Exeter City Council
September 8, 2026

EXETER CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
September 08, 2026, 6:30 PM
City Hall, 137 North F Street
Exeter, California 93221
Mayor
Jacob Johnson
Mayor Pro Tem
Jeff Wilson
Council Members
Vicki Riddle
Frankie Alves
Bobby Lentz
Notice is hereby given that the Exeter City Council will hold a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, September 08, 2026, at 6:30 p.m. in person at Exeter City Hall located at 137 N. F St. in Exeter California, 93221.

Staff Reports related to items on the agenda are available on the City’s website at https://cityofexeter.ca.gov/ and available for viewing at City Hall. 6:30 p.m.

A. CALL TO ORDER CLOSED SESSION
B. PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING CLOSED SESSION MATTERS
Comments from the public are limited to items listed on the closed session matters (GC 54954.3a). Speakers will be allowed three (3) minutes. Please begin your comments by stating your name and providing your City of residence.

C. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION(S)

1. GC 54956.9 – Consideration of Liability Claims
Claimant: Morri Lee Burris Mendez
Claimed Against: City of Exeter

2. GC 54956.9(d)(1) – Conference with Legal Counsel
Re Existing Litigation
City of Exeter v. Bumgarner, Tulare County Superior Court No. VCU323368 Martinez v. Lujan et al., U.S. District Court No. 1:25-cv-01494-SAB

3. GC 54957.6 – Conference with Labor Negotiations
Agency Negotiator: Jason Ridenour and Julia Lew
Employee Groups: CLOCEA
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council

7:00 p.m.

D. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR SESSION
E. INVOCATION
F. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
G. PUBLIC COMMENTS
This is the time for citizens to comment on subject matters that are not on the agenda that are within the jurisdiction of the Exeter City Council. In compliance with public meeting laws, Council cannot discuss topics that are not included on the published agenda. This is also the time for citizens to comment on items listed on the Consent Calendar or to request an item from the Consent Calendar be pulled for discussion purposes. Public comments related to all pulled Consent Calendar Items and all Individual Business or Public Hearing Items that are listed on this agenda will be heard at the time that item is discussed or at a time the Public Hearing is opened for comment.

In fairness to all who wish to speak tonight, comments shall be limited to five (5) minutes for each individual, ten (10) minutes for an individual representing a group, and thirty (30) minutes overall for the entire public comment period, unless otherwise indicated by the Mayor. Although not required, speakers are asked to begin their comments by stating their name and city of residence.

H. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

1. Proclamation Honoring the Life, Service, and Homecoming of Sergeant Adolph P.

Aguirre, United States Air Force (p. 5)
Presented by Mayor Johnson
I. CONSENT CALENDAR
Items listed under the Consent Calendar are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these matters unless a request is made and then the item will be removed from the Consent Calendar to be discussed and voted upon by a separate motion.

1. Approval of August 25, 2026, Regular Meeting Minutes (pp. 6 – 10)

2. Approval of the Payment of Bills for August 21, 2026 (pp. 11 – 21)

3. Approval of Payroll for the Period August 10, 2026, through August 23, 2026 (pp. 22 – 29)

4. Approval of a Revised Street Closure Request from Exeter Unified School District for the 2026 Exeter High School Homecoming Parade Rescheduled to October 9, 2026, Subject to the Previously Approved Conditions of Approval (pp. 30 – 36) September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council

5. Approval of a Street Closure and Traffic Control Request from FYE Events for the 2026 Scarecrow Run on October 10, 2026, Subject to the Conditions of Approval (pp. 38 – 46)

6. Authorization of Street Closures for the City of Exeter’s Annual Christmas Parade and Related Activities on December 4, 2026 (pp. 47 – 51)

7. Approval of a Temporary Street Closure and Temporary No-Parking Restrictions for the 2027 Rocky Hill Triathlon on March 13, 2027 (pp. 52 – 59)

8. Approval of a Facility Use Request from Painted Sweet LLC for the Craftober Kids Craft Fair at City Park on October 24, 2026, Subject to the Conditions of Approval (pp. 60 – 70)

9. Award and Approve the Selection of Provost & Pritchard Consulting (P&P) Professional Engineering Services for the City of Exeter Drinking Water System Improvement Project, Drinking Water Planning Grant (California Water Boards Project No. 5410003-001P), and Authorize the City Administrator (or Designee) to Negotiate and Execute a Project Specific Contract Consistent with the City's On-Call Professional Engineering Services Agreement (RFQ 26-01), in an Amount Not to Exceed $1,560,000.00 (pp. 71 – 129)

10. Approval of a Request for the Exeter Memorial District to Display a Banner Honoring Sergeant Adolph P. Aguirre to be Across Pine Street (pp. 130 – 133) J. INDIVIDUAL BUSINESS ITEMS
Comments related to Individual Business and Public Hearing Items are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker, for a maximum of 30 minutes per item. The Mayor may reasonably limit or extend the public comment period to preserve the Council's interest in conducting efficient, orderly meetings.

1. Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution No. 2026-39, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Exeter, Approving Amendments to the City of Exeter Master Rate and Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2026/2027 (pp. 134 – 139) Presented by Janie Rodriguez, Finance Director

2. Consideration of Geographic Residency Requirements for Planning Commission Membership and Direction Regarding Amendment of Chapter 2.16 of the Exeter Municipal Code (pp. 140 – 146)
Presented by Jason Ridenour, City Administrator

3. Consider Adoption of Resolution No. 2026-40, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Exeter, Approving the Updated City of Exeter Statement of Investment Policy and Resolution No. 2026-41, Delegating Investment Authority to the Treasurer (pp. 147 – 198)
Presented by Janie Rodriguez, Finance Director

4. Consideration of Options to Address the use of Golf Carts and Low Speed Vehicles on City Streets, Including the Enforcement of Current California Vehicle Codes, Development of a Targeted Golf Cart and Low Speed Vehicle Plan or Authorization of the Preparation and Submittal of an Application to the Caltrans Fiscal Year 2027-28 Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program for a Citywide Exeter Mobility Plan, September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council

Inclusive of Golf Carts and other Low-speed Travel Modes, and Commit the Required Local Match (pp. 199 – 341)
Presented by Jason Ridenour, City Administrator
K. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS OF INTEREST
L. CITY ADMINISTRATOR/DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
M. REGULAR MEETING ADJOURNMENT
State of California )
County of Tulare ) ss.

City of Exeter )
I declare under penalty of perjury that I am employed by the City of Exeter, in the Administrator’s Office; and that I posted this Agenda on the bulletin board outside of City Hall 137 N. F St. Exeter CA 93221 on September 4, 2026, and online on the City of Exeter website. _______________________________________________
Francesca Nevarez, City Clerk
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the California Ralph M. Brown Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, or to be able to access this agenda and documents in the agenda packet, please contact the City Clerk (559)592-9244. Notification prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting and/or provision of an appropriate alternative format of the agenda and documents in the agenda packet. (28 CFR 35.102-35. 104 ADA Title II).

Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the legislative body after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at City of Exeter, Administration Office 100 N. C St., Exeter CA 93221 during normal business hours.

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council Proclamation

HONORING THE LIFE, SERVICE, AND HOMECOMING OF
SERGEANT ADOLPH P. AGUIRRE

UNITED STATES ARMY AIR FORCES
WHEREAS, Sergeant Adolph P. Aguirre was born on October 29, 1921, and raised in the Exeter community, where he attended Exeter Union High School, participated in athletics and student activities, and graduated in 1941; and
WHEREAS, Sergeant Aguirre answered the call to serve his country during World War II, joining the United States Army Air Forces in 1942 and serving as an Assistant Radio Operator and Gunner with the 67th Bombardment Squadron, 44th Bombardment Group (Heavy), aboard a B-24 Liberator; and
WHEREAS, on August 16, 1943, Sergeant Aguirre and his fellow crew members departed on a bombing mission near Foggia, Italy, and their aircraft failed to return, leaving Sergeant Aguirre missing in action and his family and community without the opportunity to bring him home; and
WHEREAS, for more than eight decades, Sergeant Aguirre remained unaccounted for until advances in forensic and DNA analysis, together with the dedicated efforts of the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency, resulted in his remains being officially identified and accounted for on May 29, 2026; and
WHEREAS, after more than 80 years, Sergeant Aguirre will finally return home to Exeter and be laid to rest at the Exeter District Cemetery beside his parents, bringing his remarkable journey of service, sacrifice, and remembrance full circle; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED, that the City Council of the City of Exeter, on behalf of the entire community, hereby honors Sergeant Adolph P. Aguirre for his courageous and selfless service to the United States of America, recognizes his ultimate sacrifice during World War II, and extends its deepest gratitude and respect to the Aguirre family.

WELCOME HOME, SERGEANT AGUIRRE. Your service has not been forgotten. Your sacrifice will always be remembered.

DATED: September 8, 2026
Jacob Johnson, Mayor
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council

EXETER CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

ACTION MINUTES
August 25, 2026, 6:30 PM
City Hall, 137 North F Street
Exeter, California 93221
Mayor
Jacob Johnson
Mayor Pro Tem
Jeff Wilson
Council Members
Vicki Riddle
Frankie Alves
Bobby Lentz
Notice is hereby given that the Exeter City Council will hold a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, August 25, 2026, at 6:30 p.m. in person at Exeter City Hall located at 137 N. F St. in Exeter California, 93221.

Staff Reports related to items on the agenda are available on the City’s website at https://cityofexeter.ca.gov/ and available for viewing at City Hall. 6:30 p.m.

A. CALL TO ORDER CLOSED SESSION
Mayor called the closed session to order at 6:30 PM.

B. PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING CLOSED SESSION MATTERS
No public comments were presented.

C. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION(S)

1. GC 54956.9(d)(2) – Conference with Legal Counsel
Re: Potential Initiation of Litigation – One (1) Case

2. GC 54957(b)(1) – Public Employee Annual Performance Evaluation Title: City Administrator
Title: City Attorney

3. GC 54957.6 – Conference with Labor Negotiations
Agency Negotiator: Jason Ridenour and Julia Lew
Employee Groups: CLOCEA
7:00 p.m.

D. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR SESSION
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council

Mayor Johnson called the regular session to order at 07:06 p.m. City Attorney Lew noted for the record that there was no reportable action taken out of closed session.

E. INVOCATION
Led by Mayor Johnson.

F. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Led by Council Member Alves.

G. PUBLIC COMMENT
Public comment was received from Pamela Whitmire, who provided an update on the Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG). Ms. Whitmire also announced a new scholarship program planned for 2027 and noted that contributions to support the program may be made online.

H. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

1. Certificate of Recognition Honoring Pamela PK Whitmire for Advocacy for Transportation Improvement in the City of Exeter (p.5)
Presented by Mayor Johnson
I. CONSENT CALENDAR
Items listed under the Consent Calendar are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these matters unless a request is made and then the item will be removed from the Consent Calendar to be discussed and voted upon by a separate motion.

1. Approval of August 11, 2026, Regular Meeting Minutes (pp.6-12)

2. Approval of August 18, 2026, Special Meeting Minutes (pp.13-14)

3. Approval of the Payment of Bills for July 31, 2026, August 7, 2026 and August 12, 2026 (pp.15-52)

4. Approval of Payroll for the Periods of December 28, 2014, through June 19, 2022, and July 27, 2026, through August 9, 2026 (pp.53-64)

5. Authorization to Release a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Municipal Financial Management System Software, Application Hosting, Implementation and Technology Services (pp.65-91)

6. Authorize the Transition of Design Engineering Services for the Firebaugh Avenue Rehabilitation Project to A&M Consulting Engineers (A&M) and Authorize the Public Works Director to Execute a Task Order with A&M for Completion of the Remaining Design Scope of Work in an Amount Not to Exceed $85,000 (pp.92-107)

7. Approval of the 2026 Annual Exeter Fall Festival Activities, including Facility Use, Street Closures, Beer Garden and Horseshoe Tournament (pp.108-141) September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council

8. Approval of the Selection of American Emergency Products (AEP) for Police Vehicle Outfitting Services at a Cost of $51,261.06 and Authorize the City Administrator or their Designee to Execute all Necessary Documents (pp.142-166) Approval of Consent Calendar
1st 2nd Result JONHSON WILSON ALVES RIDDLE LENTZ
WILSON RIDDLE (5-0) AYE AYE AYE AYE AYE
J. INDIVIDUAL BUSINESS ITEMS
Comments related to Individual Business and Public Hearing Items are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker, for a maximum of 30 minutes per item. The Mayor may reasonably limit or extend the public comment period to preserve the Council's interest in conducting efficient, orderly meetings.

1. Consideration to Approve the City of Exeter History Walk Trail Signage Design and the Proposed Installation Locations; Authorizing the City Administrator, or Designee, to Accept the Signage and Execute Documents Necessary for Installation; and Accepting Ownership and Routine Maintenance of the Signage (pp.167-179) Presented by Javier Andrade, Contract City Engineer
City Engineer provided a report for the Council and members of the public.

Public comment was received from Mark Hellwig, who provided additional background and information regarding the History Walk Trail project.

Public comment was received from Dwight Miller, who also provided comments and information regarding the project.

Approval of the City of Exeter History Walk Trail Signage Design and the Proposed Installation Locations; Authorizing the City Administrator, or Designee, to Accept the Signage and Execute Documents Necessary for Installation; and Accepting Ownership and Routine Maintenance of the Signage.
1st 2nd Result JONHSON WILSON ALVES RIDDLE LENTZ
ALVES WILSON (5-0) AYE AYE AYE AYE AYE

2. Consideration of Upcoming Planning Commission Term Expirations and Direction Regarding the Appointment Process (pp.180-184)
Presented by Jason Ridenour, City Administrator
City Administrator provided a report for the Council and members of the public.

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council

Mayor opened the item up for public comment. No public comments were presented.

Following discussion, the City Council directed staff to return with an item addressing Planning Commission eligibility requirements, specifically the geographic boundaries within which an individual must reside to be eligible to serve on the Commission. The City Council also approved the application for release to solicit interest in the upcoming Planning Commission vacancies.

3. Presentation of Design Options for the E Street Trail Project; Selection of Preferred Decorative Sidewalk, Decorative Crosswalks, and Street Lighting Design Options; and Direction to Staff to Incorporate the Selected Options into the Final Design (pp.185-197) Presented by Javier Andrade, Contract City Engineer
Council Member Riddle recused herself from consideration of the item due to a conflict of interest. She stepped down from the dais and did not participate in the discussion.

City Engineer provided a report for the Council and members of the public.

Mayor opened the item up for public comment. No public comments were presented.

City Council provided direction to staff regarding the preferred design options and incorporation of the selected options into the final project design.

Upon conclusion of the item, Council Member Riddle returned to the dais.

K. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS OF INTEREST
Council Member Alves congratulated Alex Workman on his appointment to the City Council and expressed appreciation to the City Engineer. He announced the September 11, 2026, memorial event and encouraged the community to attend. He also announced the memorial service honoring Sergeant Aguirre scheduled for September 18, 2026.

Mayor Pro Tem Wilson reported that he would be attending the upcoming Tooleville Water Board meeting. He also congratulated the Exeter High School football team on its victory over Woodlake High School.

Council Member Riddle provided updates regarding the Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) and Tulare County Regional Transit Agency (TCRTA). She recognized Pamela Whitmire for her continued volunteer service. She also provided information regarding upcoming events honoring Sergeant Aguirre including the memorial service on September 18, 2026. Additionally, she announced an upcoming opening of a time capsule near the Carnegie Building that was buried in 1976.

Council Member Lentz reported that he attended a Greater Kaweah Sustainable Groundwater Management meeting.

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council

Mayor Johnson commented on upcoming community events and congratulated the Exeter High School football team on its victory over Woodlake High School, noting it was a great way to begin the school year.

CITY ADMINISTRATOR/DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
City Administrator, Public Works Director, Chief of Police, Finance Director, City Attorney and City Clerk/Human Resources provided comments/reports.

L. REGULAR MEETING ADJOURNMENT
Mayor adjourned the meeting at 8:44 p.m.
____________________________
Francesca Nevarez, City Clerk
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council Agenda Item Staff Report
Meeting Date:

September 8, 2026
Wording for Agenda:

Approval of the Payment of Bills for August 21, 2026.

Submitting Department:

Finance
Contact Name:

Janie Rodriguez, Finance Director
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the payment of bills in the following amounts. • $659,712.43 dated August 21, 2026, for accrued expenditures charged to FY 2025-2026 • $271,182.26 dated August 21, 2026, for expenditures charged to FY 2026-2027 The Finance Department has reviewed and compiled invoices and expenses for city operations for approval by the City Council, which are summarized and attached to this report.

The payment of bills is recurring action presented to the City Council to ensure transparency and fiscal oversight of city expenditures. The item reflects payments made for various city services, supplies, utilities, and obligations incurred in the normal course of business. All bills have been reviewed by the Finance Department and are within budgeted appropriations. • Total amount: $930,894.69 dated August 21, 2026
• Funding source: Various city departmental budgets
• Budget implications: All payments are within the approved Fiscal Year 2025-2026 and Fiscal Year 2026-2027 budgets. No additional appropriations are necessary.

For action by:
☒City Council
Regular Session:
☒Consent Calendar
☐Regular Item
☐Public Hearing
Review:

City Administrator
(Initials Required)
_J.R.___
Agenda Item Number: I.2
Department Recommendation:

Summary:

Background:

Fiscal Impact:

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council The City Council routinely approves payment of bills during regular meetings. This item is part of the standard financial reporting and authorization process. • Payments for Publication dated August 21, 2026
• Check Register dated August 21, 2026
I move to approve the payment of bills in the amount of $930,894.69 dated August 21, 2026.

Prior City Council Actions:

Attachments:

Recommended motion to be made by the City Council:

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council Agenda Item Staff Report
Meeting Date:

September 8, 2026
Wording for Agenda:

Approval of Payroll for the Period August 10, 2026, through August 23, 2026.

Submitting Department:

Finance
Contact Name:

Janie Rodriguez, Finance Director
Staff recommends that the City Council approve payroll for the period August 10, 2026 to August 23, 2026, in the following amounts.
• $87,860.81 for August 10, 2026, through August 23, 2026, period with a check date of August 28, 2026.

This item requests City Council approval of payroll expenditures incurred during the pay period of August 10, 2026, through August 23, 2026, timely approval ensures the city remains compliant with labor obligations and continues uninterrupted compensation to employees.

The City of Exeter processes payroll on a biweekly basis. City Council approval is required for each payroll cycle as part of the City’s fiscal oversight procedures. The current payroll covers all regular full-time, part-time, and temporary employees for the specified pay period. • Total payroll amount: $87,860.81 (for August 10, 2026 through August 23, 2026, payroll periods)
• Funding source: Approved departmental salary budgets
For action by:
☒City Council
Regular Session:
☒Consent Calendar
☐Regular Item
☐Public Hearing
Review:

City Administrator
(Initials Required)
__J.R.__
Agenda Item Number: I.3.

Department Recommendation:

Summary:

Background:

Fiscal Impact:

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council • Budget implications: Payroll is within the adopted Fiscal Year 2026-2027 budget; no additional funds are required.

Payroll approval is a standing item brought to the City Council regularly to ensure accountability and continuity of operations.
• Payroll Register for the period of August 10, 2026, through August 23, 2026.

I move to approve payroll for the period August 10, 2026, through August 23, 2026, in the amount of $87,860.81.

Prior City Council Actions:

Attachments:

Recommended motion to be made by the City Council:

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council PAYROLL........S BI-WEEKLY RUN-08/27/2026 15.08.22 PAGE 1 CHECK FORM..CHEK CHECK REGISTER PR311R-V14.25 Paymate
PERIOD 2 DATING 8/10/2026- 8/23/2026 CHECK DATE 8/28/2026

DIRECT DEPOSIT IS TURNED ON

CHECK CHECK EMPLOYEE/BANK/VENDOR CHECK

NUMBER AMOUNT NAME CODE SEQ
1916 63.69 CA STATE DISBURSEMENT UN 2 1 VENDOR CHECK
1917 1,649.24 MELLINGER/GRANT EDWARD 790 1
TOTALS FOR CHECK FORM: CHEK

NEGOTIABLE CHECKS COUNTS
1,649.24 *EMPLOYEE CHECKS 1

63.69 *VENDOR CHECKS 1

0.00 *BANK CHECKS 0
1,712.93 **TOTAL NEGOTIABLE CHECKS 2

OTHER CHECKS

0.00 *MANUAL CHECKS 0

0.00 *CANCELLED CHECKS 0
1,712.93 **TOTAL FOR CHECK FORM

NON-NEGOTIABLE CHECKS

0.00 *DIRECT DEPOSIT STUBS 0

0.00 *VENDOR DIR DEP STUBS 0
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council PAYROLL........S BI-WEEKLY RUN-08/27/2026 15.08.22 PAGE 2 CHECK FORM..STUB CHECK REGISTER PR311R-V14.25 Paymate
PERIOD 2 DATING 8/10/2026- 8/23/2026 CHECK DATE 8/28/2026

DIRECT DEPOSIT IS TURNED ON

CHECK CHECK EMPLOYEE/BANK/VENDOR CHECK

NUMBER AMOUNT NAME CODE SEQ
1 0.00 GOLDSTROM/NORMAN 629 2 MANUAL
55195 175.50 CLOCEA 4 1 VENDOR STUB ONLY
55196 308.00 EXETER POLICE OFFICER AS 3 1 VENDOR STUB ONLY 55197 192.94 EXETER POLICE OFFICER AS 3A 1 VENDOR STUB ONLY 55198 2,254.61 ARIAS/CHRISTINA 730 1 STUB ONLY
55199 2,884.59 QUINTANA FRANCESCA N 742 1 STUB ONLY
55200 4,917.74 RIDENOUR/JASON CHARLES 763 1 STUB ONLY
55201 1,496.55 CARTER/AMY JO 502 1 STUB ONLY
55202 3,090.07 HERNANDEZ/XOCHITL 306 1 STUB ONLY
55203 1,508.54 RAMOS LEON/YOSENIA 776 1 STUB ONLY
55204 3,983.24 RODRIGUEZ/JANIE 786 1 STUB ONLY
55205 1,717.30 TOBIAS/ANTHONY JORDAN 746 1 STUB ONLY
55206 1,880.82 BROWN/ANDREW EUGENE 762 1 STUB ONLY
55207 2,050.40 BRYANT/EZRA JOSEPH 752 1 STUB ONLY
55208 1,713.29 CARRETERO/VANESSA 402 1 STUB ONLY
55209 1,777.88 DONLEY/COLLIN BRENT 788 1 STUB ONLY
55210 1,898.64 DUNAGAN/MATTHEW THOMAS 787 1 STUB ONLY
55211 2,398.36 GREEN GROVE/BRAYDEN TAY 767 1 STUB ONLY
55212 539.62 GRIMSLEY/RICK WAYNE 791 1 STUB ONLY
55213 3,263.07 HEINKS/RYAN DAVID 765 1 STUB ONLY
55214 1,702.93 HERNANDEZ/ANDY 780 1 STUB ONLY
55215 1,319.16 HILL/HANNAH GRACE 747 1 STUB ONLY
55216 1,809.73 LINARES/FRANCISCO JR 772 1 STUB ONLY
55217 1,702.96 MAGANA MARTINEZ JOEL 773 1 STUB ONLY
55218 3,695.78 MOORE/ROBERT HARRY 764 1 STUB ONLY
55219 1,985.09 MORALES/SKYLEENA ROSE 779 1 STUB ONLY
55220 4,141.14 SCHIMPF/ROBERT BRIAN 766 1 STUB ONLY
55221 1,971.77 SHIELDS/ZION 708 1 STUB ONLY
55222 2,351.87 VILLARREAL/ISIDRO 707 1 STUB ONLY
55223 2,075.74 ALDRIDGE/GARY 618 1 STUB ONLY
55224 3,766.64 BOUDREAUX/ZACHARY MICHA 756 1 STUB ONLY
55225 1,847.91 HUGGINS/KYLE AARON 621 1 STUB ONLY
55226 2,648.24 MILLAN/MARCUS 622 1 STUB ONLY
55227 995.27 WENDT/EDDIE 626 1 STUB ONLY
55228 171.67 ARIAS/KAYLA OLIVIA 774 1 STUB ONLY
55229 1,673.50 GARVER/ELIJAH 712 1 STUB ONLY
55230 93.64 HANEY/CAMERON GARRETT B 789 1 STUB ONLY
55231 210.69 MADRIGAL/GRACE EMMA 784 1 STUB ONLY
55232 1,592.80 MCCOOL/JASPER JAX 785 1 STUB ONLY
55233 243.44 MIRWALD/PHILIP 625 1 STUB ONLY
55234 1,636.45 QUIROZ/PATRICK P 512 1 STUB ONLY
55235 2,329.63 RAMIREZ/GABRIEL GRACILI 761 1 STUB ONLY
55236 1,874.03 RAMIREZ/JUAN 608 1 STUB ONLY
55237 1,691.90 RIVERA/RYAN 733 1 STUB ONLY
55238 2,676.85 HIFNER/CHRISTOPHER 736 1 STUB ONLY
55239 553.64 RUBIO/IVAN 750 1 STUB ONLY
55240 1,334.25 CREECH/JACE W 777 1 STUB ONLY
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council PAYROLL........S BI-WEEKLY RUN-08/27/2026 15.08.22 PAGE 3 CHECK FORM..STUB CHECK REGISTER PR311R-V14.25 Paymate
PERIOD 2 DATING 8/10/2026- 8/23/2026 CHECK DATE 8/28/2026

DIRECT DEPOSIT IS TURNED ON

CHECK CHECK EMPLOYEE/BANK/VENDOR CHECK

NUMBER AMOUNT NAME CODE SEQ
TOTALS FOR CHECK FORM: STUB

NEGOTIABLE CHECKS COUNTS

0.00 *EMPLOYEE CHECKS 0

0.00 *VENDOR CHECKS 0

0.00 *BANK CHECKS 0

0.00 **TOTAL NEGOTIABLE CHECKS 0

OTHER CHECKS

0.00 *MANUAL CHECKS 1

0.00 *CANCELLED CHECKS 0

0.00 **TOTAL FOR CHECK FORM

NON-NEGOTIABLE CHECKS
85,471.44 *DIRECT DEPOSIT STUBS 43
676.44 *VENDOR DIR DEP STUBS 3
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council PAYROLL........S BI-WEEKLY RUN-08/27/2026 15.08.22 PAGE 4 RECAP BY FUND CHECKS/STUBS/MANUAL/CANC'D PR311R-V14.25 Paymate PERIOD 2 DATING 8/10/2026- 8/23/2026 CHECK DATE 8/28/2026

EMPLOYER FUND HOME WORKED WORKED

CODE CODE TOTALS TOTALS DIR DEP
1 104 71,538.45 51,895.80 51,604.77
1 105 9,325.59 14,897.42 14,210.33
1 106 .00 1,157.99 1,157.99
1 107 .00 10,638.47 9,967.35
1 121 .00 2,280.84 2,280.84
1 141 6,256.64 6,250.16 6,250.16
NOTE--"HOME TOTALS" CHECK AMOUNT CAN BE RECONCILED TO THE FIGURES OF THE FOLLOWING REPORTS:
#1 CALCULATION TOTALS BY HOME FUND (NET PAY + REIMB. EXP.) #2 PAYROLL REGISTER (CHECK AMOUNT)
NOTE--"WORKED TOTALS" CHECK AMOUNT CAN BE RECONCILED TO THE FIGURES OF THE FOLLOWING REPORTS:
#1 CALCULATION TOTALS BY FUND WORKED (NET PAY + REIMB. EXP.) #2 LABOR DISTRIBUTION (NET PAY + REIMB. EXP.)
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council PAYROLL........S BI-WEEKLY RUN-08/27/2026 15.08.22 PAGE 5 RECAP BY DEPT CHECKS/STUBS/MANUAL/CANC'D PR311R-V14.25 Paymate PERIOD 2 DATING 8/10/2026- 8/23/2026 CHECK DATE 8/28/2026

EMR FUND DEPT HOME FULL PART TEMP FEMALE

CODE CODE CODE TOTALS EMPLOYEE COUNTS
1 104 402 ADMINISTRATION 10,056.94 3 2
1 104 403 FINANCE 11,795.70 5 4
1 104 421 POLICE 36,202.51 16 1 3
1 104 431 STREET 11,333.80 4 2
1 104 471 RECREATION 2,149.50 1 3 2
1 105 461 WATER 9,325.59 5 1
1 141 405 CODE ENFORCEMENT 1,691.90 1
1 141 421 POLICE 2,676.85 1
1 141 471 RECREATION LEADER 553.64 1
1 141 472 PARKS 1,334.25 1
TOTAL 87,120.68 38 6 1 11
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council PAYROLL........S BI-WEEKLY RUN-08/27/2026 15.08.22 PAGE 6 RECAP BY DEPT CHECKS/STUBS/MANUAL/CANC'D PR311R-V14.25 Paymate PERIOD 2 DATING 8/10/2026- 8/23/2026 CHECK DATE 8/28/2026

EMPLOYER FUND HOME WORKED WORKED

CODE CODE TOTALS TOTALS DIR DEP

GRAND TOTALS

NEGOTIABLE CHECKS COUNTS
1,649.24 *EMPLOYEE CHECKS 1

63.69 *VENDOR CHECKS 1

0.00 *BANK CHECKS 0
1,712.93 **TOTAL NEGOTIABLE CHECKS 2

OTHER CHECKS

0.00 *MANUAL CHECKS 1

0.00 *CANCELLED CHECKS 0
1,712.93 ***GRAND TOTAL

NON-NEGOTIABLE CHECKS
85,471.44 *DIRECT DEPOSIT STUBS 43
676.44 *VENDOR DIR DEP STUBS 3
86,147.88 **TOTAL NON-NEGOTIABLE CHECKS 46

NEGOTIABLE CHECKS/NON-NEGOTIABLE CHECKS
1,649.24 *EMPLOYEE CHECKS 1

63.69 *VENDOR CHECKS 1

0.00 *BANK CHECKS 0
85,471.44 *DIRECT DEPOSIT STUBS 43
676.44 *VENDOR DIR DEP STUBS 3
87,860.81 ***TOTAL NEGOTIABLE & NON-NEGOT 48

0.00 *OTHER CHECKS 1
87,860.81 ***TOTAL NEG, NON-NEG, OTHER CHECKS
TOTAL SEQ 1 FEMALES 11
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council Agenda Item Staff Report
Meeting Date:

September 8, 2026
Wording for Agenda:

Approval of a Revised Street Closure Request from Exeter Unified School District for the 2026 Exeter High School Homecoming Parade Rescheduled to October 9, 2026, Subject to the Previously Approved Conditions of Approval.

Submitting Department:

Administration
Contact Name:

Jason Ridenour, City Administrator
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the revised street closure request from Exeter Unified School District for the 2026 Exeter High School Homecoming Parade, rescheduled from September 4, 2026, to October 9, 2026, subject to the previously approved conditions of approval.

On July 28, 2026, the City Council approved a street closure request from Exeter Unified School District (EUSD) for the annual Exeter High School Homecoming Parade scheduled for September 4, 2026, including a street closure fee waiver in the amount of $103. The approved closure included Rocky Hill Road from B Street to C Street, Pine Street from C Street to F Street, and all associated alley approaches between the hours of 12:00 p.m. and 1:30 p.m.

EUSD has since notified the City that the Homecoming Parade has been rescheduled to Friday, October 9, 2026, and has provided written confirmation requesting approval of the new date.

All other aspects of the previously approved request, including the parade route, street closure hours, and conditions of approval, will remain unchanged.

Because the event date has changed from the date previously authorized by the City Council, staff is returning the street closure request to the City Council for approval of the revised date.

The previously approved conditions of approval remain as follows:

For action by:
☒City Council
Regular Session:
☒Consent Calendar
☐Regular Item
☐Public Hearing
Review:

City Administrator
(Initials Required)
_J.R.___
Agenda Item Number: I.4.

Department Recommendation:

Summary:

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council • EUSD will provide an updated certificate of insurance with all required language and endorsements as required by City of Exeter.
• EUSD will provide required street closure authorization signatures from merchants. • Parade participants must follow the approved route.
• EUSD is responsible for cleaning up any debris or litter left from the parade prior to 1:30 p.m.

For decades, students, faculty, alumni and the community of Exeter have taken great pride in celebrating Monarch Homecoming week with a downtown parade. With the responsibility of students and public safety as a priority, administration at both Exeter Unified School District and the City of Exeter have collaborated to create a safe environment for this long-standing tradition.

Students will stage their decorated vehicles and floats at G Street and Pine Street where the parade will assemble. The parade will start at Pine Street and F Street, and continue eastbound on Pine Street to C Street, where the parade will end. Parade participants will continue eastbound on Rocky Hill Road, stopping at B Street, where the parade will disperse. Students will be under the supervision of school staff. The City Public Works Department will post all required street closure notices 72 hours in advance, and the Exeter Police Dept will provide public safety.

Historically, the parade is less than 20 minutes long, allowing the Exeter Police Department to clear traffic and in most years, call for the opening of roads prior to the requested 1:30 p.m. request.

There is minimal staff time associated with the street closure. The City Council previously approved EUSD's request for a street closure fee waiver in the amount of $103. No additional fee waiver is requested as a result of the rescheduling, and there is no additional fiscal impact associated with approval of the revised event date. The original staff report identified the waived $103 as foregone street closure fee revenue.

On July 28, 2026, the City Council approved the street closure request for the 2026 Exeter High School Homecoming Parade scheduled for September 4, 2026, subject to conditions of approval, and approved a street closure fee waiver in the amount of $103. • Written Confirmation of Rescheduled Date
• Updated Street Closure Application
• Updated Street Closure Signature Authorizations
• Parade Route Map
Background:

Fiscal Impact:

Prior City Council Actions:

Attachments:

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council I move to approve the revised street closure request from Exeter Unified School District for the 2026 Exeter High School Homecoming Parade rescheduled to October 9, 2026, subject to the previously approved conditions of approval.

Recommended motion to be made by the City Council:

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council EMAIL FROM EUSD:

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council EUHS Homecoming Parade Route
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council Agenda Item Staff Report
Meeting Date:

September 8, 2026
Wording for Agenda:

Approval of a Street Closure and Traffic Control Request from FYE Events for the 2026 Scarecrow Run on October 10, 2026, Subject to the Conditions of Approval.

Submitting Department:

Administration
Contact Name:

Jason Ridenour, City Administrator
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the street closure and traffic control request from FYE Events for the 2026 Scarecrow Run on October 10, 2026, subject to the conditions of approval.

FYE Events has submitted a request to conduct the annual Scarecrow Run on Saturday, October 10, 2026. The event will include a 2-mile run/walk, 10K run, and Kids Race, with the start and finish located at Exeter City Park.

The Scarecrow Run is an annual community event held in Exeter and offers multiple distances for participants of varying ages and abilities. For the 2026 event, FYE Events has submitted separate course maps for the 2-mile and 10K events, along with a detailed traffic control plan.

Streets along the 2-mile and 10K courses will remain open to local traffic. At least one lane will remain open on affected streets to maintain access for residents, businesses, and emergency vehicles. Flaggers will be positioned at left turns and key intersections, and course cyclists and volunteers will patrol the routes to monitor participant flow and assist with traffic and safety concerns.

The 10K traffic control plan identifies flagger locations at E. Chestnut Street, S. F Street, Industrial Drive, W. Glaze Avenue, W. Chestnut Street, W. Maple Street, W. Marinette Avenue, For action by:
☒City Council
Regular Session:
☒Consent Calendar
☐Regular Item
☐Public Hearing
Review:

City Administrator
(Initials Required)
_J.R.___
Agenda Item Number: I.5.

Department Recommendation:

Background & Summary:

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council W. Pine Street, and D Street. “SLOW – SPECIAL EVENT” warning signs will also be placed along W. Glaze Avenue and W. Marinette Avenue.

FYE Events is additionally requesting traffic control at the intersection of Visalia Road and N.

Belmont Road between 6:30 a.m. and 8:00 a.m., including a request that the traffic signal be changed to flashing red during that time. The submitted traffic control plan provides for Exeter Police Department officers to be stationed at the intersection to assist with traffic control.

The Kids Race will be held entirely within Exeter City Park and will not impact public streets.

Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
• FYE Events shall provide all required certificates of insurance, endorsements, and waivers in a form acceptable to the City prior to the event. • FYE Events shall implement the submitted course maps and traffic control plan, subject to any modifications required by the Exeter Police Department and Public Works Department.
• At least one lane of travel shall remain open on affected streets to maintain access for residents, businesses, and emergency vehicles.
• FYE Events shall coordinate with the Exeter Police Department regarding traffic control at Visalia Road and N. Belmont Road, including the requested modification of the traffic signal to flashing red.
• FYE Events shall obtain any necessary approvals and coordinate with other agencies having jurisdiction over portions of the race course, as applicable. • FYE Events shall be responsible for removing all event-related signs, cones, barricades, markings, debris, and other materials following completion of the event.

The applicable street closure application fee is $107, which will be paid by the applicant.

On September 23, 2025, the City Council approved the street closure and traffic control request associated with the 2025 Scarecrow Run.
• Street Closure Application
• 2-Mile Course Map and Traffic Control Plan
• 10K Course Map and Traffic Control Plan
• Traffic Control Plan
I move to approve the street closure and traffic control request from FYE Events for the 2026 Scarecrow Run on October 10, 2026, subject to the conditions of approval.

Fiscal Impact:

Prior City Council Actions:

Attachments:

Recommended motion to be made by the City Council:

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council Traffic Control Plan – Exeter Scarecrow Run
Event Description & Traffic Management
Streets along both the 2-Mile and 10K courses will remain open to local traffic at all times. To ensure the highest level of safety, flaggers will be positioned at all left turns and additional key intersections wherever feasible.
“SLOW – SPECIAL EVENT” warning signs will be posted on West Marionette Avenue and West Glaze Avenue to alert motorists of the event in progress.

In addition to stationary volunteers, several course cyclists will patrol the route to help monitor participant flow, assist at intersections, and communicate traffic or safety concerns to event staff and law enforcement in real time.

Exeter Police Department officers will be stationed at the intersection of Belmont and Visalia Road to assist with traffic control. At least one lane will remain open on all streets during the event, ensuring continued access for residents, businesses, and emergency vehicles.

The Kids Race is fully contained within Exeter City Park and does not impact public streets.

All safety and traffic control measures are designed to maximize runner and pedestrian safety, maintain normal traffic flow, and comply fully with CHP, Tulare County Sheriff’s Office, Exeter Police Department, and City of Exeter requirements.

Start & Finish Line
The start and finish are located inside Exeter City Park on D Street. The lane adjacent to the park will be temporarily closed for runners, while one lane remains open for traffic. Cones, barricades, and volunteers will ensure clear separation between participants and spectators.

Timing mats, water stations, and first aid will be positioned near the finish area for participant support and safety.
2-Mile Course
Start on D St → Right on Ash St → Right on E St → Left on Chestnut St → Right on S.

Orange Ave → Right on E. Pine St → Right on C St → Right on E. Chestnut St → Left on D St (Finish).
10K Course
Start on S. D St → Right on Ash St → Right on E St → Left on E. Chestnut St → Left on S. F St → Right on Avenue 276 → Left on Industrial Dr → Right on W. Glaze Ave → Right on S.

Filbert Rd → Left on W. Chestnut St → Right on S. Orange Ave → Left on W. Maple St → Right on N. Belmont Rd → Right on W. Marionette Ave → Right on N. Filbert Rd → Continue on N. F St → Left on W. Pine St → Right on C St → Right on E. Chestnut St → Left on D St (Finish).

Kids Race
The Kids Race is designed for children ages 11 and under. It’s a short, fully contained loop September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council within Exeter City Park — no public streets are used. The course will be clearly marked with cones and monitored by volunteers to ensure participant safety at all times. 10K Course – Flagger Placement Plan
# Location Type Notes
1 E. Chestnut St (Left from E St) Left Turn Directs runners safely across lane 2 S. F St (Left from E. Chestnut) Left Turn Moderate local traffic 3 Industrial Dr (Left from Ave 276) Left Turn Light industrial area 4 W. Glaze Ave Special “SLOW – SPECIAL EVENT” sign + flagger 5 W. Chestnut St (Left from S. Filbert) Left Turn Busier crossing 6 W. Maple St (Left from S. Orange) Left Turn Residential, moderate use 7 W. Marionette Ave Special “SLOW – SPECIAL EVENT” sign + flagger 8 W. Pine St (Left from N. F St) Left Turn Near return to downtown 9 D St (Left to Finish) Left Turn Inside finish area; volunteer/flagger control Additional Note:

Flaggers will be placed at all left turns and key intersections, with additional personnel assigned as available to maximize safety coverage. Cyclists and mobile volunteers will circulate throughout the course to support traffic flow, monitor intersections, and report any issues promptly.

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council Agenda Item Staff Report
Meeting Date:

September 8, 2026
Wording for Agenda:

Authorization of Street Closures for the City of Exeter’s Annual Christmas Parade and Related Activities on December 4, 2026.

Submitting Department:

Administration
Contact Name:

Jason Ridenour, City Administrator
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the street closures associated with the City of Exeter’s Annual Christmas Parade and related activities on Friday, December 4, 2026, between the hours of 3:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m.

The City of Exeter will host its annual Christmas Parade on Friday, December 4, 2026, continuing a longstanding community tradition that brings residents and visitors to Downtown Exeter to celebrate the holiday season.

The parade will begin at 6:30 p.m., with street closures beginning at 3:00 p.m. to provide adequate time for parade staging, event setup, and public safety preparations. Streets will remain closed following the parade as necessary for participant dispersal, cleanup, and the safe reopening of the roadway.

Following the success of the expanded parade route used last year, the City proposes to continue utilizing the extended route for 2026. The parade route will begin on Pine Street near B Street/Rocky Hill Drive and proceed westbound along Pine Street through Downtown Exeter.

The parade will then turn south onto F Street, continue to Chestnut Street, and proceed eastbound on Chestnut Street to the disembarkation area. Additional lights will be setup along Chestnut this year to provide additional lighting.

For action by:
☒City Council
Regular Session:
☒Consent Calendar
☐Regular Item
☐Public Hearing
Review:

City Administrator
(Initials Required)
_J.R.___
Agenda Item Number: I.6.

Department Recommendation:

Background & Summary:

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council In addition to the parade route, the event will require several supporting street closures. Pine Street west of F Street will be closed for public safety purposes, and a portion of E Street between Palm Street and Pine Street will be utilized for food trucks and other event activities.

The map also identifies designated parade check-in locations near the eastern end of the route.

The designated parade staging area will be located along the eastern portion of Pine Street/Rocky Hill Drive and adjoining streets as depicted on the event map. These areas will allow parade entries to check in, stage, and enter the parade route in an organized manner.

The City’s Recreation staff will coordinate and lead parade logistics, with support from other City departments. Public Works will post required notices and provide barricades and street closure support, while the Exeter Police Department will provide traffic control and public safety services during the event.

The Christmas Parade has been a longstanding tradition of Exeter and provides an opportunity for the community to gather in Downtown Exeter, support local businesses, and celebrate the holiday season.

Costs associated with the Christmas Parade will include City staff time and resources necessary for event coordination, setup, street closures, traffic control, public safety, and cleanup.

The City anticipates the following direct event-related costs for the parade to be approximately $3,300. Funds are available in the adopted 2026/27 Fiscal year budget for the event.

On November 19, 2025, the City Council approved the street closures associated with the 2025 City of Exeter Christmas Parade.
• Street Closure Application
• Amplified Sound Permit Application
• Event Map
I move to authorize the street closures associated with the City of Exeter’s Annual Christmas Parade and related activities on Friday, December 4, 2026, between the hours of 3:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m.

Fiscal Impact:

Prior City Council Actions:

Attachments:

Recommended motion to be made by the City Council:

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council Christmas Parade
Refer to attached map
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council City of Exeter
Legend
Parade Route
Parade Staging
Public Safety Closure
Food Trucks & Activities
Parade Check-in Area
N
E
S
W
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council Agenda Item Staff Report
Meeting Date:

September 8, 2026
Wording for Agenda:

Approval of a Temporary Street Closure and Temporary NoParking Restrictions for the 2027 Rocky Hill Triathlon on March 13, 2027.

Submitting Department:

Administration
Contact Name:

Jason Ridenour, City Administrator
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the temporary street closure and temporary no-parking restrictions for the 2027 Rocky Hill Triathlon on March 13, 2027, subject to the conditions of approval.

Charles Duby, Race Director for the Rocky Hill Triathlon, has submitted a request for temporary street closures and no-parking restrictions associated with the annual Rocky Hill Triathlon, 5K, and 10K on Saturday, March 13, 2027. The event is scheduled from 7:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and will begin and end at Exeter Union High School.

The requested street closure includes Rocky Hill Drive from Kaweah Avenue east to Yokohl Valley Drive. Temporary no-parking restrictions are also requested along the east side of Industrial Drive from Glaze Avenue to Firebaugh Avenue; G Street from Firebaugh Avenue to Pine Street; Pine Street from G Street to Rocky Hill Drive; and Rocky Hill Drive to Kaweah Avenue. The submitted event materials identify the proposed closure and no-parking areas associated with the course.

The Rocky Hill Triathlon is a longstanding annual event that attracts participants and spectators to Exeter and is known throughout the Central Valley as a challenging course for triathletes. The event organizer coordinates with the City of Exeter, Caltrans, Tulare County, the California Highway Patrol, and other applicable agencies to provide traffic control and public safety For action by:
☒City Council
Regular Session:
☒Consent Calendar
☐Regular Item
☐Public Hearing
Review:

City Administrator
(Initials Required)
_J.R.___
Agenda Item Number: I.7.

Department Recommendation:

Background & Summary:

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council throughout the course. Last year's staff report similarly identified this multi-agency coordination as part of the event.

The submitted traffic control map also identifies locations for Exeter Police Department traffic support, volunteer-staffed support, and event safety personnel along the course.

The applicant has also submitted an amplified sound permit for the use of a PA system for music and announcements at Exeter Union High School during the event.

Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
• The event organizer shall provide all required certificates of insurance, endorsements, and waivers in a form acceptable to the City prior to the event. • Amplified sound shall be permitted only in accordance with the approved amplified sound permit.
• The City of Exeter will post applicable street closure and no-parking notices at least 72 hours in advance and provide and remove City barricades associated with the approved closures. The applicant shall be responsible for any additional barriers necessary for participant and spectator safety and any associated costs. • The event organizer shall be responsible for post-event cleanup and removal of eventrelated debris. • The event organizer shall coordinate with the Exeter Police Department, Public Works Department, Caltrans, Tulare County, California Highway Patrol, and any other applicable agencies regarding traffic control and portions of the course within their respective jurisdictions.
• All street closures, no-parking restrictions, and traffic control shall be implemented in accordance with the approved event and traffic control maps and any modifications required by the City or other agencies having jurisdiction.

The applicable street closure fee is $107. The event qualifies for a fee exemption pursuant to the City’s Street Closure Policy based on the applicant’s nonprofit status. Accordingly, no street closure fee will be collected for the event.

On January 13, 2026, the City Council approved the temporary street closure, temporary noparking restrictions, and special event fee waiver for the 2026 Rocky Hill Triathlon held on March 14, 2026.
• Street Closure Application
• Amplified Sound Permit Application
• Event/Traffic Control Map
Fiscal Impact:

Prior City Council Actions:

Attachments:

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council I move to approve the temporary street closure and temporary no-parking restrictions for the 2027 Rocky Hill Triathlon on March 13, 2027, subject to the conditions of approval.

Recommended motion to be made by the City Council:

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council

MYER AVE

FILBERT AVE
GLAZE

INDUSTRIAL AVE
=EPD Traffic Support =Volunteer Staffed Support =KRC Safety September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council Agenda Item Staff Report
Meeting Date:

September 8, 2026
Wording for Agenda:

Approval of a Facility Use Request from Painted Sweet LLC for the Craftober Kids Craft Fair at City Park on October 24, 2026, Subject to the Conditions of Approval.

Submitting Department:

Administration
Contact Name:

Jason Ridenour, City Administrator
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the facility use request form Painted Sweet LLC for the Craftober Kids Craft Fair at City Park on Saturday, October 24, 2026, subject to the conditions of approval.

Painted Sweet LLC, organized by Madelynn Headlee, has submitted a request to host Craftober:

Exeter’s Kids Craft Fair on Saturday, October 24, 2026, at City Park.

The park is requested from 1:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., including setup and cleanup, with the public event scheduled from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.

Craftober is proposed as a family-friendly community event intended to provide children and families with hands-on craft activities while providing opportunities to connect with local artists, makers, and small businesses. Proposed activities include Halloween and fall-themed children’s crafts, painting and creative projects, coloring and activity areas, local artists and makers, family-oriented vendors, and seasonal photo opportunities.

The proposed layout includes approximately 12 craft vendor spaces, three food vendor spaces, a central seating area, photo area, and information/check-in area. The organizer has indicated that the final layout may be adjusted based on the number of participating vendors and available space.

For action by:
☒City Council
Regular Session:
☒Consent Calendar
☐Regular Item
☐Public Hearing
Review:

City Administrator
(Initials Required)
_J.R.___
Agenda Item Number: I.8.

Department Recommendation:

Background & Summary:

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council Vendors will register in advance and receive instructions regarding setup, event operations, and cleanup. The organizer will be responsible for event cleanup and ensuring the park is left clean and orderly following the event. The applicant has also requested the use of amplified sound for music during the event.

Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
• The applicant shall provide all required certificates of insurance, endorsements, and waivers in a form acceptable to the City prior to the event. • Vendors shall comply with all applicable City, County, and State licensing, permitting, health, and safety requirements.
• Food vendors shall possess all permits and approvals required by the Tulare County Environmental Health Division and other applicable agencies. • The applicant shall ensure that vendor booths, tables, equipment, and activities do not obstruct sidewalks, walkways, emergency access, or other required access areas. • Driving or parking on grass areas is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the City. • The applicant shall be responsible for all event-related setup, cleanup, trash removal, and restoration of the park following the event.
• The event shall be conducted in accordance with the City's facility use requirements and any additional requirements imposed by City staff for public safety or protection of City property.
• At the applicant’s request, Public Works staff will place delineators and caution tape around the wading pool area to restrict access during the event and provide an additional safety measure for young children in attendance.

The applicant has paid the applicable $171 special event fee.

None associated with this action. This is a new event.
• Facility Use Application
• Amplified Sound Permit Application
• Craftober Event Proposal
• Proposed Event Layout
• Proposed Event Aerial Map
I move to approve the facility use request from Painted Sweet LLC for the Craftober Kids Craft Fair at City Park on October 24, 2026, subject to the conditions of approval.

Fiscal Impact:

Prior City Council Actions:

Attachments:

Recommended motion to be made by the City Council:

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council City of Exeter
Legend
Event Perimeter
N
E
S
W
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council Agenda Item Staff Report
Meeting Date:

September 8, 2026
Wording for Agenda:

Award and Approve the Selection of Provost & Pritchard
Consulting (P&P) Professional Engineering Services for the City of Exeter Drinking Water System Improvement Project, Drinking Water Planning Grant (California Water Boards Project No. 5410003-001P), and Authorize the City Administrator (or Designee) to Negotiate and Execute a Project Specific Contract Consistent with the City's On-Call Professional Engineering Services Agreement (RFQ 26-01), in an Amount Not to Exceed $1,560,000.00.

Submitting Department:

Public Works
Contact Name:

Zachary Boudreaux, Director of Public Works
Staff recommends that City Council:

1. Award and approve of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group (P&P) for Professional Engineering Services for the Drinking Water System Improvement Project, Drinking Water Planning Grant (California Water Board Project No. 5410003-001P).

2. Find P&P responsive and qualified to perform the requested scope of work.

3. Authorize the City Administrator (or Designee) to negotiate and execute a projectspecific contract with P&P, consistent with the City's On-Call Professional Engineering Services Agreement (RFQ 26-01), for professional engineering services associated with the Drinking Water Planning Grant (California Water Boards Project No. 5410003-001P), in an amount not to exceed $1,560,000.00.

For action by:
☒City Council
Regular Session:
☒Consent Calendar
☐Regular Item
☐Public Hearing
Review:

City Administrator
(Initials Required)
_J.R._____
Agenda Item Number: I.9.

Department Recommendation:

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council Summary:

The City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to its four prequalified and selected on-call engineering firms – P&P, 4Creeks, Inc. (4Creeks), QK, Inc. (QK), and A&M Consulting Engineers (A&M) – requesting proposals for professional engineering services to advance the City of Exeter Drinking Water System Improvement Project under the City's Drinking Water Planning Grant (California Water Boards Project No. 5410003-001P) (Planning Grant). The scope of work requested is defined in the City's approved Planning Grant Application and Scope of Work, provided as Attachments A and E to the RFP.

By the proposal deadline of 2:00 p.m. on August 21, 2026, the City received one proposal, from P&P. Staff reviewed the proposal against the rating criteria provided as Attachment D to the RFP and found the proposal responsive, complete, and reflective of a well-qualified project team.

Staff recommends the City Council award the Project to P&P and authorize the City Administrator (or Designee) to execute a project-specific contract with P&P under the City's OnCall Professional Engineering Services Agreement.

The City's existing drinking water system is unable to produce adequate water supply and capacity to meet California Title 22 source and storage requirements, and the nearby community of Tooleville is planned to be consolidated into the City's water distribution system, further increasing the system's supply and storage requirements. The Project generally consists of: rehabilitation of up to three (3) existing City wells; design and construction of up to two (2) new water supply wells, including hydrogeologic evaluation of new well sites; construction of two (2) new water storage tank sites and associated booster pump stations (one within the City and one in Tooleville); design, installation, and integration of a new City-wide SCADA system; installation of up to four (4) new auxiliary power generator facilities at critical well sites; and replacement and construction of new water distribution pipelines.

The Project is funded through the Planning Grant, awarded by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) under the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) program, Funding Agreement No. D2402037. The Planning Grant funds project management and administration, preparation of an Engineering Report, environmental documentation, hydrogeologic evaluation and test well services, and engineering design of the selected construction project through the 30% and 60% milestones. The loan component of the Funding Agreement is fully forgiven; the City owes no principal to the State Water Board under the agreement.

On June 9, 2026, the City Council approved the selection of the top four rated firms – P&P, 4Creeks, QK, and A&M – to provide on-call special project engineering services under RFQ 26- 01, authorized the City Administrator (or designee) to execute an Agreement for Professional Services with each firm, and authorized the Director of Public Works to approve and execute Background:

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council related Task Orders in accordance with those agreements and the City's purchasing policy.

Consistent with that authorization, staff issued a Request for Proposals directly to the four prequalified and selected on-call firms, rather than through a publicly advertised solicitation, with proposals due by August 21, 2026.

P&P's proposal reflects the firm's involvement with the Tooleville water supply issue dating to 2005, including preparation of the original Preliminary Engineering Report for the Tooleville Mutual Non-Profit Water Association (TMNPWA), evaluation of water supply alternatives, preparation of the 2023 water supply alternatives Technical Memorandum, and preparation of the City's Planning Grant Plan of Study in October 2023. P&P is also currently providing engineering services on the related Exeter-Tooleville Emergency Intertie and Water System Improvement Project. The firm's proposed project team is led by Project Manager Nick Jacobson, PE, and includes specialists in groundwater wells, hydrogeology, water treatment, environmental compliance, surveying, site civil, structural, instrumentation and controls, electrical, and geotechnical engineering. P&P's proposed scope of work tracks Exhibit A of the Planning Grant Funding Agreement.

The Planning Grant provides total funding of $1,560,000 under Funding Agreement No.

D2402037, allocated as follows: Project Management and Administration, Engineering Report, Environmental Documents, Hydrogeology Evaluation and Test Well Services (if approved), and Engineering Design for the Selected Construction Project. Regarding the Engineering Design allocation, funds are also designated for internal engineering review and for internal staff review. No City General Fund match is required.

Consistent with the City's On-Call Professional Engineering Services Agreement, staff recommends the City Administrator (or Designee) be authorized to negotiate compensation with P&P on a time-and-materials basis, using the firm's standard hourly rate schedule, in an amount not to exceed $1,560,000 to complete the tasked outlined in Funding Agreement No.

D2402037. All eligible costs are anticipated to be reimbursed through the funding agreement, subject to State Water Board approval of submitted reimbursement requests. • January 11, 2022 – Adoption of Resolution No. 2022-01, authorizing the City Administrator to sign and file a Financial Assistance Application with the State Water Board for the planning, design, and construction of the Drinking Water System Improvement Project.
• March 28, 2023 – Authorization for the City Administrator to execute a consolidation agreement between the City and TMNPWA.
• June 9, 2026 – Approval of the selection of the top four rated firms – P&P, 4Creeks, QK, and A&M – to provide on-call special project engineering services under RFQ 26-01; authorization for the City Administrator (or designee) to execute an Agreement for Professional Services with each firm; and authorization for the Director of Public Works Fiscal Impact:

Prior City Council Actions:

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council to approve and execute related Task Orders in accordance with those agreements and the City's purchasing policy.
• RFP – City of Exeter Drinking Water System Improvement Project, Drinking Water Planning Grant
• DRAFT Agreement
• Proposal submitted by P&P, dated August 21, 2026
I move to award and approve the selection of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group (P&P) for Professional Engineering Services for the City of Exeter Drinking Water System Improvement Project, Drinking Water Planning Grant (California Water Boards Project No. 5410003-001P); find P&P responsive and qualified to perform the requested scope of work, and authorize the City Administrator (or Designee) to negotiate and execute a project specific contract with P&P, consistent with the City's On-Call Professional Engineering Services Agreement (RFQ 26-01).

Attachments:

Recommended motion to be made by the City Council:

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council

CITY OF EXETER

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
August 7, 2026
TO: Prequalified On-Call Engineering Consultants
FROM: Zachary Boudreaux, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Request for Proposals – City of Exeter Drinking Water System Improvement Project, Drinking Water Planning Grant (California Water Boards Project No. 5410003-001P) The City of Exeter (City) is requesting proposals from its prequalified on-call engineering consultants for professional engineering services to complete the City of Exeter Drinking Water System Improvement Project, funded under the City's Drinking Water Planning Grant (California Water Boards Project No. 5410003-001P).

The full scope of work for this project is defined in the City's approved Planning Grant Application, provided as Attachment E. The general project location and proposed improvements are shown on the map provided as Attachment B. Proposers should review all attachments in full before preparing a proposal.

Proposal Content
Proposals should be brief and address the following:
● Statement of the proposer's understanding of the scope of work described in Attachment A, and identification of any additional tasks the firm believes are necessary. ● Proposed project team, including the primary point of contact for the City and any subconsultants.
● Availability to begin and ability to meet deadlines.

Proposal Submission
● Deadline: 2:00 p.m., Friday, August 14, 2026.
● Digital submission only, via email to [email protected]. ● No late proposals will be accepted.

Payment of invoices
Invoices are to be submitted no later than the 12th day of the following month to the Director of Public Works for review. Once approved by the Director of Public Works, the invoices are then submitted by the consultant to the State Water Resources Control Board for reimbursement through the grant funds.

August 11, 2026
Friday, August 21, 2026.

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council Selection
The City will select a consultant from the proposals submitted, based on qualifications, understanding of the project, and proposed approach, consistent with the terms of each firm's existing on-call agreement with the City. Proposals will be scored using the rating criteria in Attachment D. This request does not constitute a contract for services, and the City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals.

Insurance
The selected consultant shall meet the City's minimum insurance requirements, provided as Attachment C.

Questions concerning this request should be directed to the Department of Public Works at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Zachary Boudreaux
Director of Public Works
City of Exeter
Attachments
Attachment A – Plan of Study
Attachment B – Project Location Map
Attachment C – City's Minimum Insurance Requirements
Attachment D – Consultant Evaluation Sheet
Attachment E – Drinking Water Planning Grant Scope of Work September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council City of Exeter Planning Grant Application
Consolidation Project
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2023
Attachment 1 – Draft Plan of Study

1. Overview
Applicant Name:

City of Exeter (City)
Project Area:

The City of Exeter is located in Tulare County, in the San Joaquin Valley of California, approximately 5 miles southeast of the City of Visalia. The zip code for Exeter is 93221.

According to the State Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS), the population of Exeter is 11,169.

Describe the problem or reason for the project (e.g., water quality, water supply deficiencies, storage capacity, public health):

The City’s existing water system is unable to produce adequate water supply and capacity per California Title 22 source and storage requirements. Additionally, the nearby community of Tooleville is being consolidated into the City’s water distribution system, resulting in increases to the water supply and storage requirements of the system.

Summary of Project:

The proposed project would provide improvements to the existing potable water distribution system by increasing water capacity, mitigating water quality issues, and upgrading existing well sites with needed emergency backup power and SCADA systems.

The City currently has a water supply shortfall. The project would include increasing the current water storage capacity for the City by constructing two (2) new water storage tank sites and associated booster pump stations within the City system. Up to three (3) existing wells could be rehabilitated in an attempt to increase the overall capacity of the system. The design and construction of up to two new water wells will be incorporated. Investigation of new wells will be initiated with a test hole at each location. A hydrogeologist familiar with the City’s hydrogeology will be utilized for new well site evaluations.

Furthermore, the project will also include upgrading City well and tank sites to include supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) capability. The project will include design, installation, and integration of a new readily available SCADA system allowing City operators to oversee and control key City infrastructure remotely, thus increasing efficiency and ensuring the safe, reliable delivery of water to all customers.

Several City well sites do not include auxiliary power sources, which could lead to significant water supply shortages in the event where primary power is lost, therefore, the project will include the design and installation of up to four new generator facilities at critical well site locations throughout the City. The project will provide increased reliability and safety to the entire City.

The project includes pipeline replacement and construction of new pipelines in areas shown on the attached Exhibit.

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council City of Exeter Planning Grant Application
Consolidation Project
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2023
A hydraulic evaluation of the existing system and proposed improvements will be conducted using the City’s current hydraulic model. The hydraulic model will be used to evaluate both the existing system hydraulics and the hydraulic impacts of the proposed improvements. This effort will help quantify impacts and validate the need for proposed improvements prior to the final design phase.

The project will include associated engineering studies, a Preliminary Engineering Report, TMF Assessment, and environmental planning studies and documentation.

Explain any geographic, demographics, political, industrial, or environmental considerations that could affect the project:

Considerations that could potentially affect the project include the following:
o CEQA: The California Environmental Quality Act requirements have the potential to elongate the project timeline and/or delay acceptance of the project. The planning grant includes considerations for CEQA and allocates resources to ensure a smooth CEQA process. Please see section 3.2 below for a discussion of deliverables for CEQA. o Additional property will need to be identified and negotiated for purchase in order to construct the new water wells, water storage tanks and associated facilities. If the City cannot find a property owner who is willing to negotiate the project timeline could be delayed until such time that viable property is identified. o The existing wells throughout the City have historically had sufficient water quality, however a couple of wells have been found to have levels of gross alpha particles and nitrates that exceed or are equal to the State MCL. If sufficient water quality is not identified for either the new wells or the existing abandoned wells that are planned for rehabilitation, additional evaluations will need to be conducted in order to identify viable water source locations.

If the project will be co-funded or considered for co-funding, explain the status of all other sources of funding and the amounts:

It is not known if the project will be co-funded. It is understood that the City of Exeter does not have local funds to contribute to the project.

Briefly describe any relevant violations, enforcement actions, and/or other orders from the applicant’s State Water Resources Control Board or any other agencies, the status of those violations/orders and explain how the project will address them. Provide an explanation if any outstanding violations and/or enforcement orders will not be addressed by the project.

The Tooleville Mutual Non-Profit Water Association (TMNPWA) received a Technical Reporting Order in Response to Expected Water Supply Shortage (Order No. 3-24-21-002) from the State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water, dated July 7, 2021, directing TMNPWA to submit a Weekly Drought Technical Report providing data concerning the community’s water supply, drought conservation and drought contingency plans.

TMNPWA also received written correspondence from the SWRCB, dated August 23, 2021, that expressed concerns about the current and historic deficiencies and the current and on-going ability of the TMNPWA water system to provide a safe and affordable supply of drinking water September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council City of Exeter Planning Grant Application
Consolidation Project
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2023
to its customers. The letter served as a notice to TMNPWA to negotiate with the City regarding consolidation.

The City of Exeter received written correspondence from the SWRCB, dated August 23, 2021, that expressed concerns about the current and historic deficiencies and the current and ongoing ability of the Tooleville MNPWA water system to provide a safe and affordable supply of drinking water to its customers. The letter served as a notice to the City of Exeter to negotiate with the Tooleville MNPWA regarding consolidation with the City.

Copies of the above Order and Written Correspondence can be found in Attachment 1.1.

Describe any conversations the applicant has had with the State Water Resources Control Board regarding the project and/or planning application:

The applicant has and continues to participate in preliminary meetings discussing the project with several project stakeholders including the City of Exeter, Tooleville Mutual Non-Profit Water Association, California Department of Water Resources, California State Water Resources Control Board (DDW, DFA), Leadership Counsel, and Self-Help Enterprises.

Describe any previous projects performed with state or federal grant funding: The City of Exeter has one previous project that was completed with state or federal funding:
2009 – City of Exeter Brick Yard Storm Water Basin Project which, according to records obtained from the California Natural Resources Agency database, restored a 4.5-acre storm basin including some trail restoration, was funded entirely by California Proposition 84 – the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006.

Describe previous efforts in support of the project and project alternatives:

A Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) was prepared for the Tooleville MNPWA in April 2005.

The PER reviewed the existing water system and evaluated five alternatives to address the water supply and water quality issues. One of the proposed alternatives from this PER was the consolidation of water systems with the City of Exeter. This alternative was identified as the best long-term solution for the Tooleville community; however, Exeter was not able to commit to a consolidation at that time due to the condition of the water system. In February 2006, an amendment to the original PER was prepared recommending continued discussions between Exeter and Tooleville for consolidation.

The City of Exeter had a Water Master Plan prepared by QK in 2019 which included an in-depth analysis of the conditions of the existing water distribution system and related facilities. This report was integral in identifying existing water system deficiencies throughout the system.

A draft Technical Memorandum was prepared by Provost & Pritchard in 2022 and distributed to representatives from the City, Tooleville, and SWRCB discussing the conditions of the existing water system derived from the Water Master Plan along with recommended alternatives to address the deficiencies. A final Technical Memorandum is expected to be completed by July 2023.

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council City of Exeter Planning Grant Application
Consolidation Project
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2023
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council City of Exeter Planning Grant Application
Consolidation Project
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2023

2. System Information

2.1 General
The following information in this section was gathered from the SDWIS database accessed on May 10, 2023.
o Active service connections by type (Residential, commercial, industrial, other):

The City water system has a total of 3,311 service connections, of which 2,996 are residential, 283 are commercial, and 32 are industrial. All connections are metered.

Tooleville has a total of 77 service connections. The connections are not yet metered. o Estimated population served by system:

The City’s water system serves an estimated 11,509 persons. Approximately 11,169 persons are presently connected to the City’s water system plus an additional estimated 340 persons from the community of Tooleville will be connected once consolidation is completed. o Estimated number of households served:

The City’s water system will serve approximately 3,073 total households once consolidation is completed.
o Estimated number of second homes:

There are 0 second homes in the City’s water service area. o Estimated population served by project:

The project serves approximately 11,509 persons directly. o Estimated number of new customers that will be added because of the project:

This project does not anticipate that it will add any new customers. When the Emergency Intertie project is completed the City will master meter and sell water to Tooleville Mutual. Tooleville Mutual will continue to own and manage the Tooleville system after the intertie while the remainder of the improvements identified in this Planning Grant Application are completed over the next several years. Once all improvements are completed both in the Exeter system and in Tooleville, the City will then consolidate the Tooleville system and Tooleville Mutual will dissolve.

Describe any violations, enforcement actions, and/or other orders from the State Water Resources Control Board, the status of those violations/orders and explain how the project will address them:
o The City received written correspondence from the State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water, dated August 23, 2021, that expressed concerns about the current and historic deficiencies and the current and on-going ability of the Tooleville MNPWA water system to provide a safe and affordable supply of drinking water to its customers. The letter served as a notice to the City of Exeter to negotiate with the Tooleville MNPWA regarding consolidation with the City. A copy of this correspondence can be found in Attachment 1.1.

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council City of Exeter Planning Grant Application
Consolidation Project
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2023
 This project will allow the City of Exeter to increase its water storage and supply capacities to not only meet the state minimum requirements but exceed them. In doing so, this would afford the City of Exeter the ability to more reasonably consider consolidation with Tooleville.

Describe consolidation and regionalization options and considerations, and any efforts made for consolidation/regionalization:

The City is located near the community of Tooleville, which is currently under emergency status due to insufficient water supply and quality issues. Consolidation with Tooleville is under consideration, however, in order for the City to feasibly supply consistent water to both communities, the City’s existing water system needs to be improved.

The Department of Water Resources intends to fund an Emergency Project that will include a new well in the City of Exeter and a pipeline extension from Exeter to Tooleville, as a first step toward consolidation.

2.2 Distribution System
Describe the wells, including number, age, condition, etc.

The existing City water distribution system consists of five active wells, designated as Wells E09W, E11W, E12W, E13W, and E14W, and four inactive wells, designated as Wells E06W, E02W, E05W, and E10W. Well E06W is presently off-line due to a Nitrates exceedance. All of the active wells are chlorinated. The active wells were constructed from 1964 through 2007 with measured capacities ranging from 186 gpm to 1,132 gpm. The efficiencies of all active wells have been steadily decreasing, which could be due to a variety of reasons including the lowering of groundwater tables, clogging of well screens, or worn impellers. Four of the active wells are currently equipped with hydropneumatic tanks.

Describe the water storage tank:

The City has one 100,000-gallon elevated water storage tank located in the northeast quadrant of the City. This tank provides pressure regulation to the system and is the only existing form of water storage for the system.

Describe the system pipes:

The pipes throughout the City range from 1” in diameter up to 12” in diameter. Pipe materials include AC, steel, and cast-iron in older areas, and C900 PVC in more recently developed areas.

Many of the pipelines have exceeded their useful life. An exhibit of the existing water system is included in Attachment 1.2.

Summarize the results of any inspections or studies:

In 2019, the City hired QK to evaluate the water system to identify any deficiencies in the City’s existing and proposed future water systems. The findings of this study were recorded and can be found in the City’s Water System Master Plan in Attachment 1.2.

Describe any issues with access, easements, or private laterals, or any legal issues that could impact the project:

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council City of Exeter Planning Grant Application
Consolidation Project
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2023
It is not anticipated that access, easements, or private laterals may affect the project.

Acquisition of new well sites will require agreements with property owners and may include Options to purchase property, depending on results of test hole investigations. Access easements to tank sites will require definition and agreement from property owners.

2.3 System Map
Include a map of the system showing system boundaries, roads, etc. o The City of Exeter prepared a Water Master Plan that contains a figure showing the existing water system. The figure is included here in Attachment 1.2.

2.4 Treatment Facilities
Provide a general summary of treatment facilities (Process/technologies employed, age, condition, permitted treatment capacity, etc.)
The existing City distribution system is disinfected by continuous chlorination at all active well sites. According to the Sanitary Survey report completed by the State Water Resources Control Board in 2020, chlorination is performed by use of a NSF certified chemical metering pump, NSF 61 certified 12.5% sodium hypochlorite solution, and 300-gallon chemical storage tanks. The disinfection systems operate in accordance with the Chlorination Operations Plan developed in 2018 and each well site is inspected on a daily basis to ensure all components are functioning correctly. City staff also perform free chlorine residual tests regularly to ensure that levels are maintained around 1 mg/L at all times. The Sanitary Survey report can be found in Attachment

1.3. If a new treatment capacity is anticipated, include the new capacity and how those projections were determined:

Additional disinfection systems are anticipated with the addition of multiple well sources to the distribution system either through rehabilitation of existing, abandoned wells or the drilling of new wells. Each well source that is added will be required to follow the Chlorination Operations Plan on file.

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council City of Exeter Planning Grant Application
Consolidation Project
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2023

3. Project Information

3.1 Project Details
Provide an in-depth explanation of the project purpose:

The purpose of this project is to improve the City’s existing water distribution system enough to provide sufficient water supply and storage capacity to the residents of the City of Exeter. These improvements will provide the City with sufficient resources to also be able to consider providing the community of Tooleville with safe, reliable drinking water. The project will include the following components:
o Prepare a Preliminary Engineering Report defining the existing system, deficiencies, alternatives, and selected improvement project.
o Perform a Technical Managerial and Financial Assessment for the City of Exeter. o Perform necessary environmental studies and evaluations. Recommend the adoption of the appropriate environmental documents.
o Investigate potential causes of occasional coliform, trihalomethanes, and haloacetic acid exceedances in the distribution system. Recommend potential mitigation measures.
o Evaluation of existing wells throughout the City to determine current well conditions and the feasibility of rehabilitation services for the abandoned wells. o Obtain options on potential well sites, perform test hole evaluations, and if viable, construct two new water supply wells and appurtenances for the City of Exeter water system.
o Evaluation of groundwater quality, depth-to-water levels, and rehabbed/new well pumping capacities by a certified hydrogeologist.
o Design of a new SCADA system for the City’s water supply wells and storage tanks. o Design of auxiliary power sources at critical well sites to ensure the reliability of safe drinking water to the City.
o Design and construction of a new water storage tank and associated facilities to provide sufficient water storage capacity to the City.
o Design and construction of new water storage tanks with associated facilities in Tooleville to provide sufficient water storage capacity. o Design of new water distribution pipelines and replacement of existing water distribution pipelines as identified.
o Perform necessary studies including survey and geotechnical investigations to provide required design information.
o Development of a computerized hydraulic model to evaluate the existing and proposed water systems to ensure design parameters are met.

Explain any water quality or public health problems that will be addressed:

The project will address the following water quality and public health concerns. o The City is unable to provide sufficient maximum day demand, peak hour demand, or maximum day plus fire flow demand supply, nor does it have sufficient water storage capacity in the distribution system. This project will allow the City’s water September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council City of Exeter Planning Grant Application
Consolidation Project
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2023
distribution system to supply sufficient water supply along with having enough water storage capacity to provide for public health and safety.

Provide details if the project is a result of enforcement orders or violations:

The project is a direct result of the following enforcement orders and violations previously discussed above.
o The City received written correspondence from the State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water, dated August 23, 2021, that expressed concerns about the current and historic deficiencies and the current and on-going ability of the Tooleville MNPWA water system to provide a safe and affordable supply of drinking water to its customers. The letter served as a notice to the City of Exeter to negotiate with the Tooleville MNPWA regarding consolidation with the City. See Attachment 1.1.

Provide the reasons for upgrades/replacement/rehabilitation:

The City’s water distribution system is unable to provide sufficient maximum day demand, peak hour demand, or maximum day plus fire flow demand supply, nor does it have sufficient water storage capacity in the distribution system. This project will allow the City’s water distribution system to supply sufficient water supply along with having enough water storage capacity to provide for public health and safety. The new SCADA system will ensure that the water supply systems are able to communicate to ensure that all facilities are working correctly as well as providing real-time feedback of the system’s status to City officials at all times.

Describe previous project related work performed, including work with state or federal agencies, technical assistance providers, or other nonprofit organizations (examples include application assistance, income survey, rate studies, etc.):

This project is new and includes no previous work performed. The project is a product of evaluations and studies performed to investigate the consolidation of Tooleville to the City of Exeter. The project is also a product of the water system Master Plan prepared for the City of Exeter.

If there is an urgency, explain the targeted timeframe and factors affecting project timeline:

Due to the existing deficiencies of the City’s current water distribution system, including lack of required supply and storage, system improvements need to be implemented in a timely manner. The targeted timeframe is to begin field evaluations and start conceptual design documents by the beginning of 2024 with construction starting by 2028 and construction completion prior to the beginning of 2032. The project timeframe has several components that are not in the control of the City of Exeter. If required approvals and funding contracts are obtained in a timeframe that allows the construction to proceed more quickly than described above, it would be a benefit to the residents of Exeter and Tooleville.

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council City of Exeter Planning Grant Application
Consolidation Project
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2023
Describe any previous attempts to address issues. For example, summarize previous feasibility studies, environmental reviews, in-depth technical analysis etc.:
o A Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) was completed by Provost & Pritchard Consulting for Tooleville MNPWA in April 2005. The PER reviewed the existing water system and evaluated five alternatives to address the water supply and water quality issues.
o An amendment to the original PER was prepared in February 2006. The amendment recommended continued discussions between the City of Exeter and Tooleville as well as that the Tooleville MNPWA proceed with drilling a test well as soon as possible.

o In 2019, QK produced a Water Master Plan which identified several deficiencies throughout the system. As part of the Water Master Plan, a capital improvement plan was prepared to fix the identified deficiencies.
o A draft Technical Memorandum was prepared by Provost & Pritchard in 2022 and distributed to representatives from the City, Tooleville, and SWRCB discussing the conditions of the existing water system derived from the Water Master Plan along with a recommended alternatives to address the deficiencies. A final Technical Memorandum is expected to be completed by August 2023.

Describe project alternatives to be considered:

Project alternatives that have been considered for the community of Tooleville since 2005 have included the following:
1) Drill new replacement wells, water storage, and pipeline improvements 2) Treat existing or new wells from Nitrate contamination 3) Acquire firm water rights from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and treat new water supply to meet enhanced surface water treatment standards 4) Connect to the City of Exeter
5) Drill replacement wells and utilize a water storage tank for blending of nitrate concentrations to acceptable levels
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council City of Exeter Planning Grant Application
Consolidation Project
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2023
An extension of the review of Alternative 4 above resulted in the following recommended improvements:

General Description – Transmission Pipeline in Firebaugh east, Master Meter for Tooleville MNPWA
o A new water supply well is constructed northeast of Vine Street and Elberta Road (W8)
o A new water supply well is constructed west of Firebaugh and Belmont (W9) o A water storage tank of at least 0.5 MG (not to exceed 1.0 MG) is constructed at Dobson Field (T1).
o A Booster Pump Station is constructed at the new water storage tank. o A new 16 inch diameter pipeline from the new Tank (T1) to Rocky Hill Ave. and in Rocky Hill Ave. to 1st St.
o A new 12 inch diameter pipeline in 3rd St. from Rocky Hill to Firebaugh Ave. o A new 10 inch diameter pipeline in 2nd St. from Rocky Hill to Firebaugh Ave. o A new 12 inch diameter pipeline in 1st St. from Rocky Hill to Firebaugh Ave. o A new 12 inch diameter pipeline in Firebaugh Ave between 1st St. and 3rd St. o A new 12 inch diameter pipeline in Firebaugh Ave. between State Route 65 and Industrial Rd (portion of P1)
o A new 12 inch diameter pipeline in Firebaugh Ave. between Filbert Rd. to Belmont Rd. (P5)
o Pressure Sustaining Valve near Firebaugh Ave and 3rd St. (to keep pressure in Exeter)
o Utilize the existing TMNPWA property south of the Alfred Well for a tank and booster pumping station.
o Master Meter near Firebaugh and 3rd St. or at the Tooleville tank site. o Transmission Pipeline (16” pipe) in Firebaugh to Alfred to the new Tooleville water storage tanks. No connections allowed in the new pipeline due to low pressure.
o Booster pump station in at the new Tooleville water storage tanks o Individual AMI meters
o Destroy the Alfred Well and the Morgan Well
Additional alternatives that will be reviewed include the rehabilitation of existing City of Exeter wells and the construction of new City of Exeter wells, as described in the overall scope of the project.

Describe possible environmental documents required:

The project will require an initial study, which may result in a mitigated negative declaration.

Cultural and biological studies may be required as supporting evidence.

Describe possible land acquisition / easement documents required:

Additional land may need to be acquired by the City to accommodate the water storage tanks, as well as the potential acquisition of property for new well sites. Easement documents and encroachment permits would also be necessary for any obstruction in State or County rights-ofway during installation of new pipelines.

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council City of Exeter Planning Grant Application
Consolidation Project
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2023
List proposed construction items to be evaluated – Including how the components will contribute to improving public health, water quality, system reliability, addressing violations, etc.

Table 3 -1. Proposed Solutions
Proposed Solution Issue/Violations/Enforcement Orders Addressed Evaluation and rehabilitation of existing
City wells
Current City wells are unable to provide enough water supply to meet MDD, PHD, or MDD+FF demands throughout the City’s existing water system. An evaluation of three existing City wells (E02W, E10W, and E12W) will be performed. If deemed viable, these wells will be rehabilitated to increase the City’s overall water supply capacity.

Evaluation and analysis of new well
drilling
Current City wells are unable to provide enough water supply to meet MDD, PHD, or MDD+FF demands throughout the City’s existing water system. Adding additional supply sources to the system will increase the overall supply, meeting these requirements.

Design and installation of new City
SCADA system
The current City distribution system is not integrated, making it difficult for operators to effectively identify and diagnose water system issues. A new Citywide SCADA system will greatly improve operations of the water system.

Design and installation of auxiliary
power sources at four critical well sites
Installation of emergency power sources at critical well sites will provide increased safety and redundancy for the City customers.

Construction of new water storage
tanks and associated facilities
Construction of additional water storage tanks in Exeter and Tooleville will ensure that the City is able to meet the state requirements for storage and will provide additional safety and redundancy in emergency situations for both communities.

Development of a computerized
hydraulic model evaluating the existing
and proposed water distribution system
A hydraulic model for the City of Exeter currently exists but will need to be updated based on the findings of the prior evaluations. Updated model will evaluate max day demand, peak hour demand, and max day plus fire flow demand scenarios for both the existing and proposed systems to identify any areas of concern.

Conduct geotechnical study of the
proposed tank sites as well as along
the alignment of the new pipelines.

Analysis of the soils that will be supporting the new installations is critical in ensuring the safety of the public.

Design of new and replacement of
existing water distribution pipelines
Newly installed and replaced water distribution pipelines will ensure that the increased supply of water will be able to efficiently move throughout the system.

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council City of Exeter Planning Grant Application
Consolidation Project
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2023

3.2 Scope of Work
List each task to be performed and provide a brief explanation of how each task will support the planning/design of a construction project. Clearly identify deliverables for each task. o Evaluation of up to three (3) existing Wells for Rehabilitation –. City wells E02W, E10W, and E12W will be evaluated by a professional well rehabilitation service to determine the feasibility of rehabilitation for each. Evaluation of each well includes, but is not limited to, pulling of the pump and reinstallation of vertical turbines, video surveys, brushing and airlifting of casing, acid solution treatment of well casings with airlift disposal, airshocking and ISO pack of casing perforations and final testing of the rehabbed pumps. The findings from these evaluations will provide the basis for how each subsequent task will be completed. Well E10W has been inactive for several years due to Perchlorate. More extensive rehabilitation/treatment will likely be required for said well.
o Deliverable: Final evaluation reports for each well and recommendations from Well Rehabilitation Services on how to proceed.
o Evaluation of Well Sites by Certified Hydrogeologist – The well sites, determined by the previous analysis, which will be added to the water system will be evaluated by a certified hydrogeologist to ensure sufficient water quality and quantity can be obtained. Option agreements will be provided to ensure that the required solution can be selected at that time. If the drilling of new wells is required, that option will include the drilling of test holes at potential well sites. o Deliverable: Final report and recommendations for wells to bring online. Option agreements. Test hole drilling.

o Development of a Preliminary Engineering Report detailing the current condition of the City’s water supply system and providing detailed analysis of multiple potential solutions to correct the identified deficiencies.
o Deliverable: Preliminary Engineering Report document. o Development of Hydraulic Model – Update existing hydraulic model to evaluate existing system and proposed improvements.
o Deliverable: Technical memo and updated figures.
o Geotechnical Investigation – A geotechnical investigation will be performed to investigate and test soil across the project site for the purposes of developing construction requirements. The geotechnical investigation will be necessary to assist with the design documents. o Deliverable: Final Geotechnical Investigation Report
o Design of Water System and Electrical systems – Preparation of design drawings for pipes, tanks, booster pumps, well site layouts, generators, etc. Preparation of front end and technical specifications. Preparation of Engineers Opinion of Probable Construction Costs. o Deliverables:
 30% Plans, Specifications, and Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Cost  60% Plans, Specifications, and Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Cost o CEQA Documents – Required CEQA documentation for the project will be completed by a professional planner to support the project and any required environmental processes.

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council City of Exeter Planning Grant Application
Consolidation Project
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2023
 Deliverable: Required CEQA documentation e.g. Environmental Impact Report, Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Notice of Exemption. CEQA documentation also includes biological and/or cultural impact reports, if required. o DWSRF Construction Funding Application and Applicable Packages/ Attachments – A DWSRF Construction Funding Application will be submitted on behalf of the City of Exeter for the purposes of improving the water supply and storage capacity to required levels to serve both the existing City demands as well as the Tooleville community’s demands. The construction grant will include all applicable packages and attachments necessary to be evaluated by the State Water Resources Control Board.
o Deliverable: Completed DWSRF Construction Funding Application on behalf of the City of Exeter.
o Project Management and Administration – Assistance gathering, organizing, and submitting financial documents and fiscal controls on behalf of the City of Exeter and the community of Tooleville will be administered throughout the planning process. Planning Grant administration will be conducted throughout the grant timeline.
 Deliverable: Required Planning Grant Reports
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council City of Exeter Planning Grant Application
Consolidation Project
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2023

3.3 Budget
Provide an estimated cost for each task included in the scope of work.

Table 3-2. Planning Budget
Task Estimated
Cost
Well Evaluation and Rehabilitation
Services
• Evaluation of 3 existing City wells for rehabilitation services • Evaluation of groundwater quality and quantity by certified hydrogeologist for existing well sites identified for potential rehabilitation services
$322,000
Hydrogeology Evaluation Services • Option agreements for potential well sites • Bid phase services
• Test hole drilling services (2 test wells)
• Drilling oversight for test wells (2 test wells)
• Evaluation of groundwater quality and quantity by certified hydrogeologist for potential new well site(s)
$1,490,000
Development of Hydraulic Model
and Analysis
• Updating existing hydraulic model with projected supply data and location information
$24,000
Geotechnical Services • Evaluation of soil quality and soil borings for two tank sites • Soil borings along alignment of proposed pipeline
$43,000
Preliminary Engineering Report • Evaluation of alternatives for water supply • Preparation of preliminary cost estimates for selected alternative
$60,000
Well Site Infrastructure and
Electrical Systems 60% Design
• Design plans and specifications up to 60% for electrical systems install at well sites including, but not limited to, the following items:
o On-site generators
o SCADA systems and integration
o On-site electrical wiring
$195,000
Water Distribution System Design
(30% and 60%)
• Design plans and specifications up to 60% for water
distribution system including, but not limited to, the following items:
o Plan and profile views for pipeline alignments
o Well and tank site layouts including all necessary
valves and appurtenances
o Construction details
$353,000
California Environmental Quality
Act Documents
• Initial studies in project areas
• Initiation of waiver process in applicable areas
$64,000
Project Management and
Administration
• Project administration tasks and funding grant
administration services
$86,000
Total Planning Grant Amount Requested: $2,637,000

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council City of Exeter Planning Grant Application
Consolidation Project
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2023

3.4 Schedule
A draft project schedule is included as Attachment 1.4.

3.5 Overall Exhibit
A draft project exhibit is included as Attachment 1.5.

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council City of Exeter Planning Grant Application
Consolidation Project
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2023
Attachments
Attachment 1.1: Compliance Orders
Attachment 1.2: City of Exeter Water Master Plan
Attachment 1.3: Sanitary Survey
Attachment 1.4: Project Schedule
Attachment 1.5: Project Scope Exhibit
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council DATE:

OF
DESIGN ENGINEER:

JOB NO:

TOOLEVILLE MNPWA WATER SYSTEM PROJECT

SELF HELP ENTERPRISES

COUNTY OF TULARE
ATTACHMENT 1.5 - PROJECT SCOPE EXHIBIT
####
1/14/22
#### 4 4 12/17/2025 9:46 AM G:\Self Help Enterprises-1875\187521008-Tooleville MNPWA Water Alternatives Analysis\300 CAD\340 Sheet Sets\99_Exhibits\Planning Grant App Exhibit\Attachment 1.5.dwg -Cristobal Gallegos 500,000 GALLON WATER

STORAGE TANK AND

BOOSTER STATION

TOOLEVILLE STORAGE

TANK AND BOOSTER

STATION

DESTORY (E) WELL
2649 LF OF 10"

WATER MAIN
2660 LF OF 12"

WATER MAIN
613 LF OF 16"

WATER MAIN

PROPOSED WELL
W8 LOCATION
2684 LF OF 12"

WATER MAIN
10" 12"
16"
FIREBAUGH AVE.

ROCKY HILL DR. SPRUCE RD. 2ND ST. 3RD ST. STATE ROUTE 65 BELMONT RD. FILBERT RD. INDUSTRIAL DR.

VISALIA RD.

G ST.
12"
12" 1ST ST.
12"
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council

ATTACHMENT C

CITY'S MINIMUM INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
A. Minimum Scope & Limits of Insurance

1. Commercial General Liability
a. Vendor shall maintain commercial general liability insurance with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office (ISO) form CG 00 01, in an amount not less than two million ($2M) per occurrence, four million ($4M) general aggregate, and two million ($2M) products and completed operations. The policy shall include a per project or per location general aggregate endorsement. If a per project/location endorsement is not available, the limit for the general aggregate shall be doubled.
b. The policy shall allow and be endorsed as primary and not seek contribution from the City’s coverage.
c. The policy(s) shall provide and be endorsed to include, the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers as additional insureds on ISO form CG 20 10 (or equivalent) for ongoing operations, and, for construction or service agreements, ISO form CG 20 37 (or equivalent) for completed operations. d. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies by Vendor shall not affect coverage provided to the City.
e. Coverage shall state that Vendor’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer’s liability.
f. Coverage shall allow and be endorsed to include a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City and its officers, officials, employees, and agents.

2. Business Automobile Liability
a. Vendor shall provide auto liability coverage for owned, non-owned, and hired autos using ISO Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 (or equivalent) with a limit of not less than one million ($1M) per accident.
b. The policy shall provide and be endorsed that the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers are included or named as additional insureds. c. The policy shall allow and be endorsed to include a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City, its officers, officials, employees, and agents.

3. Workers’ Compensation and Employers’ Liability – Statutory a. Vendor shall, at its sole cost and expense, maintain Statutory Workers’ Compensation Insurance and Employer’s Liability Insurance for all persons employed directly or indirectly by Vendor. The Statutory Workers’ Compensation Insurance and Employer’s Liability Insurance shall be provided with limits of not less than $1,000,000 each accident, $1,000,000 by disease-policy limit, and $1,000,000 by disease-each employee. No Vendor may rely on a self-insurance September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council program to meet those requirements, but only if the program of self-insurance complies fully with the provisions of the California Labor Code. Determination of whether a self-insurance program meets the standards of the California Labor Code shall be solely in the discretion of City.
b. The insurer, if insurance is provided, or Vendor, if a program of self-insurance is provided, shall allow, and be endorsed to waive all rights of subrogation against City and its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers. c. The requirement to maintain Statutory Worker’s Compensation and Employer’s Liability Insurance may be waived by the City upon written verification that Vendor does not have any employees.

4. Professional Liability
a. Vendor shall maintain professional liability insurance that insures against professional errors and omissions that may be made in performing professional services in the minimum amount of two million ($2M) per claim and in the aggregate. Any policy inception date, continuity date, or retroactive date must be before the effective date of the start of work, and Vendor agrees to maintain continuous coverage through a period no less than three (3) years after completion of the work.

5. Pollution Liability or Contractor’s Pollution Liability a. For sites where a pollution exposure could exist, or scopes where a pollution exposure could occur from Vendor’s or its subcontractor’s or subconsultant’s services/work, coverage shall be provided for liability arising out of sudden, accidental and gradual pollution and remediation. The policy limit shall be no less than one million ($1M) per claim.
b. All activities contemplated in this agreement shall be specifically scheduled on the policy as “covered operations.”
c. The policy shall provide coverage for the hauling of waste from the project site to the final disposal location, including non-owned disposal sites. d. The policy shall provide and be endorsed to include the City, its officers, officials, employees, and agents as insureds.

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council

6. Cyber Liability (or Technology Errors and Omissions) a. Vendor shall provide Cyber Liability Insurance with limits not less than one million ($1M) per claim.
b. Coverage shall be sufficiently broad to respond to the duties and obligations as is undertaken by Vendor in this agreement and shall include, but not be limited to, claims involving infringement of intellectual property, including but not limited to infringement of copyright, trademark, trade dress, invasion of privacy violations, information theft, damage to or destruction of electronic information, release of private information or personally identifiable information (PII), alteration of electronic information, extortion, and network security.

The policy shall provide coverage for breach response costs as well as regulatory fines and penalties, and credit monitoring expenses with limits sufficient to respond to these obligations.

7. Installation Floater (“Course of Construction”)
a. Vendor, shall provide a stand-alone, project -specific installation floater insurance policy covering the work performed under the agreement, on a form at least as broad as Insurance Services Offices, Inc. (ISO) Causes of Loss - Special Form. The policy shall be provided for 100% replacement value on an "all-risk" or special causes of loss basis, including flood as applicable.
b. The policy shall cover the labor, materials, and equipment, including materials and equipment in transit or away from the project site, to be installed in the existing structure(s), and debris removal.
c. The coverage shall be written for an amount equal to the initial contract amount plus the value of any subsequent change orders.
d. The City shall be named as Loss Payee on the policy and there shall be no coinsurance penalty provision in any such policy.
e. The policy shall allow for or include a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council

ATTACHMENT D

CONSULTANT EVALUATION SHEET
(adapted from Caltrans LAPM Exhibit 10-B)
CONSULTANT / FIRM NAME: ______________________________________________

Criteria Max Points Rating
Understanding of the work to be done 30
Experience with similar kinds of work 30
Quality of staff for work to be done 20
Availability of staff for the assignment 20
Total 100

Evaluator: ______________________________ City Contact:
______________________________
Print Name: ____________________________ Initials:
_______________________________
Signature: ______________________________ Date:
_________________________________
Date: __________________________________
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council City of Exeter
Project No. 5410003-001P
Agreement No.: D2402037

Exhibit A
EXHIBIT A – SCOPE OF WORK AND SCHEDULE
A.1 PROJECT PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION.

The Project is for the benefit of the City of Exeter (Recipient; CA5410003) and the Tooleville Mutual NonProfit Water Association (Tooleville; CA5400567). The funding under this Agreement shall be used for alternative analysis, engineering, environmental, and design to consolidate Tooleville with the Recipient and bring both water systems into compliance with the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 16 Waterworks Standards, for capacity to meet existing demand.

A.2 SCOPE OF WORK.

The Recipient agrees to do the following:

ITEM DESCRIPTION
1 Project Management and Administration

1.1 Prepare and submit a complete DWSRF Planning Application.

1.2 Monitor Project budget and schedule.

1.3 Prepare and submit progress reports and reimbursement requests.

1.4 Coordinate with State Water Board staff, attend Project meetings, provide status updates, and respond to questions.

1.5 Coordinate with the public:

Develop public outreach materials;
Facilitate public workshops;
Hold public update sessions;

1.6 Comply with Department of Industrial Relations labor compliance regulations.

1.7 Coordinate with various state, local, and other agencies for regulatory review, permitting, and approvals.

1.8 Complete necessary legal reviews:

Review documents, professional services agreements, and the State Water Board financing agreement;
Acquire property appraisals, easements, and other property documents necessary for the Project;
Draft and review consolidation agreement(s) for consolidation of Tooleville Mutual NonProfit Water Association by Recipient.

ITEM 1:
a) DWSRF Planning Application
b) Consolidation Agreement
2 Engineering Report

2.1 Prepare an Engineering/Project Report per the DWSRF Policy:

Describe the water quality and or quantity problems to be addressed, evaluate all feasible alternatives. Must evaluate consolidation of the subject system with nearby water systems. The evaluation must compare each alternative’s estimated capital cost and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs over a 20–40-year life cycle analysis.

Feasible alternative(s) evaluated must include, at a minimum:
o A new source of potable water;
o Consolidation w/ Tooleville Mutual Non-Profit Water Association; Final Project Report must be signed and stamped by a Professional Engineer.

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council City of Exeter
Project No. 5410003-001P
Agreement No.: D2402037

Exhibit A

2.2 Recommend a preferred alternative or combination of alternatives that address the constituent compliance and/or other deficiencies. Upon concurrence from all stakeholders, the preferred alternative will be known as the “Selected Construction Project.” ITEM 2 SUBMITTALS:
a) Draft Engineering Report
b) Final Engineering Report
3 Environmental Documents

3.1 Prepare California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents for the Selected Construction Project.

3.2 If necessary, prepare National Environmental Protection Act-like (NEPA-like) documents, such as a Section 7 biological report and a Section 106 cultural report.

3.3 Circulate the CEQA document(s) for public comment.

3.4 Finalize the CEQA document(s) with responses to comments received, resolution adopting the CEQA document(s), and filed Notice of Determination (NOD).

ITEM 3 SUBMITTALS:
a) Draft Environmental Documents
b) Final Environmental Documents
4 Hydrogeology Evaluation/ Test Well Services (if approved)

4.1 Perform test well analysis and drilling:

4.2 Prepare a Hydrogeological Study that discusses the review of hydrogeological data, groundwater supply capacity assessment, and potential well location recommendation(s);

4.3 Geotechnical services and evaluation of soil quality;

4.4 Prepare construction documents such as plans and specifications for test well drilling. Submit to the Division and District Office/Local Primacy Agency for review and approval;

4.5 Drill test well, conduct geophysical survey, collect and analyze groundwater samples, and conduct pump test; and

4.6 Prepare a Test Well Completion Report that includes a summary of findings such as water quality data and recommendations.

ITEM 4 SUBMITTALS:
a) Hydrogeological Study
b) Test Well Plans and Specifications
c) Test Well Completion Report
5 Engineering Design for Selected Construction Project

5.1 Survey, map, pothole, and obtain easements necessary for planning activities. Actual purchase cost of land and easements other than planning Project easements is not reimbursable under this funding agreement. If a temporary easement(s) is required, a licensed professional must draft easements and submit to the County for recording.

5.2 Prepare and submit 30% draft plans and specifications and draft opinion of probable construction costs.

5.3 Prepare and submit 60% plans and specifications and revised opinion of probable construction costs.

ITEM 5 SUBMITTALS
a) 30% Draft Plans and Specifications and Draft Opinion of Probable Construction Costs b) 60% Plans and Specifications and Revised Opinion of Probable Construction Costs September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council City of Exeter
Project No. 5410003-001P
Agreement No.: D2402037

Exhibit A
A.3 SCHEDULE.

Failure to provide items by the due dates indicated in the table below may constitute a material violation of this Agreement. The Project Manager may adjust the dates in the “Estimated Due Date” column of this table, but Critical Due Date adjustments will require an amendment to this Agreement. The Recipient must complete and submit all work in time to be approved by the Division prior to the Work Completion Date. As applicable for specific submittals, the Recipient must plan adequate time to solicit, receive, and address comments prior to submitting the final submittal. The Recipient must submit the final Reimbursement Request prior to the Final Reimbursement Request Date set forth on the Cover Page.

ITEM DESCRIPTION OF SUBMITTAL CRITICAL DUE
DATE

ESTIMATED DUE
DATE
EXHIBIT A – SCOPE OF WORK

WORK TO BE PERFORMED BY RECIPIENT
1 Project Management and Administration
a) DWSRF Planning Application
b) Consolidation Agreement
N/A
N/A
Complete
March 31, 2027
2 Engineering Report
a) Draft Engineering Report
b) Final Engineering Report
N/A
N/A
December 31, 2025
June 30, 2027
3 Environmental Documents
a) Draft Environmental Documents
b) Final Environmental Documents
N/A
N/A
March 31, 2027
June 30, 2027
4 Hydrogeology Evaluation and Test Well Services (if
approved)
a) Hydrogeological Study
b) Test Well Plans and Specifications
c) Test Well Completion Report
N/A
N/A
N/A
December 31, 2025
March 31, 2026
June 30, 2026
5 Engineering Design for Selected Construction
Project
a) 30% Draft Plans and Specifications and
Draft Opinion of Probable Construction
Costs
b) 60% Plans and Specifications and Revised
Opinion of Probable Construction
N/A
N/A
March 31, 2027
June 30, 2027

REPORTING PROVISIONS
1 Progress Reports N/A Quarterly
2 Project Completion Report N/A June 30, 2027
3 As Needed Information and Reports N/A As Requested by Division
EXHIBIT B – REIMBURSEMENTS, BUDGET DETAIL
1 First Reimbursement Request
No later than 90
days from
Agreement
Execution Date
N/A
2 Reimbursement Requests N/A Quarterly
3 Final Reimbursement Request September 30,
2027 N/A
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council City of Exeter
Project No. 5410003-001P
Agreement No.: D2402037

Exhibit A
The Recipient must deliver any request for extension of the Work Completion Date no less than 90 days prior to the Work Completion Date.

The Division may require corrective work to be performed prior to Project Completion. Any work occurring after the Work Completion Date will not be reimbursed under this Agreement.

A.4 PROGRESS REPORTS.

The Recipient must provide a progress report to the Division each quarter, beginning no later than 90 days after execution of this Agreement. The Recipient must provide a progress report with each Reimbursement Request. Failure to provide a complete and accurate progress report may result in the withholding of Project Funds. A progress report must contain the following information:
1) A summary of progress to date including a description of progress since the last report, amount budgeted, amount spent, and percent completion for each task; 2) Statement indicating if all critical due dates are on track; 3) Statement indicating if all deliverable due dates are on track; 4) A description of compliance with any special conditions; and 5) Any problems encountered, proposed resolution, schedule for resolution, and status of previous problem resolutions.

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council City of Exeter
Project No. 5410003-001P
Agreement No.: D2402037

Exhibit B
EXHIBIT B – FUNDING PROVISIONS
B.1 ESTIMATED REASONABLE COST AND PROJECT FUNDS.

The estimated reasonable cost of the total Project is set forth on the Cover Page of this Agreement, and is greater than or equal to the funding anticipated to be provided by the State Water Board under this Agreement. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, the State Water Board agrees to provide Project Funds not to exceed the amount of the Project Funding Amount set forth on the Cover Page of this Agreement.

B.2 RECIPIENT CONTRIBUTIONS.

The Recipient must pay any and all costs connected with the Project including, without limitation, any and all Project Costs. If the Project Funds are not sufficient to pay the Project Costs in full, the Recipient must nonetheless complete the Project and pay that portion of the Project Costs in excess of available Project Funds, and shall not be entitled to any reimbursement therefor from the State Water Board.

The loan component of this Agreement is forgiven. The estimated amount of principal that will be due to the State Water Board from the Recipient under this Agreement is Zero dollars and no cents ($0.00).

If the Recipient recovers funds from any responsible parties, the Recipient shall immediately notify the Division.

The amount of this Agreement may be reduced to reflect the recovered funds.

B.3 VERIFIABLE DATA.

Upon request by the Division, the Recipient must submit verifiable data to support deliverables specified in the Scope of Work. The Recipient’s failure to comply with this requirement may be construed as a material breach of this Agreement.

B.4 BUDGET COSTS.

Budget costs are contained in the Summary Project Cost Table below:

LINE ITEM PROJECT FUNDING
AMOUNT

TOTAL ESTIMATED
COSTS
Project Management and Administration $110,000 $110,000 Engineering Report $50,000 $50,000
Environmental Documents $64,000 $64,000
Hydrogeology Evaluation and Test Well Services (if approved) $788,000 $788,000 Engineering Design for Selected Construction Project $548,000 $548,000 TOTAL $1,560,000 $1,560,000
The Division’s Form 260 and Form 261 will document a more detailed budget of eligible Project Costs and Project funding amounts.

The Recipient is prohibited from requesting disbursement amounts that represent Recipient’s mark-ups to costs invoiced or otherwise requested by consultants or contractors.

Project Costs incurred prior to the Eligible Work Start Date on the cover page of this Agreement are not eligible for reimbursement.

Reasonable indirect costs may be allowable upon approval by the Division.

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council City of Exeter
Project No. 5410003-001P
Agreement No.: D2402037

Exhibit B
B.5 LINE ITEM ADJUSTMENTS.

Subject to the prior review and approval of the Division, adjustments between existing budget line items may be used to defray allowable direct costs. Budget adjustments deleting a budget line item or adding a new budget line item shall require a formal amendment. The sum of adjusted line items in the budget must not exceed the total budget amount. The Division may propose budget adjustments.

B.6 REIMBURSEMENT PROCEDURE.

Except as may be otherwise provided in this Agreement, reimbursements will be made as follows:

1. Upon execution and delivery of this Agreement by both parties, the Recipient may request immediate reimbursement of any eligible incurred costs through submission to the State Water Board of the Reimbursement Request Form 260 and Form 261, or any amendment thereto, duly completed and executed. To be eligible for reimbursement, Project Costs, including planning and design allowance costs, must have been incurred in compliance with all applicable requirements, including the cross-cutting requirements listed in Exhibits C and D.

2. The Recipient must submit a Reimbursement Request for costs incurred prior to the date this Agreement is executed by the State Water Board no later than ninety (90) days after this Agreement is executed by the State Water Board. Late Reimbursement Requests may not be honored.

3. Additional Project Funds will be promptly disbursed to the Recipient upon receipt of Reimbursement Request Form 260 and Form 261, or any amendment thereto, duly completed and executed by the Recipient for incurred costs consistent with this Agreement, along with receipt of progress reports due under this Agreement.

4. The Recipient must not request reimbursement for any Project Cost until such cost has been incurred and is currently due and payable by the Recipient, although the actual payment of such cost by the Recipient is not required as a condition of Reimbursement Request. Supporting documentation (e.g., receipts) must be submitted with each Reimbursement Request. The amount requested for Recipient’s administration costs must include a calculation formula (i.e., hours or days worked times the hourly or daily rate = total amount claimed). Reimbursement of Project Funds will be made only after receipt of a complete, adequately supported, properly documented, and accurately addressed Reimbursement Request. Upon request by the Division, supporting documents for professional and administrative services must include the employees’ names, classifications, labor rates, hours worked, and descriptions of the tasks performed. Reimbursement Requests submitted without supporting documents may be wholly or partially withheld at the discretion of the Division.

5. The Division may withhold disbursements where costs incurred do not reflect actual time spent.

6. The Recipient must spend Project Funds within 30 days of receipt. If the Recipient earns interest earned on Project Funds, it must report that interest immediately to the State Water Board. The State Water Board may deduct earned interest from future reimbursements.

7. The Recipient must not request a reimbursement unless that Project Cost is allowable, reasonable, and allocable.

8. The Recipient must submit all draft deliverables prior to reimbursement beyond 70 percent of the Project Funding Amount, and it must submit all final deliverables to the Division prior to reimbursement beyond 90 percent of the Project Funding Amount.

9. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, no reimbursement shall be required at any time or in any manner which is in violation of or in conflict with federal or state laws, policies, or regulations.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the Recipient agrees that the State Water Board may retain an amount equal to ten percent (10%) of the Project Funding Amount until Project Completion. Any retained amounts due to the Recipient will be promptly disbursed to the Recipient, without interest, upon Project Completion.

B.7 REVERTING FUNDS AND DISENCUMBRANCE.

In the event the Recipient does not submit Reimbursement Requests for all funds encumbered under this Agreement timely, any remaining funds revert to the State. The State Water Board may notify the Recipient that September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council City of Exeter
Project No. 5410003-001P
Agreement No.: D2402037

Exhibit B
the project file is closed, and any remaining balance will be disencumbered and unavailable for further use under the Agreement.

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council

C O N T R A C T

SERVICES AGREEMENT
FOR

CITY OF EXETER DRINKING WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DRINKING WATER PLANNING GRANT (CALIFORNIA WATER BOARDS PROJECT NO. 5410003-001P) This Agreement, entered into this 8th day of September 2026, by and between the City of Exeter, hereinafter referred to as the “CITY”, and Provost and Pritchard Consulting Group,hereinafter referred to as the “CONSULTANT”.

W I T N E S S E T H
WHEREAS, the CITY is authorized and empowered to employ service CONSULTANTs in the performance of its duties and functions; and
WHEREAS, the CITY has the desire to secure certain services to assist in the preparation and completion of the items of work described in the RFP for the above-referenced project issued August 11, 2026 incorporated fully herein as Exhibit A, and hereinafter referred to as the “SERVICES”; and

WHEREAS, the CONSULTANT represents it is licensed, qualified and willing to provide such services pursuant to terms and conditions of this Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, CITY and CONSULTANT agree as follows:

I. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY THE CONSULTANT
A. Authorized Scope of Work/Compliance with Master Professional Services Agreement: The CONSULTANT agrees to perform all work necessary to complete in a manner satisfactory to the CITY those tasks described in Exhibit A, and in accordance with the Master Professional Services Agreement RFQ No. 2026-01, Agreement No.2026-01 “Master Agreement” fully incorporated herein as Exhibit “B.” The following terms specified are in addition to and/or clarify the requirements set forth in the Master Agreement.

SERVICES.

II. TIME OF PERFORMANCE
The CONSULTANT shall commence performance of this Agreement within ten (10) days of CONSULTANT’s Notice to Proceed following City Council approval of this Agreement and shall complete the work within the timeframes outlined in Exhibit “A”, unless otherwise extended in writing by CITY, in its sole discretion.

If the CONSULTANT fails to complete the SERVICES within the time specified, plus any extensions of time which may be granted, the CITY shall determine the percent of each work item completed and shall pay the CONSULTANT on that basis.

CONSULTANT shall not be responsible for delays which are due to causes beyond the CONSULTANT’s reasonable control. In the case of any such delay, the time of completion shall be extended accordingly in writing signed by both parties.

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council III. COMPENSATION
A. Total Compensation: For services performed pursuant to this Agreement, the CITY agrees to pay and the CONSULTANT agrees to accept, as payment in full, a monthly sum not to exceed($1,560,000.00, and as set forth in the Master Services Agreement entered into between the parties on July 21, 2026.

This amount shall constitute complete compensation, including document production and out-of-pocket expenses for all services for the work and SERVICES identified in Exhibit “A”.

B. Payment of Compensation: The CONSULTANT shall be compensated monthly no later than thirty (30) days following submission of a written, verified billing invoice to the CITY.

C. State Reimbursement: CONSULTANT shall request reimbursement from the State Water Resources Control Board for eligible costs incurred under this Agreement, in accordance with the requirements of Funding Agreement No. D2402037, and shall provide CITY with copies of all reimbursement requests and supporting documentation upon request.

IV. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
A. CITY: The City Administrator shall represent the CITY in all matters pertaining to the services to be rendered under this Agreement, except where approval of the City Council of the City of Exeter is specifically required.

B. CONSULTANT: Nick Jacobson, PE shall represent and act as principle for CONSULTANT in all matters pertaining to the services to be rendered by it under this Agreement.

V. TERMINATION
The right to terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, may be exercised without prejudice to any other right or remedy to which the terminating party may be entitled at law or under this Agreement.

A. Termination By Either Party Without Cause: The CITY or CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement at any time by giving written notice to the other of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof, at least thirty (30) days before the effective date of such termination.

B. Termination of Agreement for Cause: The CITY may by written notice to the CONSULTANT specifying the effective date thereof, at least thirty (30) days before the effective date of such termination, terminate the whole or any part of this Agreement in any of the following circumstances:

1. If the CONSULTANT fails to perform the services called for by this Agreement within time(s) specified herein or any extension thereof; or

2. If the CONSULTANT fails to make progress under this Agreement as to endanger performance of this Agreement in accordance with its terms, and does not correct such failure within a period of ten (10) days (or longer period as the CITY may authorize in writing) after receipt of notice from the CITY specifying such failure.

C. Post-Termination:

1. In the event the CITY terminates this Agreement with or without cause, the CITY may procure, upon such terms and such manner as it may determine appropriate, services similar to those terminated.

2. The CONSULTANT shall not be liable for any excess costs if the failure to perform this Agreement arises out of causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the CONSULTANT. Such causes include, but are not limited to, acts of God or of the public enemy, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, strikes, and unusually severe weather.

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council

3. Should the Agreement be terminated with or without cause, the CONSULTANT shall provide the CITY with all finished and unfinished documents, data, photographs, reports, access keys or badges, etc. related to the SERVICES.

4. Upon termination, with or without cause, CONSULTANT will be compensated for the services satisfactorily completed to the date of termination according to compensation provisions contained herein. In no event, shall the total compensation paid CONSULTANT exceed the total compensation agreed to herein.

5. If, after notice of termination of this Agreement, as provided for in this article, it is determined for any reason that the CONSULTANT was not in default under the provisions of this article, then the rights and obligations of the parties shall be the same as if the Agreement was terminated without cause.

6. Termination of this Agreement shall not terminate any obligation to indemnify, to maintain and make available any records pertaining to the Agreement, to cooperate with any audit, to be subject to offset, or to make any reports of pre-termination activities.

VI. INTEREST OF OFFICIALS AND THE CONSULTANT
A. No officer, member, or employee of the CITY who exercises any functions or responsibilities in the review or approval of this Agreement shall:

1. Participate in any decision relating to this Agreement which effects his personal interest or the interest of any corporation, partnership, or association in which he has, directly or indirectly, any interest; or

2. Have any interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof during his tenure or for one year thereafter.

B. The CONSULTANT hereby covenants that he has, at the time of the execution of this Agreement, no interest, and that he shall not acquire any interest in the future, direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of services required to be performed pursuant to this Agreement. The CONSULTANT further covenants that in the performance of this work, no person having any such interest shall be employed.

VII. NO PERSONNEL, AGENCY OR COMMISSION
The CONSULTANT warrants, by execution of this Agreement, that no personnel agency has been employed or retained to solicit or secure this contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage or contingent fee, excepting bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the CONSULTANT for the purpose of securing business. For breach or violation of this warranty, the CITY shall have the right to annul this Agreement without liability or, in its discretion, to deduct from this Agreement price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee.

VIII. SUBCONTRACTING
A. The CONSULTANT shall not subcontract or otherwise assign any portion of the SERVICES to be performed under this Agreement without the prior written approval of the CITY.

B. In no event shall the CONSULTANT subcontract services in excess of 50% of the contract amount, excluding specialized services. Specialized services are those items not ordinarily furnished by a CONSULTANT performing the particular type of services.

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council IX. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
In the performance of the services herein provided for, the CONSULTANT shall be, and is, an independent contractor and is not an agent or employee of the CITY. The CONSULTANT has and shall retain the right to exercise full control and supervision of all persons assisting the CONSULTANT in the performance of said services hereunder. The CONSULTANT shall be solely responsible for all matters relating to the payment of its employees including compliance with social security and income tax withholding and all other regulations governing such matters.

X. SPECIFICATIONS
All specifications, manuals, standards, etc., either attached to this Agreement or incorporated by reference, are binding as to the performance of the work specified in this Agreement unless they are changed by written amendment to this Agreement modified in writing to incorporate such changes.

XI. DOCUMENTS/DATA
A. Ownership of Documents: All original papers and documents, produced as a result of this Agreement, shall become the property of the CITY. In addition, CITY shall be provided with access and use of any other papers and documents consistent with the purpose and scope of services covered by this Agreement. Any additional copies, not otherwise provided for herein, shall be the responsibility of the CITY.

Documents, including drawings and specifications, prepared by CONSULTANT pursuant to this Agreement, are not intended or represented to be suitable for reuse by CITY or others on extensions of the PROJECT or on any other project. Any use of the completed documents for other projects and any use of incomplete documents without the specific written authorization from CONSULTANT will be at CITY’s sole risk and without liability to CONSULTANT. Further, any and all liability arising out of changes made to CONSULTANT’s deliverables under this Agreement by CITY or persons other than CONSULTANT is waived as against CONSULTANT, and the CITY assumes full responsibility for such changes unless the CITY has given CONSULTANT prior notice and has received from CONSULTANT written consent for such changes.

B. Publication: No report, information, or other data given or prepared or assembled by the CONSULTANT pursuant to this Agreement, shall be made available to any individual or organization by the CONSULTANT without the prior written approval of the CITY. Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, the CONSULTANT shall not be required to protect or hold in confidence and confidential information which (1) is or becomes available to the public with the prior written consent of the CITY; (2) must be disclosed to comply with law; or (3) must be disclosed in connection with any legal proceedings.

C. Copyrights: The CONSULTANT shall be free to copyright material developed under this Agreement with the provision that the CITY be given a nonexclusive and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish or otherwise use, and to authorize others to use the material for government or public purposes.

XII. INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE
A. The Indemnification requirements are set forth in the Master Agreement.

B. Without limiting CITY’s right to indemnification, it is agreed that CONSULTANT shall secure prior to commencing any activities under this Agreement, and maintain during the term of this Agreement, insurance coverage placed with insurances approved to do business in California with an AM Best Rating of A-;VII or higher as specified in Attachment “C” of the RFP.

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council C. CITY’S Risk Manager is hereby authorized to modify the requirements set forth above in the event he/she determines that such reduction is in the CITY’S best interest.

D. Each insurance policy required by this Agreement shall contain the following clause:
“This insurance shall not be canceled, limited in scope or coverage, or non-renewed until after thirty (30) days prior written notice has been given to the City Clerk, City of Exeter, 100 N. C Street, Exeter, CA 93221.” If a carrier will not provide the required notice of cancellation, the CONSULTANT shall provide written notice to the City of a cancellation no later than ten (10) business days before cancellation.

E. Any available insurance proceeds broader than, or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirements and/or limits shall be available to the additional insureds. Furthermore, the requirements for coverage and limits shall be (1) the minimum coverage and limits specified; or (2) the broader coverage and maximum limits of coverage of any insurance policy or proceeds available to the named insured; whichever is greater. No representation is made that the minimum insurance requirements are sufficient to cover the obligations of the CONSULTANT.

F. Prior to commencing any work under this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall deliver to CITY insurance certificates confirming the existence of the insurance required by this Agreement, and including the applicable clauses referenced above. CONSULTANT shall provide to CITY endorsements to the above-required policies, which add to these policies the applicable clauses referenced above. Said endorsements shall be signed by an authorized representative of the insurance company and shall include the signatory’s company affiliation and title. Should it be deemed necessary by CITY, it shall be CONSULTANT’s responsibility to see that CITY receives documentation acceptable to CITY which sustains that the individual signing said endorsements is indeed authorized to do so by the insurance company. CITY has the right to demand, and to receive within a reasonable time period, copies of any insurance policies required under this Agreement.

G. Subcontractors: CONSULTANT must enter into a written and executed contract agreement with each of its subcontractors that provide materials, services, or perform work for the CONSULTANT under this Agreement. The contract agreement must contain a defense, indemnification and hold harmless provision in favor of the City and its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers. The contract agreement shall also cause the subcontractor to comply with the insurance requirements required of the CONSULTANT, including providing an additional insured endorsement for ongoing and, for construction work or services, for completed operations for equal risk level activities and operations as solely determined by the City. The City reserves the right to modify the insurance coverages and limits based on the nature of the risk or other special circumstances CONSULTANT shall obtain certificates of insurance and policy endorsements from each of its subcontractors and provide a copy to City upon request.

H. In addition to any other remedies CITY may have if CONSULTANT fails to provide or maintain any insurance policies or policy endorsements to the extent and within the time herein required, CITY may, at its sole option:

1. Obtain such insurance and deduct and retain the amount of the premiums for such insurance from any sums due under the Agreement; or

2. Order CONSULTANT to stop work under this Agreement and/or withhold any payment(s) which become due to CONSULTANT hereunder until CONSULTANT demonstrates compliance with the requirements hereof; or

3. Terminate this Agreement.

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council Exercise of any of the above remedies, however, is an alternative to other remedies CITY may have and is not the exclusive remedy for CONSULTANT’s failure to maintain insurance or secure appropriate endorsements.

Nothing herein contained shall be construed as limiting in any way the extent to which CONSULTANT may be held responsible for payments of damages to persons or property resulting from CONSULTANT’s or its subcontractor’s performance of the work covered under this Agreement.

XIV. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
A. Asbestos and Hazardous Materials: In providing its services hereunder, CONSULTANT shall not be responsible for identification, handling, containment, abatement, or in any other respect, for any asbestos or hazardous material if such is present in connection with the SERVICES. In the event the CITY becomes aware of the presence of asbestos or hazardous material at the service location, CITY shall be responsible for complying with all applicable federal and state rules and regulations, and shall immediately notify CONSULTANT, who shall then be entitled to cease any of its services that may be affected by such presence, without liability to CONSULTANT arising therefrom.

B. Successors and Assigns: This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of any successors to or assigns of the parties.

C. Prohibition of Assignment: Neither the CITY nor CONSULTANT shall assign, delegate or transfer their rights and duties in this Agreement without the written consent of the other party.

D. Dispute/Governing Law: Any dispute not resolvable by informal arbitration between the parties to this Agreement shall be adjudicated in a Court of Law under the laws of the State of California.

E. Notices: Notice shall be sufficient hereunder if personally served as set forth in the Master Agreement.

F. Jurisdiction/Venue/Waiver Of Removal: This Agreement is entered into and is to be performed in Tulare County, California. This Agreement shall be administered and interpreted under the laws of the State of California. Jurisdiction of litigation arising from this Agreement shall be in that State. Any action brought to interpret or enforce this Agreement, or any of the terms or conditions hereof, shall be brought in Tulare County, California. The CONSULTANT hereby expressly waives any right to remove any action to a county other than Tulare County as permitted pursuant to Section 394 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.

G. Integration/Modification: This Agreement and each of the exhibits referenced herein, which are incorporated by reference, represents the entire understanding of the CITY and the CONSULTANT as to those matters contained herein. In case of conflict between any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement and any CONSULTANT proposal or attachment, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall control. No prior oral or written understanding shall be of any force or effect with respect to those matters covered hereunder. This Agreement may not be modified or altered except in writing signed by the CITY and the CONSULTANT.

H. Conflict With Law: If any part of this Agreement is found to be in conflict with applicable laws, such part shall be inoperative, null and void insofar as it is in conflict with said law, but the remainder of the Agreement shall be in full force and effect.

I. Attorney’s Fees: In the event either party commences any action, arbitration or legal proceedings for the enforcement of this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the court or arbitrator, shall be entitled to recovery of its attorney’s fees and court costs incurred in the action brought thereon.

J. Construction: This Agreement is the product of negotiation and compromise on the part of each party and the parties agree, notwithstanding Civil Code Section 1654, that in the event of uncertainty the language will not be construed against the party causing the uncertainty to exist.

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council K. Authority: Each signatory to this Agreement represents that it is authorized to enter into this Agreement and to bind the party to which its signature represents.

L. Headings: Section headings are provided for organizational purposes only and do not in any manner affect the scope or intent of the provisions thereunder.

M. Firearms Prohibited: Guns may not be carried by contractors /vendors/CONSULTANTs while working on City of Exeter premises without the expressed written approval of a City of Exeter Department Head, or an exemption in the contract. If a contractor/vendor/CONSULTANT is caught carrying a gun, without City permission, their contract will be terminated.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is executed on the day and year first above written.

CITY OF EXETER CONSULTANT
___________________________ ___________________________ City Administrator Project Manager
Approved as to Form
__________________________________
City Attorney

_________________________________
SERVICES Manager
Attachments:

Exhibit “A”: RFP
Exhibit “B”: Master Agreement
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council

PROPOSAL

CITY OF EXETER

CITY OF EXETER DRINKING WATER

SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT,

DRINKING WATER PLANNING GRANT
(CALIFORNIA WATER BOARDS
PROJECT NO. 5410003-001P)
AUGUST 21, 2026
www.provostandpritchard.com • (559) 449-2700
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council 455 W Fir Ave, Clovis, CA 93611 • (559) 449-2700
www.provostandpritchard.com
Engineering • Structural • Geostructural • Surveying • Planning • Environmental • GIS • Construction Services • Hydrogeology • Consulting Clovis • Visalia • Bakersfield • Modesto • Los Banos • Chico • Sacramento • Sonora • San Luis Obispo • Riverside • Camarillo • Boise, ID August 21, 2026
Zachary Boudreaux, Director of Public Works
City of Exeter
350 W Firebaugh Ave
Exeter, CA 93221
[email protected]
Subject: Request for Proposal: City of Exeter Drinking Water System Improvement Project, Drinking Water Planning Grant (California Water Boards Project No. 5410003-001P) Mr. Boudreaux:

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group (Provost & Pritchard/P&P) appreciates the opportunity to submit our proposal to the City of Exeter for the Drinking Water System Improvement Project. This assignment represents the next critical step in a process P&P has supported for more than 20 years: developing a reliable, long-term water supply solution for Exeter and Tooleville. Our history with this effort gives the City something particularly valuable as it moves into this planning phase—continuity of the technical knowledge, decisions, agency coordination, and relationships that have shaped the project to this point.

P&P’s involvement dates to 2005 and has included preparation of the original Preliminary Engineering Report for Tooleville, evaluation of water supply alternatives and potential well sites, coordination with the City and regulatory and funding agencies, preparation of the 2023 water supply alternatives Technical Memorandum, and preparation of the City’s Planning Grant Plan of Study. We are also currently providing full-service engineering for the Exeter-Tooleville Emergency Intertie and Water System Improvement Project, including groundwater investigations, environmental compliance, design, bidding support, and construction management.

That history is directly relevant to the work now requested. The Planning Grant calls for project management and administration, an Engineering Report, environmental documentation, hydrogeologic evaluation and test well services, and engineering design through the 30% and 60% milestones. It also requires continued evaluation of the improvements necessary to address Exeter’s water supply and storage deficiencies while advancing consolidation with Tooleville. P&P is already deeply familiar with the systems, alternatives, groundwater challenges, infrastructure needs, funding framework, and consolidation objectives underlying these tasks. Our team can carry that knowledge forward rather than recreate it.

Just as important, the proposed project team is comprised of numerous professionals who are already working on Exeter’s water system improvements in support of the ongoing, “Exeter-Tooleville Emergency Intertie and Water System Improvement Project”. Project Manager Nick Jacobson, PE, will serve as the City’s primary point of contact, supported by specialists in groundwater wells, hydrogeology, water treatment, environmental compliance, surveying, site civil, structural, instrumentation and controls, electrical, and geotechnical engineering. This continuity provides a direct connection between work already underway and the broader improvements contemplated by the Planning Grant.

At this time, we believe P&P offers the City a compelling combination of the requirements needed to successfully deliver this project: a detailed understanding developed through decades of involvement, extensive municipal water September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council experience, a multidisciplinary team already familiar with Exeter and the current challenge, and the capacity to continue advancing the work within the Planning Grant schedule.

The City and Tooleville have spent years progressing from investigation and alternatives analysis toward consolidation and implementation. P&P has been alongside both communities through that progression. We would greatly appreciate the opportunity to maintain that continuity and help the City carry the project through its next phase – from the work completed and ongoing today to a coordinated, fundable, and implementable program of water system improvements.

Respectfully,
Nick Jacobson, PE Soo Ho Park, PE, TE
Project Manager Principal-in-Charge
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council

UNDERSTANDING & APPROACH
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group has been involved with this project from the beginning and has a firm understanding of what is required for the scope of work. We assisted the City in preparing the technical portion of the planning grant application and helped define the scope described in the RFP.

Provost & Pritchard is proposing to deliver a scope of work that aligns with Exhibit A of the RFP. Some additional tasks are included that do not appear in Exhibit A, but are included because they will be critical to the overall project success.

Some items Scope of Work section of Exhibit A were previously completed and are not included in scope of work for this proposal. Those items will be listed in the assumptions section of this proposal. The proposed scope of work includes:

Phase 1 – Project Administration (ADM)
This phase will include general project administration tasks that will be required to successfully meet planning funding requirements. This phase will encompass the entire duration of the project. Task included with this phase include:
• Project management tasks
• Monitor project budget and schedule
• Prepare and submit quarterly progress reports
• Prepare monthly reimbursement claims
• Coordinate with Project stakeholders
• Coordination with the public as needed
• Assist the City with Department of Industrial Relations compliance • Coordinate with various state, local, and other agencies for regulatory review, permitting and approvals • Assist the City with appraisals, easements, and other property documents for the Project Deliverables:
• Monthly reimbursement claims
• Quarterly progress reports
• Final report
• Meeting agendas/notes (as needed)
Phase 2 – Engineering Report (PER)
The phase will build on the technical memorandum that was prepared by Provost & Pritchard in 2023 as part of a separate, but related project. The scope of work included with this phase includes the preparation of a preliminary engineering report that conforms to the State Water Resources Control Board requirements. At a minimum, the report will include the following sections:
• Section 1 – Background
• Section 2 – Problem Description
• Section 3 – Supply and Demand Analysis
• Section 4 – Consolidation Analysis
• Section 5 – Alternatives Summary and Analysis
• Section 6 – Selected Alternative Description
• Section 7 – Response to Climate Change
• Section 8 – Preliminary Schedule
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council Following the completion and submittal of the draft report, Provost & Pritchard will conduct a workshop with the City and other relevant stakeholders to review comments and answer questions. The draft report will then be updated as needed and finalized. This phase will be completed in parallel with Phase 4 - Hydrogeology Evaluation/Test Well Services (see below for scope details) because a project alternative cannot be selected until we have an indication about the viability of a proposed water supply well. Completion of this phase will allow for the project to proceed into the schematic design portion of Phase 5- Engineering Design for Selected Construction Project (see below for scope details).

Deliverables
• Draft engineering report
• Final engineering report
Phase 3 – Environmental Documents (ENV)
This Project is subject to requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as well as the State Environmental Permit Process (SERP). The SERP requires submittal of an approved/certified CEQA document along with a completed “Environmental Package Construction” (EPC) application to the SWRCB for its subsequent approval.

The EPC is needed to document compliance with a variety of federal cross-cutter authorities. For purposes of this proposal, Provost & Pritchard has assumed an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) will be the appropriate level of CEQA documentation for the proposed Project. P&P will participate in one workshop with the City to review the findings of the IS/MND and answer questions and address comments. The IS/MND will then be updated as needed and submit an updated report for adoption by the City and submittal to the State Clearinghouse. This phase will begin at the completion of the 30% design in Phase 5 (see below) and commence after Phase 5 is complete (after 60% design). The scope of work on this phase includes the following tasks:
• Project Kick-off, Tribal Notification, Informal Consultations • Preparation of Administrative Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist (2019). • Provost & Pritchard will perform a biological evaluation (Phase 6) and incorporate results into the IS/MND.

The evaluation will be consistent with CEQA and NEPA standards, including Section 7 Determinations.

Results will be incorporated into the IS/MND. The biological evaluation will include a review relevant background information, a reconnaissance-level field survey of the project area, and preparation a Biological Evaluation Report. The report would describe potential project-related impacts to state- and federally-listed or special status species, habitats, and other sensitive biological resources, prescribe mitigation measures to reduce the potential of project-related impacts to a less-than-significant level, and be consistent with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) standards and state and federal laws.
• Provost & Pritchard will engage with a cultural subconsultant to prepare a phase I cultural resources survey/Class III technical report. The subconsultant will generate a technical report summarizing the findings which will be incorporated into the IS/MND
• Provost & Pritchard will also run the San Joaquin Valley Air District’s California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) to assist in determining impacts related to air quality and greenhouse gas. • Preparation of a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (NOI), Notice of Completion (NOC), and will publish and circulate these documents via newspaper, mail, electronic transmittal and/or overnight delivery as required by CEQA announcing a 30-day public review period.

Deliverables
• One (1) electronic copy of the draft biological evaluation report.

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council • One (1) electronic copy of the final biological evaluation report. • One (1) electronic copy of the Administrative Draft IS/MND to the City • One (1) electronic copy, each, of the Draft IS/MND, NOI, NOC, and NOD • One (1) electronic copy of the Final Draft IS/MND to the City Phase 4 – Hydrogeology Evaluation/Test Well Services (HGE) Work on this phase will be performed in parallel with Phase 2 – Engineering Report. Information gathered in this phase will be incorporated into the engineering report, the schematic and 60% design phases of the project. A selected alternative cannot be identified without the findings from the test hole work on this phase. Work on this phase will begin with a hydrogeologic evaluation. The hydrogeologic evaluation will be performed by a licensed hydrogeologist and will ultimately identify and confirm a site for a test hole. At that point the City and P&P will work side by side to execute an option agreement with the landowner of the chosen test hole site. Upon execution of an option agreement, P&P will prepare test hole contract documents and support the City during the test hole bidding phase. Once a contractor is selected and hired directly by the City, P&P will support the City and manage the test hole drilling and sampling. At the same time P&P will engage with a geotechnical firm to conduct a geotechnical investigation to gain insight into the subsurface conditions in the project area. This phase will culminate in a test hole summary memorandum and a geotechnical report. Work under this phase includes:
• Geotechnical investigation
• Hydrogeologic investigation
• Assisting the City in preparation of an option agreement with the property owner of the test hole site • Prepare electronic bid documents available to bidders, upon request, at the P&P offices in Clovis and maintain plan holders list. No hard copy bid documents will be produced as part of this scope. • Preparation of a notice to bidders, advertisement in the Visalia Times Delta Recorder (2 notices), and sending of the bid documents to two builders exchanges. • Coordinate and conduct pre-bid meeting at the project site. • Review Requests for Information (RFIs) from prospective bidders during the bid period and prepare responses.
• Prepare and distribute addendum to plan holders, if necessary, to address RFIs (up to three addenda included).
• Conduct bid opening, review and evaluate bid proposals, prepare canvass of bids, and recommend lowest responsible bidder to the City for award of contract.
• Coordinate and conduct a pre-construction meeting at the project site • Drilling oversight services for the duration of the drilling of the test hole. • Review Contractor submittals
• Reponses to Contractor requests for information
• Site visits during drilling operations to inspect work • Coordination, collection, and delivery of water quality samples collected during drilling. • Test hole summary memorandum
Deliverables
• Draft and final test hole plans, specifications, and engineer’s estimate of probable construction cost (EOPCC)
• Hydrogeologic study
• Draft and final geotechnical report
• Preparation of bid addenda
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council • Response to submittals and RFIs
• Bid canvass
• Test hole summary memorandum
Phase 5 – Engineering Design for Selected Construction Project (DES) Work in this phase will include schematic level design (30%) and 60% level design. For the schematic design P&P will prepare a basis of design report. P&P will review and utilize City-provided project specific information and other relevant information to set forth the Basis of Design that covers the components of this project. The Basis of Design will be a critical component on which P&P and City will need to collaborate to ensure mutual understanding on the criteria guiding the design and PS&E setup. The basis of design report will include a 30% level set of plans, specifications, and an EOPCC. Upon completion of the basis of design report, P&P will meet with the City and other relevant stakeholders to review the report, answer questions, and address comments. The basis of design report will be updated as needed and then will form the basis of the 60% design.

Feedback from the basis of design will be used to generate 60% design plans, specifications, and EOPCC. 60% design documents will include civil and electrical sheets and provide sufficient detail to allow for the completion of the IS/MND being completed as part of Phase 3 (see above). Work on this phase will include the following:
• Topographic survey and basemap
• Preparation of a basis of design report
• Utility research
• Preparation of 30% drawings, specifications (table of contents), and EOPCC • 30% design workshop with City and project stakeholders • Preparation of 60% drawings, specifications, and EOPCC Deliverables
• Draft and final basis of design report
• 30% plans, specifications, and EOPCC
• 60% plans, specifications, and EOPCC

PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS
The scope of work and associated fees shown in this proposal are based on the following assumptions:
• Item 1.1 in Exhibit A, “Preparation and submittal of a complete DWSRF planning application” is not included in this scope of work since it was previously completed and submitted by the City to the Division of Financial Assistance.
• Effort to prepare deliverable B in Item 1 of Exhibit A of the RFP, “Consolidation Agreement” is not included in this scope of work since it was completed in April 2023. The City will submit a copy of the consolidation agreement to the State if that has not already been done. • The City will contract with a labor compliance contractor to provide labor compliance services. • The City will be responsible for preparing the revised water system permit including the technical, managerial, and financial (TMF) package.
• Well site will consist of an area with at least enough space to provide 50-foot clear zone between well and fence line in accordance with DDW requirements.
• No construction will encroach into Caltrans right-of-way and no permit from Caltrans will be required. • P&P will provide the necessary front-end specifications covering bidding and contract requirements. • The City will provide background information and records necessary to complete the design.

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council • The City will hire an attorney to provide legal services, including review of front-end specifications. • The City will pay for all permitting fees and laboratory analysis fees to complete the design and permit the new well and provide results to Provost & Pritchard.
• The City will pay for newspaper advertising for the bidding of the test hole. • P&P will provide contract administration and construction observation (test hole only). The City will manage all funding agreement requirements not specifically stated within this proposal and will engage their attorney for review of all contracting documents.
• Provost & Pritchard current CAD version, CAD standards and title block will be used for the design of this project.
• This proposal does not include focused biological surveys, handling of special status species, or documentation beyond what has been described in this scope of work. • The City will be responsible for hiring a drilling contractor for the test hole. • City of Exeter is the CEQA lead agency, and an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate level of CEQA analysis.
• City of Exeter is responsible for providing access to the site for field surveys. • This proposal includes a single site visit for biological and cultural surveys. • No technical studies other than those mentioned above will be completed. • The cost of the IC records search will not exceed $500.00, which is included in our fee. • This proposal includes responding to up to three public comment letters received during the public review period.
• This proposal does not include the County Clerk filing fee ($50.00) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2024 Environmental Document filing fee ($3,405.00). These fees will be paid by the City. • We have assumed that the Pollution Liability/Contractor's Pollution Liability Insurance requirements are not applicable to our proposed professional engineering and geotechnical services scope. Pollution liability risks associated with drilling, construction activities, handling of drilling fluids and cuttings, waste transportation, or disposal are assumed to be the responsibility of the contractor performing such work for the City. If the City requires Pollution Liability Insurance coverage for the consulting team, such coverage can be procured and provided at an additional cost to the City.

ADDITIONAL SERVICES
The following services are not included in this proposal, however, these and others can be provided at additional cost, upon request.
• Potholing existing utilities
• Construction phases services such as: construction review, construction staking, contract management services, as-built survey not specifically listed in this proposal • Additional office or field services required due to any governmental agency changes in ordinances, codes, policies, procedures, or requirements after the date of this agreement. • Payment of all checking and inspection fees, zoning and annexation application fees, assessment fees, and all other fees, permits, title company charges, and all other similar charges not specifically covered by the terms of this agreement.

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council

OUR HISTORY WITH THE PROJECT
The following timeline represents Provost & Pritchard’s long history with the project:
• 2005 – P&P became involved with the Tooleville Mutual Non-Profit Water Association (TMNPWA).

TMNPWA received a funding agreement from State DHS and Rural Utilities Service to develop a dependable source of potable water. A Preliminary Engineering Report was completed. • 2006 – Test Well No. 1 was constructed but could not be developed as a water source due to high nitrates and high salinity. It was concluded that an alternative well site would need to be pursued. • 2008 – A new distribution system was constructed in TMNPWA with meter-ready connections and new fire hydrants. The project was funded in part by USDA Rural Utilities Service, a State of California Department of Public Health Grant, and Tulare CDBG No. 06-STBG-2598.
• 2011 – P&P was hired to investigate water source alternatives. Three alternatives were compared:
• Alternative 1: TMNPWA drills its own well and wheels water through Exeter. • Alternative 2: TMNPWA pays a capacity fee to Exeter and purchases water through a master meter. • Alternative 3: TMNPWA pays for additional capacity in Exeter and contracts with Exeter to operate the system and provide water to TMNPWA
Alternative 1 was identified as the recommended alternative. • 2013 – Sites for a new well were identified.
• 2014 – P&P investigated the Yarber Property as a potential well site. Work included meetings with Exeter, TMNPWA, and Mr. Yarber; preparation of Yarber Property well site exhibits; and analysis of a water exchange for a reduced property price. Property negotiations were not successful. • 2015 – Investigation of potential well sites resumed, including sending Letters of Property Inquiry to landowners.
• 2016 – A time extension request was submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), requesting an additional 18 months under the funding agreement. A rate study was to be prepared, and the State engaged in conversations with the City of Exeter regarding the potential for Exeter to provide water to TMNPWA and locate a viable well site.
• Water Rate Study – A Rate Comparison Study was prepared evaluating full consolidation with the City of Exeter and a wholesale (Master Meter)-type connection to the City. Results were presented to SWRCB and TMNPWA.
• 2021 – P&P was hired by Self-Help Enterprises to prepare a water supply alternatives review. P&P coordinated with Self-Help Enterprises, TMNPWA, the City of Exeter, County of Tulare, DWR, DDW, DFA, and Leadership Counsel for Justice & Accountability.
• 2022 – P&P prepared a summary exhibit showing the anticipated infrastructure associated with City of Exeter improvements and the TMNPWA consolidation.
• April 18, 2023 – The City and the TMNPWA enter into an agreement to consolidate TMNPWA into the City of Exeter.
• September 1, 2023 – P&P issued the final Technical Memorandum for the water supply alternatives review.

The recommended alternative was to connect TMNPWA to the City of Exeter. • October 2023 – P&P prepared the Final Plan of Study for the City of Exeter Planning Grant Application. An exhibit was also prepared showing the overall infrastructure improvements outlined in the Planning Grant Application.

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council • Design Phase – Design of the consolidation improvements proceeded through an On-Call Agreement with DWR and subsequently through a contract with the City of Exeter funded by a DWR grant. P&P also assisted the City with obtaining the planning grant.
• Well Site Investigation – A conceptual layout exhibit was prepared showing the TMNPWA Consolidation Infrastructure as a combined project. The initial location for a new well site in Exeter was later changed. A test hole was subsequently constructed near Firebaugh and Belmont with DWR funding, but the results were not sufficient to meet City needs. The City and P&P are currently beginning to drill a second test hole at the City Public Works Yard. The test hole will be pumped and sampled to estimate water quality and quantity.
• March 31, 2026 – The On-Call Agreement with DWR ended. • August 2026 – Work under the City of Exeter contract is ongoing.

Provost & Pritchard has over 20 years working with the TMNPWA and the City to find a solution to the issues in Tooleville. As stated above, on April 18 2023, the City and the TMNPWA entered into an agreement which outlined terms for the consolidation of the TMNPWA into the City of Exeter. The terms included numerous water system improvements in both the current TMNPWA and City service areas. The initial phase of implementation entitled, Exeter-Tooleville Emergency Intertie and Water System Improvement Project, is being funded by DWR and is further described below.

EXETER-TOOLEVILLE EMERGENCY INTERTIE AND WATER SYSTEM

IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

CITY OF EXETER
The Exeter-Tooleville Emergency Intertie and Water System Improvement Project (project) addresses critical water supply reliability concerns through development of emergency intertie infrastructure and supplemental groundwater production facilities. The project includes installation of approximately 5,500 linear feet of 16-inch potable water transmission main to connect the City of Exeter water system with the Tooleville Mutual Non- Profit Water Association system, along with a master meter, valves, and associated appurtenances.

In parallel with pipeline improvements, the project includes development of a new municipal groundwater production well and well site facilities within the City. A test hole is being drilled and evaluated to assess groundwater quality and production capacity prior to final well design and construction. Engineering efforts include hydrogeologic evaluation, coordination with regulatory agencies, and preparation of well design recommendations based on test results.

Provost & Pritchard is providing full-service engineering support, including project administration, environmental documentation and permitting, design, bidding support, and construction management. Design services include preparation of plans, specifications, and engineer’s opinion of probable construction costs at multiple design milestones (50%, 90%, and 100%), along with coordination with agencies for encroachment permits and utility approvals. The team is also supporting the bidding process, including preparation of bid documents, responses to contractor inquiries, and bid evaluation.

Construction-phase services include resident engineering and construction management, including submittal and RFI review, coordination with the contractor and stakeholders, construction observation, tracking of project documentation, and preparation of record drawings. Construction staking services are also being provided to support field implementation.

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council The project is advancing through design and construction phases under a funding agreement with DWR, with ongoing coordination among the City, County of Tulare, regulatory agencies, and project stakeholders to deliver a reliable emergency water supply connection and improved system resiliency.

PROJECT TEAM
Nicholas Jacobson, PE, Senior Engineer
Project Manager / Primary Point of Contact

REGISTRATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS
• Civil Engineer, California #84909
• NASSCO Pipeline Assessment and Certification #07003388 • Certified Level One Water Loss Audit Validator

EDUCATION
• M.S. Civil Engineering, California State University, Fresno • B.S. Business Administration, Major Emphasis: Accounting, California State University, Long Beach Nicholas Jacobson has more than 15 years of professional experience in municipal water and wastewater infrastructure. His experience includes water distribution systems, groundwater wells, hydraulic modeling, water and sewer master planning, permitting, sewer rehabilitation, and construction administration. Nick’s experience carrying projects from planning and design through construction makes him well suited to lead multidisciplinary water infrastructure assignments, as he is currently doing on the City of Exeter Emergency Water Supply Project. • Exeter Emergency Water Supply Project – City of Exeter, Tulare County, CA – Project Manager • Teviston Drought Resilience Water System Improvement Project – Teviston Community Services District, Tulare County, CA – Project Manager/Engineer (2026 ASCE San Francisco Section Fresno Branch Outstanding Water Project and Outstanding Sustainable Engineering Project awards) • Water System Improvements at Cantua Creek and El Porvenir – County of Fresno, Fresno County, CA – Project Manager/Engineer
Soo Ho Park, PE, TE, Principal Engineer
Principal-in-Charge

REGISTRATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS
• Civil Engineer, California #89361
• Traffic Engineer, California #2961

EDUCATION
• M.S. Civil Engineering, Missouri University of Science & Technology • Graduate Certificate, Construction Management, Missouri University of Science & Technology • B.S. Civil Engineering, United States Military Academy Soo Ho Park has more than 16 years of leadership, management, and civil engineering experience. He has managed local, state, and federally funded public works projects for cities and agencies throughout the Central Valley and currently serves as the City of Fowler’s Contract City Engineer. His design experience includes grading and utilities, water and sewer mains, drainage, roadway improvements, traffic signals, and ADA-accessible infrastructure. • SR 99 Water Main Crossing at Washington – City of Tulare, Tulare County, CA – Project Manager • Hermosa Street Rehabilitation – City of Lindsay, Tulare County, CA – Project Manager • Pleasant Avenue Improvements – City of Tulare, Tulare County, CA – Project Engineer September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council Michael Taylor, PE, Principal Engineer
Quality Assurance & Control (QA/QC)

REGISTRATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS
• Civil Engineer, California #39961

EDUCATION
• M.S. Civil Engineering, California State University, Fresno • B.S. Civil Engineering, University of California, Davis Michael Taylor has more than 42 years of professional experience with municipal water and wastewater infrastructure.

His background includes water treatment and distribution, wastewater collection and treatment, storm drainage, groundwater studies, pipelines, and long-term district engineering. His extensive design, funding, permitting, and construction experience provides a strong foundation for senior QA/QC review focused on technical quality, constructability, and multidisciplinary coordination.
• Exeter Emergency Water Supply Project – City of Exeter, Tulare County, CA – QA/QC • District Engineering and Utility Support Services – Malaga County Water District, Fresno County, CA – Principal Engineer
• Municipal Water and Wastewater Engineering Services – Caruthers Community Services District, Fresno County, CA – District Engineer
Herb Simmons, PE, Principal Engineer
Technical Lead – Groundwater Wells

REGISTRATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS
• Civil Engineer, California #47854

EDUCATION
• M.S., Civil Engineering, California State University, Fresno • B.S. Environmental Resources Engineering, Humboldt State University Herb Simmons has more than 40 years of professional experience in groundwater and water supply engineering. His background includes municipal well design and construction oversight, hydrogeologic investigations, groundwater management and recharge, water distribution systems, and water district engineering. He has extensive experience with test holes, zone-specific water quality sampling, production well design, pump selection, bidding, and construction review.
• Exeter Emergency Water Supply Project – City of Exeter, Tulare County, CA – Technical Lead – Groundwater Wells
• Well Rehabilitation and Well Field Management – Arvin-Edison Water Storage District, Kern County, CA – Project Engineer
• New Municipal Production Wells – Riverdale Public Utility District, Fresno County, CA – Project Engineer • Pixley Public Utilities District – Tulare County, CA – Former District Engineer September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council Kevin Berryhill, PE, Principal Engineer
Technical Lead – Treatment

REGISTRATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS
• Civil Engineer, California #70415
• Mechanical Engineer, California #32762

EDUCATION
• M.S. Mechanical Engineering, California State University, Long Beach • B.S. Mechanical Engineering, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Kevin Berryhill has more than 30 years of professional experience specializing in water treatment and water quality.

His work includes feasibility and pre-design studies, treatment process selection, plans and specifications, cost estimates, permitting, pilot studies, and construction support. His groundwater treatment experience includes arsenic, nitrate, perchlorate, TCP, PFAS, iron, manganese, and other regulated constituents. • Exeter Emergency Water Supply Project – City of Exeter, Tulare County, CA – Technical Lead – Treatment • Well 11 Perchlorate Treatment – City of Lindsay, Tulare County, CA – Project Manager/Technical Lead • Well 38 Arsenic Treatment Plant Design – City of Turlock, Stanislaus County, CA – Principal-in-Charge • PFAS Treatment Design Build at 21 City of Bakersfield Wells – W.M. Lyles Company/California Water Service Company, Kern County, CA – Project Manager/Treatment Technical Lead • TCP Treatment Plant Design – County of Tulare, Tulare County, CA – Principal-in-Charge Shawn Vaughn, CHG, PG, Senior Geologist/Hydrogeologist
Technical Lead – Hydrogeology

REGISTRATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS
• Certified Hydrogeologist, California #1103
• Professional Geologist, California #8947
• OSHA HAZWOPER

EDUCATION
• B.S. Geology, San Jose State University
Shawn Vaughn has more than 24 years of professional experience in hydrogeology and groundwater resources. His work includes drilling oversight, geologic logging, aquifer and well testing, groundwater quality evaluation, recharge investigations, monitoring programs, and regulatory compliance. Shawn has extensive field experience supporting pilot holes and production wells from drilling and zone sampling through development and performance testing. • Exeter Emergency Water Supply Project – City of Exeter, Tulare County, CA – Technical Lead – Hydrogeology • Malaga CWD Well 3A and Tank – Malaga County Water District, Fresno County, CA – Project Hydrogeologist • Well No. 9 – City of Fowler, Fresno County, CA – Project Hydrogeologist September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council Timothy Odom, PLS, Licensed Surveyor
Project Surveyor

REGISTRATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS
• Professional Land Surveyor, California #8468
• FAA Part 107 Remote Pilot Certificate #4384797

EDUCATION
• B.S. Geomatics Engineering, California State University, Fresno Timothy Odom has more than 21 years of professional surveying experience. His background includes geodetic and conventional control surveys, topographic and boundary surveys, ALTA/NSPS surveys, legal descriptions, subdivision mapping, construction staking, GPS surveying, UAV surveys, and remote sensing. Tim also serves as acting County/City Surveyor for several Central Valley public agencies.
• Wellhead TCP Treatment – City of Tulare, Tulare County, CA – Project Surveyor • Water System Consolidation – City of Hanford, Kings County, CA – Project Surveyor • O Street Improvements – City of Tulare, Tulare County, CA – Project Surveyor Amy Wilson, Senior Planner
Technical Lead – California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)/National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

EDUCATION
• B.A. Business Management, Fresno Pacific University, California Amy Wilson has more than 16 years of professional planning and environmental experience. She specializes in CEQA and NEPA documentation, environmental compliance and permitting, entitlement processing, and air quality analysis.

Her experience includes preparing environmental documents for municipal water infrastructure, groundwater projects, treatment facilities, and other public improvements throughout the Central Valley. • Exeter Emergency Water Supply Project – City of Exeter, Tulare County, CA – CEQA/NEPA • Critical Impacts Analysis for Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project – County of Tulare, Tulare County, CA – Project Manager
• Environmental Documentation for Well No. 5 Arsenic Treatment Facilities – Riverdale Public Utility District, Fresno County, CA – Assistant Planner
Andrew D’Olier, PE, PMP, LEED GA, Senior Engineer
Technical Lead – Site Civil

REGISTRATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS
• Civil Engineer, California #93821
• Project Management Professional #3427026
• LEED Green Associate

EDUCATION
• B.S. Civil Engineering, California State University, Fresno Andrew D’Olier has more than 11 years of experience and has been involved in municipal site development projects across multiple states. His specialties include site grading design, municipal water system, stormwater management with a focus in Low Impact Development implementation, commercial and residential land development, and recreational facility development.

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council • Yettem & Seville Water System Improvement Phase 2 – Yettem-Seville CSD, Tulare County, CA – Project Manager • Historic Water Tower Site Upgrades – City of Fresno, Fresno County, CA – Project Engineer • Master Planning for Department of Public Utilities – City of Fresno, Fresno County, CA – Design Engineer Jim Hansen, PE, SE, Principal Structural Engineer
Technical Lead – Structural

REGISTRATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS
• Civil Engineer, California #40744
• Structural Engineer, California #3251

EDUCATION
• B.S. Architectural Engineering, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Jim Hansen has more than 43 years of professional structural engineering experience. His water infrastructure expertise includes reinforced-concrete structures, pipeline and turnout facilities, hydraulic control structures, pump station support structures, and other water conveyance facilities. He brings extensive experience in value engineering, constructability review, structural design, and preparation of construction documents. • System Improvements for Distribution Efficiency – South San Joaquin Irrigation District, San Joaquin County, CA – Structural Reviewer
• Frick Unit In-Line Pipeline – Arvin-Edison Water Storage District, Kern County, CA – Structural Engineer • Big Dry Creek at Enterprise Canal Improvements – Fresno Irrigation District, Fresno County, CA – Structural Reviewer
Kevin Pezzoni, EE, Principal Electrical Engineer
Technical Lead – Instrumentation and Controls

REGISTRATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS
• Electrical Engineer, California #16269

EDUCATION
• B.S. Aeronautical Engineering, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Kevin Pezzoni has more than 27 years of electrical engineering experience with particular expertise in critical infrastructure, pumping systems, well facilities, SCADA systems, and instrumentation and controls. His work includes power distribution, variable frequency drives, backup power, telemetry, process controls, and coordination of electrical systems with civil and mechanical infrastructure.
• Well No. 9 – City of Fowler, Fresno County, CA – Electrical Engineer • Citywide Chlorination – City of Turlock, Stanislaus County, CA – Electrical Engineer • CBK-25 PFAS Removal – City of Bakersfield, Kern County, CA – Electrical Engineer September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council Steve Eastham, PE, Principal Electrical Engineer
Technical Lead – Electrical Engineering

REGISTRATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS
• Registered Professional Engineer, California #E-18786 • Registered Professional Engineer, Idaho #18682
• Illuminating Engineering Society of North America
• National Fire Protection Association

EDUCATION
• B.S. Electrical Engineering, University of the Pacific, Stockton, California Steve Eastham has extensive electrical engineering experience spanning industrial, municipal, institutional, and commercial facilities. His background includes electrical design, bidding, procurement, construction, and management of capital improvement projects. He has designed systems for public infrastructure, lift stations, healthcare facilities, schools, parks, airports, industrial facilities, and other complex projects and is well versed in applicable electrical codes and jurisdictional requirements.
• Well 4A – Pixley, Tulare County, CA – Electrical Engineer of Record • Zumwalt Park – City of Tulare, Tulare County, CA – Electrical Engineer of Record • Roundabout at Mulberry & Naranjo Boulevard – City of Woodlake, Tulare County, CA – Electrical Engineer of Record
Carrie L. Rodriguez, PE, GE, Principal/Geotechnical Group Manager Technical Lead – Geotechnical Engineering

REGISTRATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS
• Geotechnical Engineer, California #3016
• Civil Engineer, California #62240

EDUCATION
• M.S. Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley • B.S. Civil Engineering, University of Washington
Carrie Rodriguez has more than 25 years of geotechnical engineering and materials testing experience. Her work includes geotechnical investigations for pipelines, water and wastewater facilities, transportation infrastructure, and public improvements. She manages project scoping, site reconnaissance, subsurface investigations, soil classification and sampling, engineering analyses, report preparation, construction testing, and special inspections. • Exeter Emergency Water Supply Project – City of Exeter, Tulare County, CA – Geotechnical Engineering • Wells 28 and 29 – City of Manteca, San Joaquin County, CA – Geotechnical Senior Reviewer • Wineberry/Canterbury Waterline Replacement – Dublin San Ramon Services District, Alameda County, CA – Lead Geotechnical Engineer/Project Manager
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council Clovis • Visalia • Bakersfield • Modesto • Los Banos • Chico • Sacramento • Sonora • San Luis Obispo • Riverside • Camarillo • Idaho www.provostandpritchard.com • [email protected]
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council Agenda Item Staff Report
Meeting Date:

September 8, 2026
Wording for Agenda:

Approval of a Request for the Exeter Memorial District to Display a Banner Honoring Sergeant Adolph P. Aguirre to be Across Pine Street.

Submitting Department:

Administration
Contact Name:

Jason Ridenour, City Administrator
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the request on behalf of the Exeter Memorial District to display a commemorative banner honoring World War II Seargent Adolph P. Aguirre across Pine Street, west of F Street, in accordance with the City’s Banner Policy.

On December 9, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution 2025-44 approving a policy on the exhibition of federal, state, and City flags, and banners from City buildings and facilities.

Chapter 69.07K of the Zoning Ordinance requires that any sign located or displayed on or over public property receive City Council approval.

The Exeter Memorial District has submitted a request to display a commemorative banner across Pine Street, west of F Street, honoring Sergeant Adolph P. Aguirre, an Exeter native and World War II servicemember whose remains were recently identified and are returning home more than 80 years after his death.

Sergeant Aguirre was raised in the Exeter area and graduated from Exeter Union High School in 1941. He later entered military service and served with the United States Army Air Forces during World War II. On August 16, 1943, Sergeant Aguirre was serving aboard a B-24D Liberator during a bombing mission over Italy when the aircraft failed to return from the mission.

For action by:
☒City Council
Regular Session:
☒Consent Calendar
☐Regular Item
☐Public Hearing
Review:

City Administrator
(Initials Required)
_J.R.___
Agenda Item Number: I.10.

Department Recommendation:

Summary & Background:

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council After more than eight decades, Sergeant Aguirre's remains were identified, and he will return home to Exeter on September 11, 2026. He will be laid to rest at the Exeter District Cemetery on September 18, 2026.

In recognition of Sergeant Aguirre's service, sacrifice, and connection to the Exeter community, the Exeter Memorial District is requesting authorization to display a commemorative banner across Pine Street. The banner would be installed and displayed in accordance with the City's adopted Banner Policy and applicable installation and safety requirements.

There is minimal staff time associated with hanging the banner across Pine Street. No other significant fiscal impact is anticipated.

On December 9, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution 2025-44 approving a policy on the exhibition of federal, state, and City flags, and banners from City buildings and facilities. • Submitted Banner Application
I move to approve the request on behalf of the Exeter Memorial District to display a commemorative banner honoring World War II Seargent Adolph P. Aguirre across Pine Street, west of F Street, in accordance with the City’s banner policy.

Fiscal Impact:

Prior City Council Actions:

Attachments:

Recommended motion to be made by the City Council:

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council 9/3/26
Francesca Nevarez
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council Agenda Item Staff Report
Meeting Date:

September 8, 2026
Wording for Agenda:

Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution No. 2026-39, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Exeter, Approving Amendments to the City of Exeter Master Rate and Fee
Schedule for Fiscal Year 2026/2027.

Submitting Department:

Finance
Contact Name:

Janie Rodriguez, Finance Director
Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing and adopt Resolution 2026-39, approving amendments to the City of Exeter Master Rate and Fee Schedule.

The City Council approved the Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Rate and Fee Schedule on July 28, 2026.

Following adoption, staff identified items requiring updates to ensure the schedule accurately reflects previously approved fees and applicable rates. This item proposes amendments to the animal services and refuse sections of the schedule. If approved, the amendments will become effective September 9, 2026.

As a governmental entity, the City of Exeter provides a variety of essential and limited discretionary services. Fees charged for services are an important part of the City’s revenue stream to be able to continue with providing the services.

The City Council approved Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Rate and Fee Schedule on July 28, 2026.

Subsequent review of the adopted schedule identified items requiring updates. Staff also determined that animal control-related fees approved by the City Council on February 24, 2026, were not included at the previously approved amounts in the Rate and Fee Schedule presented to the City Council on July 28, 2026.

For action by:
☒City Council
Regular Session:
☐Consent Calendar
☐Regular Item
☒Public Hearing
Review:

City Administrator
(Initials Required)
_J.R.

Agenda Item Number: J.1.

Department Recommendation:

Summary:

Background:

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council

The proposed amendments are intended to ensure that the current Master Rate and Fee Schedule accurately reflect fees previously approved by the City Council and the applicable multiunit refuse rates based on the approved per-unit rate.

The proposed amendments include the following:

Animal Control-Related Fees (Previously approved)
• Dog License (altered): $19 per license
• Dog License (unaltered): $90 per license
These fees were previously approved by the City Council on February 24, 2026, consistent with the City’s contract with the City of Visalia for animal control services. The amounts included in the Rate and Fee Schedule approved on July 28, 2026, did not reflect the previously approved fees. The amendment updates the fees to the previously approved amounts and incorporates those amounts into the City’s Master Rate and Fee Schedule.

The remaining animal control-related fees, including other services charged by the City of Visalia, are not being amended and will remain the same as previously approved.

Multi-Unit Refuse Rates (Updated)
• 2 units: $61.26
• 3 units: $91.89
• 4 units: $122.52
The multi-unit refuse rates are being updated to accurately reflect the approved $30.63 per-unit rate. The rates for properties with multiple units are calculated based on the rate per unit.

Fees and rates not specifically identified for amendment through this item will remain as previously approved by the City Council.

The proposed amendments will update the Rate and Fee Schedule to reflect the previously approved animal control-related fees and update the multi-unit refuse rates. The amended fee schedule is intended to improve cost recovery for animal control and refuse services.

No General Fund appropriation is required as part of this action. Revenues will depend on service usage and enforcement activity.
• On February 24, 2026, the City Council approved animal control-related fees consistent with Ordinance No. 717.

Fiscal Impact:

Prior City Council Actions:

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council • On July 28, 2026, the City Council approved the Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Rate and Fee Schedule.
• Proposed Amendments to the City of Exeter Master Rate and Fee Schedule • Resolution 2026-39
I move to adopt Resolution No. 2026-39, approving amendments to the City of Exeter Master Rate and Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2026/2027.

Attachments:

Recommended motion to be made by the City Council:

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council Adopted Fee
July 28, 2026 Amended Fee

RECREATION AND COMMUNITY
Animal Services
each $ 11.00 $ 19.00
each $ 30.00 $ 90.00

UTILITIES
$ 59.96 $ 61.26
$ 89.94 $ 91.89
$ 119.92 $ 122.52
Animal license fees were previously approved by the City Council on February 24, 2026, and are being incorporated into the City's Master Rate and Fee Schedule at the previously approved amounts. The remaining animal control-related fees, including other services charged by the City of Visalia, are not being amended and will remain the same as previously approved.

Dog License (altered)
Dog License (unaltered)
Fee Description
2 units
3 units
4 units

CITY OF EXETER
Multi-Unit Refuse Rates
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council RESOLUTION NO. 2026-39

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EXETER, AMENDING

THE CITY OF EXETER RATE AND FEE SCHEDULE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026/2027
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2026-32 on July 28, 2026, approving the City of Exeter Rate and Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2026/2027; and WHEREAS, the City Council previously approved animal control-related fees on February 24, 2026, pursuant to Resolution No. 2026-05, and those fees are being incorporated into the City’s Rate and Fee Schedule at the previously approved amounts; and
WHEREAS, the multi-unit refuse rates are being updated to reflect the approved $30.63 per-unit rate; and
WHEREAS, City Council has duly held a public hearing on September 8, 2026, regarding the proposed amendments to the Rate and Fee Schedule.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Exeter hereby amends the Rate and Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2026/2027 as follows:

Animal Services
• Dog License (altered): $19.00
• Dog License (unaltered): $90.00
Multi-Unit Refuse Rates
• 2 units: $61.26
• 3 units: $91.89
• 4 units: $122.52
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the animal control-related fees and amended multi-unit refuse rates identified in this Resolution are incorporated into the City’s Rate and Fee Schedule and shall become effective September 9, 2026.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all other fees and rates adopted by Resolution No. 2026-05 and 2026-32 and not specifically amended by this Resolution shall remain unchanged and in effect.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Exeter this 8th day of September, 2026 by the following vote:

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

____________________ _
Jacob Johnson, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Francesca Nevarez, City Clerk
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council Agenda Item Staff Report
Meeting Date:

September 8, 2026
Wording for Agenda:

Consideration of Geographic Residency Requirements for
Planning Commission Membership and Direction Regarding
Amendment of Chapter 2.16 of the Exeter Municipal Code.

Submitting Department:

Administration
Contact Name:

Jason Ridenour, City Administrator
Staff recommends that the City Council review the geographic boundary options presented for Planning Commission appointment, select a preferred residency boundary, and direct staff to return with an ordinance amending Chapter 2.16 of the Exeter Municipal Code to establish the selected residency requirement.

On August 25, 2026, the City Council considered the upcoming January 2027 term expirations for two members of the Exeter Planning Commission and discussed the process for filling those terms. The terms currently held by Commissioners Dave Hails and Phillip Townsend expire in January 2027.

During that discussion, the City Council expressed support for utilizing an application process to fill the upcoming terms but directed staff to first return with options for establishing a geographic residency requirement for Planning Commission membership.

Currently, Chapter 2.16 of the Exeter Municipal Code provides that the Planning Commission consists of five members appointed by the Mayor with the approval of the City Council and provides that members may not be sitting members of the City Council. The Municipal Code does not expressly require Planning Commissioners to reside within the Exeter City limits or within another specified geographic area.

For action by:
☒City Council
Regular Session:
☐Consent Calendar
☒Regular Item
☐Public Hearing
Review:

City Administrator
(Initials Required)
__J.R.___
Agenda Item Number: J.2.

Department Recommendation:

Background & Summary:

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council Because the existing Municipal Code establishes the composition of the Planning Commission without an explicit residency requirement, establishing a geographic eligibility requirement would require an amendment to Chapter 2.16 by ordinance.

To assist the City Council in determining the appropriate geographic boundary, staff has included maps illustrating potential options:
• Option 1 – Exeter City Limits: Require Planning Commissioners to reside within the incorporated boundaries of the City of Exeter.
• Option 2 – City of Exeter Urban Development Boundary: Require commissioners to reside within the City of Exeter or within the City’s adopted Urban Development Boundary, which identifies territory for Exeter’s potential future growth and municipal services.
• Option 3 – Other Boundary as Directed by the City Council. Establish an alternative geographic residency boundary as directed by the City Council.

The City limits map depicts the existing incorporated boundary. The Urban Development Boundary map includes the City’s planning area for future annexations.

The Urban Development Boundary option would allow individuals who live outside the incorporated City but within territory identified for Exeter's potential future growth and municipal service area to be eligible for appointment.

Staff reviewed the residency status of the current members of the Planning Commission. The establishment of a City limit or Sphere of Influence residency requirement would make one current member, Kirk Gilles, ineligible for appointment. Commissioner Gilles’ term is scheduled to conclude in January 2029.

Following Council direction of a preferred boundary, staff will finalize a draft ordinance amending Chapter 2.16 of the Exeter Municipal Code and schedule a Public Hearing for City Council consideration.

Fiscal Impact:

There is no significant fiscal impact associated with selecting a geographic eligibility boundary or amending the Municipal Code. Minor costs associated with publication and codification of the ordinance will be absorbed within the adopted budget. • Exeter City Limits and Urban Development Boundary Map • Draft Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.16 – Planning Commission Membership Requirements
Attachments:

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council I move to select __________________ as the geographic residency boundary for eligibility to serve on the Exeter Planning Commission and direct staff to revise the ordinance amending Chapter 2.16 of the Exeter Municipal Code to establish the selected residency requirement and provide direction on the Planning Commissioner currently residing outside of the boundary selected.

Recommended motion to be made by the City Council:

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council

MARY CT WILLOW ST

CAROLYN CT W BETTY ST W VISALIA RD

ELBERTA RD

PATRICIA AVE BEVERLY PL BEVERLY PL WILLOW ST

JOYCE PL

JANET DR

JACOB PL BETSY PL

WILLOW AVE W WILLOW ST W WILLOW ST

W WILLOW ST

W WALNUT ST

WOODS PL WOODS AVE JESSE DR BENJAMIN CT CARISSA CT N BELMONT RD

RICHMOND CT DANAE CT GLENN VIEW CT

KATHLEEN CT

LETA MAE CT

JOY CT W BRADLEY CT GLENN VIEW DR CARISSA ST N FRANCIS ST LONE OAK CT ROLLING HILLS ST SUNNYVIEW CT ROLLING HILLS CT FISHER ST

MEADOW AVE

WOODLAND AVE

VISTA CT

MEADOW CT

VINE ST VINE ST

KELSEY CTHANNAH AVE

N ORANGE AVE N QUINCE AVE

W VISALIA RD W VISALIA RD N ORANGE AVE N QUINCE AVE N FILBERT RD N FILBERT RD N FILBERT RD N ALBERT AVE

W CHESTNUT ST W CHESTNUT ST W CHESTNUT ST

W CHESTNUT ST N BELMONT RD S BELMONT RD S BELMONT RD S FRANCIS AVE S FRANCIS AVE S FRANCIS AVE KATELYN CT WALDO AVE S WALDO AVE ALBERT AVE WALDO AVE ALBERT AVE

FAIRWAY DR

WESTWOOD DR

W PINE ST RUTH ST

W MAPLE ST W MAPLE ST W MAPLE ST E MAPLE ST

E PINE ST W PINE ST

W PINE ST

W PALM ST

PALM ST E PALM ST

W FIREBAUGH AVE W FIREBAUGH AVE
E FIREBAUGH AVE AVENUE 276 AVENUE 276

POWELL AVE POWELL AVE POWELL AVE S QUAIL CT PHEASANT CT

DOVE CT

PARTRIDGE CT

OLIVEWOOD DR

DAVIS AVE

SHEFFIELD AVE

SAINT JAMES CT SHERWOOD ST ST THOMAS CT OXFORD ST

PARK PLACE CT

PARK PLACE DR PARK PLACE DR

W GLAZE AVE

STANLEY ST

VILLAGE ST VILLAGE CT

SELF CT

NELSON ST COSART CT MILLER AVE GLENN AVE ORANGE AVE ORANGE AVEDAVIS ST DAVIS ST

BIRDSONG CT

MOORE CIR

GEAREY AVE

W PROSPECT AVE

CRANE AVE JOYNER AVE CITRUS AVE S ORANGE AVE S QUINCE AVE S FILBERT ST GEAREY AVE

PROSPECT AVE BLOSSOM ST S ORANGE AVE S QUINCE AVE S FILBERT RD S FILBERT RD I ST I ST

S H ST N H ST INDUSTRIAL DR

VISALIA RD S G ST

W CEDAR ST W CEDAR ST E CEDAR ST E CEDAR ST
E PROSPECT CT E PROSPECT AVE LENOX AVE MOUNTAIN VIEW CT FIRST ST CA-65 CA-65 CHANNING WAY CHANNING WAY BRYANT CT

BRYANT CT

BRYANT CT BRYANT ST

WHITTIER CT WHITTIER CT WHITTIER CT

WHITTIER ST LENOX AVE LENOX AVE FIRST ST S CRESPI AVE N CRESPI AVE SECOND ST SECOND ST THIRD ST THIRD ST FIRST ST

E CHESTNUT ST

ROCKY HILL DR

SAN JUAN AVE

BUENA VISTA AVE

E PALM DR

SEQUOIA DR

SEQUOIA CT PORTOLA AVE DOLORES AVE SIERRA DR SYCAMORE DR VALENCIA DR

S F ST S F ST N F ST

E ST S E ST N E ST

S D ST S D ST N D ST

N C ST S C ST S C ST

N B ST B ST
ASH ST

E CLARENCE ST CLARENCE ST

E CHESTNUT ST

E WALNUT ST

E WILLOW ST S KAWEAH AVE CAMBRIDGE ST MONARCH CIR

PEACH DR

PLUM DR

SEQUOIA DR

KING CT KING ST

W SEQUOIA CT N B ST EMPEROR ST N D ST ACRES DR

E WINDSOR CT

HAMPTON CT

ATWOOD AVE ATWOOD AVE ATWOOD CT ATWOOD AVE

OLD LINE CT OLD LINE AVE ORCHARD ST

WINDSOR ST

HAMPTON ST CASTLE AVE
AVENUE 264 ROAD 184

W MEYER AVE
Railroad (SJVR)
Parcels
City Limits
Urban Development Boundary
City Hall
Legend
0 0.25 0.5 1
Miles
Scale: 1 inch = 0.5 Miles
Tulare County
SJVR
Myer Ave
Spruce Rd
Firebaugh Ave
Tooleville
Rocky Hill Dr
Marinette Ave
SJVR
Visalia RdCornucopia Rd
Belmont Rd
Filbert St
Kaweah Ave
SJVR
Friant-Kern Canal
SJVR
65 65
City of Exeter - Urban Development Boundary
Data maintained by: Tulare County LAFCO (2022), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) (2020), Vantor (2026)
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 State Plane California IV FIPS 0404 (US Feet) Prepared by:

September 3, 2026
City of Exeter
65 99
Porterville
Tulare
For Reference and Display Only
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council ORDINANCE NO. 722
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EXETER AMENDING SECTION 2.16.010 OF CHAPTER 2.16 OF THE EXETER MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PLANNING COMMISSION

MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS
WHEREAS, Chapter 2.16 of the Exeter Municipal Code establishes the City of Exeter Planning Commission and provides for the appointment of five members by the Mayor with the approval of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission serves an important role in reviewing land use, development, subdivision, zoning, and planning matters affecting the City of Exeter and surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, the Exeter Municipal Code currently does not establish a geographic residency requirement for individuals appointed to serve on the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on August 25, 2026, the City Council considered the upcoming expiration of two Planning Commission terms and directed staff to return with options for establishing a geographic residency requirement prior to soliciting applications for those terms; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to establish a geographic residency requirement to ensure that members of the Planning Commission have an appropriate connection to the Exeter community and the areas affected by the City's planning and land use decisions.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EXETER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Amendment of Exeter Municipal Code Section 2.16.010.

Section 2.16.010 of Chapter 2.16 of the Exeter Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

2.16.010 Members—Appointment—and Qualifications
A. The planning commission shall consist of five members, all of whom shall be appointed by the mayor with the approval of the city council. All of the members shall be entitled to vote at meetings of the planning commission.

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council B. No person who is a city councilman shall be appointed as a member of the planning commission.

C. All members of the planning commission shall, at the time of appointment and throughout their term of office, reside within [ ]. A member who ceases to reside within the required geographic area shall no longer be eligible to serve as a member of the planning commission.

SECTION 2. CEQA.

The City Council finds that adoption of this Ordinance is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 because the Ordinance constitutes an organizational or administrative activity of government that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

SECTION 3. Severability.

If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.

SECTION 4. Effective Date.

This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days following its adoption.

SECTION 5. Publication.

The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance or a summary thereof to be published in accordance with applicable law.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Exeter this [ ], 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council ________________________________
Jacob Johnson, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Francesca Nevarez, City Clerk
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council Agenda Item Staff Report
Meeting Date:

September 8, 2026
Wording for Agenda:

Consider Adoption of Resolution No. 2026-40, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Exeter, Approving the Updated City of Exeter Statement of Investment Policy and Resolution No. 2026-41, Delegating Investment Authority to the Treasurer.

Submitting Department:

Finance
Contact Name:

Janie Rodriguez, Finance Director
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2026-40, approving the updated City of Exeter Statement of Investment Policy as presented, and Resolution No. 2026-41, delegating authority to invest City funds to the Finance Director/Treasurer.

The City of Exeter’s Investment Policy establishes the City’s objectives and guidelines for the investment of public funds in a manner which will provide the greatest security with the maximum investment return while maintaining adequate liquidity and conforming to all state and local statutes governing the investment of public funds.

The updated Statement of Investment Policy is presented for City Council approval, along with the delegation of investment authority to the Finance Director/Treasurer for a one-year period in accordance with California Government Code Section 53607.

The City maintains an Investment Policy to establish guidelines for the prudent investment and management of public funds in accordance with California law and the City's financial objectives.

For action by:
☒City Council
Regular Session:
☐Consent Calendar
☒Regular Item
☐Public Hearing
Review:

City Administrator
(Initials Required)
__J.R.___
Agenda Item Number: J.3.

Department Recommendation:

Summary:

Background:

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council The City's Investment Policy was last considered and adopted by the City Council on August 9, 2022. Since that time, changes in applicable law, investment practices, terminology, and the City's investment program have made it appropriate to update the policy.

Staff conducted a review of the existing policy and prepared the proposed 2026 Investment Policy to update statutory references and clarify provisions governing investment management, authorized investments, safekeeping, internal controls, and investment reporting. The updated policy also reaffirms the Finance Director/City Treasurer’s fiduciary responsibility to safeguard public assets and continues to prioritize the safety of principal, followed by maintaining adequate liquidity to meet the City’s obligations, and then investment return.

The Investment Policy may be reviewed periodically to ensure its continued consistency with the City's overall investment objectives and conformity with all state and local statutes governing the investment of public funds. Any amendments to the Investment Policy are to be presented to the City Council for consideration at a public meeting. A redline version identifying the proposed changes is attached for the City Council's review.

According to California Government Code Section 53607, the authority to invest City funds of a local agency may be delegated for a one-year period or until the delegation of authority is revoked. Staff recommends assigning the Finance Director/Treasurer with the City’s investment responsibility.

There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.
• August 9, 2022, City Council adopted the updated Investment Policy. • Investment Policy – Redline Copy
• Investment Policy – Clean Copy
• Draft Resolution No. 2026-40
• Draft Resolution No. 2026-41
I move to adopt Resolution No. 2026-40, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Exeter approving the updated Statement of Investment Policy and Resolution No. 2026-41, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Exeter delegating investment authority to the Treasurer.

Fiscal Impact:

Prior City Council Actions:

Attachments:

Recommended motion to be made by the City Council:

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council

THE CITY OF EXETER, CALIFORNIA

STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY

Updated as of August September 98, 20226
I. INTRODUCTION
The following investment policy addresses the methods, procedures and practices, which must be exercised to ensure effective and judicious fiscal and investment management of the City's funds. It is the policy of the City to invest public funds in a manner that will provide a maximum market rate of return, given its requirements for preserving principal and meeting the daily cash flow demands of the City. All investments will comply with this Investment Policy and governing laws.

Adhering to California Government Code Section 53646(a)(2) and the City’s Financial Policy, the Investment Policy will be submitted to the City Council for review annually.

II. SCOPE
This Investment Policy applies to all of the City’s financial assets and investment activities with the following exceptions:

A. Proceeds of debt issuance shall be invested in accordance with the City's general investment philosophy as set forth in this policy; however, such proceeds have been or will be invested in accordance with permitted investment provisions of their specific bond indentures.

III. GENERAL OBJECTIVES
The overriding objectives of the City’s investment program are to preserve principal, provide sufficient liquidity, and manage investment risks.

Formatted: Left: 1", Right: 1", Top: 1", Bottom: 1",
Header distance from edge: 0.63", Footer distance from
edge: 0.27", Different first page header
Formatted: Right: 0"
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council

1. Safety: Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the investment program. Investments will be undertaken in a manner that seeks to ensure the preservation of capital in the overall portfolio. The objective will be to mitigate credit risk and interest rate risk. To attain this objective, the City will diversify its investments by investing funds among independent financial institutions offering a variety of securities with independent returns.

2. Liquidity: The investment portfolio will remain sufficiently liquid to meet all operating requirements that may be reasonably anticipated.

3. Rate of Return: The investment portfolio will be designed with the objective of attaining a market rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, taking into account the investment risk constraints for safety and liquidity needs.

IV. PRUDENCE, INDEMNIFICATION AND ETHICS
A. Prudent Investor Standard: Management of the City's investments is governed by the Prudent Investor Standard as set forth in the California Government Code 53600.3:
" ... all governing bodies of local agencies or persons authorized to make investment decisions on behalf of those local agencies investing public funds pursuant to this chapter are trustees and therefore fiduciaries subject to the prudent investor standard. When investing, reinvesting, purchasing, acquiring, exchanging, selling, or managing public funds, a trustee shall act with care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing, including, but not limited to , the general economic conditions and the anticipated needs of the aAgency, that a September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiarity with those matters would use in the conduct of funds of a like character and with like aims, to safeguard the principal and maintain the liquidity needs of the aAgency. Within the limitations of this section and considering individual investments as part of an overall strategy, investments may be acquired as authorized by law."
B. Indemnification: The City Administrator, Treasurer, and other authorized persons responsible for managing City funds, acting in accordance with written procedures and the investment policy and exercising due diligence, will be relieved of personal responsibility for an individual security's credit risk or market price changes, provided deviations from expectations are reported in a timely fashion and appropriate action is taken to control adverse developments.

C. Ethics: Officers and employees involved in the investment process will refrain from personal business activity that could conflict with proper execution of the investment program, or which could impair their ability to make impartial investment decisions.

V. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY
A. Authority to manage the City's investment program is derived from California Government Code Sections 53600 et seq. It is recommended that the Treasurer render to the City Council an investment policy annually. The City Administrator is responsible for the investment of City funds and the administration of this Investment Policy. Management responsibility for the cash management and investing of City funds is hereby designated to the Treasurer. The City Administrator has overall administrative responsibility for this September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council Investment Policy. Investment decision-making and transaction authority for City funds is vested in the Treasurer, as delegated by the City Council pursuant to a separate resolution adopted under Government Code Section 53607, which delegation is subject to annual renewal by the City Council.

The Treasurer will be responsible for all transactions undertaken and will establish a system of procedures and controls to regulate the activities of subordinate employees. Under the provision of California Government Code Section 53600.3, the Treasurer, when authorized to make investment decisions on behalf of the City, shall act as a trustee and fiduciary subject to the prudent investor standard. The Treasurer will review the City’s investment holdings monthly to monitor compliance with the City investment policy.

B. The City may engage the services of one or more external investment managers to assist in the management of the City's investment portfolio in a manner consistent with the City's objectives. Such external managers may be granted discretion to purchase and sell investment securities in accordance with this Investment Policy. Such managers must be registered under, or otherwise exempt from registration under, the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. § 80b-1 et seq.).under the Investment Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. Sec. 80a-1, et seq.).

VI. AUTHORIZED FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, DEPOSITORIES, AND

BROKER/DEALERS
A list will be maintained of financial institutions and depositories authorized to provide investment services. In addition, a list will be maintained of approved securityies dealers selected by creditworthiness and/or other factors, including information obtained through such as FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Formatted: Font: (Default) Calibri
Formatted: Font: Italic
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council AgencyAuthority) brokerBrokerCheck check.

A. The Treasurer will determine which financial institutions are authorized to provide investment services to the City..

B. Selection of financial institutions and broker/dealers authorized to engage inm transactions with the City will be at the sole discretion of the City Administrator.

C. All financial institutions which desire to become qualified bidders for investment transactions (and which are not dealing with the investment advisoer) must supply the Treasurer with an audited financial statement for the prior three years, proof of National Association of Security Dealers certification, proof of State of California registrationevidence of current registration with regulatory authorities,, and a signed statement certifying that the institution has reviewed the California Government Code Section 53600 et seq. and the City's Investment Policy.

Broker/dealers must provide evidence of current registration with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and will meet all requirements established by federal and state law.

D. Public deposits will be made only in qualified public depositories as established by State law. Deposits will be insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), or, to the extent the amount exceeds the insured maximum, will be collateralized in accordance with State law.

VII. SAFEKEEPING AND CUSTODY
A. Delivery-versus-payment: Settlement of all investment transactions will be completed using standard delivery-vs.-payment (DVP) procedures whenever practicable. Under DVP procedures, payments for securities will occur upon Commented [JR1]:

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council delivery of the securities to the City’s designated custodian or safekeeping institution. .

B. Third-Party Safekeeping: To protect against potential losses by collapse of individual securities dealers, and to enhance access to securities, interest payments and maturity proceeds, all securities owned by the City will be held in safekeeping by a third-party bank custodian, acting as agent for the City under the terms of a custody agreement executed by the bank and the City.

Investments held through authorized investment pools, including the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), or other authorized pooled investment programs, are not subject to delivery or thirdparty safekeeping requirements and will be maintained in accordance with the requirements and procedures of the respective investment program.

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council EXHIBIT A Formatted: Right
VIII. AUTHORIZED AND SUITABLE INVESTMENTS
All investments will be made in accordance with Sections 53600 et seq. of the Government Code of California Government Code and as described within this Investment Policy. The summary (including the additional investment vehicles) of the permitted investment options and the applicable statues statutory requirements is found in the Appendix II, -Allowable Investment Instruments per Under California State Government Code, as Pr provided by the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission (CDIAC). The pPermitted investments under this policy will include: Appendix II, Allowable Investment Instruments Under California State Government Code, as provided by the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission (CDIAC), is included for general reference regarding the full range of investments California law permits local agencies to hold; it is not an independent grant of investment authority. The investments authorized for City investment under this policy consist exclusively of the following, as further restricted by Section IX:

1. Municipal Bonds. These include bonds of the City, the state of California, any other state, and any local aAgency within the state of California. The bonds will be registered in the name of the City or held under a custodial agreement at a bank. The bonds shall be rated at the time of purchase within the 4 highest general classifications established by a rating service of nationally recognized expertise in rating bonds of states and their political subdivisions. There are no limits on the dollar amount or percentage that the City may invest in Municipal Bonds.

2. U.S. Treasury and other government obligations for which the full faith and credit of the United States are pledged for the payment of principal and Formatted: Left: 1", Right: 1", Top: 1", Bottom: 1",
Height: 10.97", Header distance from edge: 0.63",
Footer distance from edge: 0.27", Different first page
header
Formatted: Normal, Justified, Space Before: 0 pt
Formatted: Font: Italic
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council interest. There are no limits on the dollar amount or percentage that the City may invest in U.S. Treasuries.

3. Federal Agency or United States government-sponsored enterprise obligations, participations, or other instruments, including those issued by or fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by federal agencies or United States government-sponsored enterprises. There are no limits on the dollar amount or percentage that the City may invest in government-sponsored enterprises.

4. Banker's’ acceptances provided that:
a. They are issued by institutions with short term debt obligations rated " A1" or higher, or the equivalent, by at least two nationally recognized statistical- rating organizations (NRSRO); and have long-term debt obligations which are rated "A" or higher by at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization;
b. The maturity does not exceed 180 days; and,
c. No more than 40% of the total portfolio may be invested in bankers’’s acceptances, no more than 30% in any one bank, and no more than 5% per issuer.

5. Federally insured time deposits (Non-negotiable certificates of deposit) in state or federally chartered banks, savings and loans, or credit unions, provided that:
a. The amount per institution is limited to the maximum covered under federal insurance.

6. Time deposits (Non-negotiable certificates of deposit) in state or Formatted: Font: Not Bold
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council federally chartered banks, savings and loans, or credit unions in excess of insured amounts which are fully collateralized with securities in accordance with California law, provided that:
a. They are issued by institutions which that have long-term debt obligations which are rated "AA" or higher by at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization; and/or have short term obligations rated "Al1" or higher, or the equivalent, by at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization;

7. Certificate of Deposit Placement Services (CDARS)
a. The City may invest funds through certificate of deposit placement services, provided that such The amount is limited to the maximum covered under federal insurance.investments will comply with statutory limits and requirements, including the maximum percentage permitted by California law.

8. Negotiable certificates of deposit (NCDs) provided that:
a. They are issued by institutions which that have long-term obligations which are rated "AA" or higher by at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization; and/or have short- term debt obligations rated "A1l" or higher, or the equivalent, by at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization;
b. No more than 30% of the total portfolio may be invested in NCDs and no more than 5% per issuer.

Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council

9. Repurchase agreements collateralized with securities authorized under Sections VIII, itemsI and VII( 2 and 3), of this policy, with collateral maintained at a level of at least 102% of the market value of the repurchase agreements, provided that:
a. The maximum maturity of repurchase agreements will be 1 year; b. There is no limit to the amount to be invested in repurchase agreements; c. Securities used as collateral for repurchase agreements will be delivered to the City's custodian bank (See Section VII. B); and, d. The repurchase agreements are the subject of a master repurchase agreement between the City and the provider of the repurchase agreement. The master repurchase agreement will be substantially in the form developed by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA).
l1 0. State of California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), provided that:
a. The City may invest up to the maximum permitted amount in LAIF; and, b. LAIF's investments in instruments prohibited by or not specified in the City's policy do not exclude it from the City's list of allowable investments, provided that the fund's reports allow the Finance Director/Treasurer to adequately judge the risk inherent in LAIF's portfolio.

Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council

11. Local government investment pools authorized under applicable California law, provided that the pool is consistent with the City’s investment objectives and this Investment Policy. Prior to investing in an investment pool other than LAIF, the Treasurer will conduct appropriate due diligence regarding the pool’s investment objectives, eligible investments, liquidity, safeguarding of assets, reporting practices and fees.

12. Corporate medium termmedium-term notes (MTNs) and - cCorporate bBonds, provided that:
a. Are issued by corporations organized and operating within the United States or by depository institutions licensed by the United States or any state and operating within the United States; b. Are rated "AA" category or its equivalent or better by at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization; and, c. Holdings of medium-term notes may not exceed 30% of the portfolio and no more than 5% per issuer.

13. Mortgage pass-through securities and asset-backed securities, provided that such securities:
a. Arebe issued by an issuer having an "AA" or higher rating for the issuer's debt as provided by at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization;
b. Arebe rated in a rating category of "AA" or its equivalent or better by at least two nationally recognized statistical rating September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council organizations; and.
c. Purchase of securities authorized by this subdivision may not exceed 20% of the portfolio.

14. Money market mutual funds that are registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Investment Company Act of 1940, provided that such funds:
a. Receive the highest ranking or the highest letter and numerical rating provided by not less than two nationally recognized rating services; or
b. Have an investment adviser registered with, or exempt from registration with, the Securities and Exchange Commission that has not less than five years of experience investing in securities and obligations and manages assets in excess of $500 million; andThe securities underlying investments are allowable
investments under this investment policy.
a.
c. Purchase of securities authorized by this subdivision may not exceed 20% of the portfolio.

15. Commercial paper is the trade name applied to unsecured promissory notes issued by finance and industrial companies to raise funds on a short-term basis. Commercial paper can be purchased on an interest bearing or discount basis. The City will invest in commercial paper only if the paper:

Formatted: Font color: Auto, Character scale: 100%
Formatted: Font color: Auto, Character scale: 100%
Formatted: Font: (Default) Calibri, 12 pt
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.85", Hanging: 0.24", Right:

0.72"
Formatted: Font color: Auto, Character scale: 100%
Formatted: Font: Bold
Formatted: Font: Bold
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council a. Attains the highest letter and number rating as provided for by a nationally recognized statistical-rating organization (NRSRO); and b. The maturity does not exceed 397 days; and
b.c.No more than 25% of the total investment portfolio may be invested in commercial paper, and no more than 10% of the City’s total investment assets may be invested in combined commercial paper and medium-term notes of any single issuer.

IX. PORTFOLIO RISK MANAGEMENT
A. Prohibited investment vehicles and practices

1. State law notwithstanding, any investments not specifically described herein are prohibited, including, but not limited to futures and options.

2. In accordance with Government Code Section 53601.6, investment in inverse floaters, range notes, or mortgage derived interest-only strips is prohibited.

3. Investment in any security that could result in a zero- interest accrual if held to maturity is prohibited.

4. Trading securities for the sole purpose of speculating on the future direction of interest rates is prohibited.

5. Purchasing or selling securities on margin is prohibited.

Formatted: Font: (Default) Calibri, 12 pt
Formatted: Font: (Default) Calibri, 12 pt
Formatted: Font: Bold
Formatted: Font: (Default) Calibri, 12 pt
Formatted: Font: (Default) Calibri, 12 pt
Formatted: Font: Bold
Formatted: Font: (Default) Calibri, 12 pt, Bold
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council

6. The use of reverse repurchase agreements, securities lending or any other form of borrowing or leverage is prohibited.

7. The purchase of foreign currency denominated securities is prohibited.

B. Mitigating credit risk in the portfolio
Credit risk is the risk that a security or a portfolio will lose some or all of its value due to a real or perceived change in the ability of the issuer to repay its debt. The City will mitigate credit risk by adopting the following strategies:

1. The diversification requirements included in Section VIII are designed to mitigate credit risk in the portfolio.

2. No more than 5% of the total portfolio may be invested in securities of any single issuer, other than the U.S. Government, its agencies and enterprises.

3. The City may elect to sell a security prior to its maturity and record a capital gain or loss in order to improve the quality, liquidity or yield of the portfolio in response to market conditions or the City ' s risk preferences.

4. If securities owned by the City are downgraded by either Moody's or S&P to a level below the quality required by this Investment Policy, it will be the City's policy to review the credit situation and make a determination as to whether to sell or retain such securities in the portfolio.

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council a. If a security is downgraded, the Treasurer will use discretion in determining whether to sell or hold the security based on its current maturity, the economic outlook for the issuer, and other relevant factors.
b. If a decision is made to retain a downgraded security in the portfolio, its presence in the portfolio will be monitored and reported monthly to the City Administrator.

C. Mitigating market risk in the portfolio
Market risk is the risk that the portfolio value will fluctuate due to changes in the general level of interest rates. The City recognizes that, over time, longer-term portfolios have the potential to achieve higher returns. On the other hand, longer- termlonger-term portfolios have higher volatility of return. The City will mitigate market risk by providing adequate liquidity for short-term cash needs, and by making longer- termlonger-term investments only with funds that are not needed for current cash flow purposes. The City further recognizes that certain types of securities, including variable rate securities, securities with principal paydowns prior to maturity, and securities with embedded options, will affect the market risk profile of the portfolio differently in different interest rate environments. The City, therefore, adopts the following strategies to control and mitigate its exposure to market risk:

1. The City will maintain a minimum of three months of budgeted operating expenditures in short term investments to provide September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council sufficient liquidity for expected disbursements.

2. Unless matched to a specific future cash flow, the maximum stated final maturity of individual securities in the portfolio will be five years, except as otherwise stated in this policy; and,
X. INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES (PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND
EvaluationEVALUATION)
A. Overall objective: The investment portfolio will be designed with the overall objective of obtaining a total rate of return throughout economic cycles, commensurate with investment risk constraints and cash flow needs.

B. Specific objective: The investment performance objective for the portfolio will be to earn a total rate of return over a market cycle which is approximately equal to the return on the Market Benchmark Index as described in the City's investment procedures manual.

XI. PROCEDURES AND INTERNAL CONTROLS
A. Procedures
The Treasurer will establish written investment policy procedures to assist with day-to-day operations of the investment program consistent with this policy. Such Any delegation of authority to any persons assigned to be responsibleresponsibility for investment transactions shall be in accordance with this policy. No person may engage in an investment transaction except as provided under the terms of this policy and the procedures established by the Treasurer.

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council B. Internal Controls
The Treasurer is responsible for establishing and maintaining an internal control structure designed to ensure that the assets of the City are protected from loss, theft or misuse. The internal control structure shall include appropriate procedures and controls for the authorization and execution of investment transactions, separation of duties, safekeeping of securities, accurate recordkeeping, reconciliation of investment and custodial records. The internal control structure will be designed to provide reasonable assurance that these objectives are met. Internal controls will be described in the City's investment policy procedures.

XII. REPORTING, DISCLOSURE AND PROGRAM EVALUATION
A. Periodic reporting
Periodic Pursuant to Government Code Section 53607, the Treasurer will submit a monthly report to the City Council listing the investment transactions (purchases, sales, and maturities) undertaken during the preceding month, including the type, issuer, and amount of each transaction. On a quarterly basis, investment reports will be submitted by the Treasurer to the governing boardCity Administrator, the City’s internal auditor (if any), and the City Council within 45 days following the end of the quarter covered by the report. These reports will dis close, at a minimum, the following information about the risk characteristics of the City's portfolio:

1. A listing of individual securities held at the end of the reporting period by authorized investment category.

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council

2. Average life and final maturity of all investments listed.

3. Coupon, discount, or earnings rate for each investment.

4. Par value, aAmortized bBook vValue, and Mmarket Vvalue.

5. Percentage of the pPortfolio represented by each investment category.

6. A statement of compliance with the investment policy, including a schedule of any transactions or holdings which do not comply with this policy or with the California Government Code, including a justification for their presence in the portfolio and a timetable for resolution; and,

7. A statement that the City has adequate funds to meet its cash flowexpenditure requirements for the next three six months, or an explanation as to why sufficient money may not be available.

B. Annual reportsInvestment Policy Review and Adoption
The Investment Policy shall be reviewed periodically to ensure its consistency with the City’s overall investment objectives of preservation of principal, liquidity, and return, and its relevance to current law and financial and economic trends. Any modifications to the Investment Policy shall be presented to the City Council for consideration and approval at a public meeting.

1. The investment policy will be reviewed annually within 120 days of the end of the fiscal year to ensure its consistency with the overall objectives of preservation of principal, liquidity and return, and its relevance to current law and financial and economic trends.

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.56"
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council

2. An annual report will be presented in conjunction with the investment policy review. This report will include comparisons of the City's return to the Benchmark Index return, suggest policies and improvements that might enhance the investment program, and will include an investment plan for the coming year
C. Periodic audit
The Treasurer may establish a process of periodic independent review by an external expert to assure compliance with internal controls.

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council Appendix I
The following positions are authorized to transact investment business and wire funds for investment purposes on behalf of the City of Exeter:

1. City Administrator

2. Finance Director/Treasurer
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council

AAPPENDIX II

ALLOWABLE INVESTMENT INSTRUMENTS PER STATE GOVERNMENT CODE (AS OF JANUARY 1, 20226)A APPLICABLE TO ALL LOCAL AGENCIESB
See “Table of Notes for Figure 1” on the next page for footnotes related to this figure.

INVESTMENT TYPE MAXIMUM

MATURITYC

MAXIMUM

SPECIFIED
% OF

PORTFOLIOD

MINIMUM

QUALITY

REQUIREMENTS

GOV'T CODE

SECTIONS
Local Agency Bonds 5 years None None 53601(a)
U.S. Treasury Obligations 5 years None None 53601(b)
State Obligations— CA
And Others 5 years None None 53601(c)
53601(d)
CA Local Agency Obligations 5 years None None 53601(e)
U.S Agency Obligations 5 years None None 53601(f)
Bankers’ Acceptances 180 days 40%E None 53601(g)
Commercial Paper—Non-Pooled FundsF
(under $100,000,000 of investments)
397270
days or
less
25%G25% of
the agency’s
moneyG
Highest letter and
number rating by an
NRSROH
53601(h)(2)(c)
Commercial Paper—Non-Pooled Funds
(min. $100,000,000 of investments)
397270
days or
less
40% of
the
agen
cy’s
mon
eyG
Highest letter and
number rating by an
NRSROH
53601(h)(2)(c)
Commercial Paper—
Pooled FundsI
397270
days or
less
40% of the
agency’s
moneyJG
Highest letter and
number rating by an
NRSROH
53635(a)(1)
Negotiable Certificates of Deposit 5 years 30%JK None 53601(i) Non-negotiable Certificates of Deposit 5 years None None 53630 et seq.

Placement Service
Deposits 5 years 50%LK None 53601.8 and 53635.8
Placement Service
Certificates of Deposit 5 years 50%KL None 53601.8 and 53635.8 Repurchase Agreements 1 year None None 53601(j)
Reverse Repurchase Agreements and
Securities Lending Agreements 92 daysML 20% of the base value of the portfolio NoneNM 53601(j) Medium-Term NotesON 5 years
or less 30% “A” rating category or its
equivalent or better 53601(k)
Mutual Funds And Money Market
Mutual Funds N/A 20%P MultipleP,Q, R 53601(l) and 53601.6(b) Collateralized Bank DepositsSR 5 years None None 53630 et seq. and 53601(n)
Formatted: Font: 6 pt
Formatted: Font: 6 pt
Formatted Table
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", First line: 0", Right:

0.09", Space Before: 12 pt, Tab stops: 0.75", Left
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.52", Hanging: 0.18", Right:

0.34", Space Before: 6 pt, Tab stops: 0.68", Left + 0.83", Left
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.4", Space Before: 0 pt
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council Mortgage Pass–Through and Asset–
Backed SecuritiesT
5 years
or lessT 20% “AA” rating category or its
equivalent or betterT 53601(o)
County Pooled
Investment Funds N/A None None 27133
Joint Powers Authority Pool N/A None MultipleUS 53601(p) Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) N/A None None 16429.1 Voluntary Investment Program FundVT N/A None None 16340 Supranational ObligationsWU 5 years
or less 30% “AA” rating category or its
equivalent or better 53601(q)
Public Bank Obligations 5 years None None 53601(r), 53635(c) and 57603
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Left: 1", Right: 1", Top: 1", Bottom: 1",
Header distance from edge: 0.63", Footer distance
from edge: 0.27"
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council Formatted: Left: 1", Right: 1", Top: 1", Bottom: 1",
Header distance from edge: 0.63", Footer distance from
edge: 0.27"
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council

EXHIBIT A

THE CITY OF EXETER, CALIFORNIA

STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY

Updated as of September 8, 2026
I. INTRODUCTION
The following investment policy addresses the methods, procedures and practices, which must be exercised to ensure effective and judicious fiscal and investment management of the City's funds. It is the policy of the City to invest public funds in a manner that will provide a maximum market rate of return, given its requirements for preserving principal and meeting the daily cash flow demands of the City. All investments will comply with this Investment Policy and governing laws.

II. SCOPE
This Investment Policy applies to all of the City’s financial assets and investment activities with the following exceptions:

A. Proceeds of debt issuance shall be invested in accordance with the City's general investment philosophy as set forth in this policy; however, such proceeds have been or will be invested in accordance with permitted investment provisions of their specific bond indentures.

III. GENERAL OBJECTIVES
The overriding objectives of the City’s investment program are to preserve principal, provide sufficient liquidity, and manage investment risks.

1. Safety: Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the investment program. Investments will be undertaken in a manner that seeksto ensure the preservation of capital in the overall portfolio. The objective will be to September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council mitigate credit risk and interest rate risk. To attain this objective, the City will diversify its investments by investing funds among independent financial institutions offering a variety of securities with independent returns.

2. Liquidity: The investment portfolio will remain sufficiently liquid to meet all operating requirements that may be reasonably anticipated.

3. Rate of Return: The investment portfolio will be designed with the objective of attaining a market rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, taking into account the investment risk constraints for safety and liquidity needs.

IV. PRUDENCE, INDEMNIFICATION AND ETHICS
A. Prudent Investor Standard: Management of the City's investments is governed by the Prudent Investor Standard as set forth in the California Government Code 53600.3:
" ... all governing bodies of local agencies or persons authorized to make investment decisions on behalf of those local agencies investing public funds pursuant to this chapter are trustees and therefore fiduciaries subject to the prudent investor standard. When investing, reinvesting, purchasing, acquiring, exchanging, selling, or managing public funds, a trustee shall act with care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing, including, but not limited to, the general economic conditions and the anticipated needs of the agency, that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiarity with those matters would use in the conduct of funds of a like character and with like aims, to safeguard the principal and maintain the liquidity needs of September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council the agency. Within the limitations of this section and considering individual investments as part of an overall strategy, investments may be acquired as authorized by law."
B. Indemnification: The City Administrator, Treasurer, and other authorized persons responsible for managing City funds, acting in accordance with written procedures and the investment policy and exercising due diligence, will be relieved of personal responsibility for an individual security's credit risk or market price changes, provided deviations from expectations are reported in a timely fashion and appropriate action is taken to control adverse developments.

C. Ethics: Officers and employees involved in the investment process will refrain from personal business activity that could conflict with proper execution of the investment program, or which could impair their ability to make impartial investment decisions.

V. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY
A. Authority to manage the City's investment program is derived from California Government Code Sections 53600 et seq The City Administrator has overall administrative responsibility for this Investment Policy. Investment decision-making and transaction authority for City funds is vested in the Treasurer, as delegated by the City Council pursuant to a separate resolution adopted under Government Code Section 53607, which delegation is subject to annual renewal by the City Council.

The Treasurer will be responsible for all transactions undertaken and will establish a system of procedures and controls to regulate the activities of subordinate employees. Under the provision of California Government Code September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council Section 53600.3, the Treasurer, when authorized to make investment decisions on behalf of the City, shall act as a trustee and fiduciary subject to the prudent investor standard. The Treasurer will review the City’s investment holdings monthly to monitor compliance with the City investment policy.

B. The City may engage the services of one or more external investment managers to assist in the management of the City's investment portfolio in a manner consistent with the City's objectives. Such external managers may be granted discretion to purchase and sell investment securities in accordance with this Investment Policy. Such managers must be registered under, or otherwise exempt from registration under, the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. § 80b-1 et seq.).

VI. AUTHORIZED FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, DEPOSITORIES, AND

BROKER/DEALERS
A list will be maintained of financial institutions and depositories authorized to provide investment services. In addition, a list will be maintained of approved securities dealers selected by creditworthiness and other factors, including information obtained through FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority) BrokerCheck.

A. The Treasurer will determine which financial institutions are authorized to provide investment services to the City.

B. Selection of financial institutions and broker/dealers authorized to engage in transactions with the City will be at the sole discretion of the City Administrator.

C. All financial institutions which desire to become qualified bidders for investment September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council transactions (and which are not dealing with the investment adviser) must supply the Treasurer with an audited financial statement for the prior three years, evidence of current registration with regulatory authorities, and a signed statement certifying that the institution has reviewed California Government Code Section 53600 et seq. and the City's Investment Policy. Broker/dealers must provide evidence of current registration with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and will meet all requirements established by federal and state law.

D. Public deposits will be made only in qualified public depositories as established by State law. Deposits will be insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), or, to the extent the amount exceeds the insured maximum, will be collateralized in accordance with Statelaw.

VII. SAFEKEEPING AND CUSTODY
A. Delivery-versus-payment: Settlement of all investment transactions will be completed using standard delivery-vs-payment (DVP) procedures whenever practicable. Under DVP procedures, payments for securities will occur upon delivery of the securities to the City’s designated custodian or safekeeping institution.

B. Third-Party Safekeeping: To protect against potential losses by collapse of individual securities dealers, and to enhance access to securities, interest payments and maturity proceeds, all securities owned by the City will be held in safekeeping by a third-party bank custodian, acting as agent for the City under the terms of a custody agreement executed by the bank and the City.

Investments held through authorized investment pools, including the Local Agency Investment September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council Fund (LAIF), or other authorized pooled investment programs, are not subject to delivery or thirdparty safekeeping requirements and will be maintained in accordance with the requirements and procedures of the respective investment program.

VIII. AUTHORIZED AND SUITABLE INVESTMENTS
All investments will be made in accordance with Sections 53600 et seq. of the California Government Code and as described within this Investment Policy. Appendix II, Allowable Investment Instruments Under California State Government Code, as provided by the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission (CDIAC), is included for general reference regarding the full range of investments California law permits local agencies to hold; it is not an independent grant of investment authority. The investments authorized for City investment under this policy consist exclusively of the following, as further restricted by Section IX:

1. Municipal Bonds. These include bonds of the City, the state of California, any other state, and any local agency within the state of California. The bonds will be registered in the name of the City or held under a custodial agreement at a bank. The bonds shall be rated at the time of purchase within the 4 highest general classifications established by a rating service of nationally recognized expertise in rating bonds of states and their political subdivisions. There are no limits on the dollar amount or percentage that the City may invest in Municipal Bonds.

2. U.S. Treasury and other government obligations for which the full faith and credit of the United States are pledged for the payment of principal and interest. There are no limits on the dollar amount or percentage that the City may invest in U.S. Treasuries.

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council

3. Federal Agency or United States government-sponsored enterprise obligations, participations, or other instruments, including those issued by or fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by federal agencies or United States government-sponsored enterprises. There are no limits on the dollar amount or percentage that the City may invest in government-sponsored enterprises.

4. Bankers’ acceptances provided that:
a. They are issued by institutions with short term debt obligations rated "A1" or higher, orthe equivalent, by atleasttwo nationally recognized statistical rating organizations (NRSRO); and have long-term debt obligations which are rated "A" or higher by at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization;
b. The maturity does not exceed 180 days; and
c. No more than 40% of the total portfolio may be invested in bankers’ acceptances, no more than 30% in any one bank, and no more than 5% per issuer.

5. Federally insured time deposits (Non-negotiable certificates of deposit) in state or federally chartered banks, savings and loans, or credit unions, provided that:
a. The amount per institution is limited to the maximum covered under federal insurance.

6. Time deposits (Non-negotiable certificates of deposit) in state or federally chartered banks, savings and loans, or credit unions in excess of insured amounts which are fully collateralized with securities in accordance with California law, provided that:

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council a. They are issued by institutions that have long-term debt obligations rated "AA" or higher by at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization; and/or have short term obligations rated "A1" or higher, or the equivalent, by at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization;

7. Certificate of Deposit Placement Services (CDARS)
a. The City may invest funds through certificate of deposit placement services, provided that such investments will comply with statutory limits and requirements, including the maximum percentage permitted by California law.

8. Negotiable certificates of deposit (NCDs) provided that:
a. They are issued by institutions that have long-term obligations rated "AA" or higher by at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization; and/or have short-term debt obligations rated "A1" or higher, or the equivalent, by at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization; b. No more than 30% of the total portfolio may be invested in NCDs and no more than 5% per issuer.

9. Repurchase agreements collateralized with securities authorized under Section VIII, items 2 and 3, of this policy, with collateral maintained at a level of at least 102% of the market value of the repurchase agreements, provided that:

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council a. The maximum maturity of repurchase agreements will be 1 year; b. There is no limit to the amount to be invested in repurchase agreements; c. Securities used as collateral for repurchase agreements will be delivered to the City's custodian bank (See Section VII.B); and, d. The repurchase agreements are the subject of a master repurchase agreement between the City and the provider of the repurchase agreement. The master repurchase agreement will be substantially in the form developed by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA).

10. State of California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), provided that:
a. The City may invest up to the maximum permitted amountin LAIF; and, b. LAIF's investments in instruments prohibited by or not specified in the City's policy do not exclude it from the City's list of allowable investments, provided that the fund's reports allow the Finance Director/Treasurer to adequately judge the risk inherent in LAIF's portfolio.

11. Local government investment pools authorized under applicable California law, provided that the pool is consistent with the City’s investment objectives and this Investment Policy. Prior to investing in an investment pool other than LAIF, the Treasurer will conduct appropriate due diligence regarding the pool’s investment objectives, eligible investments, liquidity, safeguarding of assets, reporting practices and fees.

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council

12. Corporate medium-term notes (MTNs) and corporate bonds, provided that:
a. Are issued by corporations organized and operating within the United States or by depository institutions licensed by the United States or any state and operating within the United States; b. Are rated "A" category or its equivalent or better by at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization; and, c. Holdings of medium-term notes may not exceed 30% of the portfolio and no more than 5% per issuer.

13. Mortgage pass-through securities and asset-backed securities, provided that such securities:
a. Are issued by an issuer having an "AA" or higher rating for the issuer's debt as provided by at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization;
b. Are rated in a rating category of "AA" or its equivalent or better by at least two nationally recognized statistical rating organizations; and
c. Purchase of securities authorized by this subdivision may not exceed 20% of the portfolio.

14. Money market mutual funds that are registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Investment Company Act of September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council 1940, provided that such funds:
a. Receive the highest ranking or the highest letter and numerical rating provided by not less than two nationally recognized rating services; or
b. Have an investment adviser registered with, or exempt from registration with, the Securities and Exchange Commission that has not less than five years of experience investing in securities and obligations and manages assets in excess of $500 million; and c. Purchase of securities authorized by this subdivision may not exceed 20% of the portfolio.

15. Commercial paper is the trade name applied to unsecured promissory notes issued by finance and industrial companies to raise funds on a short-term basis. Commercial paper can be purchased on an interest bearing or discount basis. The City will invest in commercial paper only if the paper:
a. Attains the highest letter and number rating as provided for by a nationally recognized statistical-rating organization (NRSRO); and b. The maturity does not exceed 397 days; and
c. No more than 25% of the total investment portfolio may be invested in commercial paper, and no more than 10% of the City’s total investment assets may be invested in combined commercial paper and medium-term notes of any single issuer.

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council IX. PORTFOLIO RISK MANAGEMENT
A. Prohibited investment vehicles and practices

1. State law notwithstanding, any investments not specifically described herein are prohibited, including, but not limited to futures and options.

2. In accordance with Government Code Section 53601.6, investment in inverse floaters, range notes, or mortgage derived interest-only strips is prohibited.

3. Investment in any security that could result in a zero-interest accrual if held to maturity isprohibited.

4. Trading securities for the sole purpose of speculating on the future direction of interest rates is prohibited.

5. Purchasing or selling securities on margin is prohibited.

6. The use of reverse repurchase agreements, securities lending or any other form of borrowing or leverage is prohibited.

7. The purchase of foreign currency denominated securities is prohibited.

B. Mitigating credit risk in theportfolio
Credit risk is the risk that a security or a portfolio will lose some or all of its value due to a real or perceived change in the ability of the issuer to repay its debt. The September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council City will mitigate credit risk by adopting the following strategies:

1. The diversification requirements included in Section VIII are designed to mitigate credit risk in the portfolio.

2. No more than 5% of the total portfolio may be invested in securities of any single issuer, other than the U.S. Government, its agencies and enterprises.

3. The City may elect to sell a security prior to its maturity and record a capital gain or loss in order to improve the quality, liquidity or yield of the portfolio in response to market conditions or the City's risk preferences.

4. If securities owned by the City are downgraded by either Moody's or S&P to a level below the quality required by this Investment Policy, it will be the City's policy to review the credit situation and make a determination as to whether to sell or retain such securities in the portfolio.
a. If a security is downgraded, the Treasurer will use discretion in determining whether to sell or hold the security based on its current maturity, the economic outlook for the issuer, and other relevant factors.
b. If a decision is made to retain a downgraded security in the portfolio, its presence in the portfolio will be monitored and reported monthly to the City Administrator.

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council C. Mitigating market risk in the portfolio
Market risk is the risk that the portfolio value will fluctuate due to changes in the general level of interest rates. The City recognizes that, over time, longer-term portfolios have the potential to achieve higher returns. On the other hand, longer-term portfolios have higher volatility of return. The City will mitigate market risk by providing adequate liquidity for short-term cash needs, and by making longerterm investments only with fundsthat are not needed for current cash flow purposes. The City further recognizes that certain types of securities, including variable rate securities, securities with principal paydowns prior to maturity, and securities with embedded options, will affect the market risk profile of the portfolio differently in different interest rate environments. The City, therefore, adopts the following strategies to control and mitigate its exposure to market risk:

1. The City will maintain a minimum of three months of budgeted operating expenditures in short term investments to provide sufficient liquidity for expected disbursements.

2. Unless matched to a specific future cash flow, the maximum stated final maturity of individual securities in the portfolio will be five years, except as otherwise stated in this policy; and,
X. INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES (PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND EVALUATION) A. Overall objective: The investment portfolio will be designed with the overall objective of obtaining a total rate of return throughout economic cycles, commensurate with investment risk constraints and cash flow September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council needs.

B. Specific objective: The investment performance objective for the portfolio will be to earn a total rate of return over a market cycle which is approximately equal to the return on the Market Benchmark Index as described in the City's investment procedures manual.

XI. PROCEDURES AND INTERNAL CONTROLS
A. Procedures
The Treasurer will establish written investment policy procedures to assist with day-to-day operations of the investment program consistent with this policy. Any delegation of authority to persons assigned responsibility for investment transactions shall be in accordance with this policy. Noperson may engage in an investment transaction except as provided under the terms of this policy and the procedures established by the Treasurer.

B. Internal Controls
The Treasurer is responsible for establishing and maintaining an internal control structure designed to ensure that the assets of the City are protected from loss, theft or misuse. The internal control structure shall include appropriate procedures and controls for the authorization and execution of investment transactions, separation of duties, safekeeping of securities, accurate recordkeeping, reconciliation of investment and custodial records. The internal control structure will be designed to provide reasonable assurance that these objectives are met. Internal controls will be described in the City's investment policy procedures.

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council XII. REPORTING, DISCLOSURE AND PROGRAM EVALUATION
A. Periodic reporting
Pursuant to Government Code Section 53607, the Treasurer will submit a monthly report to the City Council listing the investment transactions (purchases, sales, and maturities) undertaken during the preceding month, including the type, issuer, and amount of each transaction. On a quarterly basis, investment reports will be submitted by the Treasurer to the City Administrator, the City’s internal auditor (if any), and the City Council within 45 days following the end of the quarter covered by the report.

These reports will disclose,at a minimum, the following information about the risk characteristics of the City's portfolio:

1. A listing of individual securities held at the end of the reporting period by authorized investment category.

2. Average life and final maturity of all investments listed.

3. Coupon, discount, or earnings rate for each investment.

4. Par value, amortized book value, and market value.

5. Percentage of the portfolio represented by each investment category.

6. A statement of compliance with the investment policy, including a schedule of any transactions or holdings which do not comply with this policy or with the California Government Code, including a justification for their presence in the portfolio and a timetable for resolution; and, September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council

7. A statement that the City has adequate funds to meet its expenditure requirements for the next six months, or an explanation as to why sufficient money may not be available.

B. Investment Policy Review and Adoption
The Investment Policy shall be reviewed periodically to ensure its consistency with the City’s overall investment objectives of preservation of principal, liquidity, and return, and its relevance to current law and financial and economic trends. Any modifications to the Investment Policy shall be presented to the City Council for consideration and approval at a public meeting.

C. Periodic audit
The Treasurer may establish a process of periodic independent review by an external expert to assure compliance with internal controls.

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council Appendix I
The following positions are authorized to transact investment business and wire funds for investment purposes on behalf of the City of Exeter:

1. City Administrator

2. Finance Director/Treasurer
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council

APPENDIX II

ALLOWABLE INVESTMENT INSTRUMENTS PER STATE GOVERNMENT CODE (AS OF JANUARY 1, 2026)A APPLICABLE TO ALL LOCAL AGENCIESB
See “Table of Notes for Figure 1” on the next page for footnotes related to this figure.

INVESTMENT TYPE MAXIMUM

MATURITYC

MAXIMUM

SPECIFIED
% OF

PORTFOLIOD

MINIMUM

QUALITY

REQUIREMENTS

GOV'T CODE

SECTIONS
Local Agency Bonds 5 years None None 53601(a)
U.S. Treasury Obligations 5 years None None 53601(b)
State Obligations— CA
And Others 5 years None None 53601(c)
53601(d)
CA Local Agency Obligations 5 years None None 53601(e)
U.S Agency Obligations 5 years None None 53601(f)
Bankers’ Acceptances 180 days 40%E None 53601(g)
Commercial Paper—Non-Pooled FundsF
(under $100,000,000 of investments)
397 days
or less 25%G
Highest letter and
number rating byan
NRSROH
53601(h)
Commercial Paper—Non-Pooled Funds
(min. $100,000,000 of investments)
397 days
or less 40%G
Highest letter and
number rating byan
NRSROH
53601(h)
Commercial Paper—
Pooled FundsI
397 days
or less 40%J
Highest letter and
number rating byan
NRSROH
53635(a)
Negotiable Certificates of Deposit 5 years 30%K None 53601(i) Non-negotiable Certificates of Deposit 5 years None None 53630 et seq.

Placement Service
Deposits 5 years 50%L None 53601.8 and 53635.8
Placement Service
Certificates of Deposit 5 years 50%L None 53601.8 and 53635.8 Repurchase Agreements 1 year None None 53601(j)
Reverse Repurchase Agreements and
Securities Lending Agreements 92 daysM 20% of the base value of the portfolio NoneN 53601(j) Medium-Term NotesO 5 years
or less 30% “A” rating category or its
equivalent or better 53601(k)
Mutual Funds And Money Market
Mutual Funds N/A 20%P MultipleQ, R 53601(l) and 53601.6(b) Collateralized Bank DepositsS 5 years None None 53630 et seq. and 53601(n)
Mortgage Pass–Through and Asset–
Backed SecuritiesT
5 years
or lessT 20% “AA” rating category or its
equivalent or betterT 53601(o)
County Pooled
Investment Funds N/A None None 27133
Joint Powers Authority Pool N/A None MultipleU 53601(p) Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) N/A None None 16429.1 September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council Voluntary Investment Program Fund
V N/A None None 16340
Supranational Obligations
W 5 years
or less 30% “AA” rating category or its
equivalent or better 53601(q)
Public Bank Obligations 5 years None None 53601(r), 53635(c) and 57603
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council RESOLUTION NO. 2026-40

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EXETER ADOPTING

THE STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY
WHEREAS, an investment policy establishes the City’s investment objectives and provides guidelines for the prudent management and investment of public funds; and WHEREAS, the California Government Code establishes requirements governing the investment of public funds, including authorized investments and practices intended to promote the use of reliable, diverse, and safe investment instruments to better ensure a prudently managed portfolio worthy of public trust; and WHEREAS, the City of Exeter has established a Statement of Investment Policy (attached hereto) to provide guidelines for the management and investment of City funds in conformity with all state and local statutes governing the investment of public funds; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Exeter hereby adopts the Statement of Investment Policy, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Exeter this 8th day of September, 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

____________________ _
Jacob Johnson, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Francesca Nevarez, City Clerk
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council RESOLUTION NO. 2026-41

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EXETER DELEGATING

INVESTMENT AUTHORITY TO THE TREASURER
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 53607 authorizes the legislative body of a local agency to delegate its authority to invest the funds of the City to the Finance Director/Treasurer for a period of one year; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Exeter desires to delegate such investment authority to the Finance Director/Treasurer to provide for the administration and management of the City’s investment program; and WHEREAS, the Finance Director/Treasurer shall assume full responsibility for investment transactions conducted pursuant to this delegation until the delegation is revoked or expires; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Exeter hereby delegates to the Finance Director/Treasurer the authority to invest and reinvest City funds in accordance with Government Code Section 53607 and the City’s adopted Statement of Investment Policy.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this delegation shall remain in effect for one year from the date of adoption of this Resolution, unless earlier revoked by the City Council.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Exeter this 8th day of September, 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

____________________ _
Jacob Johnson, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Francesca Nevarez, City Clerk
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council Agenda Item Staff Report
Meeting Date:

September 8, 2026
Wording for Agenda:

Consideration of Options to Address the use of Golf Carts and Low Speed Vehicles on City Streets, Including the Enforcement of Current California Vehicle Codes, Development of a Targeted Golf Cart and Low Speed Vehicle Plan or Authorization of the Preparation and Submittal of an Application to the Caltrans Fiscal Year 2027-28 Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program for a Citywide Exeter Mobility Plan, Inclusive of Golf Carts and other Low-speed Travel Modes, and Commit the
Required Local Match.

Submitting Department:

Administration
Engineering
Legal
Contact Name:

Jason Ridenour, City Administrator
Julia Lew, City Attorney
Javier Andrade, P.E., City Engineer (A&M Consulting Engineers) Consider options provided and provide direction to address the use of golf carts and low speed vehicles on City streets, including the enforcement of current California Vehicle Codes, development of a targeted golf cart and low speed vehicle plan/program or authorize staff, with the assistance of the City Engineer, to prepare and submit an application to the Caltrans Fiscal Year 2027-28 Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant (STPG) Program for a citywide Exeter Mobility Plan that includes golf carts and other low-speed travel modes, request $290,000 in grant funds, and commit the required local match of 11.47 percent of total project cost, approximately $37,600, which may be met with City staff time.

For action by:
☒City Council
Regular Session:
☐Consent Calendar
☒Regular Item
☐Public Hearing
Review:

City Administrator
(Initials Required)
_J.R._____
Agenda Item Number: J.4.

Department Recommendation:

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council At the January 9, 2024, City Council meeting, at the request of Council Member Vicki Riddle, the Council discussed the potential development of local regulations and pursuing state legislative authority to allow more widespread use of golf carts and neighborhood electric vehicles on City streets. That report explained current State law and included example programs from the Cities of Laguna Woods, Indio, and Lincoln. The Council took no formal action on the matter. At its meeting on August 11, 2026, the City Council approved Council Member Vicki Riddle’s request to discuss the development of a golf cart master plan and potential funding sources at a future meeting.

The California Vehicle Code regulates the use of golf carts. Under the California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 345 Golf Carts are defined as electric motor vehicles with at least 3 wheels and a weight of less than 1,300 lbs., which are designed to be and are operated at not more than 15 miles per hour and are designed to carry golf equipment and a maximum of 2 people including the driver. The Vehicle Code provides a framework for the operation of golf carts. CVC 21716 states with the exception of provisions provided in Section 21115.1, no person shall operate a golf cart on any highway except in a speed zone of 25 miles per hour or less. CVC Section 360 define “Highway” as a way or place of whatever nature, publicly maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes vehicular travel. The definition of Highway includes streets. State of California Attorney General Opinion No. 90-302 further clarifies the provisions in CVC 21716 to be carts that are registered for “on road” travel with the Department of Motor Vehicles, bear a license plate issued by the Department, and are properly equipped.

In accordance with CVC 21115, a local authority can find that a highway under its jurisdiction is located adjacent to, or provides access to, a golf course and between the golf course and the place where golf carts are parked or stored or is within or bounded by a real estate development offering golf facilities and is designed and constructed, so as to safely permit the use of regular vehicular traffic and also the driving of golf carts on the highway. If the local authority makes those findings, it may, by resolution or ordinance, designate the highway or portion of the highway for combined use golf cart and motor vehicle use and prescribe local rules and regulations that shall have the force of law. In such cases, no highway shall be so designated for a distance of more than one mile from the golf course if the highway is not located within a development or beyond the area of a development, provided, the finding of the local authority in this respect shall be conclusive. Upon the designation becoming effective it shall be lawful to drive golf carts upon the highway in accordance with the prescribed local rules and regulations. The rules and regulations may also establish crossing zones and speed limits and other operating standards but shall not require that the golf carts conform to any requirements of this code with respect to registration, licensing, or equipment, except that if operated during darkness the golf cart shall be subject to the provisions of Section 24001.5 regarding equipment. CVC 21115.1 provides a local authority the ability by ordinance or resolution the ability to establish crossing zones to be used by golf carts at any time other than during darkness on a street other than a state highway that has a posted speed limit of 45 miles per hour or less and that is immediately adjacent to a golf course.

Background & Summary:

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council California Attorney General Opinion No. 90-302 clarified that under CVC 21115, if a local authority designate certain portions of local highways (streets) for combined use by golf carts and regular vehicle traffic, then golf carts that are not registered with the DMV, and that are not equipped as required by the Vehicle Code (if not operated during darkness), may be operated on those designated portion of streets. Additionally, under subdivision (c) of section 21101 of the CVC, local authorities may prohibit the operation of golf carts on particular local streets (where otherwise allowed by State law) if circumstances warrant. The Opinion also clarifies that the Code does not permit local authorities to authorize the use of golf carts on any public street under their jurisdiction with a speed limit in excess of 25 miles per hour.

California Vehicle Code also addresses low speed vehicles. A low-speed vehicle (LSV or NEV) is a motor vehicle that has 4 wheels, can attain a speed of more than 20 miles per hour and not more than 25 miles per hour, and has a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 3000 pounds (CVC 385.5). LSVs are considered Golf Carts and are not required to be registered if and when operated in the same manner and locations as allowed for Golf Carts on locally designated roadways as set forth in CVC 21115 (CVC 4023) or operated pursuant to a lawfully adopted Golf Cart Transportation Plan. Otherwise, an LSV is subject to and must be operated in accordance with all vehicle code requirements applicable to motor vehicles and drivers of motor vehicles (VC 21251), including DMV registration and drivers’ licensing requirements. LSVs must also meet federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. CVC 21253 states that LSVs cannot be operated on roadways with a speed limit in excess of 35 miles per hour (excluding authorized crossings) unless the local area (city or county) obtains specific state legislation authorizing the City to adopt a “NEV Transportation Plan.

Notwithstanding the above sections, Vehicle Code 21114.5 also allows local authorities to, by ordinance, authorize the operation of electric carts physically disabled persons, persons 50 years or older, or local, state or federal workers in the course of their employment, to operate “electric carts” on public sidewalks. While not specifically defined, the term “electric carts” expressly excludes motorized wheelchairs, scooters, etc. (already allowed by statutory right for the disabled), and has been interpreted to include golf carts.

Travel Mode Where Allowed Today What Expands Access
Golf carts Private roads and golf courses (if
allowed by any applicable
HOA/facility rules). Public Streets
where speed limit doesn’t exceed
25mph if the golf cart is registered
and plated with the DMV.

If designated by Resolution or
Ordinance as required by law
(and with required safety
findings and any local permit
requirements) – 1) streets
posted 25 mph or less, within
a one mile radius of a golf
course; 2) designated routes
and crossings (by local
regulation or state statute if
applicable); and/or 3) on
sidewalks if disabled,
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council governmental worker, or
person 50 years or older.

Low-speed electric
vehicles (NEVs)
Streets posted 35 mph or less; DMV
registration and license plate
required
Designated routes and
crossings, adopted and
regulated by ordinance.

Golf carts operating
on streets over 25mph
Not allowed Separated golf cart lanes
under an adopted golf cart
transportation plan
NEVs operating on
streets over 35mph
Not allowed, except crossings at
approximately 90 degrees
Would require State
legislation; a plan will
evaluate whether to pursue it
Staff’s analysis established three approaches to regulating the use of golf carts and low speed vehicles on City streets. The City can rely on and enforce current California Vehicle Code, develop and adopt a targeted golf cart plan/program that would evaluate and make recommendations regarding the use of golf carts and low speed vehicles within city limits that can be utilized for the development of an ordinance or resolution on the operation on City streets. This would be funded with General Fund or Measure P Funds. The City can also apply for a grant to complete a mobility plan that would encompass the operation of golf carts and low speed vehicles.

Caltrans has issued a call for applications for the FY 2027-28 Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant. This State grant pays for exactly this kind of planning document. Applications are due October 9, 2026, and awards will be announced in spring 2027. If this path is desirable, staff’s recommendation to have a competitive grant application would be to apply for funding for a mobility plan that includes golf carts, low speed vehicles, bicycles/electric bicycles, and pedestrians.

Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant at a Glance:
• Amount: Sustainable Communities Competitive grants range from $50,000 to a maximum of $700,000. Staff recommends a request of $290,000, sized to the scope of the plan needed.
• Local match: 11.47 percent of total project cost, which may be provided as City staff time rather than cash. At the recommended request, the match is approximately $37,600. • Schedule: Applications due October 9, 2026; awards announced spring 2027; funded plans must be completed within approximately 32 months of the grant agreement, or roughly 2030.
• Grant requirements: The funded document must include community engagement, be consistent with the TCAG Regional Transportation Plan, and end with an implementation program of specific projects. These requirements shape the scope described below.

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council Mobility Plan Description:

As noted above, state law sets different rules for each type of low-speed vehicle, and each type of route has different requirements. A plan covering only golf carts would leave out most residents and would be a weaker grant application. A mobility plan covers everyone traveling without a car, with golf carts as a featured mode.

The Plan's Phased Approach:

The Mobility Plan would organize improvements into three phases, to allow for progress to be made on lower cost solutions, while the larger investments are studied properly.

Near term (years 0 to 2) | Education, maps, and crossings. Golf carts may already operate on streets posted 25 mph or less (if registered and plated with the DMV), which covers most Exeter residential streets. The near-term program designates and signs a connected golf cart route network on those streets, adds marked crossings where State law allows, and establishes a simple permitting program and safety education program. This is mostly signs, paint, and an ordinance.

Mid term (years 2 to 5) | Explore trails and connections. The plan will evaluate multi-use trail corridors connecting neighborhoods to parks, schools, downtown, and the golf course, along with striped lanes on wider collector streets where space allows. Trails can serve golf carts, bicycles, and pedestrians together where designated under State law, and are the improvements residents most often request.

Long term (years 5 and beyond) | Build the infrastructure. The plan will identify the larger investments: separated facilities on streets, improved crossings of the State highways (subject to Caltrans approval), parking and potential charging locations, and the ordinances and master plan adoption needed to expand where low-speed vehicles can travel. Each project will carry a cost estimate and a funding strategy, positioning the City for construction grants.

Option 1: Enforce current state law and design educational materials. There will be nominal costs associated with developing educational materials. No addition funding is needed.

Option 2: Develop targeted golf cart and low speed vehicle plan, including mapping, educational materials, and recommendations for proposed golf cart and low speed vehicle ordinance. The estimated cost of this plan would be approximately $25,000 and would require appropriation to the General Fund or Measure P Budget. Staff recommend if Option 2 is preferred that the City Council appropriate $25,000 of unappropriated Measure P Funds to fund the project.

Option 3: Apply for FY 2027-28 Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant. There is no cost to apply beyond staff and City Engineer time. The recommended grant request is $290,000, for a total project cost of approximately $327,600. The required local match is approximately $37,600 (11.47 percent of total project cost) over the life of the plan, and it may be satisfied with City staff time already budgeted. No General Fund appropriation is required.

Fiscal Impact:

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024: Council discussed golf cart and neighborhood electric vehicle regulations Item.

No formal action was taken.
1) January 9, 2024, Golf Cart Staff Report
2) State of California Attorney General Opinion No. 90-302 3) Caltrans FY 2027-28 STPG Call for Applications (forwarded by TCAG) 4) STPG Program Summary and Schedule
5) Exeter Golf Course Radius Map
I move to direct staff to move forward with Option 1 enforcing current regulation, Option 2 developing a targeted golf cart and low speed vehicle plan/program followed up with a draft ordinance and appropriate $25,000 of Measure P Funds for the project or Option 3 authorize staff with the assistance of the City Engineer, to prepare and submit an application to the Caltrans Fiscal Year 2027-28 Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program for a citywide Exeter Mobility Plan inclusive of golf carts and other low-speed travel modes, in the amount of $290,000, and to commit the required local match of approximately $37,600 (11.47 percent (%) of total project cost), which may be satisfied with City staff time.

Prior Council/Board Actions:

Attachments:

Recommendation motion to be made by the City Council:

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council January 9, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Attachments September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council ______________________________________
_________________________________________________________________ _______________

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

State of California

JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP

Attorney General

OPINION :

: No. 90-302

of :

: SEPTEMBER 26, 1990

JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP :

Attorney General :

:

RONALD M. WEISKOPF :

Deputy Attorney General :

:

THE HONORABLE ROBERT C. FRAZEE, MEMBER OF THE ASSEMBLY,

has requested an opinion on several questions relating to the

operation of golf carts on local streets and highways which we have

combined in paraphrase as follows:

1. To what extent does State law permit golf carts

to be operated on local public streets and highways in

the absence of local legislative action under section

21115 of the Vehicle Code to designate portions of local

streets and highways for combined use by golf carts and

regular vehicular traffic?

2. To what extent may local authorities extend or

restrict the operation of golf carts on local streets and

highways under their jurisdiction?

CONCLUSIONS

1. Golf carts may be operated on local streets and

highways with speed limits of 25 miles per hour or less despite an

absence of local action under section 21115 of the Vehicle Code, if

the carts are registered with the Department of Motor Vehicles,

bear a license plate issued by the Department, and are properly

equipped.

2. If a local authority does act under section 21115 of

the Vehicle Code to designate certain portions of local highways

for combined use by golf carts and regular vehicular traffic, then

golf carts that are not registered with the DMV, and that are not

equipped as required by the Vehicle Code (if not operated during

1. 90-302

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council

darkness), may be operated on those designated portions of highway.

Under subdivision (c) of section 21101 of the Code, local

authorities may prohibit the operation of golf carts on particular

local streets and highways if circumstances warrant. Section 21115

of the Code does not authorize local authorities to ban golf carts

from operating on any public street or highway having a speed limit

of 25 miles per hour or less within their jurisdiction, if the

carts have been registered with the Department of Motor Vehicles,

bear a license plate issued by the Department, and are properly

equipped. Nor does the section permit local authorities to

authorize the use of golf carts on any public highway under their

jurisdiction with a speed limit in excess of 25 miles per hour,

including the operation of the carts in a crossing zone which

traverses such a highway.

ANALYSIS

Residents of several communities in the State would like

to drive their golf carts on local streets from their homes to

nearby golf courses, in part because there are insufficient

facilities at the courses to store them. At present the legality

of their doing so is questioned because of uncertainty in the

interrelationship of two sections of the Vehicle Code that deal

with the operation of golf carts on local streets and highways. The

purpose of this Opinion is to dispel that uncertainty.1

Section 21716 of the Code provides that "No person shall

operate a golf cart on any highway except in a speed zone of 25

miles per hour or less." Under section 21115, local authorities

may permit golf carts to be operated along with regular vehicular

traffic on certain highways within their jurisdiction, under such

rules and regulations as the local authority may prescribe. The

1 As a preliminary matters we note the following:

(a) Unidentified references to code sections in this Opinion

refer to sections of the Vehicle Code.

(b) When we speak of golf carts, we do so as the Legislature

has, as meaning "a motor vehicle having not less than three wheels

in contact with the ground, having an unladen weight less than

1,300 pounds, which is designed to be and is operated at not more

than 15 miles per hour and designed to carry golf equipment and not

more than two persons, including the driver. (§ 345; Stats. 1968,

ch. 1303, p. 2456, § 1; emphasis added.)

(c) Since for Vehicle Code purposes the term "highway" also

includes "street" (§§ 100, 360) and vice versa (§ 590), we will use

them interchangeably as well to mean "a way or place of whatever

nature, publicly maintained and open to the use of the public for

purposes of vehicular travel." (§§ 360, 590.)

2. 90-302

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council

section specifically gives local authorities the power to set speed

limits on local highways designated for that combined use.2

The interworking of sections 21716 and 21115 thus

presents various possibilities regarding the legality of operating

golf carts on local public streets and highways absent local

action, and the scope of local authority to affect the operation of

golf carts on local streets in general. This gives rise to our two

questions: To what extent may golf carts be operated on local

public streets and highways in the absence of local legislative

action under section 21115 of the Vehicle Code, and to what extent

may local authorities extend or restrict the operation of golf

carts on local streets and highways within their boundaries?

General Background. Before directly addressing the two

questions, it is perhaps best to set forth the general background

in which they both are set and which affects the resolution of

each. This will involve carefully examining the wording of the

pertinent Code sections and the legislative background in which

they were wrought. The excursion will be somewhat detailed and

lengthy, but it will clarify matters and stand us in good stead

when we come to answer the particular questions.

We first look to the wording of the sections. (Cf.

People v. Belleci (1979) 24 Cal.3d 879, 884; Moyer v. Workmen's

Compensation Appeals Board (1973) 10 Cal.3d 222, 230; Steilberg v.

Lackner (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 780, 785; Rich v. State Board of

Optometry (1965) 235 Cal.App.2d 591, 604.)

Section 21716. Section 21716 provides, as it has since

it was first adopted in 1968, that

"No person shall operate a golf cart on any highway

except in a speed zone of 25 miles per hour or less."

(Stats. 1968, ch. 1303, p. 2457, § 4.)

The section thus consists of a negative prohibition ("No

person shall operate a golf cart on any highway....") followed by

an exception to that prohibition ("... except in a speed zone of 25

miles per hour or less."). There it is noteworthy that the

Legislature has used the word "any" to describe the "highways" on

which no person may operate a golf cart except in a speed zone of

25 miles per hour or less. The use of that indefinite adjective

indicates that the Legislature meant for the section's coverage to

2 For purposes of the Vehicle Code, "local authorities" is

defined as "the legislative body of every county or municipality

having authority to adopt local police regulations." (§ 385.) In

67 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 145, 148 (1984) we concluded that rubric would

include a community services district that owns and maintains a

road system.

3. 90-302

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council

be very broad and apply, without restriction or limitation, to all

"highways" in the State over which it had power to legislate. (Cf.

Emmolo v. Southern Pacific Co (1949) 91 Cal.App.2d 87, 92; 72

Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 216, 222-223 (1989); 68 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 28, 31

(1985); 64 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 192, 202 (1981); 20 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen.

31, 33 (1952).) Since the word "highway" when used in the Vehicle

Code also includes streets (Veh. Code, § 360), the section would

also apply, without restriction or limitation, to all streets in

the State over which the Legislature had the power to legislate.

In section 21 of the Vehicle Code the Legislature has

expressed its plenary power and a State preemption over the

regulation and control of traffic on all highways and streets in

the state, including those under the jurisdiction of local

authorities.3 (See Rumford v. City of Berkeley (1982) 31 Cal.3d

545, 551; County of Los Angeles v. City of Alhambra (1980) 27

Cal.3d 184, 189; Pipoly v. Benson (1942) 20 Cal.2d 366, 371; City

of Lafayette v. County of Contra Costa (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 749,

755, 756; Mervynne v. Acker (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 558, 561-562; 73

Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 13, 14-16 (1990); 68 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 101, 102

(1985); 67 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 1, 4, 5-6; 64 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 707,

709-710 (1981); 55 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 178, 179 (1972).) Section

21716 would therefore apply to all local streets and highways in

the State: Under its general prohibition, no person could drive a

golf cart on any local street except in a speed zone of 25 miles

per hour or less. That would preclude the operation of golf carts

on local streets having speed limits of more than 25 miles per

hour.

Section 21115. We turn next to the wording of section

21115. There we see an example of the exception in section 21 that

although the State has preempted the regulation of traffic on local

streets and highways, local authorities may undertake to regulate

traffic on local streets if they have been expressly authorized to

do so in the Vehicle Code. (Cf. Veh. Code, § 21; Rumford v. City

of Berkeley, supra, 31 Cal.3d at 550; City of Lafayette v. County

of Contra Costa, supra, 91 Cal.App.3d at 749; 73 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen.

13, 15, 16, supra; 68 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 101, 102, supra.) In

section 21115 the Legislature has given local authorities express

power to designate particular portions of highways for combined use

3 Section 21 of the Code provides as follows:

"Except as otherwise expressly provided, the

provisions of this code are applicable and uniform

throughout the state and in all counties and

municipalities therein, and no local authority shall

enact or enforce any ordinance on the matters covered by

this code unless expressly authorized therein."

4. 90-302

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council by golf carts and regular vehicular traffic and to prescribe speed

limits for them. The section, with its sentences numbered to

facilitate future reference, currently provides as follows:

"[1]If a local authority finds that a highway under

its jurisdiction is located adjacent to, or provides

access to, a golf course and between the golf course and

the place where golf carts are parked or stored or is

within or bounded by a real estate development offering

golf facilities and is designed and constructed, so as to

safely permit the use of regular vehicular traffic and

also the driving of golf carts on the highway, the local

authority may, by resolution or ordinance, designate the

highway or portion of the highway for combined use and

prescribe rules and regulations which shall have the

force of law. [2]No highway shall be so designated for

a distance of more than one mile from the golf course if

the highway is not located within a development or beyond

the area of a development, provided, the finding of the

local authority in this respect shall be conclusive.

[3]Upon the designation becoming effective it shall be

lawful to drive golf carts upon the highway in accordance

with the prescribed rules and regulations. [4]The rules

and regulations may establish crossing zones and speed

limits and other operating standards but shall not

require that the golf carts conform to any requirements

of this code with respect to registration, licensing, or

equipment, except that if operated during darkness the

golf cart shall be subject to the provisions of Section

24001.5 regarding equipment.

"[5]The rules and regulations shall not be effective

until appropriate signs giving notice thereof are posted

along the highway affected.

"[6]A `real estate development offering golf

facilities,' for purposes of this section, means an area

of single-family or multiple-family residences, the

owners or occupants of which are eligible for membership

in, or the use of, one or more golf courses within the

development by virtue of their ownership or occupancy of

a residential dwelling unit in the development." (Stats.

1968, ch. 1303, p. 2456, § 1; as amended by Stats. 1970,

ch. 972, p. 1507, § 1; Stats. 1977, ch. 124, p. 560, § 1,

Stats. 1989, ch. 389, p. ___, § 1; emphasis & sentence

numbering added.)

Before discussing the interplay of this section with the

prohibition of section 21716 we try first to understand its

wording.

5. 90-302

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council

The first sentence of section 21115 gives local

authorities power to designate certain highways under their

jurisdiction for combined use by golf carts and regular vehicular

traffic, and to prescribe rules and regulations for them. It also

sets forth three criteria which must be met in order for a local

authority to so act. The first is that the highway must be one

that is under the "jurisdiction" of the local agency, i.e., it must

be a highway within the road system of the local agency and one for

which the agency is responsible. (Cf. Gillespie v. City of Los

Angeles (1950) 36 Cal.2d 553, 559; 64 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 335, 338

(1981); see also, 67 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 145, 148, supra ["It is

appropriate that the local public entity responsible for

maintenance of particular public roads should have a measure of

control over their use".].) This condition removes state highways

from the purview of section 21115.4

The second condition precedent for invocation of local

authority under section 21115 involves the location of the highway:

the highway must either (i) be adjacent to (or provide access to)

a golf course and be between the golf course and the place where

golf carts are stored, or (ii) be within a real estate development

offering golf facilities, as defined in sentence #6 of the section.

The third criterion involves the design and construction of the

highway: it must be designed and constructed so as to permit golf

carts and regular vehicular traffic to safely use it together.

(Cf. § 627 ["engineering & traffic survey"].) Again, if these

three criteria are met a local authority may designate a particular

highway or portion thereof for combined golf cart and regular

traffic use and prescribe rules and regulations for it.

Sentence #2 of section 21115 confines the length of

highway which may be so designated.

Sentence #3 of section 21115 spells out the consequences

of the designation: once the highway or portion of it is

designated for combined use by golf carts and regular vehicular

traffic, "it [becomes] lawful to drive golf carts upon [it] in

accordance with the prescribed rules and regulations [that the

local agency may adopt]." Under sentence #4 of the section, those

rules and regulations may include the establishment of "crossing

4 California's road network may basically be categorized as

consisting of state highways, county highways, and city streets.

(See generally, 37 Cal.Jur.3d Highways and Streets, §§ 13-20.)

Under the Streets and Highways Code, with which the provisions of

the Vehicle Code are in pari materia and must be construed together

(cf. Gillespie v. City of Los Angeles, supra, at 558; 64

Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 335, 339 fn. 3), a "state highway" is defined as

"any highway which is acquired, laid out, constructed, improved or

maintained pursuant to constitutional or legislative

authorization." (Sts. & Hy. Code, § 24; cf., id., div. 1.)

6. 90-302

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council

zones and speed limits and other operating standards" governing

traffic on the highway. However, they may not require that the

golf carts conform to any requirement of the Code with respect to

registration, licensing, or equipment --except that if operated

during darkness, the carts must conform to the provisions of

section 24001.5 regarding equipment.5

With sections 21716 and 21115 thus in mind, we can

proceed to juxtapose them. Section 21716 is cast in general terms

and applies to all streets and highways in the State. It clearly

prohibits the operation of a golf cart on any highway except in a

speed zone of 25 miles per hour or less. We saw how that

prohibition would apply to local streets and highways. However,

under section 21115 local agencies may permit golf carts to use

certain streets and highways under their jurisdiction together with

regular vehicular traffic (§ 21115, sent. #1), and the section

gives them specific authority to establish speed limits and other

rules and regulations to govern the traffic on those streets and

highways (id., sent. #4). While the section restricts the location

and length of the highways which may be so designated (id., sents.

#s 1 & 2), it makes no mention of restricting the speed limits

which may be set by local authorities for them. In fact, the

section also specifically provides that when a street or highway is

designated for such combined use, "it shall be lawful to drive golf

carts upon [it] in accordance with the prescribed rules and

regulations." (Id., sent. #3.)

Section 21115 thus makes lawful what would otherwise be

unlawful, and therein lies part of the confusion which prompts our

questions: If one could already lawfully drive golf carts upon

local streets and highways with speed zones of 25 miles per hour or

less, what more could the Legislature have intended for section

21115 to do toward making that activity lawful? Might the

Legislature have intended that section 21716 operate only after a

local authority had acted under section 21115 to permit the driving

of a golf cart upon a local street or highway, thus essentially

giving local authorities a veto over the use of golf carts on

5 Division 12 of the Code sets forth the equipment requirements

for "all vehicles ... when upon the highways." (§ 24001.) Section

24002 provides that "it is unlawful to operate any vehicle ...

which is not equipped as required by [the] Code." Section 24001.5

provides that "a golf cart as defined in Section 345 shall only be

subject to the provisions of [division 12] which are applicable to

a motorcycle." (Stats. 1968, ch. 1303, p. 2457, § 5.)

"Darkness" is defined as "any time from one-half hour after

sunset to one-half hour before sunrise and any other time when

visibility is not sufficient to render clearly discernable any

person or vehicle on the highway at a distance of 1,000 feet." (§

280.)

7. 90-302

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council

streets and highways in their jurisdiction. And then, was the

authority granted by section 21115 meant to permit local

authorities to approve the operation of golf carts on streets and

highways having speed limits in excess of 25 miles per hour?

In answering our questions we follow several beacons for

statutory construction. First and foremost, we must try to

ascertain the intent of the Legislature for enacting sections 21716

and 21115 and interpret them in such a way as to effectuate that

purpose. (Cf., Sand v. Superior Court (1983) 34 Cal.3d 567, 570;

Great Lake Properties, Inc v. City of El Segundo (1977) 19 Cal.3d

152, 153; Select Base Materials v. Board of Equalization (1959) 51

Cal.2d 640, 645.) To do so we looked first to the words of the

sections themselves. (People v. Belleci, supra, 24 Cal.3d at 884;

Moyer v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board, supra, 10 Cal.3d at

230; Steilberg v. Lackner, supra, 69 Cal.App.3d at 785; Rich v.

State Board of Optometry, supra, 235 Cal.App.2d at 604.) But when

we did that we saw how the wording of each statute appeared

unambiguous when considered alone, but that certain ambiguities

arose when the two were considered together.

We know that we must read the sections together in such

a way as to harmonize their provisions and give effect to the terms

of each. (Cf., People v. Black (1982) 32 Cal.3d 1,5; Palos Verdes

Faculty Association v. Palos Verdes Peninsula School District

(1978) 21 Cal.3d. 650, 659; Moyer v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.,

supra, at 230; People v. Kuhn (1963) 216 Cal.App.2d 695, 698; 68

Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 79, 82 (1985); 62 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 701, 703

(1979).) But as demonstrated, their wording presents several

possibilities as to how they may interrelate and thus uncertainty

exists in the exact relationship between them that was intended by

the Legislature. Fortunately "in the present instance both the

legislative history of the statute[s] and the wider historical

circumstance[s] of [their] enactment are legitimate and valuable

aids in divining the statutory purpose [and thus aides in resolving

that uncertainty]." (California Mfrs. Assn. v. Public Utilities

Com. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 836, 844; accord, Sand v. Superior Court,

supra, at 570; Grannis v. Superior Court (1905) 146 Cal. 245, 247­ 248; Alford v. Pierno (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 682, 688.) We therefore

turn to the legislative history of the sections to solve the

problem.

The 1968 Legislation. Sections 21716 and 21115 were both

adopted in 1968 as part of a single legislative enactment that

added the five aforementioned sections to the Vehicle Code to

specifically deal with the operation of golf carts on the State's

highways. (Stats. 1968, ch. 1303, pp. 2456-2457, §§ 1-5, adding

Veh. Code §§ 345, 4019, 21115, 21716, and 24001.5, respectively.)6

6 Sections 345, 4019, 21716, and 24001.5 appear today as they

were originally enacted in 1968; however section 21115 was

8. 90-302
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council

Prior to that time, the Vehicle Code did not treat golf carts

differently from other vehicles as far as registration and

equipment requirements were concerned. As today, under the code

then no person could drive any "motor vehicle" on a highway unless

it was first registered with the State Department of Motor

Vehicles. (Veh. Code [1959], § 4000.) Since the Code defined

"motor vehicle" as "a vehicle which is self-propelled" (id., § 415;

cf. id., § 6707), golf carts came within the definition of "motor

vehicle", and therefore had to be registered with the DMV in order

to be driven on a street or highway. They also had to be

appropriately equipped (id., § 24002; cf. id., § 24001)8 and have

displayed the appropriate license plate(s) (id., §§ 4850, 5200­ 5202).

From documents in its legislative history we learn that

the 1968 legislation (AB 840) was designed to provide special rules

for the registration, required equipment, and operation of golf

carts. (See e.g., Report of Committee Consultant To Committee

Members On AB 840, Assembly Committee On Transportation and

Commerce9
.) As ultimately enacted, the legislation did the

subsequently amended three times (Stats. 1970, ch. 792, supra;

Stats. 1977, ch. 124, supra; Stats 1989, ch. 389, supra).

7 Section 670 defined "vehicle" as "a device by which any

person or property may be propelled, moved, or drawn upon a

highway, excepting a device moved exclusively by human power or

used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks." (Veh. Code

[1959], § 670.)

8 Section 24002 of the 1959 Vehicle Code provided that "it is

unlawful to operate any vehicle ... which is not equipped as

required by this code...." Section 24001 of the Code provided that

"This division [i.e., division 12 dealing with Equipment of

Vehicles] ... unless otherwise provided, applies to all vehicles

... when upon the highways...."

9 The cited Report of the Consultant to the Assembly Committee

on Transportation and Commerce states:

"AB 840 was introduced at the request of a golf cart

manufacturer in the author's district. [¶] In order for golf carts

to be operated on any public roads at the present time, the golf

cart must be registered with DMV and meet specified equipment

requirements. The problem created by the current law is that very

few, if any, golf carts are manufactured to meet these equipment

requirements. However, some manufacturers are signing affidavits

stipulating that their carts meet the Vehicle Code equipment

standards in order to permit the purchaser to register the cart

with DMV. [¶]It is felt it would be more reasonable if golf carts

were required to meet the less restrictive vehicle equipment

9. 90-302
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council following: (1) It added section 345 to the Vehicle Code to define

"golf cart". (2) It added section 4019 to exempt golf carts from

the registration requirements of the Code, but only when they were

operated pursuant to section 21115. (3) It added section 21115 to

authorize local authorities to designate up to one-half mile of

certain highways under their jurisdiction for combined use by golf

carts and regular vehicular traffic and to prescribe rules and

regulations therefor. (4) It added our section 21716 to prohibit

the operation of golf carts on any highway except in a speed zone

of 25 miles per hour or less. And (5), it added section 24001.5 to

specify that golf carts (as defined in section 345) were only to be

subject to the equipment requirements of the Vehicle Code that were

applicable to motorcycles. (Stats. 1968, ch. 1303, §§ 1-5,

respectively.)

Three things are worthy of note regarding the 1968 golf

cart legislation. One is that the 25 mile per hour speed limit for

the highways upon which golf carts would be permitted to operate

under section 21716 had been deliberately set by a Senate amendment

on June 28, 1968; prior thereto, the speed limit of the zone in

which they could operate had been fixed at 35 miles per hour. We

surmise that the lower limit was imposed for safety reasons because

it would be more consistent with the 15 mile per hour operational

limit of golf carts as defined in section 345 (cf. fn. 1(b), ante).

Second, it is to be particularly noted that sections

21716 and 21115 came into the legislation at different times. AB

840 contained the addition of section 21716 to the Vehicle Code to

restrict the operation of golf carts to speed zones of 25 miles per

hour or less early in its gestation, and at a time when any

addition of section 21115 was still in the offing. Thus when

section 21716 was already considered, no mention yet was made of

local authorities being able to designate portions of highway for

combined golf cart and regular traffic use. That provision only

came about with a Senate amendment on July 20, 1968 when section

requirements that apply to motorcycles rather than the equipment

requirements for passenger cars." (Report of Committee Consultant

To Committee Members On AB 840, Assembly Committee On

Transportation and Commerce, supra.)

This document is properly considered in determining the

Legislature's purpose for enacting AB 840. (See e.g., Southern

Cal. Gas Co. v. Public Utilities Com. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 653, 659;

People v. Martinez (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 15, 22; Ventura v. City of

San Jose (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 1076, 1080; Southland Mechanical

Constructors Corp. v. Nixen (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 417, 427; People

v. Swinney (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 332, 342; Maben v. Superior Court

(1967) 255 Cal.App.2d 708, 713.)

10. 90-302

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council

21115 was added to the Bill. (Sen. amdt. to AB 840, July 20,

1968.)

Third, it is to be noted that no mention was made at all

in the 1968 legislation about local authorities being able to

prescribe speed limits as part of the rules and regulations that

they could adopt for a combined use highway. As we shall see, that

specific authority was not to be granted until 1970. (Stats.,

1970, ch. 792, p. 1507, § 1.)

In the 1968 statutory scheme devised for golf cart

operation, section 21716 was the primary section. It established

a maximum speed limit for golf carts operating on any street or

highway in the State, independent of any action a local authority

might take under section 21115, for that section made no mention of

speed limits.10 However, if a local authority did designate a

portion of a local street or highway for combined golf cart and

regular vehicular traffic under the section 21115, golf carts

operating on it would not have to be registered with the Department

of Motor Vehicles. And thus is solved the confusion of what

section 21115 makes legal beyond that which section 21716 already

permitted: Under section 21716, golf carts could already be driven

on streets and highways in speed zones of 25 miles per hour or

less, but they had to first be registered by the DMV. Now on a

section 21115 street or highway it would be legal to drive them

without that registration.

As noted, sections 21716, 24001.5, 4019, and 345 remain

today as they were enacted in 1968. However, section 21115 was

subsequently amended three times (Stats. 1970, ch. 792, supra;

Stats. 1977, ch. 124, supra; Stats 1989, supra) and the first of

those amendments specifically gave local authorities, authority to

set speed limits on the one half mile portion of street or highway

that they would designate for combined golf cart and regular

vehicular traffic use. We therefore must look to that legislation

to see if it was meant to change the statutory scheme established

for golf carts in 1968.

The 1970 Legislation. Section 21115 was amended in 1970

by SB 35. (Stats. 1970, ch. 792,supra.) The major reason for the

legislation was that residents of a particular adult residential

golfing/retirement community found that the ½ mile limit of highway

10If there were any doubt as to the primacy of section 21716

over section 21115 we would, "`as a last resort ... apply the rule

that the later provision in point of position controls the earlier

provision although both are in the same statute and passed at the

same time.' (People v. Moroney [1944] 24 Cal.2d 638, 645.)"

(Hartford Acc. etc. Co. v. City of Tulare (1947) 30 Cal.2d 832,

835.) Section 21115 was added by section 3 of Chapter 1303 of the

Statutes of 1968; section 21716 was added by section 4.

11. 90-302

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council

that could be designated by their local authority under section

21115 to exempt golf carts from Vehicle Code registration, was not

sufficient to permit many of them to drive from their homes to the

community golf course. (See e.g., Letter from the Bill's author,

Senator Nejedly, to Governor Reagan (Aug. 26, 1970), post;

Description of SB 35, Assembly Transportation Committee, post;

Letter from Senator Nejedly to J.W. Dent, Member of the Assembly

(July 31, 1970); Letters from the Rossmoor Walnut Creek Golden Rain

Foundation to the Bill's author (Oct. 3, 1969 and Jan. 7, 1970);

Letter from the Rossmoor Golf Club to the Golden Rain Foundation

(Oct. 22, 1969).)

The initial solution to the problem was to increase the

length of local highway adjacent to a golf course that a local

authority could designate for combined golf cart and regular

vehicular use from ½ mile to 1½ miles. (See SB 35 as introduced in

the Senate on January 12, 1970.) However, that approach was

abandoned on February 19, 1970, when the Bill was amended in the

Senate to speak instead of local authorities designating only local

highways "within or bounded by a real estate development offering

golf facilities" for any combined use. (See Sen. amendments to SB

35, February 19, 1970.)11

But more important for our purposes, SB 35 was also

amended on February 19th to specifically mention that the rules and

regulations that a local authority might adopt to govern a combined

use highway under section 21115, could include the establishment of

speed limits. The kernel of what is now sentence #4 of the section

was added as follows:

"Such rules and regulations may establish speed

limits and other operating standards but shall not

require that golf carts conform to any requirements of

11The authority of local agencies to designate local highways

"adjacent to a golf course and between the golf course and the

place where golf carts are parked or stored" for combined golf cart

and regular vehicular traffic use was reinstated when SB 35 was

amended for a final time, in the Assembly, on July 15, 1970. [It

is interesting to note that those amendments were drafted by the

Legislative Counsel at the behest of the author of the original

1968 golf cart legislation (AB 840) because he did not wish to see

that repealed. (See Letter, D.E. Whittington, Deputy Legislative

Counsel, to K. Cory, Member of the Assembly, dated July 13, 1970;

Memorandum, J.A. Nejedly to J.W. Dent, Member of the Assembly,

dated July 31, 1970.)] The half mile limit for such a designation

on a highway outside a development, originally imposed in 1968, was

also reinstated at the same time. (See, Ass. amendments to SB 35

of July 15, 1970; Letter of D.E. Whittington, supra; Legislative

Analyst's Analysis of SB 35, July 21, 1970.)

12. 90-302

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council

this code with respect to equipment, registration, or

licensing."

Thus, with this and the other amendments that were made

to section 21115 in 1970, the section took form as it essentially

appears today: A local authority could designate up to one half

mile of a local street or highway adjacent to a golf course, or a

local street or highway within a "real estate development offering

golf facilities", for combined golf cart and regular vehicular

traffic use, if it found that the street or highway was designed

and constructed to safely permit that usage. And a local authority

was given specific power to establish speed limits on the highways

it designated for that combined use. Under section 4019, golf

carts could be driven on section 21115 highways without having to

be registered (or perforce licensed) with the Department of Motor

Vehicles.12

It might appear from the 1970 amendment to section 21115

that local authorities, which could now set speed limits on

combined use highways, could do so independently of section 21716,

and that the primacy of the latter section, established in the 1968

legislation, had been reversed and now depended on local action.

However, documents in the legislative history show that that was

never intended to be the case.

As mentioned, the purpose for the 1970 amendment to

section 21115 was to accommodate residents of certain communities

offering golf facilities who lived more than one half mile from

their golf course and could not drive their golf carts on the local

streets from their homes to the course without first having to

register them with the Department of Motor Vehicles. Other than

making that accommodation, by permitting local authorities to

designate all local streets within such a development for combined

golf cart and regular vehicular traffic use to give them the

benefits of section 21115, the 1970 legislation was not meant to

change the basic scheme of golf cart regulation that had been

established in 1968. And specifically, although the matter of

12Section 21115 was once again amended in 1977. (Stats. 1977,

ch. 124, p. 560, § 1.) The amendment extended to one mile, the

length of highway outside a "real estate development offering golf

facilities" that a local agency could designate for combined golf

cart and regular vehicular traffic use. It also limited the

equipment requirement of section 24001.5 to golf carts operated on

combined use highways during darkness.

In 1989 the section was again amended. (Stats. 1989, ch.

389, p. ___, § 1.) Other than specifying that a local agency could

provide "crossing zones" as part of the rules and regulations it

would establish for a combined use street or highway, the amendment

is not significant for our purposes.

13. 90-302

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council

local authorities establishing speed limits was now mentioned in

section 21115, the legislative documents are replete with

statements indicating that any street designated for combined use

would still have to have a maximum speed limit of 25 miles per

hour.

For example, we read the following in a description of SB

35 by the Assembly Transportation Committee:

"This bill was introduced at the request of the

residents of the Rossmoor community in Walnut Creek.

Rossmoor is a special community built for adults. [¶]The

purpose of SB 35 is to permit Rossmoor residents to drive

to and from their community golf course in a golf cart

that has not been registered with DMV. However, the

following Vehicle Code provisions regulating golf carts

would still be retained:

"1. The street on which the golf cart is driven must

be posted at 25 miles per hour or less.

"2. The driver of the cart must have a license.

"3. The golf cart must have certain prescribed

equipment.

"...." (Emphasis added; see also ( Memorandum of

J.A. Nejedly to J.W. Dent, supra.)

A similar description of SB 35 is found in the letter from the

author of the Bill commending it to Governor Reagan for signature

into law (Letter of State Senator John A. Nejedly to Governor

Reagan, supra)13 and similar statements were contained in a press

release by the author when it was signed into law (Press Release,

Office of Senator John A. Nejedly, September 4, 1970).

It is therefore seen that the 1970 legislation was

neither meant to change the general scheme of golf cart regulation

set in 1968, nor the specific need for a street designated by a

local authority for combined golf cart and regular vehicular use to

13"This letter is to respectfully request your favorable

consideration of my Senate Bill 35. [¶][¶]Specifically, the bill

permits unregistered golf carts to be ridden within a real estate

development of the type having a security gate and golf facilities.

[¶]However, certain Vehicle Code provisions relating to golf carts

would still be retained; namely, (1) the street on which the golf

cart is driven must be posted at 25 mph or less; (2) the driver of

the golf cart must have a license; (3) the golf cart must have

certain prescribed equipment." (Emphasis added.)

14. 90-302

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council have a speed limit of 25 miles per hour or less, which limit had

been deliberately set by the legislature in 1968.

With this general background, we can proceed to answer

the specific questions that were asked.

1. Operating Golf Carts On Local Streets And Highways

When A Local Authority Has Not Acted Under Section 21115. We are

first asked whether golf carts may be operated on local streets and

highways, with speed limits of 25 miles per hour or less, if a

local agency has not acted under section 21115 to designate

portions of highways under its jurisdiction for combined golf cart

and regular traffic use. We conclude that they may, provided that

they are properly registered and equipped.

We have seen in our examination of the legislative

history of the State golf cart legislation how the Legislature has

carefully provided rules for the operation of golf carts on the

State's highways. Sections 21716 and 21115 must not only be

construed in relation to each other, but also in the context of

that entire statutory framework in which they were wrought. (Cf.

Turner v. Board of Trustees (1976) 16 Cal.3d 818, 826; Moyer v.

Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd, supra, 10 Cal.3d at 230; People v.

Moroney (1944) 24 Cal.2d 638, 642; Earl Ranch, Ltd. v. Industrial

Acc. Com. (1935) 4 Cal.2d 767, 769; Marrujo v. Hunt (1977) 71

Cal.App.3d 972, 977.) When we look to that whole package the

pieces of our puzzle fall into place.

We saw that the 1968 legislation was meant to provide

special statutory rules for the operation of golf carts on the

streets and highways of the State, and that sections 21716 and

21115 were part of them, but had separate and independent reasons

for their respective enactment. Section 21716 was meant to set

forth a carefully considered general rule for the operation of golf

carts on streets and highways: the section does not prohibit their

operation, but does provide that they may only be operated in speed

zones of 25 miles per hour or less. As with other motor vehicles

(cf. §§ 415, 670, supra), they can be operated if they are

registered (§ 4000), properly equipped (per § 24001.5), and have an

appropriate license plate displayed (§§ 4850, 5200-5202). Thus, a

golf cart which is properly equipped and registered may be operated

upon a public highway having a speed limit of 25 miles per hour or

less by a licensed operator in accordance with traffic laws because

nothing in the Vehicle Code prohibits such operation. (Cf. Ex

Parte Daniels (1920) 183 Cal. 636, 639 ["The streets of a city

belong to the people of the state, and every citizen has a right to

the use thereof, subject to legislative control...."]; accord,

Rumford v. City of Berkeley, supra, 31 Cal.3d at 549; Escobedo v.

State of California (1950) 35 Cal.2d 870, 875-876; City of

Lafayette v. County of Contra Costa, supra, 91 Cal.App.3d at 753.)

15. 90-302

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council

Section 21115 was never meant to, and does not detract

from that. The section had a completely different reason for being

enacted, viz, to provide a special rule to govern the operation of

golf carts in the special situation of specifically designated one-

half mile portions of local streets and highways where they could

be driven without first being registered with the Department of

Motor Vehicles (§ 4019), or perforce having the indicium of

registration, a license, displayed.

We therefore conclude that golf carts may be operated on

local streets and highways with a speed limit of 25 miles per hour

or less, even if a local agency has not taken action under section

21115 to designate them for combined golf cart and regular

vehicular traffic use. However, before a golf cart may be so

driven it must first be registered with the Department of Motor

Vehicles, bear a Department issued license plate, and have

appropriate equipment (§ 24001.5).

2. Local Agency Action Affecting Golf Cart Operation.

Our second question asks the extent to which local authorities may

extend or restrict the operation of golf carts on local streets and

highways. Specific inquiry is made as to (a) whether section 21716

limits the action local authorities may take under section 21115 to

permitting the operation of golf carts on combined use highways

which have a speed limit of 25 miles per hour or less; (b) whether

local authorities acting under section 21115 can permit the

operation of golf carts in crossing zones where the speed limit of

the intersecting street exceeds 25 miles per hour; and (c) whether

local authorities can prohibit the use of golf carts on local

streets and highways altogether.

Speed Limit Of Designated Highway. As we have seen,

local authorities were given the specific authority to set speed

limits for combined use highways in the 1970 amendment that was

made to section 21115. But as we have demonstrated, the

legislative history of that amendment makes it clear beyond doubt's

peradventure that when a local authority acts under the section, it

may only designate those local streets and highways that have speed

limits of 25 miles per hour or less for combined golf cart and

regular vehicular traffic use. The general prohibition set in

section 21716 against golf carts operating otherwise was never

meant to be overridden.

The legislature has given local authorities the power to

decrease speed limits to 25 miles per hour on certain streets. (§

22358.) That would then permit the street to qualify for

designation as a combined use highway. But we believe the

Legislature intended section 21716 to be an absolute ban on golf

carts operating on any portion of highway having a speed limit

exceeding 25 miles per hour. As mentioned, that limit was

deliberately set with traffic safety in mind, given the 15 mile per

hour operational limit of a golf cart (cf. § 345). We therefore

16. 90-302

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council conclude that a local agency may not permit the operation of golf

carts on local streets and highways with speed limits in excess of

25 miles per hour.

Crossing Zones. Specific concern was raised whether a

local agency, acting under section 21115, may permit the operation

of golf carts in crossing zones which traverse a street or highway

that has a speed limit of more than 25 miles per hour. We conclude

it may not.

Local authorities may only regulate traffic on public

streets to the extent that they have been expressly authorized to

do so in the Vehicle Code, and unless an express authorization

appears therein, a local authority has no power in the area.

(§ 21; see Rumford v. City of Berkeley, supra, 31 Cal.3d at 550;

City of Lafayette v. County of Contra Costa, supra, 91 Cal.App.3d

at 749; 73 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen., 13, 15, supra; 68 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen.

101, 102, supra.) Moreover, any delegation of a power to local

authorities to regulate traffic "is [to be] strictly construed...."

(Rumford v. City of Berkeley, supra at 550, 553; see also, City of

Lafayette v. County of Contra Costa, supra at 756; People v. Moore

(1964) 229 Cal.App.2d 221, 228; 73 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen., supra; 67

Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 1, 4, supra.)

Section 21115 was amended last year to permit local

authorities to establish "crossing zones" for golf cart use. (SB

48; Stats. 1989, ch. 389, supra.) We understand a "crossing zone"

to be a corridor that is designated across a street or highway that

runs through a golf course, to permit golf carts to go from one

part of the course to another.

However, when a local agency acts to establish a crossing

zone it does so by authority of section 21115. That section

empowers local authorities to designate portions of certain

highways for combined use by golf carts and regular vehicular

traffic and to adopt rules and regulation to govern that traffic.

The designation then permits the operation of golf carts on the

highways so designated in accordance with those rules and

regulations. Section 21115 specifically provides that the rules

and regulations may include the establishment of "crossing zones".

But it must not be forgotten that the rules and regulations that a

local agency adopts under the section are meant for the regulation

of traffic on a combined use highway . Thus the rules and

regulations themselves apply only to highways or portions of

highways that have been designated for combined use, but as we have

shown, it is only those areas of highway that have speed limits of

25 miles per hour or less that may be so designated. Thus, the

crossing zones contemplated by section 21115 may only be located in

a designated portion of a highway that has a speed limit of 25

miles per hour or less. The section does not permit the operation

of a golf cart in a crossing zone across a highway having a speed

limit greater than 25 miles per hour.

17. 90-302

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council In section 21716 the Legislature has plainly spoken: "No

person shall operate a golf cart on any highway except in a speed

zone of 25 miles per hour or less." (§ 21716; emphasis added.) A

crossing zone, though traversing a highway, is nonetheless on the

highway it traverses. (Cf. § 365 ["intersection"].) Under section

21716 golf carts may not be operated there if the speed limit of

the highway at that point is more than 25 miles per hour, because

the zone in which the cart would operate would not be one of 25

miles per hour or less.

Lastly, we have seen how when 21716 was adopted in 1968,

the Legislature deliberately set 25 miles per hour as the maximum

speed limit that streets and highways could have if golf carts were

to be operated upon them. That limit, we surmised, was

purposefully set because the Legislature considered its 10 mile an

hour differential from a golf cart's upper operational limit to be

the maximum that could be permitted on a combined use highway and

still be consistent with traffic safety on it. But those traffic

safety considerations for a combined use highway are just as

compelling in the situation where a golf cart crosses a street or

highway, as when it travels along it. Whether a golf cart travels

parallel with regular vehicular traffic along a highway, or travels

perpendicular to the highway and the vehicular traffic's flow, the

difference between the cart's maneuverability and capabilities and

that of the regular vehicular traffic is still there.

We therefore conclude that local authorities may not

establish crossing zones across local streets or highways that have

speed limits in excess of 25 miles per hour.

A Local Authority Prohibiting The Use Of Golf Carts On

Local Streets Altogether. The final specific inquiry made

regarding the scope of local authorities powers to expand or

restrict the operation of golf carts on local streets and highways,

is whether they can ban their operation altogether. The question

as asked came in the context of section 21115, i.e., if local

authorities do not act under that section to designate a local

street or highway for combined golf cart and regular traffic use,

are golf carts thereby precluded from using it.

We answered that in question one: golf carts may be

operated on any street or highway with a speed limit of 25 miles

per hour or less independent of section 21115, and no action by a

local authority is necessary to effect that permission. We find

now that no action by a local agency under section 21115 can affect

it.

Again, local authorities may only regulate traffic on

public streets to the extent that they have been expressly

authorized to do so in the Vehicle Code, and unless an express

authorization appears therein, a local authority has no power in

the area. (§ 21; see, Rumford v. City of Berkeley, supra, 31

18. 90-302

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council Cal.3d at 550; City of Lafayette v. County of Contra Costa, supra,

91 Cal.App.3d at 749; 73 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 13, 15, supra; 68

Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 101, 102, supra.) As we have shown, section

21115 is positive in thrust; it adds to one's ability to drive a

golf cart on certain local streets and highways because it enables

one to avoid the necessity of first having to register the vehicle.

(§ 4019.) The section and its legislative history are devoid of

any indication that it was meant to derogate from the basic ability

of being able to drive a properly registered golf cart on a local

street, as long as its speed limit is 25 miles per hour or less.

We therefore conclude that under section 21115, local authorities

may not prohibit the operation of golf carts on local streets or

highways, either through action or inaction.

However, the primary statute governing local control over

highway uses is not section 21115, but rather section 21101 of the

Vehicle Code. (Cf. 67 Ops.Cal.Atty. Gen. 1, 5, supra.) There, in

subdivision (c) of the section, the Legislature has given local

authorities the power to adopt rules and regulations "[p]rohibiting

the use of particular highways [under their jurisdiction] by

certain vehicles ...." (§ 21101, subd. (c); emphasis added.)

The Legislature's use of the word "certain" to describe

the vehicles that local authorities can prohibit from using

particular local streets and highway, indicates that it did not

wish to define or particularize them on a statewide basis, but

intended instead to leave the matter of saying exactly which types

of classes of vehicles might be prohibited from using particular

local highways to local discretion, as local conditions warranted.

(Cf. 73 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 13, 19, supra.) Thus,

"In 55 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 178 (1955) we ... said that

[although the phrase 'certain vehicles' was not defined

(Id. at 182)], it was broad enough to permit a city or

county to prohibit the use of particular highways or

streets by certain classes of vehicles, such as those

determined to be excessively noisy. (Id. at 183.) Our

conclusion was cited in City of Lafayette v. County of

Contra Costa, supra, 91 Cal.App.3d 749 in support of the

proposition that subdivision (c) would permit a city to

prohibit certain classes of vehicles, "such as trucks, or

tractors, or oversize or 'excessively noisy' vehicles, or

those lacking air-inflated tires," from using particular

highways. (Id. at 756 fn. 2.) In 67 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen.

1, supra, we again considered the subdivision and

concluded that the phrase 'certain vehicles' gave local

agencies some limited authority to restrict the roads on

which certain cargoes, such as hazardous material, might

be transported in the jurisdiction. (Id. at 5-7.) (73

Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. at 19, supra.)

19. 90-302

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council By parity of reasoning, we conclude that if local

conditions warrant, a local agency could ban golf carts from

particular local streets under section 21101, subdivision (c).

But a caveat is in order. In 67 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 1,

supra, we noted that a number of qualifications had to accompany

the grant of authority under section 21101, subdivision (c).

Pertinent here were (a) that a local authority could not use that

authority to thwart the application of other state laws (cf. 55

Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 178, 183, supra), and (b) that "as in all cases

regarding the exercise of police powers, the [local action] must

not be 'arbitrary, unreasonable, or confiscatory.' [Citations.]"

(67 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen., supra at 6.) That means, in part, that

there must be a valid governmental objective to be served and the

means adopted to achieve it are reasonably related to doing so.

(Cf. Skyline Materials, Inc. v. City of Belmont (1961) 198

Cal.App.2d 449, 455; Neary v. Town of Los Altos Hills (1959) 172

Cal.App.2d 721, 726.)

A total ban on the operation of golf carts on all local

streets and highways would not be justified under section 21101,

subdivision (c). Such action would not come within the specific

grant of authority to "prohibit[] the use of particular highways by

certain vehicles" because the word "particular" means something

less than all. (Webster's Third New Intnl. Dict. (1971 ed.) at p.

1646; see also, Neary v. Town of Los Altos, supra, 172 Cal.App.2d

at 728.) However, it is possible that valid, compelling, and

legitimate reasons might exist for a local authority to find it

necessary to ban golf carts from a particular local street or

highway, and that a decision to do so would be proper under the

circumstances. For example, if some problem was being caused by

the operation of golf carts on a particular street or highway which

could only be solved by prohibiting their operation on it, action

taken by a local authority to ban the carts would be proper.

Further, that action would no more impinge on state law, than would

action taken by a local authority under subdivision (c) to ban any

other type of vehicle that could otherwise travel on local streets

and highways.

We therefore conclude that while local authorities may

not ban golf carts from operating on all local streets and

highways, they may prohibit their operation on particular local

streets and highways under section 21101, subdivision (c), if that

action is called for to remedy untoward circumstances brought about

by the operation of the carts on the streets.

In answer to question two then we conclude as follows:

Generally speaking, local authorities may not restrict golf carts

from operating on any public highway within their jurisdiction

having a speed limit of 25 miles per hour or less, if the carts

have been registered with the Department of Motor Vehicles and are

properly equipped as required by the Vehicle Code. However, if

20. 90-302

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council circumstances warrant, they may ban golf carts from using

particular streets and highways under section 21101, subdivision

(c). If a local authority designates a portion of highway for

combined use by golf carts and regular vehicular traffic under

section 21115, then golf carts that are not registered with or

licensed by the DMV may be used upon them. But local authorities

may not permit golf carts to be operated on streets and highways

with speed limits in excess of 25 miles per hour, or in a crossing

zone that traverses such a street or highway.

****

21. 90-302

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council Attachment 3: Caltrans FY 2027-28 Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, Call for Applications
City of Exeter | City Council Meeting of September 8, 2026 | Forwarded to the City by the Tulare County Association of Governments
From: Tulare County Association of Governments ([email protected]), 210 North Church Street, Suite B, Visalia, CA 93291, (559) 623-0450
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2026, 3:35 PM
To: TCAG member agencies
Subject: FY 2027-28 STPG Call for Applications
Good afternoon,
Please see the information below provided by Caltrans regarding Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant applications and let us know if there are any questions. Thank you.

From: Caltrans HQ Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program ([email protected]) Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2026, 2:23 PM
Subject: FY 2027-28 STPG Call for Applications
Fiscal Year 2027-28
Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Call for Applications Dear Stakeholders,
On behalf of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), we are pleased to release the Fiscal Year 2027-28 Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant (STPG) Application Guide and Call for Applications.

Applications are due by 5:00 PM on Friday, October 9, 2026. Grant awards will be announced in spring 2027.

Caltrans is conducting grant application workshops starting next week to provide a grant program overview and review the resources that are available to assist with application development. Contact the appropriate Caltrans district staff to coordinate draft application review and feedback.

Visit the STPG website for workshop details, the STPG Application Guide, application forms and templates, and Caltrans district staff contacts.

STPG website: dot.ca.gov/programs/transportation-planning/division-of-transportation-planning/regionaland-community-planning/sustainable-transportation-planning-grants Caltrans Headquarters Contact: Kevin Mariant, Chief, Grant Management Branch, [email protected] Caltrans | 1120 N Street | Sacramento, CA 95814
September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council Attachment 4: Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant (STPG) Program Summary and Schedule
City of Exeter | City Council Meeting of September 8, 2026 | Prepared by the City Engineer (A&M Consulting Engineers) Program at a glance
Program Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, Fiscal Year 2027-28, Sustainable Communities Competitive grant. State funds that pay for transportation planning documents, not construction.

Call for applications Released by Caltrans August 18, 2026 and forwarded to the City by the Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) the same day.

Application deadline Friday, October 9, 2026, 5:00 PM
Award announcement Spring 2027
Award range $50,000 minimum for under-resourced and rural communities ($100,000 for others) to a maximum of $700,000. Approximately $17.9 million available statewide for Sustainable Communities grants.

Local match 11.47 percent of total project cost. May be cash or in-kind; the City's own staff time counts as cash match under the program guide.

Eligible applicants Cities may apply directly. The City must have a Housing Element found in substantial compliance by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and current Annual Progress Reports for 2024 and 2025.

Eligible plan types Active transportation plans, complete streets plans, shared mobility studies, and zero-emission vehicle planning, among others. A citywide mobility plan that includes golf carts, low-speed vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians fits within the program.

What the funded plan must
include
Community engagement, consistency with the TCAG Regional Transportation Plan, and an implementation program of specific projects. The final document is delivered to Caltrans District 6 in an accessible electronic format.

Performance period Approximately 32 months after the grant agreement and notice to proceed, or roughly 2030.

Proposed City of Exeter request
Item Amount Basis
Grant request $290,000 Sized to the scope of a citywide mobility plan Local match (11.47% of total) $37,600 (approx.) May be met with City staff time already budgeted Total project cost $327,600 (approx.) Grant plus match
Cost to apply None beyond staff and City Engineer time No General Fund appropriation required Schedule
Date Milestone
August 18, 2026 Caltrans releases FY 2027-28 STPG call for applications; TCAG forwards to the City September 8, 2026 City Council considers options and provides direction on whether to apply September 2026 Confirm Housing Element compliance; City Engineer prepares application; Caltrans District 6 reviews draft application on request
October 9, 2026 Application due to Caltrans, 5:00 PM
Spring 2027 Caltrans announces awards
Mid to late 2027 (estimate) Grant agreement executed and notice to proceed issued 2028 to 2030 Mobility plan prepared with community engagement; final plan complete within approximately 32 months of notice to proceed
Contacts
Caltrans District 6 (Fresno): Lorena Mendibles, Senior Transportation Planner, (559) 840-6066, [email protected]. Caltrans Headquarters Grant Management Branch: Kevin Mariant, Chief, [email protected]. TCAG: (559) 623-0450.

Sources: Caltrans FY 2027-28 Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Application Guide and call for applications (August 18, 2026); California Grants Portal listing for the FY 2027-28 STPG; TCAG transmittal of August 18, 2026. Figures current as of September 2, 2026.

September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Exeter City Council