizen phone calls for information, explanation, or direction for non-cases.  Generation of new documents, innovative programs, and processes for the Code Enforcement program.
 Miscellaneous meetings with Building, Planning, and various City Departments related to projects.
 Displaced Citizen monitoring, including contact and data collection.

City of Atwater, CA
Police Services Facility Needs Master Plan
Table of Contents Page 10

4. ATWATER POLICE DEPARTMENT FACILITY
The Department’s current facility is located at 750 Bellevue Road and was constructed in 1966. The facility is located near the center of the City, providing members of the public with easy access to the Department.

The building is shared with City Hall and the City’s Finance Department, with the Police Department portion occupying 9,000 square feet of the building’s 12,000-square-foot total size. The main station houses 9-1-1 Communications Center, Records, Patrol operations, Animal Control, Administration, and Code Enforcement. The Department also continues to utilize a secure fenced area and Conex box at the Public Works Yard as an evidence storage facility.

The main station area of City Hall received a small renovation in 2021. Floor coverings were replaced, and portions of the interior were painted. Each employee now has their own locker. There are two locker rooms now that a new locker room was added for female personnel.

During 2023, the Department reallocated space on the southside of the building that was once occupied by City administration. A new conference room was constructed, the offices were refinished, and ADA accessible doors were installed. These measures provided a short-term solution to some specific infrastructure issues.

The Investigations Unit completed its relocation from Fire Station #2 back to headquarters. Projects to renovate that space and construct a new interview room are ongoing and were to be completed in the first quarter of 2024.

In partnership with PG&E and Public Works, the Department plans to construct a vehicle charging depot inside the secure parking lot. This will service the Department’s growing fleet of plug-in hybrid and battery-powered electric vehicles. This facility is due to be completed in the first quarter of 2024.

As discussed in Citygate’s assessment to follow, the facility still has serious, immediate inadequacies related to space needs of all types, as well as regulatory compliance challenges—all of which, together, hamper the delivery of effective police operations.

Property and Evidence
The property and evidence room was upgraded to provide better security and more space for storage related to criminal cases. Despite the added space, the property and evidence room is almost at full capacity. Accordingly, Citygate finds the Department should reduce the amount of evidence stored for criminal cases. To manage this complex process will require the expertise of personnel—whether sworn or professional staff—who can research criminal cases and carefully determine whether older evidence requires further time in storage or may be destroyed. The Department should temporarily employ retired annuitants to oversee this process as a one-time project. If this is not a viable option, the Department should consider additional temporary storage for the growing amount of evidence and property.