Ione City Council
October 5, 2026

OF TONE

CITY OF IONE
IONE, CA 95640
SPECIAL MEETING STARTS AT 5:00 PM
Mayor Jody Maita
Vice Mayor Stacy Rhoades
Councilmember Dominic Atlan
Councilmember Linda Smylie
Councilmember Jack Mitchell
AT 1 E. MAIN STREET, IONE, CA 95640
The City of lone is inviting you to attend an in-person meeting of the City Council, with the option to participate via Zoom.

Join Zoom Meeting
https://zoom.us/j/2351961316?pwd=d31WTW0zbVJLblpQNXBDQWtpZkRyUT09 Meeting ID: 235 196 1316
Passcode: 95640
Monday, October 5, 2026

ACCONTES, END FISCAL TEC RIDICATE TO MOTING GONADERSHIP,

OPPORTUNITIES AND MAINTAINING A HIGH QUALITY OF LIFE FOR OUR CITIZENS A. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
D. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS
E. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: Each Speaker is Limited to 4 Minutes
F. OPEN SESSION:

1. Consider Adoption of Resolution No. 2026-36, Opposing the Proposed Closure of Ione Elementary School Campus and the Amador County Unified School District's Consolidation Program
MONE

CITY OF IONE
IONE, CA 95640

2. Consider Adoption of Resolution No. 2026-37, Approving the Proposal from All Sierra Roof Company for the Reroof Project at 217 W. Jackson St. and Authorizing Execution of a Project Contract
G. ADJOURNMENT

OF TONE

CITY OF IONE
IONE, CA 95640
Agenda Item # F. 1.

DATE: OCTOBER 5, 2026
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JOSH VARINSKY, CITY ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE PROPOSED CLOSURE OF IONE

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND THE AMADOR COUNTY UNIFIED

SCHOOL DISTRICT'S CONSOLIDATION PROGRAM
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

It is recommended that the City Council discuss and consider the attached resolution expressing its opposition to the School District's proposed consolidation program.

BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION:

This item was requested by the Mayor for a special meeting in advance of the School District's formal consideration of the proposed consolidation plan.

Amador County Unified School District ("ACUSD") is considering a consolidation program that would combine six schools onto five campuses, including closing Ione Elementary School and converting Ione Junior High School into an elementary school. ACUSD circulated an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ("IS/MND") for the project from September 1 to September 30, 2026.

The resolution formally states the City Council's opposition to the program as proposed. It cites concerns about traffic, fire safety, emergency access concerns, projected growth in lone, and the program's disproportionate burden on lone. It also emphasizes the City's commitment to working with ACUSD and all cities in Amador County toward a countywide solution, and requests that ACUSD not approve the program as currently proposed.

For the public's information, on September 30, 2026, the City Attorney submitted a CEQA comment letter on behalf of the City outlining the City's concerns regarding the IS/MND and the project's environmental impacts. The comment letter is included as an attachment with this report.

The letter plainly states that a project of this magnitude and impact requires a full Environmental Impact Report.

This resolution supplements the City's CEQA comment letter by stating the Council's policy position on the merits of the proposed consolidation directly to the ACUS Board of Trustees and the Superintendent.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution No. 2026-36

2. City of lone CEQA Comment Letter to ACUSD, September 30, 2026 RESOLUTION 2026-36

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IONE OPPOSING THE

PROPOSED CLOSURE OF IONE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND THE AMADOR

COUNTY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT'S CONSOLIDATION PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Amador County Unified School District ("ACUSD) is considering a consolidation program that would combine six schools onto five campuses, including closing lone Elementary School and converting Ione Junior High School into an elementary school; and WHEREAS, the City of lone ("City") recognizes the challenges ACUSD faces in serving the students of Amador County, and understands that lone, like every community in the County, must help address those challenges; and
WHEREAS, the City, ACUSD, and the other cities in Amador County share a commitment to the students and families they serve, and the City believes the best outcomes will result from collaborative planning for school facilities, transportation, public safety, and future growth throughout the County; and
WHEREAS, the City acknowledges that the consolidation program would affect communities throughout Amador County, requiring students to travel farther to school and increasing traffic and travel burdens for families countywide; and WHEREAS, the City Council understands that other cities within Amador County share similar concerns regarding the consolidation plan as currently proposed, while recognizing that the potential impacts may differ among communities; and
WHEREAS, the proposed consolidation would place a disproportionate burden on Ione, which would be the only community in the County to lose a school campus; and WHEREAS, the consolidation would move students from lone Elementary School, which has direct access to the state highway system, to the historic Ione Junior High School campus, which is served by older, narrow residential streets not designed to safely accommodate the increased traffic; and
WHEREAS, the lone Fire Department has raised serious concerns regarding emergency access and evacuation at the lone Junior High School campus, including its proximity to wildland fire risk and the effect of additional school traffic on residential streets that serve as evacuation routes; and
WHEREAS, lone continues to grow and its continued development has contributed substantial school impact fees to ACUSD, yet the proposed closure would limit the City's capacity to serve future student growth; and
WHEREAS, schools are central to lone's identity and local economy, and lone would be harmed by the loss of its junior high grades and an elementary school campus; and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that all Amador County communities must share in difficult decisions, but opposes a plan that asks lone to bear a disproportionate share of the burden without adequately addressing the City's safety, traffic, and growth concerns.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of lone as follows:

SECTION 1. RECITALS
The City Council finds that the above recitals are true and correct and incorporates them into this Resolution.

SECTION 2. OPPOSITION
The City Council of the City of lone hereby formally opposes the closure of lone Elementary School and the ACUSD's consolidation program as currently proposed.

SECTION 3. REQUEST TO DELAY APPROVAL
The City Council requests that the ACUSD Board of Trustees not approve the consolidation program until the traffic, public safety, emergency access, and growth concerns identified in this Resolution have been fully evaluated and addressed in consultation with the City.

SECTION 4. CONSIDERATION OF GROWTH
The City Council requests that ACUSD fully consider the ongoing and future projected growth in the City of lone before making a final decision affecting schools in lone.

SECTION 5. CONTINUED COLLABORATION
The City remains committed to working collaboratively with ACUSD and the other cities in Amador County. The City requests that ACUSD engage with those cities to evaluate alternatives that address ACUSD's financial and enrollment challenges while preserving schools in lone, ensuring student safety, and planning for future growth throughout the County.

SECTION 6. AUTHORIZATION
The City Manager and City Attorney are authorized to take any actions necessary to carry out this Resolution, including submitting comments to the ACUSD and participating in any proceedings on the consolidation program.

SECTION 7. TRANSMITTAL
The City Clerk is directed to transmit a certified copy of this Resolution to:
• Amador County Unified School District Board of Trustees; • ACUSD Superintendent;
• Other agencies or representatives the City Council determines appropriate.

The foregoing resolution was duly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of lone at their special meeting held on October 5, 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Approved:

Jody Maita, Mayor
Attest:

Janice Traverso, City Clerk
White Brenner LP whitebrennerllp.com
1608 T Street
Sacramento, CA 95811
T 916.468.0950 | F 916.468.0951
September 30, 2026

VIA EMAIL & US MAIL
Jared Critchfield, Superintendent
Amador County Unified School District
217 Rex Avenue
Jackson, California 95642
[email protected]
Re: Comments of the City of lone on the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Amador County Unified School District Consolidation Program Project; Request that the District Prepare an Environmental Impact Report Dear Superintendent Critchfield:

This firm serves as City Attorney for the City of lone ('City"). The City submits the following comments on the Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration ("IS/ MND) for the Amador County Unified School District Consolidation Program Project (Project"), circulated for public review from September 1 through September 30, 2026.

Approving this IS/MND for the Project is illegal and contrary to the standards required by CEQA. This Project clearly requires an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") to allow for meaningful evaluation of all potentially significant impacts and to determine appropriate mitigation. Without that required process, the IS/ MND amounts to a rushed and inadequate analysis of a Project that will substantially affect children and families throughout Amador An EIR would allow the Amador County Unified School District ("District"), responsible agencies, and the public to understand how the Project should be modified, redesigned, or mitigated in response to its environmental impacts. Instead, an IS/MND is being rushed through for approval in advance of an election date, despite being clearly inadequate for a Project of this magnitude. This is a substantial Project that would close one school in lone and shift hundreds of students to different campuses throughout the County. If a Project of this scope can proceed without an EIR, current and detailed traffic studies, and a full analysis of existing and projected enrollment information, then CEQA is reduced to a meaningless procedural exercise rather than the informed environmental review process the law requires.

Amador County Unified School District
September 30, 2026

The City sincerely hopes the District's Board of Trustees considers these comments before it takes any action on the Project, and at the very least direct that an EIR be prepared, which should have been clear at the outset given the nature of the Project. The City's central comment is this: the IS/MND is not an adequate informational document, and the record before the District contains substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may have significant effects on the environment. An EIR is therefore required. (Pub.

Resources Code, § 21100; Cal Code Regs., tit. 14 ["CEQA Guidelines"], § 15064, subd. (f); No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75.) Several of the defects identified below are not matters of professional disagreement. They are issues related to missing analyses, analyses prepared for a different project, and a failure to analyze projected enrollment information in future years.

I. The City of lone's Interest and its Role Under CEQA
Two of the six affected campuses are in lone: lone Junior High School, which would be converted to a preschool-grade 6 elementary school with new construction; and lone Elementary School, which would be closed. Under the Project, lone would be the only community in the District that loses a school campus outright, and lone's seventh and eighth graders would, for the first time, be transported out of the City to the consolidated junior high school on the Argonaut campus in Jackson. By the IS/ MND's own count, lone campuses would lose a net 305 students (IS/ MND at p. 195).

The City is not merely an interested member of the public. The IS/ MND itself acknowledges that the new classroom building at lone Junior High School lies within FEMA Flood Zone AE and that "Section 18.04.130 of the lone Municipal Code requires a floodplain development permit before construction begins in a 100-year floodplain" and that the structure "must be certified by a registered civil engineer or architect and approved by the Floodplain Administrator of the City of lone" (IS/MND at p. 133). Government Code section 53097 requires that the District comply with this ordinance as it regulates drainage improvements and conditions and requires review and approval of grading plans. The District cannot build what it proposes at lone Junior High School without a City permit, and the City's comments are accordingly those of an agency that will be asked to act on this Project.

Il. Legal Standard
A negative declaration may be adopted only if there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15074, subd. (b).) If substantial evidence supports a fair argument that a significant effect may occur, the agency must prepare an EIR even though other evidence supports the opposite conclusion. (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 13 Cal.3d at p.

75. This is a low-threshold test, and the agency's determination is reviewed independently rather than deferentially.
4898-4732-7188, v. 13
Amador County Unified School District
September 30, 2026

Four related principles bear directly on this IS/MND:

First, the Project description is incomplete and inadequate because it does not clearly describe the Project's full scope, phasing, campus changes, and reasonably foreseeable operational conditions. An accurate, stable, and finite project description is an indispensable prerequisite to an informative and legally sufficient environmental document. (County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 193-199.) Second, the transportation analysis does not adequately evaluate the specific Project now proposed, but instead relies on traffic data and operational conclusions prepared for a materially different prior project. The analysis must be updated to evaluate the current Project using appropriate project-specific assumptions, traffic counts, enrollment, circulation patterns, and phased conditions. (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 449-450; Pfeiffer v. City of Sunnyvale City Council (2012) 200 Cal.App.4th 1552, 1573.)
Third, the proposed mitigation measures must be reviewed and revised to address the deficiencies identified in this letter and to ensure that any mitigation is specific, enforceable, and supported by appropriate performance standards. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4, subd. (a)(1)(B); Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 306- 309.)
Fourth, the District must further substantiate and explain the Project's underlying premise of declining enrollment, including through consideration of reasonably foreseeable residential growth in the City of lone. Those assumptions bear directly on necessary facilities, future campus populations, and resulting environmental impacts, particularly transportation. (El Dorado Union High School Dist. v. City of Placerville (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 123, 131; Fullerton Joint Union High School Dist. v. State Bd. of Education (1982) 32 Cal.3d 779; Goleta Union School Dist. v. Regents of Univ. of California (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1025, 1033.) These issues, together with the additional informational, analytical, and mitigation deficiencies identified throughout this comment letter, require an EIR before the District can make the necessary findings and approve the Project.

III. The Project Description is Incomplete and Unstable A. The three-year phased conversion of the lone campuses is never described.

In the entire 230-page document, the fact that the lone conversion occurs in phases appears in the Public Services discussion: "The current lone Junior HS campus would be converted into the new lone ES through a three-year phased transition process" (IS/ MND at p. 166).

However, Chapter 2, Project Description, says nothing about it. The IS/MND therefore never discloses interim-year enrollment at either lone campus, interim grade configurations, interim attendance boundaries, interim bus routing, or interim circulation and drop-off 4898-4732-7188, v. 13
Amador County Unified School District
September 30, 2026

conditions, and no technical chapter analyzes any interim year. Impacts are evaluated only at an assumed end state. A three-year transition affecting two campuses and more than 950 children is a material project characteristic, not an insignificant detail of the Project. (El Dorado Union High Sch. Dist. v. City of Placerville, supra, 144 Cal.App.3d at p. 131.) The gap matters because construction at the lone campus would not begin until fall 2029 or finish until spring 2030. (IS/MND p. 38.) The IS/MND does not say when lone Elementary will actually close, or whether portables or other interim facilities will be needed This is a critical detail because the environmental impacts of the consolidation may vary materially during each phase of implementation. (See Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (2013) 57 Cal.4th 439, 455-461 [recognizing that meaningful environmental review requires consideration of both the short-term and long-term effects of a project].)
The project description should therefore not only describe the ultimate end-state conditions, but also the reasonably foreseeable interim conditions associated with phased school closures, student reassignment, transportation changes, facility use, and related operational changes.

IV. The Transportation Analysis Does Not Analyze This Project.

A. The queuing and operations analysis was prepared for a different - in fact, a reversed - project.

The IS/MND and Appendix D both state that "[vlehicle queuing was analyzed as part of the operational analysis prepared and submitted to ACUSD in October 2024 with the old project description" and that changes in volumes are "relatively minor," so that "the conclusions related to vehicle queuing in the prior study are comparable" (IS/MND at p. 188; Appendix D at D-39.) The October 29, 2024 Kittelson memorandum embedded in Appendix D was prepared for the District's earlier, abandoned EIR-stage project, where it analyzed the opposite campus assignments: consolidating Amador and Argonaut High Schools at the Argonaut campus and the two junior high schools at the Amador campus, with capacity increasing from 925 to 1,325 students. This traffic study further involved consolidating and reconfiguring eight schools into six campuses (See Kittelson memorandum at D-42.) That prior project further involved consolidating the junior high school campuses at the Amador High School campus site, and not the Argonaut site in Jackson. (Ibid.) However, the current Project does no such thing. The current Project involves the consolidation of six campuses into five campuses, at different schools and locations that what was analyzed in the prior, proposed project (IS/ MND at p. 2).

Accordingly, the queuing, storage, and signal-warrant conclusions were drawn for a materially different distribution of students among campuses and therefore do not constitute substantial evidence for the IS/MND. (Chawanakee Unified Sch. Dist. v. County of Madera (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1016, 1028.) The IS/ MND's own figures undercut its claim that 4898-4732-7188, v. 13
Amador County Unified School District
September 30, 2026

the differences are "relatively minor": southbound left-turn project volumes at SR 88/SR 49 fall from 190 to 120 vehicles in the AM peak hour, a 37 percent change, and the document concedes that queues at that intersection would exceed the available storage under existing-plus-project conditions (IS/MND at p. 188).

As a result of this change, new counts and new modeling are therefore required to ensure an adequate understanding of the traffic conditions associated with the proposed Project and corresponding impacts. (IS/MND at 1029) The environmental analysis should not require reviewing agencies or the public to determine, intersection by intersection, whether each prior traffic count, queuing analysis, or operational conclusion remains sufficiently similar to a materially different prior project. A current, project-specific traffic analysis would provide the clear and coherent evidentiary basis necessary to evaluate the proposed Project's actual transportation effects.

B. The same consultant's VMT conclusion reversed without explanation.

In the prior project, the consultant concluded that "VMT per person is estimated to increase by about 5.2%, resulting in a significant impact" and that the impact would "remain significant and unavoidable because the effectiveness of a TDM Plan in reducing the number of Project trips cannot be adequately quantified." (Appendix D at D-125; D-130.) For the current Project, the IS/ MND concludes that a 4.5 percent increase in VMT per person (11.0 to 11.5 miles) would be less than significant with mitigation, relying on the same category of transportation demand management plan that the consultant previously asserted could not be quantified. In fact, nothing in the IS/ MND explains the change in position. A 4.5 percent increase and a 5.2 percent increase may not be materially different in kind, yet the IS/MND fails to explain the dramatically different significance determinations.

The District's less than significant conclusion is contradicted by substantial evidence contained in its own supporting transportation appendix. The consultant's prior conclusion of an increase in VMT per person, which constituted a significant impact, is expert opinion in the District's own record. The transportation appendix is itself substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the VMT impact remains significant. (Upland Cmty. First v.

City of Upland (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1, 15 [stating "lilf there [is] substantial evidence that the proposed project might have a significant environmental impact, evidence to the contrary is not sufficient to support a decision to dispense with preparation of an EIR and adopt a negative declaration, because it [can] be 'fairly argued' that the project might have a significant environmental impact."])
The IS/MND cannot resolve that conflicting evidence merely by reaching a different conclusion without explaining the analytical basis for doing so, or without demonstrating that the proposed mitigation will actually reduce the impact to a less than significant level.

Since substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the VMT impact likely 4898-4732-7188, v. 13
Amador County Unified School District
September 30, 2026

remains significant despite the proposed mitigation, the impact must be fully evaluated in an EIR.

C. Mitigation Measure TRA-1 is deferred, voluntary, and unfunded.

Mitigation Measure TRA-1 provides that "[wlithin two years of project approval, ACUSD shall prepare and implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan." (IS/ MND at p. 185.) The plan does not exist. Its components are described as voluntary or aspirational. The carpool program is expressly "voluntary, and no financial incentive is offered to parents"; undefined park-and-ride hubs are to be arranged with churches, libraries and community centers; the District will "look to implement" a tiered bell schedule; and if the VMT target is missed, the District "shall prepare and implement corrective action plans" of unspecified content. (Id. at pp. 185-187.) The measure does state a target (no increase in VMT per person), but a performance standard is no substitute for evidence that the measure can meet it. By the IS/ MND's own calculation, closing the VMT gap requires carpool participation by 626 households, about 8 percent of the affected student population, through a program that is voluntary and offers no incentive. (Id. at 185.) The IS/MND supplements the measure with the assertion that declining enrollment will reduce VMT over time, without any enrollment data. (Ibid.) A mitigation measure with no evidentiary basis for its effectiveness cannot support a finding of less than significant impact. (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at pp. 306-309; CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4, subd. (a)(1)(B); King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 814.) The air quality and greenhouse gas chapters rely on this same measure, so the defect carries into those findings as well. The mitigation measure must include clear and enforceable benchmarks, implementation deadlines, and monitoring requirements, so that the public and affected agencies can meaningfully track implementation and determine that the mitigation supports the IS/ MND's significance conclusion.

D. The bus-capacity assumption is contradicted by the District's own record.

The VMT calculation credits a shift of students to school buses, resting on the District's estimate that "the lone routes could potentially accommodate approximately 150 additional students." (IS/ MND at pp. 186-187.) Appendix D simultaneously reports that "ACUSD is facing an ongoing bus driver shortage that has led to the daily cancellation of multiple bus routes" and that there were "72 route cancellations" in the 2025-26 school year. (Appendix D at D-

6.) Mitigation Measure TRA-1 tacitly concedes the point: it has the District "commit to no longer canceling school bus routes", with no funding, hiring plan, or contingency showing how the driver shortage will be cured. (IS/ MND at p. 186.) If the assumed bus shift does not occur, the vehicle trips and the emissions attributable to them fall on lone families and lone streets. The City requests a sensitivity analysis showing the Project's VMT, emissions, and intersection operations if bus ridership does not increase. (King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern, supra, 45 Cal.App.5th 814.)
4898-4732-7188, v. 13
Amador County Unified School District
September 30, 2026

E. The traffic analysis is severely inadequate and further fails to evaluate site- specific traffic hazards, emergency access, and evacuation impacts at the lone Junior High School campus.

The SimTraffic queuing analysis in Appendix D covers intersections in the Jackson and Argonaut area. The lone study intersections received level-of-service figures only, with no queue-storage modeling. This is despite the fact that the Project builds a new kindergarten pick-up and drop-off loop at the lone Junior High School campus, restripes the northern lot from 20 to 68 spaces, and raises enrollment on that campus from 396 to approximately 658 students, now including preschool and kindergarten children whose parents drive them. In addition, the traffic counts used for the lone intersections were carried forward from a 2023 study and adjusted through assumed background growth factors rather than based on current counts. The City therefore asks that current counts be taken and that queuing, storage, and site access be modeled for South Mills Street, the SR-124 corridor, and the adjacent local street network under both interim and build-out conditions. (Chawanakee Unified Sch. Dist. v. County of Madera, supra, 196 Cal.App.4th at p. 1029.) This is not a request for level-of-service analysis, which CEQA no longer treats as a measure of environmental impact. Rather, the issue is whether the District has adequately supported its conclusion that the Project will not create hazardous traffic conditions, interfere with site access, or impair emergency access. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.3.) On those questions, the IS/MND offers little more than the expectation that "drivers are attentive when driving and obey traffic laws." (IS/MND at p. 189.) That is an assumption, not a site-specific analysis, of how the substantially increased enrollment and new kindergarten loading activity will function within the existing roadway network. The streets surrounding the lone Junior High campus are narrow residential streets, while lone Elementary has substantially better access to the state highway system and comparatively limited effects on surrounding neighborhood streets. The Project therefore shifts a substantial student population and associated vehicle activity from a campus with better regional access to a campus where access is more dependent on constrained local streets.

Without modeling the location and extent of vehicle queues, available storage, ingress and egress movements, and the interaction of those movements with SR-124 and surrounding residential streets, the reader and affected agencies cannot adequately evaluate the Project's traffic effects. (Chawanakee Unified Sch. Dist. v. County of Madera, supra, 196 Cal.App.4th at p. 1029. In particular, the analysis does not establish whether parent vehicles may queue onto a state highway, obstruct local streets, create conflicts at campus entrances, or otherwise result in potentially significant safety or emergency-access impacts.

Those concerns are heightened during an emergency, evacuation, or other critical event, when the substantial increase in enrollment at the lone Junior High campus will affect the availability and functionality of local evacuation and emergency access routes. 4898-4732-7188, v. 13
Amador County Unified School District
September 30, 2026

These issues require detailed analysis in the applicable transportation and emergency conditions analyses. The Project must be evaluated under reasonably foreseeable emergency conditions, particularly given the substantial shift in student population and traffic from one campus to another with materially different roadway conditions. (IS/MND at pp. 189, 203-205; League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain etc. v. County of Placer (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 63, 136-143.) The IS/ MND instead largely paints over these issues by focusing on discrete site improvements, while failing to analyze the broader emergency access and evacuation consequences of shifting the student population to the lone Junior High campus under much different circulation constraints. That omission is a fundamental analytical deficiency. Without evaluating the conditions most likely to create conflicts during an emergency or other high stress event, the District lacks a sufficient basis to conclude that the Project's transportation and emergency access impacts are less than significant.

F. The loss of walk-to-school access in lone is not analyzed.

Appendix D assumes that half of the students living within the walk radius of the lone campuses walk to school today. Under the proposed Project, the junior high grades are removed from lone entirely, meaning that students within that existing walking cohort would instead need to be transported by private vehicle or bus to another campus. That change is directly relevant to the Project's transportation analysis because it would convert existing non-vehicle school trips into additional vehicle or bus trips and could materially affect the assumptions used to estimate traffic volumes, queuing, circulation, and site access.

The IS/MND does not adequately evaluate those resulting transportation effects. Its conclusion that the Project would not conflict with programs supporting pedestrian and bicycle facilities is irrelevant to whether elimination of existing walk-to-school trips will increase vehicle trips or alter traffic conditions within lone. The analysis should account for the additional parent and bus trips generated by students who can no longer walk or bicycle to their assigned school, and further evaluate whether those trips contribute to queuing, roadway conflicts, traffic hazards, or interference with emergency access. Without incorporating that foreseeable mode shift into the Project's traffic assumptions and the Appendix D transportation study, the IS/MND lacks an adequate basis to conclude that transportation safety and emergency-access impacts would be less than significant.

VI. Historical Resources: lone Junior High School Is a Locally Designated Landmark The IS/MND acknowledges that "It)he City of lone Historical Landmarks identifies the lone Junior HS as a local historical resource" and that the building dates to 1939. (IS/MND at p.

78.) A resource included in a local register of historical resources is presumptively an historical resource for CEQA purposes. (Pub. Resources Code, § 5020.1, subd. (k); CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.5, subd. (a)(2).) The IS/MND nevertheless finds no impact on the ground that no classroom building will be demolished, without any evaluation by a qualified architectural historian, without DPR 523 forms, without applying the Secretary of the 4898-4732-7188, v. 13
Amador County Unified School District
September 30, 2026

Interior's Standards, and without considering whether a new 4,500-square-foot building, a reconfigured 68-space parking lot, a new drop-off loop, and removal of up to four valley oak trees would materially impair the setting and character-defining features of the former lone High School.

The analysis requires more than a determination that the Project does not physically alter or demolish the historic classroom buildings themselves. The IS/ MND should also evaluate whether the substantial increase in enrollment and intensified use of the campus could result in degradation of the historical resource or its setting through increased traffic, parking, circulation, pedestrian activity, maintenance demands, or other reasonably foreseeable operational effects. (Goleta Union Sch. Dist. V. Regents of Univ. of California, supra, 37 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1032-1033; El Dorado Union High Sch. Dist. v. City of Placerville, supra, 144 Cal.App.3d at p. 131.) Without such discussion, the IS/MND's significance determination and its conclusion that no mitigation measures are necessary is inadequate.

Without further evaluation of the substantially intensified use of the site, the IS/ MND does not provide an adequate basis to conclude that impacts to this identified historical resource will remain less than significant.

VIl. The "Declining Enrollment" Premise, Missing Information Regarding Projected Growth in the City of lone, and the Absent Cumulative Analysis The Project's stated purpose is to address declining enrollment, yet the IS/MND does not provide or explain the enrollment projections on which that premise rests. It contains no enrollment projection, no demographic study, and no identifiable source supporting the declining enrollment. Nor does it evaluate that premise against anticipated residential growth in the City of lone, notwithstanding substantial pending and planned residential development contemplated by the City's General Plan and projected buildout. (El Dorado Union High Sch. Dist. v. City of Placerville, supra, 144 Cal.App.3d at pp. 132-133) A proposal to close schools and permanently reconfigure attendance patterns throughout the District should disclose the enrollment projections upon which those decisions are based and evaluate whether those projections remain reliable in light of reasonably foreseeable growth. (Ibid.)
The absence of that information is particularly significant because the District itself has recently acknowledged that its enrollment and facility planning requires more current growth information. On September 8, 2026, and enclosed herein, the City received a District request for information regarding projected residential development, in which the District stated that "the board needs reliable information on the timing and likelihood of future residential growth so that enrollment and facility decisions are based on current, documented data rather than maximum theoretical buildout numbers or unsupported assumptions." That request confirms that information relevant to the Project's underlying enrollment assumptions remains under analysis. As more current growth and enrollment information is obtained, the Project's underlying projections, and necessarily portions of its environmental analysis may change. (San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and 4898-4732-7188, v. 13
Amador County Unified School District
September 30, 2026

County of San Francisco (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 61, 80) This is especially important for transportation impacts, because enrollment levels and the geographic distribution of students directly affect trip generation, school assignment patterns, parent vehicle trips, bus operations, queuing, circulation, and site-access conditions.

The cumulative impacts discussion, in the Mandatory Findings of Significance section, identifies no other project of any kind. It does not include a list of past, present and probable future projects, nor a summary of projections from an adopted planning document, the two methods CEQA Guidelines section 15130(b)(1) prescribes for evaluating the cumulative effects that sections 15064(h) and 15065 (a)(3) require an initial study to consider. It asserts that the Project "will not combine with the other projects to create a cumulative impact" without ever naming one. Residential growth in lone, the District's own multi-campus program, and City and County capital projects are the obvious starting points.

These deficiencies also demonstrate why adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration at this stage is inadequate. (Upland Cmty. First v. City of Upland, supra, 105 Cal.App.5th at p. 15) The District is still seeking information bearing directly on the central premise of the Project and on environmental assumptions that depend upon future enrollment and residential growth. Proceeding through an EIR would provide the structured process necessary to evaluate that information as it becomes available, including issuance of a notice of preparation, agency scoping and consultation, preparation of an EIR, and formal responses to agency and public comments. The Project's basic enrollment assumptions, and the resulting transportation and cumulative impact conclusions, depend on information the District itself is presently seeking.

CEQA therefore requires preparation of an EIR to ensure that the Project is evaluated using current information and meaningful agency input before final environmental conclusions are made.

X. Requested Action
For the reasons above, the City of lone requests that the District:
• Decline to adopt the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and instead prepare an EIR for the Project;
• Revise the Project description and corresponding environmental analysis to provide the public and affected agencies with adequate information regarding the Project's phasing and reasonably foreseeable operational conditions, including the effects of increased enrollment and traffic on emergency access and evacuation routes. • Update the traffic analysis and the proposed Project's actual baseline, campus assignments, enrollment assumptions, circulation patterns, and implementation conditions;
• Evaluate the City of lone's reasonably foreseeable residential growth and resulting enrollment, transportation, and infrastructure demands, and update the Project- specific and cumulative impact analyses accordingly; and 4898-4732-7188, v. 13
Amador County Unified School District
September 30, 2026

• Adopt enforceable mitigation measures, with appropriate performance standards, as may be identified through the EIR process.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code sections 21092.2 and 21167, subdivision (f), the City requests written notice of any public hearing on the Project, of the District's determination on the environmental document, and of the filing of any notice of determination. Please direct those notices to the City of lone City Clerk.

The City and its residents have a long-standing interest in the schools that serve lone. We thank the District for its consideration of these comments and respectfully request a full evaluation of environmental impacts before such a permanent change is made to the educational future of Amador County.

Kind regards,
White Brenner LLP
Josh G. Varinsky
lone City Attorney
JGV/prb
CC: Amador County Unified School District Board of Trustees Mayor and City Council, City of lone
George Lee, City Manager
Kevin Valente, Raney Planning & Management
Forrest Ebbs, Raney Planning & Management
Enclosure - September 8, 2026 District Information Request to City of lone 4898-4732-7188, v. 13

AMADOR COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION

AMADOR COUNTY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Jared Critchfield
Superintendent, Amador County Unified School District
Superintendent, Amador County Office of Education
(209) 257-5353 | Fax (209) 257-5360 | [email protected] 217 Rex Avenue, Jackson, CA 95642 | www.amadorcoe.ora
September 8, 2026
To:

George Lee, City Manager
Jody Maita, Mayor
City of lone, CA
Dear Mr. Lee & Mr. Maita,
As the district evaluates the proposed consolidation and reconfiguration of our secondary schools, future residential growth in lone has repeatedly been raised as an important consideration. Before the board makes a final decision, we would like to make sure we are relying on the most current information available from the City of lone regarding approved, proposed, and reasonably anticipated residential development. We are requesting written responses and supporting documentation where available, so the board and public can distinguish between potential development capacity and housing that is actually expected to be constructed and occupied.

1. Complete Residential Development Inventory
• Please identify every residential development within the City of lone that is currently approved entitled, under construction, pending City approval, or otherwise formally proposed • For each project, please provide the project name, location, developer/owner, current approval status, date of the most recent City action, and total number of residential units proposed or approved. • Please identify the housing type and anticipated bedroom mix, if known, including single-family, multifamily, apartments, townhomes, age-restricted housing, affordable housing, or other categories. • Please clearly distinguish projects that have received discretionary approvals or entitlements from projects that are only conceptual, included in planning documents, zoned for residential use, or otherwise possible under existing land-use designations.

2. Units Actually Built and Remaining
• For each approved or partially constructed project, how many units have been completed, how many have received certificates of occupancy, how many are currently under construction, and how many approved units remain unbuilt?
• How many residential building permits have been issued for each project during each of the last five calendar years?
• How many certificates of occupancy have been issued for each project during each of the last five calendar years?
• Are any previously approved residential projects currently inactive, expired, stalled, in default, subject to litigation, or otherwise not moving forward? If so, please identify them and explain their current status.
*•
The Amador GOLD Standard
Growing Opportunities for a Lifetime of Discovery through promoting our Pathways Forward:

Authenticity, Integrity, Relationships, Courage and Fun.

3. Development Timelines
• For each project with remaining units, what is the developer's most recently communicated construction schedule?
• Has the developer provided the City with a projected groundbreaking date, phase schedule, annual construction pace, or final buildout date? If so, please provide those dates and the date on which the information was provided.
• For projects without a developer-provided construction schedule, please state that clearly rather than providing an estimated timeline.
• Which projects does the City reasonably expect to have homes occupied within the next 2 years, 5 years, and 10 years, and how many occupied units does the City anticipate in each timeframe? • What assumptions or evidence support those estimates?

4. Remaining Approvals and Conditions
• For each project that has not begun full construction, what City approvals, permits, maps, agreements. or other actions remain outstanding?
• Are there expiration dates associated with any tentative maps, development agreements, entitlements, or other approvals?
• Are any projects dependent on annexation, rezoning, General Plan amendments. environmental review, subdivision maps, financing, developer agreements, or other governmental approvals before construction can proceed?
• Are there conditions of approval or unresolved requirements that could materially delay construction?

5. Water, Sewer, Roads, and Other Infrastructure
• For each major proposed or approved development, is sufficient water supply and treatment capacity currently available for full buildout?
• Is sufficient wastewater collection and treatment capacity currently available for full buildout? • What water, sewer, drainage, roadway, traffic, utility, or other infrastructure improvements must be completed before homes can be constructed or occupied?
• Who is responsible for funding and constructing those improvements? • Have those improvements been funded, designed, bid, or scheduled? Please provide the current status and, where known, the anticipated completion date.
• Are there infrastructure constraints that could limit the number of units constructed per year or delay any project?

6. Developer Readiness and Certainty
• For each major development, has the developer represented to the City that financing is secured or that the project is otherwise ready to proceed? If the City does not know, please state that. • Has a homebuilder been identified or contracted for each project? If so, who? • Has the City received recent written communication from the developer confirming an intention to proceed? Please provide the date and summarize the current representation. • Has ownership of any approved development changed in the last five years? If so, please identify the change and whether it affected the development schedule.

The Amador GOLD Standard
Growing Opportunities for a Lifetime of Discovery through promoting our Pathways Forward:

Authenticity, Integrity, Relationships, Courage and Fun.

7. Historical Growth and Buildout Rate
• How many new residential units were actually completed and occupied citywide in each of the last 10 calendar years?
• What has been the average annual number of newly occupied residential units over the last 5 and 10 years?
• For large subdivisions that have developed in phases, what has the actual average annual buildout rate been?
• How have prior City or developer projections for residential growth compared with the number of units that were ultimately built and occupied?

8. City Growth Projections
• What population and housing growth projections is the City currently using for planning purposes? • What are the City's current estimates for lone's population in 2, 5, and 10 years, excluding the Mule Creek State Prison population, where appropriate for school-enrollment planning? • How many additional occupied housing units does the City project in those same timeframes? • Please identify the source, date, and methodology for each projection. • Does the City have a projection that it considers more reliable for near-term development than the maximum unit capacity identified in its Housing Element or General Plan? If so, please provide it.

9. School-Age Population and District Coordination
• Does the City have any estimates of the number of school-age children expected to be generated by currently approved or proposed residential projects? If so, please provide the methodology and assumptions.
• Have any developers prepared school-impact, fiscal-impact, demographic, or student-generation studies for their projects? If so, please provide or identify those studies. • What school impact or developer fees have been collected from residential construction during the last five years, and from which projects, if that information is available to the City? • Has the City or any developer communicated projected residential growth or construction schedules to ACUSD/ACOE previously? If so, when and what projections were provided?

10. Distinguishing Capacity from Expected Development
• Of the total number of residential units that could theoretically be accommodated under existing zoning, the General Plan, Housing Element sites, approved maps, or development agreements, how many does the City consider reasonably likely to be constructed and occupied within 5 years? • How many does the City consider reasonably likely to be constructed and occupied within 10 years? • For any large unit totals that are commonly cited publicly, please identify exactly what those totals represent: approved/entitled units, proposed units, zoned capacity, Housing Element capacity, conceptual plans, or another category.
• Please identify any units included in commonly cited development totais that the City does not currently expect to be constructed within the next 10 years. *
The Amador GOLD Standard
Growing Opportunities for a Lifetime of Discovery through promoting our Pathways Forward:

Authenticity, Integrity, Relationships, Courage and Fun.

I1. Documentation Requested
• Where available, please provide or link to the current approved tentative/final maps, development agreements, conditions of approval, phasing plans, infrastructure agreements, environmental documents, and staff reports for the major residential developments. • Please provide any current City staff report, spreadsheet, development-status report. permit report, or other document used internally to track residential projects and their progress. • If a requested figure or timeline is not known or has not been provided to the City, please identify it as unknown rather than estimating it.

12. Certification of Current Information
• Who within the City is the appropriate staff member to verify that these responses reflect the City's most current information?
• Please identify the date through which the development and permit information in the response is current.
• If any material project status, unit count, or timeline changes before the school board's final consolidation decision, would the City please provide the district with an updated written response? Requested Summary:

To make the information easy for the school board and public to understand, we would appreciate a summary table for each residential project showing: project name; approval status; total approved/proposed units; units completed/occupied; units under construction; units remaining; remaining approvals; major infrastructure dependencies; developer-provided construction timeline; and the City's best-supported estimate of units likely to be occupied within 2, 5, and 10 years.

The purpose of this request is not to ask the City of lone to take a position on school consolidation.

The board needs reliable information on the timing and likelihood of future residential growth so that enrollment and facility decisions are based on current, documented data rather than maximum theoretical buildout numbers or unsupported assumptions.

Thank you in advance for your time,
Kayla Parker
Board President, Amador County Unified School District
District 2
Jared Critchfield
Superintendent, Amador County Unified School District
*..

The Amador GOLD Standard
Growing Opportunities for a Lifetime of Discovery through promoting our Pathways Forward:

Authenticity, Integrity, Relationships, Courage and Fun.

ONL

CITY OF IONE
IONE, CA 95640
Agenda Item # F. 2.

DATE: OCTOBER 5TII, 2026
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: GEORGE LEE AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: ACCEPT THE PROPOSAL AND ADOPT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING

STAFF TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT WITH ALL SIERRA ROOF
COMPANY, INC. FOR THE REROOF PROJECT LOCATED AT 217 W

JACKSON ST (NEW POLICE STATION)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Staff is recommending selecting the proposal from All Sierra Roof Company, Inc. for the reroof project at 217 W Jackson Street (New Police Station) and direct staff to enter into contract.

FISCAL IMPACT:
$74,833 from the Police Capital Outlay-Building Budget Account. The account budget was set at $250,000.00 for the Fiscal Year of 26/27. The current running total of expenditures at the end of September 2026 is just below $94,000. Once this proposal is paid in full, the account would remain with around $81,000.00.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
217 W Jackson St. Ione, Ca, was purchased by the City of lone to be developed into the new residence for the Police Station. In February of 2026 the interior remodel to convert this building began. The overall building began to be assessed during demolition. One concern was the roof.

During the assessment period, the City spoke with multiple roofers regarding their consideration of the condition and repairs needed. Four proposals were obtained in regards to the potential reroof project or repairs that each roofer suggested to be needed. It was determined that the center main part of the roof for the building was failing and that the cost of a metal reroof would be substantial.

Two proposals, one from HB Urethane Roofing and one from Priority roofing proposed a clean- up, tightening of current roofing, an overlay seal and foam repair installation which would seal the current roof in the condition it presents currently. These repairs could last 5 years or longer, but the roof would still need to be replaced eventually. Ultimately, City staff determined that a reroof replacement and transition to composition would be in the best interest for longevity of the roof, maintenance, and repairs when needed 15-30 years later.

There were two proposals which suggested composition shingles. NorCal Roofing proposed a bid for $39,855.13 which would remove the center two sections of two peeks creating the roof over the main part of the building (see attached picture in proposal). The remaining section of the main roof would be tightened, sealed, and appropriate caps for the ridge would be installed.

These caps would transition the non-demoed metal roof to the newly installed middle section of composition roofing. This project would still have additional repairs needed in the near future to finish the remaining metal roof to composition.

The fourth proposal was presented at $69,221 by All Sierra Roof Company, Inc. which was a full demo, preparations, and installation of composition roofing. He also proposed to do a maintenance on the existing roofing which will remain on the building in other sections. City staff felt ultimately this was the better proposal for a definite fix to the roof and allowed for longevity before needing additional repairs.

Now, the interior remodel project is coming to completion and the rain season is approaching quickly. City staff requested updated proposals and reached out to other contractors. All Sierra Roof Company, Inc returned at $74,833.00. No others responded or turned down the offer due to schedule conflicts. The reason for the increase is due to material cost raising from March of 2026 to October 2026. The scope of work remains the same.

With the expenditures already placed inside this building, the heavy booked schedule for the contractor of interest, and the rainy season approaching quickly, the City of lone would like to complete this project in a timely fashion. The City staff is asking the Council to approve the proposal with contract and direct staff to enter into contract with All Sierra Roof Company, Inc.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Original Proposals

2. Updated All Sierra Roof Company, Inc proposal

3. Contract for All Sierra Roof Company, Inc to enter into with the City of lone for the reroof project at 217 W Jackson St (New Police Station)

4. Resolution No. 2026-37

URETHANE

HB ROOFING
Contract
To: City of lone 217 W Jackson Street
Ph: (209) 332-0378 Tone, CA 95640
Cell: (209) 256-2454 March 6, 2026
Jobsite: 217 W Jackson Street Contact: Matt Knowles
Ione, CA 95640. [email protected]
Scope of Work

1. Conduct a pre-job inspection with the Building owner or representative to discuss the application of the new roof system as well as any logistical or safety concerns that may arise.

2. Power-wash entire roof surface to remove all oxidation and debris.

3. Thoroughly fasten or replace all loose fasteners prior to spray foam application.

4. Spray apply dark gray elastomeric primer to clean prepared metal roof to assure proper bond for urethane spray foam.

5. To construct new raised valleys over existing leaking valleys of sloped corrugated metal interior roofs to eliminate leaking and promote positive drainage. Due to the fact there are two valleys at different elevations we will split the upper valley to drain separately to avoid rainwater backing up causing the runoff to dam, creating heavy leaking.

6. Install new conductor boxes and oversized down spouts at the ends of new valley to properly drain

7. Install Spray Polyurethane Foam Roofing System over the prepared roof surfaces. Spray-apply 1.25 inch of Spray Polyurethane Foam to the entire roof surface.

8. Spray apply gray acrylic elastomeric base coating at the rate of 1.5 gallons per 100 sq. ft.

Spray apply White Energy-Star Acrylic Topcoat (92% reflectivity) over new polyurethane foam at a rate of 1.5 gallons per 100 square feet. Coatings shall extend beyond the foam terminations a minimum of three (3") inches. The valleys shall also receive a third coat of silicone elastomeric roof coating to enable us to provide a Fifteen Year No Leak Warranty.

10. We shall also apply elastomeric coating to West wall on the front side of building to prevent water migration and leaking.

11. Protective coating shall extend up and over all polyurethane foam on vent pipes and other penetrations and shall be terminated a minimum of three inches (3) above the foam creating a self-terminating flashing.

12. Stacks & Pipes - All rooftop stacks & pipes will be field flashed per manufacturer's specifications, using Spray Polyurethane Foam and Coating.

13. Contractor is not responsible for dirt, dust, or debris falling from the ceiling during the recover or re- roofing operation.

14. Provide complete clean up of roofing materials and related ground debris.

15. Contractor to provide a (15) Year Labor and Material No Leak Warranty.

Payment
1) Ten percent deposit due with signed contract. ($5,875.00) 2) The contract balance is due on completion.

Contract Price
Roof: ($58,750.00.00) Fifty-Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty 00/100 Dollars.

Signature: Nary Buafl Da. 3/16/26
Signature: Date:

Mar 03, 2026
217 West Jackson Street City of lone
[email protected]
(209) 332-0378
217 West Jackson Street
lone, CA 95640
Frank Rodriguez PRIORITY,
Priority Roofing ROOFING
(559) 901-9030
[email protected]
Option 1
Item
Foam/Coating - 20 Year - Full Foam w/Acrylic Coating
Product specs listed below include the necessary product application to qualify the existing roof system for a 20 year warranty backed by Priority Roofing:
- Prepare job site: tape, plastic and mask all areas around job site to avoid any potential overspray of fluid applied products - Thoroughly clean roof to promote proper adhesion; includes power washing, and removing sealants as necessary around pipes, pitch pans, flashing's, and penetrations.
- Property owner to provide access to water spigot/hose bib - Apply thermo-primer to existing roof surface prior to SPF Foam application to maximize SPF adhesion and performance - Apply 1.5 inches of 2.7 pound closed cell spray poly-urethane foam insulated roof system to entire roof surface area; Approximate R-Value of 10 per inch
- Apply approximately 2 coats of White Energy Star Rated High Solids Acrylic Roof Coating over entire roof surface area; application rate of approximately 1.5 gallons per square per coat -Apply a new granule into top coat acrylic coating at the rate of 30lbs. per every 100sq. ft. - Edges are to be masked to provide a neat, clean, straight edged appearance - Priority Roofing to provide roof access throughout the entirety of the job. - A project manager will be onsite throughout entirety of project. - A 20 year warranty on entire roofing system
- This project is insured with a 2 million dollar liability policy, a 5 million dollar umbrella, a 1 million dollar equipment/auto policy, and a 1 million dollar worker's comp policy
Commercial Project Payment Terms
50% DUE UPON DAY 1 OF STARTING PROJECT.

Estimated Time of Completion
Project Timeline: The estimated time to complete the replacement of the roof is approximately 5-7 days, depending on the siz of the roof, weather conditions, and any unforeseen circumstances that may arise during the project $49,500.00
Estimate subtotal
Frank Rodriguez
Priority Roofing
(559) 901-9030
[email protected]
Summary
Please review and sign the proposal with any notes.

Option 1 $49,500.00
Total $49,500.00
Customer notes
City of lone Date
Frank Rodriguez
03/03/2026
Frank Rodriguez, Priority Roofing Date
By signing this document you agree to the statement of works provided by Priority Roofing and in accordance with any terms described within.

Frank Rodriguez
Priority Roofing N
(559) 901-9030
[email protected]
3 NorCal Roofing SELECT
& CONSTRUCTION ShingleMaster™
CertainTeed
217W Jackson St
ROOFING ESTIMATE POLICE DEPT # 26020001
IONE
MAR 16, 2026
217 West Jackson Street
lone, CA
95640
2093320378
[email protected]
5103882260
SCOPE OF WORK:

This project is quoted to meet the current Prevailing Wage requirements.

1. NorCal Roofing to furnish permit from Building Dept. Call for all required inspections.

2. Remove single layer of Metal Roof panels down to the wood frame 3 Inspect Wood Framing for dry-rot and structural repairs if necessary. See additional cost. 4 Install new 1/2" CDX 3-ply Plywood over existing wood Frame.

5. Furnish and install synthetic underlayment

6. Install new 24" painted valley in all valley areas bent to fit, over Winterguard Granulated Ice and Water Schield.

7. Replace all plumbing pipe flashings and all step flashings as needed.

8. All new roof flashings to be match close to the roof shingles color.

9. furnish and install new eave and rake starter shingles on all perimeter edges. install metal drip edge flashing on all eaves and rake edge

10. Furnish and install CertainTeed Landmark Solaris Cool Roof Series Shingles, Limited Lifetime warranty in accordance with local and manufacture specifications. Color Birdwood.

11. Furnish & install metal ridge design to cover metal roof panels and composition

12. Remove all debris from job site. This includes using a magnet on wheels to pick up any staples or nails which have fallen from the roof during construction.

13. NOR-CAL ROOFING 5-year no leak Warranty.
14 NorCal roofing offers Certainteed Surestart Plus 3-Star Limited Lifetime Warranty with the completion of job.

Scope of the estimate area of work
Valley area Yellow
will have a later of synthetic underlayment over Winterguard Granular Ice and Water Shield. Valley metal design to fit slope pitch
Ridge Red
A Metal ridge will be installed over existing metal and new Composition bent at the proper slope.

ADDITIONAL COSTS AND OPTIONS:

Most dry-rot repairs are billed on a time and material basis. Our hourly rate is $95.00 per hour plus material plus 10%.

This method protects both of us from spending more than needed. If, however, you must have a pre-determined cost in writing we will be happy to do so. You must understand that we will be gambling on the amount of dry rot we believe is present and our bid will be higher than if you were to pay on time and on a material basis. We can also give you a per sheet of plywood or per lineal foot price if needed. Total cost of dry rot repairs does not exceed 25% of contract price without change order.

Description
House - Shingle Roof System - Details of roof installation is as follows:

Cost for work to be Performed
Estimate subtotal $39,855.13
Total $39,855.13
All Sierra Roof Company Inc Lic#732300
PO Box 831 209-768-4496 Contract
Jackson, CA 95642 [email protected]
Date 2/23/2026
To: City of lone Phone:

West Jackson St
Ione, CA Job Location:
95640
We hereby submit recommendations and estimates for installation of new roof as follows:

Total
Note: This is for partial roof replacement. Sections involved are middle two as per meeting with 69,221.00 Mr. White.
1) Remove existing corrugated roof
2) Install new OSB roof sheathing over existing rafters 3) Install in valley, one continuos layer of FR10 underlayment 4) Install in valley, one continuos layer of TPO Single Ply membrane 5) On sloped sections install one layer of Owens Corning synthetic roof underlayment 6) On sloped sections install Owens Corning COOL Tru-Definition asphalt shingle roof assembly 7) On balance of roofs not replaced, perform general maintenance including but not limited to:
tighten loosened screws, seal all
penetrations, add missing screws where needed, seal any loose seams 8) Repairs carry a 5-year leak warranty.
9) Leave job site clean and free of all debris
10) Price includes General Liability and Workers Compensation insurances We propose hereby to furnish material and labor-complete in accordance with above specifications for the sum of: $69,221.00
ACCEPTANCE OF CONTRACT - The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified above.

Payment is due upon completion of job. A late charge of 2% is assessed on balances over 10 days after completion.

Terms: 50% upon start of project and delivery o
naterials. Balance due upon completion
You, the buyer, may cancel this transaction at any time prior to midnight of the third business day afte the date of this transaction. See attached notice of cancellation form for an explanation of this right If you want our company to do the recommended work, please sign, date, and return the contract and the fact sheet. Thank you.

Date of Acceptance: Authorized
Signature
Signature:

Signature Vote: This proposal may be withdrawr
y us if not accepted within 30 days
Approximate Start Date: Completion Date: Initials
All Sierra Roof Company Inc Lic#732300 Contract
PO Box 831 209-768-4496
Jackson CA 95642. [email protected]
Date 9/23/2026
To:Ione Police Dept. Phone:
#26020001
217 West Jackson St Job Location:

Ione, CA
95640
We hereby submit recommendations and estimates for installation of new roof as follows:

Total
This is for the section immediately to the right of the upper two story Remove existing roofs) and haul to legal landfill
Installation of 19/32" OSB roof sheathing
In valley install a single ply TPO membrane
Install a new Owens Corning asphalt composition shingle roof assembly. Roof to be standard 74,833.00 COOL Tru-Definition color to be Mountainside
Note: Invoicing to be done in two separate invoices, one invoice for 50% at start of project.

Balance of invoice to be paid 30 days later
Price includes General Liability and Workmens Comp. Insurances Tighten loose screws on upper roof
We propose hereby to furnish material and labor-complete in accordance with above specifications for the sum of: $74,833.00
ACCEPTANCE OF CONTRACT - The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified above.

Payment is due upon completion of job. A late charge of 2% is assessed on balances over 10 days after completion. Terms: Payment in full due upon completion of You, the buyer, may cancel this transaction at any time prior to midnight of the third business day after the date of this transaction. See attached notice of cancellation form for an explanation of this right.

If you want our company to do the recommended work, please sign, date, and return the contract and the fact sheet. Thank you.

Date of Acceptance: Authorized
Signature
Signature:

Note: This proposal may be withdrawn
Signature by us if not accepted within 30 days.

Approximate Start Date: Completion Date: Initials

CITY OF IONE
[RE ROOF & MAINTENANCE: 217 W JACKSON ST: PROJ:

AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
THIS CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered into this 7" day of September, 2026, by and between the CITY OF IONE, a California municipal corporation ("City"), and All Sierra Roof Company Inc, a roofing contractor ("Contractor") (each a "Party" or collectively the "Parties"). There are no other parties to this Agreement.

RECITALS
A. City seeks a contractor to perform the reroof and maintenance (the "Project") for 217 W Jackson St, Ione, CA, 95640.

B. Contractor represents to City that it is a duly qualified and licensed firm able to perform the Project.

C. In the judgment of City, it is necessary and desirable to contract the services of Contractor to perform construction work on the Project. The City Manager or his or her designee shall be considered City's primary representative for the implementation and administration of this Agreement.

Contractor has made a proposal to City to provide construction services for the Project, a description of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A ("Services"). Contractor's description of Services shall include a completion schedule for providing the Services ("'Completion Schedule") and a description of the rate and method of payment to Contractor for its performance of the Services under this Agreement ("Compensation").

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants set forth below, the Parties agree as follows:

AGREEMENT
Section 1. Recitals. The "Recitals" set forth above are true and correct and are hereby incorporated into and made part of this Agreement. In the event of any inconsistency between the Recitals and the provisions of this Agreement, the provisions shall prevail.

Section 2. Term. This Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date (defined below) and terminate one (1) year after Contractor completes performance of the Services ("Term"), unless the Parties mutually agree in writing to terminate the Agreement earlier or extend the Term pursuant to this Agreement.

Section 3. Effective Date. This Agreement shall only become effective once all Parties have executed the Agreement (the "Effective Date"). Contractor, however, shall not commence performance of the Services until it has been given notice to proceed by City (Notice to Proceed").

Section 4. Work.
(a) Services. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, Contractor shall perform the Services described in Exhibit A. Contractor shall not receive additional compensation for performance of any services unless they are included in Exhibit A, or the Parties otherwise agree in writing.
(b) Modification of Services. Only the City Manager is authorized to approve extra or changed work. Failure of Contractor to secure such written authorization for extra or changed work shall constitute a waiver of any and all right to adjustment in the Compensation or Completion Schedule, and thereafter Contractor shall be entitled to no compensation whatsoever for the performance of such work. Contractor further waives any and all right or remedy by way of restitution or quantum meruit for any and all extra work performed without such express and prior written authorization of the City Manager.

Section 5. Time of Performance. Contractor agrees that it will commence performance of the Services within thirty (30) days of the Notice to Proceed and shall conform to the Completion Schedule. The time of performance is a material term of this Agreement relied on by City in entering into this Agreement.

Section 6. Payment. City shall pay Contractor for all Services described in Exhibit A which are to be performed by Contractor, and Contractor agrees to accept compensation in an amount not to exceed Seventy-Four Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty-Three Dollars ($74.833.00). City shall pay Contractor within thirty (30) days of the following events having occurred: (a) completion of the Project by Contractor, (b) acceptance of the Services by City, and (c) receipt of Contractor's final invoice for the Services. All payments will be made in accordance with this Agreement.

Section 7. Liquidated Damages. Contractor shall complete the Services within the time specified in the Completion Schedule, subject to any extensions of time authorized by the City in accordance with this Agreement. If Contractor fails to achieve completion within the time required, Contractor shall pay to City, as liquidated damages and not as a penalty, the sum of $1,000 for each calendar day that completion is delayed beyond the required completion date.

4902-3703-8376, v. 5
The Parties acknowledge that the actual damages that City would suffer as a result of delay would be difficult or impracticable to determine at the time of contracting, including costs associated with administration, inspection, engineering, project management, interference with public use, and other delay-related impacts. The amount of liquidated damages stated above represents the Parties' reasonable estimate of such damages.

City may deduct liquidated damages from any amounts otherwise due or to become due to Contractor. The assessment of liquidated damages shall not limit City's right to recover other damages that are not attributable to delay, nor shall it limit any other rights or remedies available to City under this Agreement or applicable law.

Section 8. Representations of Contractor. City relies upon the following representations by Contractor in entering into this Agreement:
(a) Standard of Care. City has relied upon the professional ability and training of Contractor as a material inducement to enter into this Agreement. Contractor hereby warrants that it is qualified to perform the Services and that all of its work will be performed in accordance with generally accepted construction practices and standards, in compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws.
(b) Independent Contractor. In performing the Services specified herein, Contractor shall act as an independent contractor and shall have control of the work and the manner in which it is performed. Contractor is not to be considered an agent or employee of City, and is not entitled to participate in any pension plan, insurance, bonus, or similar benefits City provides its employees. In the event City exercises its right to terminate this Agreement, Contractor expressly agrees that it shall have no recourse or right of appeal under rules, regulations, ordinances, or laws applicable to employees. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as creating an employment, agency or partnership relationship between City and Contractor. (c) Contractor Registration and Licensing. Contractor represents that it possesses the necessary licenses, permits and approvals required to perform the Services or will obtain such licenses, permits or approvals prior to the time such licenses, permits or approvals are required.

Contractor shall also ensure that all subcontractors are similarly licensed and qualified. Contractor represents and warrants to City that Contractor shall, at Contractor's sole cost and expense, keep in effect or obtain at all times during the Term of this Agreement, any licenses, permits, and approvals which are legally required for Contractor to practice Contractor's profession at the time the Services are rendered, including but not limited to, registration for public works projects with the Department of Industrial Relations. Contractor shall further maintain all required Contractors State License Board licenses and classifications and shall obtain and maintain all permits, registrations, certifications, and governmental approvals required for performance of the Services.

4902-3703-8376, v. 5
Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring compliance by all Subcontractors and, upon request, shall provide the City with evidence of such compliance. (d) Prevailing Wage. Contractor agrees to pay all craftsmen and laborers working on the Project at least the minimum prevailing wage required by the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California. Contractor understands and agrees that it is Contractor's responsibility to determine the minimum prevailing wage and to report compliance as required under California law.

Section 9. Warranty. Contractor warrants that the work performed shall be free of defects for a period of one (1) year from completion of the Project. If any part of the work or installation fails as the result of the workmanship of Contractor, Contractor shall repair or replace the defective installation at no cost to City. Warranty work shall be performed within three (3) business days of notice by City that such work is required. If Contractor fails or refuses to timely perform required warranty work, City may perform or cause the work to be performed by others, and Contractor shall be responsible for all reasonable costs and expenses incurred by City in correcting the defective work, including administrative, engineering, inspection, and contractor costs. City may deduct such amounts from any sums otherwise due to Contractor, without limiting any other rights or remedies available to City under the Contract or applicable law.

Section 10. Conformity with Law and Safety. Contractor shall observe and comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, codes and regulations of governmental agencies, including federal, state, municipal and local governing bodies having jurisdiction over any or all of the scope of Services, including all State and Federal occupational safety and health regulations, the California Building Code, the American with Disabilities Act, and all other applicable federal, state, municipal and local safety regulations, appropriate trade association safety standards, and appropriate equipment manufacturer instructions. Contractor's failure to comply with any laws, ordinances, codes or regulations applicable to the performance of the Services hereunder shall constitute a breach of contract. In cases where standards conflict, the standard providing the highest degree of protection shall prevail.

If a death, serious personal injury or substantial property damage occurs in connection with the performance of this Agreement, Contractor shall immediately notify City by telephone. If any accident occurs in connection with this Agreement, Contractor shall promptly submit a written report to City, in such form as City may require. This report shall include the following information: (a) name and address of the injured or deceased persons; (b) name and address of Contractor's subcontractor, if any; (c) name and address of Contractor's liability insurance carrier; and (d) a detailed description of the accident, including whether any of City's equipment, tools or materials were involved.

4902-3703-8376, v. 5
If a release of a hazardous material, substance, or waste occurs in connection with the performance of this Agreement, Contractor shall immediately notify City. Contractor shall not store hazardous materials or hazardous waste within the City limits without a proper permit from City.

Section 11. Excusable Delays. Contractor shall not be in breach of this Agreement in the event that performance of Services is temporarily interrupted or discontinued due to a "Force Majeure" event which is defined as: riots, wars, sabotage, civil disturbances, insurrections, explosion, natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes, landslides, fires, strikes, lockouts and other labor disturbances or other catastrophic events, which are beyond the reasonable control of Contractor.

Force Majeure does not include: (a) Contractor's financial inability to perform; (b) Contractor's failure to obtain any necessary permits or licenses from other governmental agencies; or (c) Contractor's failure to obtain the right to use the facilities of any public utility where such failure is due solely to the acts or omissions of the Contractor.

Section 12. Assignment Prohibited. No Party to this Agreement may assign any right or obligation pursuant to this Agreement. Any attempt or purported assignment of any right or obligation pursuant to this Agreement shall be void and have no effect.

Section 13. Ownership and Disclosure of Work Product.
(a) City shall be the owner of and shall be entitled to immediate possession of accurate reproducible copies of any design computations, plans, specifications, copies of correspondence, maps, or other pertinent data and information gathered or produced by Contractor ("Work Product") during the performance of the Services or upon completion of the work pursuant to this Agreement. Contractor may retain copies of the above-described documents, but agrees not to disclose or discuss any information gathered, discovered, or generated in any way through this Agreement without the express written permission of City, for at least a period of one hundred eighty (180) days following expiration of the Term of this Agreement. (b) When this Agreement is terminated, Contractor agrees to return to City all documents, drawings, photographs and other written or graphic material, however produced, that it received from City, its contractors or agents, in connection with the performance of its Services.

All materials shall be returned in the same condition as received.

Section 14. Termination.
(a) If a Party should fail to perform any of its obligations hereunder, within the time and in the manner herein provided, or otherwise violates any of the terms of this Agreement (the "Defaulting Party"), the other Party shall give written notice to the Defaulting Party stating the

4902-3703-8376, v. 5
reason for default and allow such Party ten (10) days to correct such deficiency. If the Defaulting Party does not correct such deficiency, the other Party may immediately terminate this Agreement by giving written notice of such termination, stating the reason for such termination. In such event, Contractor shall be entitled to receive payment for all Services satisfactorily rendered, provided however, there shall be deducted from such amount the amount of damage, if any, caused to City due to Contractor's breach of this Agreement. If payment under this Agreement is based upon a lump sum total or individual task order, payment for Services satisfactorily rendered shall be in proportion to the total Services otherwise required to be performed. (b) If City terminates this Agreement before City issues the Notice to Proceed or before Contractor commences any Services hereunder, City shall not be obligated to make any payment to Contractor. If City terminates this Agreement after City has issued the Notice to Proceed to Contractor and after Contractor has commenced performance under this Agreement, City shall pay Contractor the reasonable value of the Services rendered by Contractor prior to termination of this Agreement. City shall not in any manner be liable for Contractor's actual or projected lost profits had Contractor completed the Services. Contractor shall furnish to City such financial information, as in the judgment of the City Manager, is necessary to determine the reasonable value of the Services rendered by Contractor prior to termination.
(c) Except as provided in this Agreement, in no event shall City be liable for costs incurred by or on behalf of Contractor after the date of the notice of termination.

Section 15. Liability for Breach. Neither Party waives the right to recover damages against the other for breach of this Agreement. City shall be entitled to recover its damages for all detriment proximately caused by Contractor's failure to perform its obligations hereunder or which in the ordinary course of things would be likely to result therefrom. City reserves the right to offset such damages against any payments owed to Contractor. In no event shall City be liable, regardless of whether any claim is based on contract or tort, for any special, consequential, indirect or incidental damages, including, but not limited to, lost profits or revenue, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement or the Services performed in connection with this Agreement.

Section 16. Insurance Coverage. During the Term, Contractor shall maintain in full force and effect policies of insurance set forth herein and will provide City with written proof of said insurance. Contractor shall maintain coverage as follows:
(a) General Liability. Contractor shall carry commercial general liability insurance in an amount no less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) combined single limit for each occurrence, covering bodily injury and property damage. If commercial general liability insurance or another form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply

4902-3703-8376, v. 5
separately to this Project or the general aggregate shall be no less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00).
(b) Worker's Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability. Contractor shall carry workers' compensation insurance as required by the State of California under the Labor Code. (c) Automobile Liability Insurance. Contractor shall carry Automobile liability insurance covering bodily injury and property damage in an amount no less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) combined single limit for each occurrence. Said insurance shall include coverage for owned, hired, and non-owned vehicles.
(d) Policy Obligations. Contractor's indemnity and other obligations shall not be limited by the foregoing insurance requirements.
(e) Material Breach. If Contractor, for any reason, fails to maintain insurance coverage that is required pursuant to this Agreement, such failure shall be deemed a material breach of this Agreement. City, at its sole option, may terminate this Agreement and obtain damages from Contractor resulting from said breach. Alternatively, City may purchase such required insurance coverage, and without further notice to Contractor, City may deduct from sums due to Contractor any premium costs advanced by City for such insurance. These remedies shall be in addition to any other remedies available to City.

Section 17. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law (including, without limitation, California Civil Code Sections 2782 and 2782.8), Contractor shall defend, indemnify hold harmless and release City, and City's elected and appointed councils, commissions, directors, officers, employees, agents, and representatives ("City Agents") from and against any and all actions, claims, loss, cost, damage, injury (including, without limitation, disability, injury or death of an employee of Contractor or its subcontractors), expense and liability of every kind, nature and description that arise out of, pertain to or relate to acts or omissions of Contractor, or any direct or indirect subcontractor, employee, contractor, representative or agent of Contractor, or anyone that Contractor controls (collectively "Liabilities"). Such obligations to defend, hold harmless and indemnify City and City's Agents shall not apply to the extent that such Liabilities are caused in whole by the sole negligence, active negligence, or willful misconduct of City or City Agents.

With respect to third party claims against Contractor, Contractor waives any and all rights of any type of express or implied indemnity against City and City Agents.

Section 18. Notices. Any notice or communication required hereunder between City and Contractor must be in writing, and may be given either personally, by registered or certified mail (return receipt requested), or by Federal Express, UPS or other similar couriers providing overnight delivery. All such notices and communications shall be accompanied by a copy sent by email. If

4902-3703-8376, v. 5
personally delivered, a notice or communication shall be deemed to have been given when delivered to the Party to whom it is addressed. If given by registered or certified mail, such notice or communication shall be deemed to have been given and received on the first to occur of (a) actual receipt by any of the addressees designated below as the Party to whom notices are to be sent, or (b) five (5) days after a registered or certified letter containing such notice, properly addressed, with postage prepaid, is deposited in the United States mail. If given by Federal Express or similar courier, a notice or communication shall be deemed to have been given and received on the date delivered as shown on a receipt issued by the courier. All notices delivered personally, by mail, or by courier service shall be accompanied by a copy sent by email. Any Party hereto may at any time, by giving ten (10) days written notice to the other Party hereto, designate any other address in substitution of the address to which such notice or communication shall be given.

Such notices or communications shall be given to the Parties at their addresses set forth below:

If to City: City of lone
1 E. Main Street
Ione, CA 95640
Attention: City Manager
Email: [email protected]
with courtesy copies to:
1 E. Main Street
Ione, CA 95640
Attention: City Manager
Email: [email protected]
White Brenner LLP
1608 T Street
Sacramento, CA, 95811
Attention: Josh Varinsky
Email: [email protected]
If to Contractor: All Sierra Roof Company Inc
Po Box 831
Jackson, CA, 95642
[email protected]

4902-3703-8376, v. 5
Section 19. Contract Documents and Exhibits. The Contract Documents, including all exhibits, attachments, specifications, plans, drawings, addenda, bid documents, notices, and other documents expressly incorporated by reference into this Agreement, are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this Agreement as though fully set forth herein. The Contract Documents shall include, without limitation, the following:

Exhibit Designation Exhibit Title
Exhibit A: Services
Section 20. General Provisions.
(a) Modification. No alteration, amendment, modification, or termination of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and executed by all of the Parties to this Agreement.
(b) Waiver: No covenant, term, or condition or the breach thereof shall be deemed waived, except by written consent of the Party against whom the waiver is claimed, and any waiver of the breach of any covenant, term, or condition shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding or succeeding breach of the same or any other covenant, term, or condition. (c) Authority. Each person executing this Agreement warrants and represents that they have the power and authority to enter into this Agreement. (d) Joint Preparation. All Parties to this Agreement have negotiated it at length and have had the opportunity to consult with and be represented by their own competent counsel. The Parties acknowledge and agree that any rule of construction that a document is to be construed against the drafting Party shall not be applicable to this Agreement. (e) Other Project Documents. In the event of a conflict between this Agreement and any other contract document related to the Services, or should any ambiguity arise between the Contract Documents, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall prevail.

Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of California.
(g) Venue. Venue for all legal proceedings shall be in the Superior Court of California for the County of Amador.
(h) Severability. If any provision of this Agreement shall be determined by a court to be invalid and unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect and shall be construed to give effect to the intent of this Agreement.

4902-3703-8376, v. 5
(i) Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed simultaneously and, in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
(i) Audit. City shall have access at all reasonable times to all reports, contract records, Contract Documents, contract files, and personnel necessary to audit and verify Contractor's charges to City under this Agreement.
(k) Entire Agreement. This Agreement, together with its specific references, attachments and exhibits, constitutes the entire agreement of the Parties with respect to the subject matters hereof, and supersedes any and all prior negotiations, understanding and agreements with respect hereto, whether oral or written.
(1) Mandatory and Permissive. "Shall" and "will" and "agrees" are mandatory. "May" and "can" are permissive.
(m) Attorney's Fees and Costs. If any action at law or in equity, including action for declaratory relief, is brought to enforce or interpret provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs, which may be set by the court in the same action or in a separate action brought for that purpose, in addition to any other relief to which such Party may be entitled
(n) Further Acts. The Parties agree to execute and deliver such further documents and instruments and shall take such other actions as may be reasonably required or appropriate to evidence or carry out the intent and purposes of this Agreement. (o) Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence in this Agreement for each covenant and term of a condition herein.
[ Signatures on following page ]

4902-3703-8376, v. 5
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been entered into by and between City and Contractor as of the dates set forth below.

CITY: CONTRACTOR:

CITY OF IONE,
a California municipality a
By:

George Lee, City Manager
Print:

Title:

Date: Date:

ATTEST:

By:_
Janice Traverso, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Josh Varinsky, City Attorney

4902-3703-8376, v. 5
EXHIBIT A: SERVICES
Contractor shall perform and complete the following (attached) Services in accordance with the details and specifications described below, which shall include a Completion Schedule and description of the Compensation.

1. Demolition of current metal roof and removal of material

2. Dry wrought repairs (if needed)

3. Installation of 19/32" OSB roof sheathing

4. Install into valley single ply TPO membrane

5. Install new Owens Corning asphalt composition shingle roof assembly

6. Tighten and seal loose screws on upper roof
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-37

A RESOLUTION OF THE IONE CITY COUNCIL

APPROVING THE PROPOSAL FROM ALL SIERRA ROOF COMPANY FOR THE REROOF PROJECT AT 217 W. JACKSON ST AND

AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A PROJECT CONTRACT
WHEREAS, the City of lone (City) requires a reroof project for its new police station at 217 W. Jackson St; and
WHEREAS, the City is subject to the California Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act, and the estimated cost of the project is less than $75,000; and WHEREAS, City staff has reviewed the proposal submitted by All Sierra Roof Company and finds that the proposed work and contract amount are reasonable and in the best interest of the City; and
WHEREAS, sufficient funds are available for the project and no budget amendment is required; and
WHEREAS, the project is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15301 (Existing Facilities). The project consists of reroofing an existing public facility and involves no expansion of the existing use.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Ione City Council as follows:

1. The City Council hereby approves the proposal submitted by All Sierra Roof Company for the reroof project at 217 W. Jackson Street.

2. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute a public works contract with All Sierra Roof Company for the project, in a form approved by the City Attorney.

3. Provided that sufficient budgeted funds for the project are available, the City Manager erent (12% to the orięich cone ard am uan agregate amount not to exceed ten

PASSED AND ADOPTED AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IONE ON THE DAY OF _20 BY THE
FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:

Jody Maita, Mayor
ATTEST:

Janice Traverso, City Clerk