ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS
Lake St/4th St/Central Ave Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) Appendix D City of Madera R2264RPT003
APPENDIX D – BENEFIT/COST RATIO BACK-UP
2/17/2019
County Rte Postmile
Madera N/A N/A
# of Years for
Analysis Rate Group
23 I8
Mainline Cross St Mainline Cross St Average ADT VCF
8.3 6.4 10.5 8.0 16.6 1.13 4
Desired
Improvement Const R/W Total Number of Years 5
Total
Collisions 10
Yield Control
(Roundabout 1‐Lane) $ 1,620 $ 755 $ 2,375 Injury 1 PDO 9 Yield Control
(Roundabout 2‐Lane) $ ‐ ‐ $ Fatal Fat + Inj 1 Traffic Signal, Type F,
M or S $ 1,050 2$ $ 1,052 Existing Condition
=All Way Stop, Type F,
1 All Way Stop,
Type F, M or S $6,973 Yield Control(Roundabout 1‐Lane) $2,330 1.95 2 All Way Stop,
Type F, M or S $6,973 Yield Control(Roundabout 2‐Lane) $3,450 0.00 3 All Way Stop,
Type F, M or S $6,973 Traffic Signal, Type F,M or S $7,872 ‐0.85 v1.00
NOTE: Only average collision costs are used for calculation purposes.
NOTE: Collision costs reported are costs for anticipated collisions over the number of years of analysis (20 years) Est. Capital Cost (x1000) for Desired Improvement
$4,644
Existing Collision Data
B/C Collision Cost (x1000)
Existing Condition Desired Improvement Projected Savings Intersection Control Evaluation
Existing ADT (x1000) Future ADT (x1000)
Existing Condition
Location Description
4th/Lake/Central
All Way Stop, Type F, M or S
Collision Cost Analysis and B/C
‐‐ Fill in tan boxes along with 'Area' ‐‐
($898)
$3,524
Intersection Types:
F ‐ Four‐Legged
M ‐ Multi‐Legged
S ‐ Offsett ‐Tee
Y ‐ “Y” Wye
Z ‐ Others
Area
Rural
Suburban
Urban
T2264X006
LJ •
Fill in Orange Cells.
Delay Entry
Enter average vehicle occupancy. This is used to convert vehicle delay to person delay.Vehicle Occupancy 1.15 From Caltrans Life-Cycle Benefit-Cost Analysis - Economic Parameters 2016Enter the duration in hours of each time period of the day. If delay data is not available for a time period, enter a duration of 0 Weekday Weekend
AM 1 AM
PM 1 PM
Midday MiddayOff-Peak1 Off-Peak1 This could be us
Off-Peak2 Off-Peak2 This could be usTotal 2 Total 0
Enter the hourly volume (total entering vehicles) for each time period of the day. This is used to convert average delay per ve If analysis of certain time periods is not desired, leave cells for that time period blank Existing Year Design Year Opening Year Design Year
AM 955 1203 AM
PM 1188 1495 PM
Midday MiddayOff-Peak1 Off-Peak1Off-Peak2 Off-Peak2ADT Requires 24 hour data ADT Requires 24 hour data Weekend
Total for weekday and weekend should equal 24 for analysis of all hours of the week, or should equal less than 24 for analysis of certain time periods only. Full day analysis for weekdays and weekends is recommended if sufficient data is available.
Weekday
Orange cells in tables below can be left blank if consideration of time period is not desired.
For example, if it is desired to only analyze peak hours, delay entries for midday and off-peak may be left blank.Enter the delay from SIDRA outputs.Roundabout Alternative AM PM Midday Off-Peak1 Off-Peak2
Delay Delay Delay Delay Delay
sec/veh sec/veh sec/veh sec/veh sec/veh
2017 7.4 7.3
2040 10.3 10.1
Enter the delay from Synchro/SimTraffic outputs.Signal Alternative AM PM Midday Off-Peak1 Off-Peak2
Delay Delay Delay Delay Delay
sec/veh sec/veh sec/veh sec/veh sec/veh
2017 23.8 24.32040 28.2 38.3
These cells calculate average weekday peak hour totals. No data entry here.Roundabout Alternative Person Delay
(in sec)
2017 9,0502040 15,807
Signal Alternative
Person Delay
(in sec)
2017 29,6692040 52,430
Vehicle Delay
Weekday
Average Week Day Peak Hour Totals
(in sec)
7,870
13,745
(in sec)
Average Week Day Peak Hour Totals
25,79945,592
Vehicle Delay
I
I
I
I
Annual Costs
Safety Predicted Annual Crashes Safety Cost Predicted Annual Crashes Safety Cost Predicted Fatal/Injury Crashes Safety Data Omitted 0 Safety Data Omitted 0 Predicted PDO Crashes Safety Data Omitted 0 Safety Data Omitted 0 Annual Costs of Predicted Crashes $ 135,695 Annual Costs of Predicted Crashes $ 202,062 Delay Annual Intersection Delay (person-hrs) Delay Cost Annual Intersection Delay (person-hrs) Delay Cost Average Annual Person (in Vehicle) Delay 898 $ 11,000 2965 $ 36,000 Operation and Maintenance Operation and Maintenance O&M Cost Operation and Maintenance O&M Cost Annualized Cost of Signal Retiming $ - Signal Retiming Every 3 Years $ 1,000 Annual Cost of Power for Signal $ - Power for Signal $ 750 Annual Cost of Illumination Intersection Illumination $ 750 Intersection Illumination $ 750 Annual Cost of Maintenance Landscaping Costs $ 1,500 Signal Maintenance Costs (power outage, detection, etc.) $ 1,500 Total Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs $ 2,250 Total Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs $ 4,000 Initial Capital Costs Total Capital Costs Cost Total Capital Costs Cost Preliminary Engineering $ 234,392 $ 120,699
Right-of-way and Utilities $ 755,410 $ 1,600
Construction $ 1,620,000 $ 1,050,000
*Delay cost is based upon an average of the AM and PM peak hours.
Total Discounted Life Cycle Costs
(2017 - 2040)
Safety Total Predicted Crashes Safety Cost Total Predicted Crashes Safety Cost Predicted Fatal/Injury Crashes Safety Data Omitted $ - Safety Data Omitted $ - Predicted PDO Crashes Safety Data Omitted $ - Safety Data Omitted $ - Total Costs of Predicted Crashes $ 2,016,000 Total Costs of Predicted Crashes $ 3,002,000 Delay Total Intersection Delay (person-hrs) Delay Cost Total Intersection Delay (person-hrs) Delay Cost Total Person (in Vehicle) Delay 21543 $ 260,000 71152 $ 860,000 Fuel and GHG Cost
$ 505,120 $ 536,123
Operation and Maintenance Operation and Maintenance O&M Cost Operation and Maintenance O&M Cost Annualized Cost of Signal Retiming $ - Signal Retiming Every 3 Years $ 14,857 Annual Cost of Power for Signal $ - Power for Signal $ 11,143 Annual Cost of Illumination Intersection Illumination $ 11,143 Intersection Illumination $ 11,143 Annual Cost of Maintenance Landscaping Costs $ 22,285 Signal Maintenance Costs (power outage, detection, etc.) $ 22,285 Total Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs $ 33,428 Total Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs $ 59,427 Initial Capital Costs Total Capital Costs Cost Total Capital Costs Cost Preliminary Engineering $ 234,392 $ 120,699
Right-of-way and Utilities $ 755,410 $ 1,600
Construction $ 1,620,000 $ 1,050,000
Total Initial Capital Costs $ 2,609,802 Total Initial Capital Costs $ 1,172,299 Total Life Cycle Costs (Opening Year $) Net Present Value $ 4,919,230 Net Present Value $ 5,093,726 *Delay cost is based upon an average of the AM and PM peak hours. Roundabout Alternative Traffic Signal Alternative Safety Benefit $ 986,000
Delay Reduction Benefit $ 600,000
Fuel and GHG Benefit $ 31,004
Total Benefits $ 1,617,004
Added Operations&Maintenance Costs $ (25,999)
Added Capital Costs $ 1,437,503
Total Costs $ 1,411,504
Life Cycle Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.1
Roundabout Preferred
Life Cycle Benefit/Cost Ratio
Roundabout Alt vs. Signal Alt
Roundabout Alternative Traffic Signal AlternativeRoundabout Alternative Traffic Signal Alternative Fuel and Green House Gas Cost Fuel and Green House Gas Cost Signal
Alternative
Roundabout
Alternative Signal Alternative
Roundabout
Alternative Signal Alternative
Roundabout
Alternative Signal Alternative
Roundabout
Alternative
654 2,143 7,741 7,319 66.5 63.5 93.0 86.5 1,142 3,787 12,611 11,883 118.5 116.0 132.0 131.5 2017 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.10
2040 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.14
Signal
Alternative
Roundabout
Alternative
Signal
Alternative
Roundabout
Alternative
Signal
Alternative
Roundabout
Alternative
Signal
Alternative
Roundabout
Alternative
Year 0 2017 2143 654 7741.00 7319.00 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.10Year 1 2018 2214 675 7952.74 7517.43 0.08 0.07 0.10 0.10Year 2 2019 2286 696 8164.48 7715.87 0.08 0.08 0.11 0.10Year 3 2020 2357 717 8376.22 7914.30 0.08 0.08 0.11 0.10Year 4 2021 2429 738 8587.96 8112.74 0.08 0.08 0.11 0.10Year 5 2022 2500 760 8799.70 8311.17 0.09 0.08 0.11 0.11Year 6 2023 2572 781 9011.43 8509.61 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.11Year 7 2024 2643 802 9223.17 8708.04 0.09 0.09 0.12 0.11Year 8 2025 2715 823 9434.91 8906.48 0.09 0.09 0.12 0.11Year 9 2026 2786 845 9646.65 9104.91 0.10 0.09 0.12 0.11 Year 10 2027 2857 866 9858.39 9303.35 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.12Year 11 2028 2929 887 10070.13 9501.78 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.12Year 12 2029 3000 908 10281.87 9700.22 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.12Year 13 2030 3072 929 10493.61 9898.65 0.11 0.10 0.13 0.12Year 14 2031 3143 951 10705.35 10097.09 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.13Year 15 2032 3215 972 10917.09 10295.52 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.13Year 16 2033 3286 993 11128.83 10493.96 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.13Year 17 2034 3358 1014 11340.57 10692.39 0.12 0.11 0.13 0.13Year 18 2035 3429 1036 11552.30 10890.83 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.13Year 19 2036 3501 1057 11764.04 11089.26 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.14Year 20 2037 3572 1078 11975.78 11287.70 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.14Year 21 2038 3644 1099 12187.52 11486.13 0.13 0.12 0.14 0.14Year 22 2039 3715 1120 12399.26 11684.57 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14Year 23 2040 3787 1142 12611.00 11883.00 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.14 Total 71152 21543 244224.00 230424.00 2.45 2.37 2.98 2.88 Average 2965 898 10176.00 9601.00 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.12
QUANTITIES
Travel Time (pers-hr) Fuel (gal/yr) Carbon Monoxide (ton/yr) Nitrogen Oxide (kg/yr) Intersection Performance-Annual Values (From SIDRA Intersection Summary Reports) Travel Time (pers-hr) Fuel (gal/yr) Carbon Monoxide (kg/yr) Nitrogen Oxide (kg/yr) Convert to tons/yr
Signal
Alternative
Roundabout
Alternative
Signal
Alternative
Roundabout
Alternative
Signal
Alternative
Roundabout
Alternative
Signal
Alternative
Roundabout
Alternative
$40,605 $12,386 $24,616 $23,274 $6 $6 $1,917 $1,783 0 1.00000 $41,959 $12,788 $25,290 $23,905 $6 $6 $1,952 $1,823 1 0.96154 $43,314 $13,190 $25,963 $24,536 $6 $6 $1,987 $1,864 2 0.92456 $44,668 $13,592 $26,636 $25,167 $6 $6 $2,022 $1,904 3 0.88900 $46,022 $13,994 $27,310 $25,799 $7 $6 $2,057 $1,944 4 0.85480 $47,377 $14,396 $27,983 $26,430 $7 $7 $2,092 $1,985 5 0.82193 $48,731 $14,799 $28,656 $27,061 $7 $7 $2,127 $2,025 6 0.79031 $50,086 $15,201 $29,330 $27,692 $7 $7 $2,162 $2,065 7 0.75992 $51,440 $15,603 $30,003 $28,323 $7 $7 $2,197 $2,106 8 0.73069 $52,795 $16,005 $30,676 $28,954 $8 $7 $2,232 $2,146 9 0.70259 $54,149 $16,407 $31,350 $29,585 $8 $8 $2,267 $2,186 10 0.67556 $55,503 $16,809 $32,023 $30,216 $8 $8 $2,302 $2,227 11 0.64958 $56,858 $17,211 $32,696 $30,847 $8 $8 $2,336 $2,267 12 0.62460 $58,212 $17,613 $33,370 $31,478 $8 $8 $2,371 $2,307 13 0.60057 $59,567 $18,015 $34,043 $32,109 $9 $8 $2,406 $2,348 14 0.57748 $60,921 $18,417 $34,716 $32,740 $9 $9 $2,441 $2,388 15 0.55526 $62,276 $18,819 $35,390 $33,371 $9 $9 $2,476 $2,428 16 0.53391 $63,630 $19,221 $36,063 $34,002 $9 $9 $2,511 $2,469 17 0.51337 $64,984 $19,623 $36,736 $34,633 $9 $9 $2,546 $2,509 18 0.49363 $66,339 $20,025 $37,410 $35,264 $10 $9 $2,581 $2,549 19 0.47464 $67,693 $20,427 $38,083 $35,895 $10 $10 $2,616 $2,590 20 0.45639 $69,048 $20,829 $38,756 $36,526 $10 $10 $2,651 $2,630 21 0.43883 $70,402 $21,232 $39,430 $37,157 $10 $10 $2,686 $2,670 22 0.42196 $71,757 $21,634 $40,103 $37,788 $10 $10 $2,721 $2,711 23 0.40573 $1,348,336 $408,237 776,632 $ $ 732,748 $ 196 $ 190 $ 55,656 $ 53,924 $56,181 $17,010 $32,360 $30,531 $8 $8 $2,319 $2,247
Auto/Truck Composite (Weighted
Average)
($/per-hr)
Fuel (gal/yr) Carbon Monoxide (kg/yr) Nitrogen Oxide (kg/yr) Average Fuel Price for Regular
Unleaded (Auto) CA Urban Area CA Urban Area
($/Gal) ($/Ton) ($/Ton)
COSTS
Travel Time (pers-hr) Fuel (gal/yr) Carbon Monoxide (ton/yr) $3.18 $80.00 $18,700.00
Nitrogen Oxide (kg/yr)
Life-Cycle Benefit-Cost Analysis
Travel Time Parameter
$18.95
Signal
Alternative
Roundabout
Alternative
Signal
Alternative
Roundabout
Alternative
Signal
Alternative
Roundabout
Alternative
Signal
Alternative
Roundabout
Alternative
$36,000 $11,000 $21,000 $20,000 $5 $5 $1,500 $1,500
Environmental Costs
Signal Alternative $1,505
Roundabout Alternative $1,505
Signal
Alternative
Roundabout
Alternative
Signal
Alternative
Roundabout
Alternative
Signal
Alternative
Roundabout
Alternative
Signal
Alternative
Roundabout
Alternative
$40,605 $12,386 $24,616 $23,274 $6 $6 $1,917 $1,783$40,345 $12,296 $24,317 $22,986 $6 $6 $1,877 $1,753$40,046 $12,195 $24,004 $22,685 $6 $6 $1,837 $1,723$39,710 $12,084 $23,680 $22,374 $6 $6 $1,797 $1,693$39,340 $11,962 $23,344 $22,053 $6 $5 $1,758 $1,662$38,940 $11,833 $23,000 $21,723 $6 $5 $1,719 $1,631$38,513 $11,695 $22,648 $21,386 $6 $5 $1,681 $1,600$38,061 $11,551 $22,288 $21,043 $6 $5 $1,643 $1,569$37,587 $11,401 $21,923 $20,695 $5 $5 $1,605 $1,539$37,093 $11,245 $21,553 $20,342 $5 $5 $1,568 $1,508$36,581 $11,084 $21,179 $19,986 $5 $5 $1,531 $1,477$36,054 $10,919 $20,802 $19,628 $5 $5 $1,495 $1,446$35,513 $10,750 $20,422 $19,267 $5 $5 $1,459 $1,416$34,961 $10,578 $20,041 $18,905 $5 $5 $1,424 $1,386$34,398 $10,403 $19,659 $18,542 $5 $5 $1,390 $1,356$33,827 $10,226 $19,277 $18,179 $5 $5 $1,356 $1,326$33,249 $10,048 $18,895 $17,817 $5 $5 $1,322 $1,297$32,666 $9,868 $18,514 $17,456 $5 $5 $1,289 $1,267$32,078 $9,687 $18,134 $17,096 $5 $5 $1,257 $1,239$31,487 $9,505 $17,756 $16,738 $5 $4 $1,225 $1,210$30,894 $9,323 $17,381 $16,382 $4 $4 $1,194 $1,182$30,300 $9,141 $17,008 $16,029 $4 $4 $1,163 $1,154$29,707 $8,959 $16,638 $15,679 $4 $4 $1,133 $1,127$29,114 $8,777 $16,271 $15,332 $4 $4 $1,104 $1,100 $860,000 $260,000 500,000 $ 470,000 $ 123 $ $ 120 $ 36,000 $ 35,000 $36,000 $11,000 $21,000 $20,000 $5 $5 $1,500 $1,500
Average Yearly Costs
Travel Time (pers-hr) Fuel (gal/yr) Carbon Monoxide (ton/yr) Nitrogen Oxide (kg/yr)
ADJUSTED COSTS
Travel Time (pers-hr) Fuel (gal/yr) Carbon Monoxide (ton/yr) Nitrogen Oxide (kg/yr) Life Cycle Costs (20 year design)
Traffic Signal
Alternative
Roundabout
Alternative
Collision Costs of predicted crashes $3,002,000 $2,016,000 Delay Costs $860,000 $260,000
Fuel and GHG Costs $537,000 $506,000
Operations and Maintenance Costs $60,000 $34,000
Project Costs (including R/W) $1,172,299 $2,609,802
Total Life Cycle Costs (Opening Year $ - Net
Present Value) $5,631,299 $5,425,802
Roundabout Alternative to Signal Alternative
Collision and Mobility Costs
Project Costs including design, construction and maintenance
INTERSECTION SUMMARY
Site: 1v [2017 AM Peak Hour - Conversion]
4th Street/Lake Street/Central Avenue
2017 AM Peak Hour
Signals - Pretimed Isolated Cycle Time = 50 seconds (User-Given Cycle Time) Intersection Performance - Hourly Values
Performance Measure Vehicles Persons
Travel Speed (Average) 15.0 mph 15.0 mph
Travel Distance (Total) 229.3 veh-mi/h 275.1 pers-mi/h
Travel Time (Total) 15.3 veh-h/h 18.3 pers-h/h
Demand Flows (Total) 1165 veh/h 1399 pers/h
Percent Heavy Vehicles (Demand) 4.0 %
Degree of Saturation 0.682
Practical Spare Capacity 31.9 %
Effective Intersection Capacity 1708 veh/h
Control Delay (Total) 6.82 veh-h/h 8.19 pers-h/h
Control Delay (Average) 21.1 sec 21.1 sec
Control Delay (Worst Lane) 27.2 sec
Control Delay (Worst Movement) 27.2 sec 27.2 sec
Geometric Delay (Average) 0.0 sec
Stop-Line Delay (Average) 21.1 sec
Idling Time (Average) 16.8 sec
Intersection Level of Service (LOS) LOS C
95% Back of Queue - Vehicles (Worst Lane) 7.5 veh
95% Back of Queue - Distance (Worst Lane) 192.8 ft
Queue Storage Ratio (Worst Lane) 0.23
Total Effective Stops 930 veh/h 1116 pers/h
Effective Stop Rate 0.80 per veh 0.80 per pers
Proportion Queued 0.95 0.95
Performance Index 76.8 76.8
Cost (Total) 280.89 $/h 280.89 $/h
Fuel Consumption (Total) 17.0 gal/h
Carbon Dioxide (Total) 152.3 kg/h
Hydrocarbons (Total) 0.015 kg/h
Carbon Monoxide (Total) 0.147 kg/h
NOx (Total) 0.280 kg/h
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Site tab).
Intersection LOS value for Vehicles is based on average delay for all vehicle movements.
HCM Delay Formula option is used. Control Delay does not include Geometric Delay since Exclude Geometric Delay option applies.
Intersection Performance - Annual Values
Performance Measure Vehicles Persons
Demand Flows (Total) 559,407 veh/y 671,289 pers/y
Delay 3,274 veh-h/y 3,929 pers-h/y
Effective Stops 446,557 veh/y 535,868 pers/y
Travel Distance 110,045 veh-mi/y 132,054 pers-mi/y
Travel Time 7,327 veh-h/y 8,793 pers-h/y
Cost 134,828 $/y 134,828 $/y
Fuel Consumption 8,153 gal/y
Carbon Dioxide 73,080 kg/y
Hydrocarbons 7 kg/y
Carbon Monoxide 70 kg/y
NOx 134 kg/y
II
SIDRA INTERSECTION 7.0 | Copyright © 2000-2017 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: GHD | Processed: Thursday, December 20, 2018 8:44:55 AM Project: O:\PRJ\2264\T2264\SIDRA\Lake Sidra_Signal_12.10.18.sip7
INTERSECTION SUMMARY
Site: 1v [2017 PM Peak Hour - Conversion]
4th Street/Lake Street/Central Avenue
2017 PM Peak Hour
Signals - Pretimed Isolated Cycle Time = 55 seconds (User-Given Cycle Time) Intersection Performance - Hourly Values
Performance Measure Vehicles Persons
Travel Speed (Average) 14.8 mph 14.8 mph
Travel Distance (Total) 230.1 veh-mi/h 276.1 pers-mi/h
Travel Time (Total) 15.5 veh-h/h 18.6 pers-h/h
Demand Flows (Total) 1156 veh/h 1387 pers/h
Percent Heavy Vehicles (Demand) 1.0 %
Degree of Saturation 0.658
Practical Spare Capacity 36.9 %
Effective Intersection Capacity 1758 veh/h
Control Delay (Total) 7.18 veh-h/h 8.62 pers-h/h
Control Delay (Average) 22.4 sec 22.4 sec
Control Delay (Worst Lane) 24.4 sec
Control Delay (Worst Movement) 24.4 sec 24.4 sec
Geometric Delay (Average) 0.0 sec
Stop-Line Delay (Average) 22.4 sec
Idling Time (Average) 18.2 sec
Intersection Level of Service (LOS) LOS C
95% Back of Queue - Vehicles (Worst Lane) 7.4 veh
95% Back of Queue - Distance (Worst Lane) 185.9 ft
Queue Storage Ratio (Worst Lane) 0.32
Total Effective Stops 910 veh/h 1092 pers/h
Effective Stop Rate 0.79 per veh 0.79 per pers
Proportion Queued 0.95 0.95
Performance Index 79.7 79.7
Cost (Total) 267.60 $/h 267.60 $/h
Fuel Consumption (Total) 15.3 gal/h
Carbon Dioxide (Total) 136.1 kg/h
Hydrocarbons (Total) 0.013 kg/h
Carbon Monoxide (Total) 0.130 kg/h
NOx (Total) 0.108 kg/h
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Site tab).
Intersection LOS value for Vehicles is based on average delay for all vehicle movements.
HCM Delay Formula option is used. Control Delay does not include Geometric Delay since Exclude Geometric Delay option applies.
Intersection Performance - Annual Values
Performance Measure Vehicles Persons
Demand Flows (Total) 554,939 veh/y 665,927 pers/y
Delay 3,448 veh-h/y 4,138 pers-h/y
Effective Stops 436,731 veh/y 524,078 pers/y
Travel Distance 110,447 veh-mi/y 132,536 pers-mi/y
Travel Time 7,457 veh-h/y 8,949 pers-h/y
Cost 128,447 $/y 128,447 $/y
Fuel Consumption 7,328 gal/y
Carbon Dioxide 65,329 kg/y
Hydrocarbons 6 kg/y
Carbon Monoxide 63 kg/y
NOx 52 kg/y
II
SIDRA INTERSECTION 7.0 | Copyright © 2000-2017 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: GHD | Processed: Thursday, December 20, 2018 9:14:23 AM Project: O:\PRJ\2264\T2264\SIDRA\Lake Sidra_Signal_12.10.18.sip7
INTERSECTION SUMMARY
Site: 1 [2017 AM Peak Hour ]
4th Street/Lake Street/Central Avenue
2017 AM Peak Hour
Roundabout
Intersection Performance - Hourly Values
Performance Measure Vehicles Persons
Travel Speed (Average) 23.1 mph 23.1 mph
Travel Distance (Total) 243.6 veh-mi/h 292.3 pers-mi/h
Travel Time (Total) 10.5 veh-h/h 12.7 pers-h/h
Demand Flows (Total) 1164 veh/h 1397 pers/h
Percent Heavy Vehicles (Demand) 4.0 %
Degree of Saturation 0.385
Practical Spare Capacity 120.8 %
Effective Intersection Capacity 3023 veh/h
Control Delay (Total) 1.96 veh-h/h 2.36 pers-h/h
Control Delay (Average) 6.1 sec 6.1 sec
Control Delay (Worst Lane) 6.5 sec
Control Delay (Worst Movement) 6.5 sec 6.5 sec
Geometric Delay (Average) 0.0 sec
Stop-Line Delay (Average) 6.1 sec
Idling Time (Average) 4.1 sec
Intersection Level of Service (LOS) LOS A
95% Back of Queue - Vehicles (Worst Lane) 3.0 veh
95% Back of Queue - Distance (Worst Lane) 77.4 ft
Queue Storage Ratio (Worst Lane) 0.06
Total Effective Stops 327 veh/h 392 pers/h
Effective Stop Rate 0.28 per veh 0.28 per pers
Proportion Queued 0.44 0.44
Performance Index 27.2 27.2
Cost (Total) 218.18 $/h 218.18 $/h
Fuel Consumption (Total) 15.6 gal/h
Carbon Dioxide (Total) 140.1 kg/h
Hydrocarbons (Total) 0.013 kg/h
Carbon Monoxide (Total) 0.135 kg/h
NOx (Total) 0.255 kg/h
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Site tab).
Roundabout LOS Method: SIDRA Roundabout LOS.
Intersection LOS value for Vehicles is based on average delay for all vehicle movements.
Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard.
HCM Delay Formula option is used. Control Delay does not include Geometric Delay since Exclude Geometric Delay option applies.
Intersection Performance - Annual Values
Performance Measure Vehicles Persons
Demand Flows (Total) 558,815 veh/y 670,578 pers/y
Delay 943 veh-h/y 1,132 pers-h/y
Effective Stops 156,735 veh/y 188,082 pers/y
Travel Distance 116,907 veh-mi/y 140,288 pers-mi/y
Travel Time 5,062 veh-h/y 6,074 pers-h/y
Cost 104,727 $/y 104,727 $/y
Fuel Consumption 7,499 gal/y
Carbon Dioxide 67,232 kg/y
Hydrocarbons 6 kg/y
Carbon Monoxide 65 kg/y
NOx 122 kg/y
SIDRA INTERSECTION 7.0 | Copyright © 2000-2017 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: GHD | Processed: Thursday, December 20, 2018 9:36:53 AM Project: O:\PRJ\2264\T2264\SIDRA\Lake Sidra_Signal_12.10.18.sip7
INTERSECTION SUMMARY
Site: 1 [2017 PM Peak Hour]
4th Street/Lake Street/Central Avenue
2017 PM Peak Hour
Roundabout
Intersection Performance - Hourly Values
Performance Measure Vehicles Persons
Travel Speed (Average) 23.2 mph 23.2 mph
Travel Distance (Total) 258.1 veh-mi/h 309.7 pers-mi/h
Travel Time (Total) 11.1 veh-h/h 13.3 pers-h/h
Demand Flows (Total) 1218 veh/h 1462 pers/h
Percent Heavy Vehicles (Demand) 1.0 %
Degree of Saturation 0.353
Practical Spare Capacity 140.7 %
Effective Intersection Capacity 3450 veh/h
Control Delay (Total) 2.07 veh-h/h 2.48 pers-h/h
Control Delay (Average) 6.1 sec 6.1 sec
Control Delay (Worst Lane) 6.9 sec
Control Delay (Worst Movement) 6.9 sec 6.9 sec
Geometric Delay (Average) 0.0 sec
Stop-Line Delay (Average) 6.1 sec
Idling Time (Average) 4.0 sec
Intersection Level of Service (LOS) LOS A
95% Back of Queue - Vehicles (Worst Lane) 2.4 veh
95% Back of Queue - Distance (Worst Lane) 59.3 ft
Queue Storage Ratio (Worst Lane) 0.07
Total Effective Stops 390 veh/h 468 pers/h
Effective Stop Rate 0.32 per veh 0.32 per pers
Proportion Queued 0.48 0.48
Performance Index 28.6 28.6
Cost (Total) 216.00 $/h 216.00 $/h
Fuel Consumption (Total) 14.9 gal/h
Carbon Dioxide (Total) 132.6 kg/h
Hydrocarbons (Total) 0.012 kg/h
Carbon Monoxide (Total) 0.130 kg/h
NOx (Total) 0.107 kg/h
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Site tab).
Roundabout LOS Method: SIDRA Roundabout LOS.
Intersection LOS value for Vehicles is based on average delay for all vehicle movements.
Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard.
HCM Delay Formula option is used. Control Delay does not include Geometric Delay since Exclude Geometric Delay option applies.
Intersection Performance - Annual Values
Performance Measure Vehicles Persons
Demand Flows (Total) 584,774 veh/y 701,729 pers/y
Delay 992 veh-h/y 1,191 pers-h/y
Effective Stops 187,234 veh/y 224,681 pers/y
Travel Distance 123,875 veh-mi/y 148,650 pers-mi/y
Travel Time 5,335 veh-h/y 6,402 pers-h/y
Cost 103,682 $/y 103,682 $/y
Fuel Consumption 7,139 gal/y
Carbon Dioxide 63,648 kg/y
Hydrocarbons 6 kg/y
Carbon Monoxide 62 kg/y
NOx 51 kg/y
SIDRA INTERSECTION 7.0 | Copyright © 2000-2017 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: GHD | Processed: Thursday, December 20, 2018 9:15:24 AM Project: O:\PRJ\2264\T2264\SIDRA\Lake Sidra_Signal_12.10.18.sip7
INTERSECTION SUMMARY
Site: 1v [2040 AM Peak Hour - Conversion]
4th Street/Lake Street/Central Avenue
2040 AM Peak Hour
Signals - Pretimed Isolated Cycle Time = 50 seconds (User-Given Cycle Time) Intersection Performance - Hourly Values
Performance Measure Vehicles Persons
Travel Speed (Average) 11.9 mph 11.9 mph
Travel Distance (Total) 276.3 veh-mi/h 331.6 pers-mi/h
Travel Time (Total) 23.2 veh-h/h 27.8 pers-h/h
Demand Flows (Total) 1464 veh/h 1757 pers/h
Percent Heavy Vehicles (Demand) 4.0 %
Degree of Saturation 0.891
Practical Spare Capacity 1.0 %
Effective Intersection Capacity 1643 veh/h
Control Delay (Total) 12.84 veh-h/h 15.41 pers-h/h
Control Delay (Average) 31.6 sec 31.6 sec
Control Delay (Worst Lane) 50.2 sec
Control Delay (Worst Movement) 50.2 sec 50.2 sec
Geometric Delay (Average) 0.0 sec
Stop-Line Delay (Average) 31.6 sec
Idling Time (Average) 26.0 sec
Intersection Level of Service (LOS) LOS C
95% Back of Queue - Vehicles (Worst Lane) 11.3 veh
95% Back of Queue - Distance (Worst Lane) 291.1 ft
Queue Storage Ratio (Worst Lane) 0.38
Total Effective Stops 1332 veh/h 1598 pers/h
Effective Stop Rate 0.91 per veh 0.91 per pers
Proportion Queued 0.98 0.98
Performance Index 112.3 112.3
Cost (Total) 445.08 $/h 445.08 $/h
Fuel Consumption (Total) 25.5 gal/h
Carbon Dioxide (Total) 228.4 kg/h
Hydrocarbons (Total) 0.024 kg/h
Carbon Monoxide (Total) 0.242 kg/h
NOx (Total) 0.378 kg/h
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Site tab).
Intersection LOS value for Vehicles is based on average delay for all vehicle movements.
HCM Delay Formula option is used. Control Delay does not include Geometric Delay since Exclude Geometric Delay option applies.
Intersection Performance - Annual Values
Performance Measure Vehicles Persons
Demand Flows (Total) 702,815 veh/y 843,378 pers/y
Delay 6,165 veh-h/y 7,398 pers-h/y
Effective Stops 639,207 veh/y 767,049 pers/y
Travel Distance 132,642 veh-mi/y 159,170 pers-mi/y
Travel Time 11,115 veh-h/y 13,338 pers-h/y
Cost 213,639 $/y 213,639 $/y
Fuel Consumption 12,239 gal/y
Carbon Dioxide 109,625 kg/y
Hydrocarbons 12 kg/y
Carbon Monoxide 116 kg/y
NOx 181 kg/y
II
SIDRA INTERSECTION 7.0 | Copyright © 2000-2017 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: GHD | Processed: Monday, December 10, 2018 3:19:05 PM Project: O:\PRJ\2264\T2264\SIDRA\Lake Sidra_Signal_12.10.18.sip7
INTERSECTION SUMMARY
Site: 1v [2040 PM Peak Hour - Conversion]
4th Street/Lake Street/Central Avenue
2040 PM Peak Hour
Signals - Actuated Isolated Cycle Time = 75 seconds (User-Given Phase Times) Intersection Performance - Hourly Values
Performance Measure Vehicles Persons
Travel Speed (Average) 9.8 mph 9.8 mph
Travel Distance (Total) 302.7 veh-mi/h 363.3 pers-mi/h
Travel Time (Total) 30.8 veh-h/h 37.0 pers-h/h
Demand Flows (Total) 1597 veh/h 1916 pers/h
Percent Heavy Vehicles (Demand) 1.0 %
Degree of Saturation 0.813
Practical Spare Capacity 10.7 %
Effective Intersection Capacity 1964 veh/h
Control Delay (Total) 19.71 veh-h/h 23.65 pers-h/h
Control Delay (Average) 44.4 sec 44.4 sec
Control Delay (Worst Lane) 55.1 sec
Control Delay (Worst Movement) 55.1 sec 55.1 sec
Geometric Delay (Average) 0.0 sec
Stop-Line Delay (Average) 44.4 sec
Idling Time (Average) 40.6 sec
Intersection Level of Service (LOS) LOS D
95% Back of Queue - Vehicles (Worst Lane) 14.9 veh
95% Back of Queue - Distance (Worst Lane) 376.0 ft
Queue Storage Ratio (Worst Lane) 0.64
Total Effective Stops 1270 veh/h 1524 pers/h
Effective Stop Rate 0.80 per veh 0.80 per pers
Proportion Queued 0.95 0.95
Performance Index 160.7 160.7
Cost (Total) 540.71 $/h 540.71 $/h
Fuel Consumption (Total) 27.0 gal/h
Carbon Dioxide (Total) 241.0 kg/h
Hydrocarbons (Total) 0.026 kg/h
Carbon Monoxide (Total) 0.251 kg/h
NOx (Total) 0.172 kg/h
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Site tab).
Intersection LOS value for Vehicles is based on average delay for all vehicle movements.
HCM Delay Formula option is used. Control Delay does not include Geometric Delay since Exclude Geometric Delay option applies.
Intersection Performance - Annual Values
Performance Measure Vehicles Persons
Demand Flows (Total) 766,435 veh/y 919,722 pers/y
Delay 9,460 veh-h/y 11,352 pers-h/y
Effective Stops 609,616 veh/y 731,539 pers/y
Travel Distance 145,314 veh-mi/y 174,377 pers-mi/y
Travel Time 14,795 veh-h/y 17,754 pers-h/y
Cost 259,540 $/y 259,540 $/y
Fuel Consumption 12,982 gal/y
Carbon Dioxide 115,694 kg/y
Hydrocarbons 12 kg/y
Carbon Monoxide 121 kg/y
NOx 83 kg/y
II
SIDRA INTERSECTION 7.0 | Copyright © 2000-2017 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: GHD | Processed: Monday, December 10, 2018 3:07:30 PM Project: O:\PRJ\2264\T2264\SIDRA\Lake Sidra_Signal_12.10.18.sip7
INTERSECTION SUMMARY
Site: 1 [2040 AM Peak Hour]
4th Street/Lake Street/Central Avenue
2040 AM Peak Hour
Roundabout
Intersection Performance - Hourly Values
Performance Measure Vehicles Persons
Travel Speed (Average) 19.3 mph 19.3 mph
Travel Distance (Total) 297.7 veh-mi/h 357.2 pers-mi/h
Travel Time (Total) 15.4 veh-h/h 18.5 pers-h/h
Demand Flows (Total) 1464 veh/h 1757 pers/h
Percent Heavy Vehicles (Demand) 4.0 %
Degree of Saturation 0.658
Practical Spare Capacity 29.2 %
Effective Intersection Capacity 2225 veh/h
Control Delay (Total) 4.21 veh-h/h 5.05 pers-h/h
Control Delay (Average) 10.3 sec 10.3 sec
Control Delay (Worst Lane) 13.6 sec
Control Delay (Worst Movement) 13.6 sec 13.6 sec
Geometric Delay (Average) 0.0 sec
Stop-Line Delay (Average) 10.3 sec
Idling Time (Average) 6.2 sec
Intersection Level of Service (LOS) LOS B
95% Back of Queue - Vehicles (Worst Lane) 9.1 veh
95% Back of Queue - Distance (Worst Lane) 235.6 ft
Queue Storage Ratio (Worst Lane) 0.13
Total Effective Stops 950 veh/h 1141 pers/h
Effective Stop Rate 0.65 per veh 0.65 per pers
Proportion Queued 0.73 0.73
Performance Index 53.8 53.8
Cost (Total) 347.98 $/h 347.98 $/h
Fuel Consumption (Total) 24.6 gal/h
Carbon Dioxide (Total) 219.9 kg/h
Hydrocarbons (Total) 0.022 kg/h
Carbon Monoxide (Total) 0.237 kg/h
NOx (Total) 0.372 kg/h
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Site tab).
Roundabout LOS Method: SIDRA Roundabout LOS.
Intersection LOS value for Vehicles is based on average delay for all vehicle movements.
Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard.
HCM Delay Formula option is used. Control Delay does not include Geometric Delay since Exclude Geometric Delay option applies.
Intersection Performance - Annual Values
Performance Measure Vehicles Persons
Demand Flows (Total) 702,815 veh/y 843,378 pers/y
Delay 2,019 veh-h/y 2,423 pers-h/y
Effective Stops 456,215 veh/y 547,458 pers/y
Travel Distance 142,897 veh-mi/y 171,476 pers-mi/y
Travel Time 7,404 veh-h/y 8,885 pers-h/y
Cost 167,029 $/y 167,029 $/y
Fuel Consumption 11,785 gal/y
Carbon Dioxide 105,567 kg/y
Hydrocarbons 11 kg/y
Carbon Monoxide 114 kg/y
NOx 179 kg/y
SIDRA INTERSECTION 7.0 | Copyright © 2000-2017 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: GHD | Processed: Monday, December 10, 2018 3:07:32 PM Project: O:\PRJ\2264\T2264\SIDRA\Lake Sidra_Signal_12.10.18.sip7
INTERSECTION SUMMARY
Site: 1 [2040 PM Peak Hour]
4th Street/Lake Street/Central Avenue
2040 PM Peak Hour
Roundabout
Intersection Performance - Hourly Values
Performance Measure Vehicles Persons
Travel Speed (Average) 19.3 mph 19.3 mph
Travel Distance (Total) 327.6 veh-mi/h 393.2 pers-mi/h
Travel Time (Total) 16.9 veh-h/h 20.3 pers-h/h
Demand Flows (Total) 1597 veh/h 1916 pers/h
Percent Heavy Vehicles (Demand) 1.0 %
Degree of Saturation 0.602
Practical Spare Capacity 41.3 %
Effective Intersection Capacity 2654 veh/h
Control Delay (Total) 4.56 veh-h/h 5.47 pers-h/h
Control Delay (Average) 10.3 sec 10.3 sec
Control Delay (Worst Lane) 12.6 sec
Control Delay (Worst Movement) 12.6 sec 12.6 sec
Geometric Delay (Average) 0.0 sec
Stop-Line Delay (Average) 10.3 sec
Idling Time (Average) 6.4 sec
Intersection Level of Service (LOS) LOS B
95% Back of Queue - Vehicles (Worst Lane) 6.9 veh
95% Back of Queue - Distance (Worst Lane) 175.1 ft
Queue Storage Ratio (Worst Lane) 0.11
Total Effective Stops 1065 veh/h 1278 pers/h
Effective Stop Rate 0.67 per veh 0.67 per pers
Proportion Queued 0.75 0.75
Performance Index 55.1 55.1
Cost (Total) 368.43 $/h 368.43 $/h
Fuel Consumption (Total) 25.0 gal/h
Carbon Dioxide (Total) 222.5 kg/h
Hydrocarbons (Total) 0.023 kg/h
Carbon Monoxide (Total) 0.245 kg/h
NOx (Total) 0.176 kg/h
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Site tab).
Roundabout LOS Method: SIDRA Roundabout LOS.
Intersection LOS value for Vehicles is based on average delay for all vehicle movements.
Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard.
HCM Delay Formula option is used. Control Delay does not include Geometric Delay since Exclude Geometric Delay option applies.
Intersection Performance - Annual Values
Performance Measure Vehicles Persons
Demand Flows (Total) 766,435 veh/y 919,722 pers/y
Delay 2,187 veh-h/y 2,624 pers-h/y
Effective Stops 511,127 veh/y 613,352 pers/y
Travel Distance 157,271 veh-mi/y 188,725 pers-mi/y
Travel Time 8,133 veh-h/y 9,760 pers-h/y
Cost 176,849 $/y 176,849 $/y
Fuel Consumption 11,981 gal/y
Carbon Dioxide 106,781 kg/y
Hydrocarbons 11 kg/y
Carbon Monoxide 118 kg/y
NOx 84 kg/y
SIDRA INTERSECTION 7.0 | Copyright © 2000-2017 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: GHD | Processed: Monday, December 10, 2018 3:07:29 PM Project: O:\PRJ\2264\T2264\SIDRA\Lake Sidra_Signal_12.10.18.sip7 Lake St/4th St/Central Ave Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) Appendix E City of Madera R2264RPT003
APPENDIX E – ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON BACK-UP
Performance Measure
Traffic Signal
Alternative
Roundabout
Alternative
Delay - All approaches LOS "D" or better 2.4 4.8
LOS A rated at 5 and E rated at 1.
95th % Queue - Adequate queue storage
D B
$3,000 $1,700
$150,100 $100,800
$36,000 $11,000
$21,000 $20,000
$1,505 $1,505
$48,000 $119,000
Serves design vehicle for all movements
17% 56%
32 8
4 1
35-45 mph 15-25mph
Bicycle Safety - Exposure to traffic in terms of number of lanes, conflict points, and speed differential
Property Impacts
Maintains local access and circulation
Total Performance Measures Met 8 17
Collision Costs - Annualized
Service Life – function past the design year
Delay Costs - Annualized
Environmental Costs - Annualized
Fuel Costs - Annualized
Safety
Property Impacts
Local Access
Vehicle Conflicts - The number of potential conflict points that may occur at the intersection based on layout geometry
Pedestrian Safety - Exposure to traffic in terms of number of lanes, conflict points, crossing times, and expected vehicular speeds.
Predictive Measures - Greatest crash reduction potential for expected fatal and injury crashes
Alternatives Performance Comparison
Cumulative Condition
Future Investment Needs
Costs
Truck Accommodations
Capital Costs - Annualized
Operations & Maintenance - Annualized
Performance Measures Procedures/Definitions
Service Life: Will the alternative function acceptably beyond the design year.
Serves Design Vehicle for All Movements: Check mark if all movements are served for the design vehicle Pedestrian Safety: Most # of lanes crossed at a time, expected vehicle speeds Maintains existing access and circulation: Percentage of existing access/turning movements maintained.
Delay Costs: Cumulative vehicle delay derived from SIDRA multiplied by $18.95/hr; per Caltrans Life-Cycle BenefitCost Analysis Economic Parameters 2016.
Capital Cost (Annualized): Total Construction + ROW Cost divided by Service Life (20 yr).
Bicycle Safety: Access, exposure to traffic, and speed differential (# conflict points * (vehicle speed - 15 mph average bicycle speed)).
Fuel Costs: Derived from SIDRA: fuel consumption * $3.18/gal per Caltrans Life-Cycle Benefit-Cost Analysis Economic Parameters 2016.
Environmental Costs: Emissions derived from SIDRA: CO * $80/ton, and NOx * $18,700/ton; per Caltrans Life-Cycle Benefit-Cost Analysis Economic Parameters 2016.
Safety Predictive Measures: Greatest crash reduction potential based on fatal and injury crashes between the alternatives.
Vehicle Conflicts: Number of conflict points.
Crash Costs: Derived from applying crash reduction factors (CRF) per FHWA "Desktop Reference for Crash Reduction Factors".
Except where noted, a check mark will be placed in each category for the alternative that performs the best. In instances where both alternatives meet the criteria, each will receive a check mark.
Delay: Level of Service (LOS) A will be rated at 5.0 and E will be rated at 1.0. The average score is shown as a composite of each approach's AM and PM LOS score. A check mark is given to the alternative that has all approaches scoring a LOS of D or higher in both peak hours. Another check mark is given to the alternative with the highest score. 95th Percentile Queue: Adequate queue storage provided to prevent blocking of turning movements by approach will get a check mark.
Operations and Maintenance: Total annualized cost for landscape maintenance, electrical service, signal maintenance, and pavement rehabilitation.
ATTACHMENT 2
LEGEND:
------- EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PROPERTY LINES
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPACTS
ESTIMATED LIMITS FOR NEW
PAVEMENT SECTION
¢2
¢3 t
-+¢1
J
¢37
I
OR ) set I ------- 0 ¢6 ¢2
04 PED ---- ---- -------- ¢2 ¢8
PED PED
PHASE DIAGRAM
POTENTIAL ON-STREET PARKING IMPACTS
(APPROX. 34 PARKING SPACES ELIMINATED)
[2J ±10 PARKING SPACES BETWEEN A Street AND LAKE Street [TI ±11 PARKING SPACES BETWEEN LAKE Street AND FLUME Street [TI ±13 PARKING SPACES BETWEEN 5TH Street AND 4TH Street • ' '
'
' '
--
•
CENTRAL
' , ,
' '
~1/,
1/,
• ---.
/
/
', /
" 'v ,'
~ ~
1/
-:✓
'
%
1/
~
/
/
1 ..,.
Traffic Signal Alternative: Preliminary Layout
1 L
• •
'
ORAG
EFT TURN POCKE ~~
351 AGE FO ~ THROUGH E
J~
SCALE: 1" = 40'
' /
>
80 120 feet
---
The City of
MADERA
LAKE St/4TH St/CENTRAL Ave INTX IMPROVEMENTS .... 30 River Park Place West Suite 200 Fresno, CA 93720 USA
W www.ghd.com
...
GHD Inc. January 9th, 2020 2264EX006.dwg
Madera, California
ATTACHMENT 3
LEGEND:
----EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PROPERTY LINES
---PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
---------- PROPERTY IMPACT LIMIT DUE TO SIGHT LINES
~~
PROPERTY IMPACTS DUE TO GEOMETRIC FOOTPRINT
PROPERTY IMPACTS DUE TO SIGHT LINES
1::::::::::::1 LANDSCAPE AREA
~ STAMPED CONCRETE TRUCK APRON
ROUNDABOUT GEOMETRICS:
INSCRIBED CIRCLE DIAMETER: 116'
CENTER ISLAND DIAMETER: 84'
CIRCULATORYWIDTH: 16'
TRUCK APRON WIDTH: 8'
SHARED USE PATH WIDTH: 10'
LANDSCAPE STRIP WIDTH: 3'-5' MINIMUM
POTENTIAL ON-STREET PARKING IMPACTS
(APPROX. 62 PARKING SPACES ELIMINATED)
[D ±10 PARKING SPACES BETWEEN A Street AND LAKE Street
0 ±5 PARKING SPACES BETWEEN LAKE Street AND A Street
[2J ±11 PARKING SPACES BETWEEN LAKE Street AND FLUME Street 8J ±10 PARKING SPACES BETWEEN 5TH Street AND 4TH Street [}] ±3 PARKING SPACES BETWEEN 4TH Street AND 5TH Street [I] ±4 PARKING SPACES BETWEEN A Street AND LAKE Street
[2J ±7 PARKING SPACES BETWEEN LAKE Street AND A Street
0 ±8 PARKING SPACES WEST SIDE NORTH OF CENTRAL Avenue
[TI ±4 PARKING SPACES EAST SIDE NORTH OF CENTRAL Avenue ..
..
I
~
I
Roundabout Alternative: Preliminary Layout
I
J , _,............,,
I
J-'- - -!J ________ ___J
.....
0 - 0 .... I
ZN •• D.. (') w
< 0 ~ le(
..... lo
0~
a:
U)
IL
Cl)
.........
0 Cl)
0 -- - -=--- • __ ~ - • •• • ~~ - - • = .·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·. :~:i:ii:!!:i:~:i:i:~:i:!:!:i:! CENTRAL Ave ~ 0~ ---=::::::~-:f: .. ::/}}}//\:::.. \::::::::=:::::::::::\/~ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ;; ·:: • : ::::=:::=:=:=:::::::=:_-= __ :;.:_ .= _ _ ::k::-~_:::-: • •• .: : : : ::: : :: :::::: ::: : : : : :: : : : : :;: ::: :: : :::t :. ,;:,,;: p ... ·.·. ·.· ..... · ........... · ..... · ....... · .· .·. . .. . .· ... · ,,';{·' .· .. . : . :-: . : . :-: . :-: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : :: :-:,~r.:: .• ::::::: ::::::: ::::::: :::::::::::::: ::::::: ::::: .•. · .!~.- • ~~+--:-~-~~-,- - ·:::;:;::::::=::=:::=::::::::::::::::::::? ;: -2 :::-: Ii,«: . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:: ,-, •• ' ..... ' ..... ·........................... . "' ... ', . ,:.... -·-::· ·-·::::::::::::::•··· • ·::
..1r,. ,...,r, APN '
-0
: 268 SF .
' . ~ ' . . . . . . . . . . . . .. :::::::::::: ::::
.:,·.·.· .. : ._ .. . '
'
' ,' ~
'
)
/
, ;?;' , , / 1/,/i / ~ ,,,,_. ~ ✓/✓/ ,
tic-<;.
,
/.
'
'
STREET AND
LAND APING
= -
NORTH
0 40 80 120 feet
-.... SCALE: 1 " = 40'
The City of
MADERA
LAKE St/4TH St/CENTRAL Ave INTX IMPROVEMENTS .... 30 River Park Place West Suite 200 Fresno, CA 93720 USA
W www.ghd.com
....
GHD Inc. January 9th, 2020 2264EX00B.dwg
Madera, California
ATTACHMENT 4
NAME ADDRESS E-MAIL PHONE
1 1 e Z 6 Slv/ Ljffi..-5,h /4 /14,Je Q~3ov 60/-S-L/lr
2 ·\I
---l!"<...L-f-:'-...IC...>4-+,--J-l"---"'-'-""i'+-------------.--,--.,..- -.....:........:~u,___~_=-:,_~r-"-'----""'--'-"-+-'---=--+:-- 3 I ~ ---'---'-+------'--'-----+--"'----=--------r--,....:...____u_ _ __ u-=--....:1.L---=------- - ---.-----:-----:--7r- ,,,
- ·
5 -+-+--r_____:::::;i;----'"""----t,,.,t=.=~ -=-"c__;___;;-1-P'------::~ -!.~ --- - ----____,_---'~-:-r.-=- 6 --=-------'------=------_,__,____.....;._;____ _ _ _ _ CT----'------ --------'- 1 Je~S\C'a ~on 1'11 B}bke_v s-l
?1 I-J3Y q
12 s""-0-\s.11 -<;""-z..5)- --:c-----f--------,-- -=--~- -----C.-'------'.______,;;--=----____.""--'--"----C...-------=----0.-u-:------'----'----.....c..=..... 13 --+--\I..J.4~-l------L--l~~-'-----='4--=-'-..:,,..._-----'---'-~:µ......LIIL'--l~~....:...=.---=-=:.....=........,:_____i_...),,.o..J..:.~"--'-'<.L...:....:..--=c.=L.L:-...:...c....L ..L.:.. ✓- 14 ...i...=.. _____ .L......>oo:~ '----'----- ---0...J.L-J.__L__.!_1--!.... '/l-_d_. _2-_°'t--F=f---L---'---_:;_..,~______;"2;,_'-=-'"=-,,vt-----:-Pr:::._,'L._~_~ -z~z~44'
15 u-- P:::A:Y ;C)() 1V 6~our -A 100 ,A1,v~ '5-:Jfs~ c?~, l e ,,.~ 16 ~(A,\f'\ f'\b~""M.V\~ 31.)'-:I ~ 0-t1.4evt-~ Q(,l;://o-. ~~:M,(e~1-hf@,}y,., l.lt""\ 17 ts-/Aer Cc..,rr-t'fl(j 6)-;, £ ~1-1,t s+ #fe,¢.f,,.'i r,A >.s-0~ 18 __________ _ _ _ _ ____ ________ _
19 _____ __________________ ___ _
20------ ---------- -----------
21 ----------- - - ----------- ---
22 _____ _____________________ _
23 ______ ___________ _________ _
24 ___________ _______________ _
25 _____ _____________________ _
26 ____ _ _ ____________ ________ _
27 ___ _ _______ _ _ _____ ______ __ _
Public outreach meeting Jan. 16, 2020
John Wells Youth Center
Summary of Comments (verbal and written):
• The roundabout and traffic signal proposals are both great and either one will help mitigate traffic in that intersection. That specific intersection is dangerous and something must be done to prevent more accidents. More than half the time cars do rolling stops and do not give rightof-way to pedestrians. (No name provided) • A comment was made that the traffic light will improve traffic flow however, dedicated turn lanes will cause congestion.
• A comment was made with the traffic signal alternative as to where they would park. • A question was raised regarding whether a traffic signal would result in parking loss and how can that be mitigated.
• The following attendees who also live adjacent to the project (APN or Street Number) specifically noted on the roundabout layout plan that they were opposed to the roundabout:
• APN 007-093-004
• APN 007-094-012
• 215 N. Lake Street
• A comment noted on the roundabout plan in support ofthe roundabout due to traffic flow, no turns, no congestion and less pedestrian and intersection accidents. • Numerous attendees expressed concerns regarding 'takes' of their property with the roundabout option.
• Concerns were raised regarding the location of the fire station and how fire trucks would navigate a roundabout.
• Attendees concerned about safety asked about designated walking routes for children with the roundabout alternative. A particular concern was children who cross the intersection to the swimming pool complex located on Flume Street A comment was made about providing a separate grade separate pedestrian crossing.
• A suggestion was made that outreach be provided to teach residents how to drive the roundabout and how pedestrians cross the roads
• Questions were raised regarding the source of funding, parking and noise • Questions were also raised specifically about loss of parking in the roundabout scenario. 1 Public outreach meeting Jan. 16, 2020
John Wells Youth Center
• A resident asked when the recommended alternative would be heard at Council • A resident asked how long the consultants had been working on developing the plans for the two alternatives
2 'I
,,
History of the northeast corner of Lake Street, 4th Street and Central Avenue - the property at that time consisted of Lake Street to the Fresno River, 4th Street to all of the Swimming Pool Park and Lake Street to A Street to the -west. The property was owned by my grandfather, George Zoerb, who was a building contractor that built many of ·the older beautiful homes on D Street and throughout Madera, including the one on the southeast corner of· Lake and 4th. Construction started on the house at 601 East 4th Street at the northeast corner of the intersection in 1904 and finished in 1905. My mother, Gertrude Saburit, was born in that house on April 30, 1905 before the City of Madera existed in 1907.
My grandfather deeded the land to the City to create Lake Street t~ the Fresno River and 4th Street to Flume Street in the 1900's.
In 1962 or 1963, the City of Madera purchased the land behind 601 East 4th - a project at one time - to build City of Madera's new Station I Fire Station. In 1968 the City of Madera decided to replace the old Lake Street wooden bridge and -to widen Lake Street from 4th and Central to Cleveland Avenue for the purpose of traffic flow to Raymond, CA,, and Lake Madera per City Engineer Jake McKee at the time. Needless to say, we lost several footage on the west side of Lake Street. At the time I was a member of the Madera City Fire Dept., and our chief at the time .was Alden T.
Potter, who wasn't too pleased with the loss of property. That is the reason ~hen you· drive by and see them working on a fire engine it is half ~n the structure and half out. The ramp is too short to support the length of the engine.
HISTORY OF ACCIDENTS, INJURIES AND DEATHS: \
There have been numerous accidents -
1950's: One man died heading north on Lake Street
hitting a pepper tree on the northwest
corner of Central and Lake.
1970's: One person killed after hitting the bridge
at the fire station going north on Lake
1980's: One killed - burned to death after
hitting tree on the southwest corner
of lake and 4th Street. The scar is
still on the back of the tree.
Also, on the northwest corner a home garage
owned by Alice Blakemore was hit and totally
destroyed. The garage was located midway
down Lake Street just before the alley. This
happened because the stop sign was removed
from Lake Street.
-1-
-2-
WITH A GREEN LIGHT OR ROUND ABOUT IT WILL CREATE. AN
"ACCIDENT LOOING FOR A PLACE TO HAPPEN, NOT KNOWING
IF ~ WHEN IT HAPPENS".
8t.J..f
ACCIDENTS - 601 East 4th Street - northeast corner:
1) Driver east-bound on 4th ran a stop sign and
took out hedge and orange tree.
2) Driver heading north on Lake Street took
out side of tree and damaged house.
3) Driver heading north on Lake Street lost
control, went between two trees and took
out ferice and water spikett at the fire
dept. line.
4) Southwest corner hit many times. Before
4th Street was widened the corner house was
hit so many times they resorted in installing
big boulders and 12" pipe filled with concrete
to stop impact. These have since been removed
and are waiting for the next crash without them.
5) I lived at 601 East 4th Street from 1947 to
1971, atid now my son Doug resides there. There
are so many accidents that I can't remember. Most
of the accidents occurred when the City wanted to
speed ·up traffic flow and start 71, .q.~5 emoving the
stop signs north and south boufI<'.i'~'a1<:e Street and and again at Lincoln and Lake Streets which made it
pretty much a "freeway". That lasted several years
and then they reinstalled the signs and made it a
5-way stop again. Accidents went down . For some
reason they took down the signs again in the 1980's
and accidents went up, but left sign up at Lincoln and
Lake. Accidents ~lowed down a little, but still wrecks
and property damage. Finally got signs back in the
late 1980's or early-mid 1990'a. There is much improvement but still wrecks and property damage, but not as much.
I am totally against a round-about, because most people don't know how to use them, plus the desecration that it would do to an older neighborhood that has existed before the City of Madera existed. At the present time we : ar~ trying tp get historical status and refurbish 601 East 4th St. to its once grandier.
In my opinion there should be an overhead signal flashing red 24-seven at all five points. Also, if you must put in signals, block off· or dead-end Central or mske a
cul-de-sac on Central Street.
..
By having a signal system - green-amber-red you are going to create more of a hazard than we have now, especially in the north south corridor of Lake Street, as going north or south its almost a 45 deg~ angle and speed and over-correotion on a green light and potentially hitting a fire truck pulling out of the station going on a call or backing in . I can see t-bone roll overs and deaths and property damage to homes and parked; vehtcal~ and fires to cars with high pressure fuel pumps. Also, this intersection is very dangerous at night, and thank God we haven't had the fog like it was in the 1950's and 1960'sand 1970's. With a green light all kinds or problems Will break out. Also, this intersection is only bad from 7:00 to 8:00 AM and 4:00 to 6:00 PM.
LEAVE THE INTERSECTION THE WAY IT IS ONLY WITH A RED FLASHING OVERHEAD SIGNAL!
MIKEZ. SABURIT
-3-
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
Approved by: Council Meeting of: August 21, 2024
_________________________________ Agenda Number: ___________ Wendy Silva, Director of Human Resources
_________________________________
Arnoldo Rodriguez, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Direction regarding annual commemoration of Juneteenth in the City of Madera RECOMMENDATION:
This item is being brought for consideration and direction at the request of the City Council.
Discussion will be led by Councilwoman Evans.
SUMMARY:
Juneteenth is the oldest nationally celebrated commemoration of the ending of slavery in the United States and is observed on June 19 each year. The City Council (Council) has requested staff include an item on its agenda for discussion and direction regarding the City of Madera’s ongoing commemoration of Juneteenth.
DISCUSSION:
On June 19, 1865, African Americans enslaved in Galveston, Texas, first learned of their freedom, two and one-half years after the Emancipation Proclamation was issued by President Abraham Lincoln. Today, June 19 of each year is recognized as Juneteenth, commemorating African American freedom and emphasizes education and achievement. Juneteenth acknowledges a period in the United States’ (US) history that has shaped and continues to influence our society today, and supports assessment, self-improvement, and planning for the future to make significant and lasting improvements in our society.
In 2021, President Biden signed a bill that was passed by the US Congress to set aside June 19, also known as Juneteenth, as a US Federal holiday. Council has requested this item to discuss recognition of Juneteenth as an official holiday for the City of Madera.
E-3
The City currently recognizes the following days as holidays. On these days, City administrative offices are closed unless otherwise noted, and full-time employees receive a paid holiday as part of their negotiated benefits package. Part time employees are not eligible for paid holidays. ▪ New Year’s Day
▪ Martin Luther King’s birthday
▪ Presidents’ Day
▪ Good Friday (4 hours)
▪ Memorial Day
▪ Independence Day
▪ Labor Day
▪ Columbus Day
▪ Veterans’ Day
▪ Thanksgiving Day and the day after Thanksgiving
▪ Christmas Day
▪ Winter Holiday (4 hours on either Christmas Eve or New Year’s Eve, offices do not close) Of the holidays listed, all are recognized US Federal holidays except for Good Friday, the day after Thanksgiving, and the Winter Holiday. These non-Federal holidays have been negotiated over time with the City’s four recognized bargaining units.
Prior to Juneteenth being approved as a US Federal holiday, the City recognized all Federal holidays as local holidays. With Juneteenth now recognized as a US Federal holiday, it is requested that Council provide direction on recognizing Juneteenth for the City of Madera. Two alternatives that may be considered:
1. Commemorative Holiday – Recognition of Juneteenth as a commemorative holiday would formally recognize Juneteenth and encourage the Madera community to honor and reflect on the conditions and experiences of others to encourage significant and lasting improvements in our society.
2. Commemorative Holiday with closure of City administrative offices – This option would include commemoration as described in item 1, however City administrative offices would be closed, similar to other US Federal holidays, providing employees an opportunity to participate in and reflect on Juneteenth events.
In 2022, Council directed staff to proceed with option 1. At its June 19, 2024, meeting, Council requested staff bring the item back for further discussion. In addition to the above options, Council may have other alternatives in mind beyond what has been noted above and is encouraged to bring these ideas forth at the meeting to discuss with their colleagues how best to commemorate Juneteenth for the City of Madera. Depending on Council’s direction after discussion, staff will bring the appropriate action item back for consideration at a future meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Financial impact, if any, will depend on requested action following the discussion.
ALTERNATIVES:
Council could direct staff to explore additional avenues for commemoration and celebration of Juneteenth.
ATTACHMENTS:
None
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
Approved by: Council Meeting of: August 21, 2024
_________________________________ Agenda Number: E-4
Arnoldo Rodriguez, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Response to Madera County Grand Jury Final Report titled 2324-06; Published on June 2024, titled “City of Madera Fails to Enforce the Golf Course Contract Requirements Madera Municipal Golf Course: REVISITED 2023-2024”
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council (Council) review the proposed Response to the Grand Jury Report (Report) and approve the Response as presented or provide direction on changes to the proposed Response
SUMMARY:
The Madera County Grand Jury (MCGJ) issued a report on June 12, 2024. The Council has 90 days to submit a written response. Written responses must be prepared and submitted within specified guidelines provided by the California Penal Code. The response would be submitted on behalf of the Mayor and City Council of the City of Madera, the City Manager, the Director of Parks & Community Services Department, the Finance Department, the Police Chief, and Code Enforcement, collectively referred to as “City”.
DISCUSSION:
The MCGJ issued a Report on June 12, 2024 requiring a response from the Mayor and from City Council. The Mayor and Council has 90 days to submit a written response to the Report and submit it to the Madera County Superior Court Presiding Judge. In addition, the MCGJ invited responses from the City Manager, Director of Parks & Community Services, Finance Department, Police Chief, Planning Department, Code Enforcement Division and some City committees. These Departments, Divisions, and committees are all components of the City. As the City is represented by the City Council, and as the California Penal Code requires the legislative body to respond (and not the subcomponents of the City), the proposed Response is submitted to the City Council for approval for the entire City.
Staff has prepared a proposed Response to the Report for Council's consideration, consistent with Penal Code requirements to fulfill the required response from the Mayor and from Council.
In doing so, staff consulted with the departments listed above to obtain relevant information for the Report.
Note that Penal Code Section 933.05 includes a specific manner for responding to the Findings and the Recommendations provided in the MCGJ Report. That process is outlined below.
A. Response to Findings.
In response to each grand jury finding in a final report, the responding party is statutorily required to indicate one of the following:
1. The respondent agrees with the finding.
2. The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding; in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor.
B. Response to Recommendations.
In response to each grand jury recommendation in a final report, the responding party is statutorily required to indicate one of the following:
1. The recommendation has been implemented; in which case the responding party must include a summary of the implemented action;
2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but the recommendation will be implemented in the future, in which case the responding party must include a timeframe for implementation;
3. The recommendation requires further analysis, in which case the responding party must include an explanation, the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe, not to exceed six months from the date of the final report's publication, for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the applicable agency or department officer, head, or governing body being investigated or reviewed; or
4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is unwarranted or unreasonable, in which case the responding party must include an explanation therefor.
It is noted that this is the second consecutive that the Grand Jury focused on the Golf Course. For background purposes, a copy of said report to the City Council is attached as Attachment 3.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The financial impact of the Grand Jury's investigation on the City is difficult to quantify due to the secrecy maintained by the Grand Jury. The City is unaware of how many staff members were contacted, the number of hours spent compiling data, or the extent of follow-up meetings and related activities.
Moreover, the response to the Grand Jury’s findings has involved input from numerous City staff, further complicating the ability to provide a precise financial estimate. The collaborative effort required to address the report’s findings and prepare a comprehensive response adds to the challenge of quantifying the overall financial impact.
ALTERNATIVES:
The Council has the following options to consider relating to this matter:
▪ Approve the Response to the Grand Jury as presented.
▪ Approve the Response with amendments.
▪ Direct staff to return with additional information at a Council meeting before September 10, 2024, when response is required by the MCGJ, meeting the 90-day response requirement.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. City Response to Madera County Grand Jury Final Report 2324-06: "City of Madera Fails to Enforce the Golf Course Contract Requirements Madera Municipal Golf Course:
REVISITED 2023-2024”
2. Madera County Grand Jury Report 2324-06
3. Report to the City Council from August 16, 2023, Response to Madera County Grand Jury Final Report 2223-02: “City of Madera Fails to Enforce the Golf Course Contract Requirements”
1. City Response to Madera County Grand Jury Final
Report 2324-06: "City of Madera Fails to Enforce the Golf Course Contract Requirements Madera Municipal Golf
Course: REVISITED 2023-2024”
____________, 2024
The Honorable Michael Jurkovich, Supervising Judge
Madera County Superior Court
Supervising Judge for Grand Jury
200 S. G Street
Madera, CA 93637
Re: Madera County Grand Jury Final Report 2324-06; Published on June 2024, titled “City of Madera Fails to Enforce the Golf Course Contract Requirements Madera Municipal Golf Course: REVISITED 2023-2024”
Dear Honorable Judge Jurkovich:
This letter is submitted on behalf of the Mayor and City Council of the City of Madera on behalf of the City of Madera, including the City Manager, the City’s Parks & Community Services Department, the City’s Finance Department, the City’s Police Chief, and the City’s Code Enforcement, and various City committees, collectively referred to as “City” in this Response.
On Monday, June 10, 2024, the City of Madera (“City”) received an email from the Madera County Grand Jury, which attached a copy of the Grand Jury’s Report titled “City of Madera Fails to Enforce the Golf Course Contract Requirements Madera Municipal Golf Course: REVISITED 2023- 2024 Madera County Grand Jury Final Report 2324-06; Published on June 2024” (hereafter “Report”). The report states it would be released to the public on Wednesday, June 12, 2024. As a result, we view the release date as June 12, 2024.
Penal Code Section 933 (c) requires that the governing board of the public agency (here, the City Council) is required to respond not later than 90 days after the public release date. As required, the City respectfully submits the following responses to the Findings and Recommendations in the Report in the form required by the Penal Code.
Please be advised the City has taken the Grand Jury’s Report seriously and has endeavored to address the Report comprehensively, as evidenced by this Response and by the attachments.
Great care has been taken to ensure the City responds concisely yet with appropriate details as demonstrated by references to numerous documents which the City has researched, reviewed, and attached to this Response.
Based on the above, the following constitutes the City’s Response to the Grand Jury’s Findings and Recommendations relating to the Report.
Respectfully submitted,
Arnoldo Rodriguez, AICP
City Manager
Cc: [email protected]
Madera County Grand Jury, PO Box 534, Madera, CA 93639
FINDINGS:
F1: The MCGJ finds that the City has followed the 2009 Lease by establishing the Golf Course Advisory Committee to inspect, discuss, and report monthly to the City with findings and recommendations about MMGC.
Response 1: The City partially disagrees with this finding. While the Golf Course Advisory Committee has been established, it meets monthly and reports annually. This matter was discussed and approved by City Council during the June 21, 2023, Council meeting.
F2: The MCGJ finds there is no current Inventory list of City owned personal property and fixtures located at the MMGC.
Response 2: The City agrees with this finding. However, there is no list of personal property as all City-owned property not part of the physical structures was sold when SGM began leasing the facility (i.e., the inventory does not belong to the City). Additionally, a list is not needed for insurance, as it is not required to ensure content values. The property was appraised for the City’s insurance program in 2023 and the appraisal determined scheduled values for real property and personal property, as defined by the policy documents. It should be noted that that as part of Amendment 1 to the agreement between City and SGM, the City agreed to sell equipment to SGM (see Exhibit A).
F3: The MCGJ finds that after 13 years the City has enforced one section in the Lease by requiring SGM to pay for the 2023 mandatory annual USGA report which was received in August 2023.
Response 3: The City partially disagrees with this finding. The City has enforced multiple sections of the lease and agreement. However, the City acknowledges that the USGA report was not previously submitted by SGM to the City as required by the agreement. The report was submitted in 2023 and the 2024 report has been requested by the City.
F4: The MCGJ finds that the City's PCS has failed to inspect, inventory, or comment to the 2022 consultant's 96-page ADA report evaluating the conditions at the MMGC.
Response 4: The City disagrees with this finding. There has been no final ADA report; the report referenced was an internal working draft and not a final report. This report is still in the process of being completed. A second public comment meeting was recently held regarding the draft document on June 18, 2024. Final edits and recommendations from the consultant will be incorporated prior to the item being placed on the City Council agenda for consideration of adoption. Upon action of the ADA Report by the City Council, the City will review it as appropriate.
Additionally, it should be noted that not all findings result in physical changes to structures or facilities but may be addressed through individual accommodations with persons who have a disability. Additionally, the City will follow ADA law regarding requirements to make facility changes.
F5: The MCGJ finds that the City has failed to understand the Lease and the series of nine amendments that have generated confusion hindering the orderly exercise, reasonable oversight, and enforcement over the MMGC tenants, maintenance, and capital improvement obligations.
Response 5: The City disagrees with this finding. This is a subjective statement. The official responsible for the lease is the Director of the Parks Department. The Director does understand the lease and prepared extensive staff reports and associated presentations regarding the lease and its amendments.
Furthermore, it is important to note that there is no expectation or requirement for the Director, or any City official, to have the lease memorized. Should any issues arise, the Director is fully capable of conducting necessary research or consulting with legal counsel to address them. This approach is consistent with standard practices across municipal governance.
Lastly, the City would like to clarify that there is no obligation for all City employees or committees to fully understand the lease. The responsibility lies with the Parks Department.
F6: The MCGJ finds that the City business license application processing has no written procedures and thus no safeguards against fraudulent applications.
Response 6: The City disagrees with this finding. The City does have procedures as outlined in the City’s Municipal Code, specifically Title VIII, Chapter 2 (Sales and Use Taxes), as well as a Business License procedure manual. The City also disagrees with the inherit implication of the finding that a further process is required. The purpose of a business license is to ensure the payment of taxes. It is unlikely an applicant will fraudulently apply to pay taxes. Given limited resources, the City relies on applicants to provide the name under which they operate. Even if the applicant commits an error, the City still can enforce the reporting of gross receipts. Finally, a business license has always been maintained at this site.
Name of Business License Holder Date License Obtained
Club House Restaurant 12/31/97
Sugar Pine Smokehouse 12/5/23
It is noted that Sugar Pine Smokehouse obtained a business license in 2018 for their previous location on Cleveland Avenue. Both Club House Restaurant and Sugar Pine Smokehouse have been current on their business license obligations.
Finding 7: The MCGJ finds that the logos and name Madera Municipal Golf Course are often omitted from signage, scorecards, announcements, menus, events, websites, etc.
Response 7: The City partially disagrees with this Finding. This recommendation has been implemented and will be on-going.
Finding 8: The MCGJ finds that the golf course kitchen and bar have not been operated by Sugar Pine Smokehouse.
Response 8: The City agrees with this finding for the period before 2023. However, this finding infers that there are business operations without a business license. The City disagrees with this. As noted in the response to Finding 6, City records show there has been a business license operating at this location since 1997.
Finding 9: The MCGJ finds that the City made the written statement that no applications or City business licenses exist for GROUP.
Response 9: The City agrees with this finding. However, this is irrelevant. The name of the restaurant is not required to be the same as the business entity that owns and operates it. It is also worth noting that fictitious business names are recorded with the County and not the City.
Finding 10: The MCGJ finds that the use of CI [capital improvement] money has been discussed by the City and SGM as being used for deferred maintenance at the MMGC.
Response 10: The City agrees with this finding.
Finding 11: The MCGJ finds that the City Tax Collector has no system to track businesses within the City to ensure that the City is receiving prompt and continuous tax payments.
Response 11: The City disagrees with this finding. Assuming it is a “business license,” business license payments to the City are made on an annual basis and not on a “prompt and continuous tax payments.” The City also has a tracking system for all legal businesses through the City’s financial system of record: Enterprise ERP (formerly Munis (Tyler Corporation)). This type of process is both consistent with, and generally used by, public agencies throughout the State of California. The finding is also ambiguous, as it is not clear whether a “business license” or a “tax” is being referenced.
Finding 12: The MCGJ finds that the City of Madera has had discussions about writing one coherent consolidated MMGC Lease with SGM.
Response 12: The City agrees with this finding. This was discussed during the City Council meetings of June 21, 2023, April 3, 2024, and May 1, 2024. To the extent this finding implies that the current Lease is not “coherent,” the City disagrees with this finding.
Finding 13: The MCGJ finds that the City has repeatedly failed to ascertain or confirm the true identity of SGM's purported subtenant(s) at the MMGC.
Response 13: The City agrees with this finding. However, as noted in the City’s response to Finding #6, the City believes the finding is irrelevant given that the parties who have operated the golf course’s restaurant have met their annual business license requirements.
Finding 14: The MCGJ finds that SGM appears to have two subtenants: Smokehouse for the food service, and the undisclosed bar operator GROUP.
Response 14: The City disagrees with this finding. With regard to the bar operator, the finding is not clear as to what public agency has not been “disclosed” the operator’s name, and the assertion of “appearance” is subjective. The entity responsible for maintaining, supervising, and enforcing ABC licenses is ABC. By State statute, the City has no jurisdiction to regulate ABC licenses. If this finding is referencing disclosure to the City, note the Lease does not require disclosure to the City.
Notwithstanding, the City has reached out to SGM, who has stated that they have only one subtenant, which is Sugarpine Smoke House.
Finding 15: The MCGJ finds that the Interim Fire Marshal recommended that the MMGC be brought up to both the ADA requirements and the City Building Code due to serious violations.
Response 15: The City disagrees with this finding. As noted previously, there is no final ADA Report (Refer to Finding 4). Additionally, the draft report, presented to the City Council on May 1, 2024 (see Exhibit B) does not use the term “serious violations.” Instead, it merely suggests a number of improvements that should be implemented when (and if) major upgrades or repairs to the facility are ever implemented. In this regard, note that the building was constructed subject to the building standards in effect in 1991. The California Building Code is updated every three years. However, continuous upgrades to lawfully constructed structures are not legally mandated if the building was originally constructed consistent with the building standards in effect at the time of construction, which it was. Upgrades to the current version of the California Building Code is only required at the time when major remodels/repairs are ever undertaken.
Finding 16: The MCGJ finds that the City has failed to ensure that its tenant and subtenants at the MMGC have performed their daily maintenance obligations under the Lease Response 16: The City disagrees with this finding. This is a subjective statement, however, the City reviews the facilities on a regular basis.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Rec. 1: The MCGJ recommends that this GCAC continue its monthly oversite of MMGC.
Response 1: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. The GCAC does not provide oversight as part of its duties. Instead, City staff provide oversight, and will continue to do so for the MMGC.
Rec. 2: The MCGJ recommends that the City create an Inventory list of property and fixtures it owns at the golf course within 90 days of the publication of this report.
Response 2: The recommendation has been implemented. The City has an inventory list for property.
Rec. 3: The MCGJ recommends that SGM continue to provide the mandatory annual USGA advisory reports.
Response 3: The recommendation has been implemented. The initial report was made available to the public on August 2, 2023. The 2024 report is currently scheduled to be conducted in late summer or early fall.
Rec. 4: The MCGJ recommends that the City have the PCS physically inspect and provide a written report to the City Council on each observation noted in the 96-page ADA Consultant's MMGC report within 90 days of receipt of this report.
Response 4: The recommendation will not be implemented as it is not reasonable. The draft ADA is not completed and is in draft form and is not anticipated to be completed within six months. Further, the report is as to the entire City, and implementation will be prioritized based on need.
Rec. 5: The MCGJ recommends that the City assign a person or department responsible for following up on all contracts to determine contractual performance and to enforce violations of required performance within 90 days of receipt of this report.
Response 5: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. There are a substantial number of contracts with the City. City departments are required to monitor and determine contractual enforcement.
Rec. 6: The MCGJ recommends that the City enact written procedures for reviewing and processing Business license applications within 30 days of this report.
Response 6: The recommendation has already been implemented. The City has written procedures for reviewing and processing business license permit applications as further outlined in the responses to Findings 6 and 11.
Rec. 7: The MCGJ recommends that the City correct the omission and take action to either enforce this Lease requirement or delete the requirement within 30 days.
Response 7: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. While the City desires to provide additional information, this recommendation is unclear as to what is being referenced.
Rec. 8: The MCGJ recommends that the City require proof of the identity of the tenants and /or subtenants operating the kitchen and the bar and obtain a copy of the ABC liquor license within seven days.
Response 8: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. The entity responsible for maintaining, supervising, and enforcing Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) licenses is ABC, an office of the State of California. By State statute, the City has no jurisdiction to regulate ABC licenses.
As to the kitchen, it is not a requirement of the Municipal Code for employees to complete ABC training for liquor sales and handling, nor is this a requirement of any entitlement. ABC requires only those owners and employees of the establishment who are involved in the sale of alcoholic beverages to complete approved course(s) in training of liquor sales and handling. Finally, neither the Lease nor the Municipal Code requires that the identity of tenants and/or subtenants be provided to the City as proposed by the recommendation.
Rec. 9: The MCGJ recommends that the City seek the maximum fines and penalties against GROUP within seven days of publication of this report.
Response 9: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. The facilities operated with both a valid ABC License and business license.
Rec. 10: The MCGJ recommends that the City enforce the maintenance provisions in Lease Section 16 to require SGM to pay for all deferred maintenance.
Response 10: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. This is not a requirement of the lease.
Rec. 11: The MCGJ recommends that the City enact adequate tracking systems to ensure that businesses are paying taxes to the City within 30 days from the publication of this report.
Response 11: The recommendation will not be implemented. The City already has an adequate system for tracking business license receipts, as described in the response to Finding 11.
Rec. 12: The MCGJ recommends that the City complete negotiations and memorialize the product of the negotiations into one modem consolidated Lease within 90 days from the publication of this report.
Response 12: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. The Lease, as amended, is legally sufficient. The latest amendment was approved June 21, 2023.
Rec. 13: The MCGJ recommends that the City recognize that SGM has represented its subtenant as Smokehouse and commence all appropriate actions to determine and correct the subtenant's true identity of the kitchen/dining and bar operator(s) within 30 days of the publication of this report.
Response 13: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. The City has no legal authority to require a business to use a certain name, fictitious or otherwise.
Rec. 14: The MCGJ recommends that the City investigate this subtenant discrepancy and take appropriate action within 7 days of the publication of this report.
Response 14: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. Moreover, this recommendation, as written, provides insufficient information. While the City desires to provide additional information, this recommendation is unclear as to what is being referenced.
Rec. 15: The MCGJ recommends that the City and SGM take action to correct these violations and complete the required work to avoid serious potential liability within 30 days of the publication of this report.
Response 15: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. While the City desires to provide additional information, this recommendation is unclear as to what is being referenced.
Rec. 16: The MCGJ recommends that the City enforce timely maintenance at the MMGC immediately.
Response: The recommendation has been implemented. The City will continue to implement this recommendation.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Exhibit A: Amendment 1 to the agreement between City and SGM
2. Exhibit B: May 21, 2024 report to the City Council
Exhibit A: Amendment 1 to the agreement between City and SGM
Exhibit B: May 1, 2024 report to the City Council
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
Approved by: Council Meeting of: May 1, 2024
Agenda Number: ___________
________________________________
Joseph Hebert, Parks & Community Services Director
_________________________________
Arnoldo Rodriguez, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Request for direction regarding deferred maintenance at Madera Municipal Golf Course RECOMMENDATION:
Receive information on the current funding status of the Madera Municipal Golf Course and provide direction regarding deferred maintenance as appropriate.
SUMMARY:
During the City Council meeting on April 3, 2024, staff presented the annual report on the golf course. Following the presentation, Council requested an update on projected capital revenue and plans to address maintenance needs at the Golf Course. This item is intended to provide said information.
DISCUSSION:
During the June 21, 2023, City Council meeting, the Council approved a Ninth Amendment to the Madera Municipal Golf Course and Management Lease agreement with SGM Inc. dba Sierra Golf Management, Inc. (SGM). This amendment extended the existing lease agreement by an additional 5 years through June 30, 2028, and outlined a new and improved revenue agreement between the parties (Attachment 1).
Existing Agreement (Amendment 9 to the Agreement)
The following is a synopsis of the 9th Amendment.
E-2
▪ The agreement is for 5 years and includes, at City discretion, one (1) option to extend the term an additional (5) years. This agreement will expire on June 30, 2028, with a five-year extension available through June 30, 2033.
▪ The amendment allows for increased base rent and per-round golf rates compared to the previous contract.
▪ In years one through four, SGM will remit $2.75 per round of golf to the City, increasing to $3.00 per round in year five.
▪ SGM, the Clubhouse Tenant, currently Sugar Pine Smokehouse (SPS), and the City will each contribute $25,000 annually to a capital improvement fund. Thus, the grand contribution for capital improvements annually shall be $75,000. ▪ The base rent will be $65,000 annually to lease the golf course and clubhouse facilities. ▪ The City will utilize the Golf course for 5 events;
o Annual 4th of July Holiday Golf Tournament
o Fishing Derby
o Employee Appreciation Day
o Yet to be determined
o Yet to be determined
▪ There will be annual updates to the City Council on the previous year's improvements and the planning year's improvements.
▪ The City will hold SGM capital funds of $50k annually until capital projects are completed. ▪ Golf Course Committee comprised of:
o One City Council member
o Parks Director
o SGM Representative
o Service Organization Representative
o Golfer/At-large Community member
o Food and Beverage Director/Representative
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Table 1 provides a summary of the agreement.
Table 1: Overview of the Existing Agreement
Terms 5 years
Base rent to City per year $65k
Per Round Rate to City Years 1-4 Year 5
$2.75 $3.00
Capital Improvements Contribution by SGM per year $50k
Capital Improvements Contribution by the City per Year $25k While preparing the 9th Amendment to the agreement with SGM, assumptions were necessary to determine potential revenue. Table 2 provides an overview of the assumptions.
Table 2: Projected Revenue to the City from SGM per Amendment 9 (1) Year of contract per the 9th
Amendment
1 2 3 4 5
Fiscal Year 2023/2024 2024/2025 2025/2026 2027/2028 2028/2029 Base Fee $65,000 $65,000 $65,000 $65,000 $65,000
Estimated Rounds 30k 30k 30k 30k 30k
Fees Per Round $2.75 $2.75 $2.75 $2.75 $3.00
Revenue for Rounds $82,500 $82,500 $82,500 $82,500 $90,000 Payment to the City $147,500 $147,500 $147,500 $147,500 $150,000 (1) Does not include Capital Improvements contributions which are identified in Table 6 of this report
Condition and Improvement Plans
The City's contract fire marshal completed a site inspection of the Madera Golf Course on October 25, 2023. An inspection report was prepared on November 1, 2023 (Attachment 2) and shared with the advisory Committee shortly thereafter.
After review and discussion, the Committee drafted a letter (Attachment 3) outlining concerns relating to deferred maintenance at the Golf Course. However, the letter did not propose any cost estimates but was subsequently shared with the City Council on March 6, 2024.
Budgetary estimates addressing all deferred maintenance concerns were discussed during the Committee meeting held on April 22, 2024 (Table 3).
Table 3: Repair Estimates
Deferred Maintenance Item $
Assembly Bldg. Tree Roots External Concrete $10,000
Missing Paint External $50,000
Exit Signage (Complete) -
Kitchen Ceiling (Complete) -
AC Mechanical Units $210,000
Restrooms ($40K FY 23/24 + $40K FY 24/25) $80,000
Egress Doors $60,000
Irrigation System (Full System) $4,000,000
Pump Station (1) $60,000
Heads and Controller (2) $1,000,000
Current Annual average Irrigation Repair Costs (1) $40,000 Invasive Grass and Weeds (SGM will handle) -
Enhanced Practice Facilities (2) TBD
Additional turf on the Driving Range (2) TBD
(1) Alternative instead of replacing the complete irrigation system (2) Requires Additional clarification from USGA
Table 4 provides an overview of the revenue the Golf Course has generated for the City over the last several fiscal years. It includes information on the sources of revenue, including income from SGM and any transfers of funds from the General Fund.
Table 4: Madera Golf Course Fund – Revenue (1)
Fiscal Year
2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24
(2)
2024/25
Projected
Rents/Pro Shop $20,049 $19,970 $24,267 $50,799 $65,000
Green Fee User Charges $58,004 $54,742 $59,878 $78,584 $90,000 Transfer-In (from the General Fund) (3) $298,804 $298,151 $298,804 $76,336 $0 Total Revenues $376,857 $298,151 $298,804 $76,336 $155,000 (1) All figures are rounded to the nearest dollar.
(2) Year to date. There are still approximately 2 months remaining in this fiscal year. (3) Transfer-in are funds provided by the General Fund. Funds from the General Fund are transferred to the Golf Course Fund, thus it is shown as a revenue. These funds helped pay to service outstanding debt.
Table 5 offers an e overview of the City's expenditures related to the Golf Course, encompassing debt service, payments to the Airport due to the Golf Course's utilization of Airport-owned property, and insurance costs. Notably, insurance expenses, previously covered by the General Fund, are now recorded in a newly established account to enhance transparency in financial reporting. This summary provides insight into the financial obligations of operating and maintaining the Golf Course.
Table 5: City Expenses for the Golf Course (1)
Fiscal Year
2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24
(2)
2024/25
Projected
Liability/Property Insurance $0 $0 $0 $14,459 $14,458
Payment to Airport $64,083 $64,083 $64,083 $51,266 $64,083 Interest Payment for Loan $32,128 $22,590 $12,744 $2,581 $0 Principal Payment for Loan $296,600 $306,200 $316,100 $161,800 $0 Total Expenses $392,811 $392,873 $392,927 $230,106 $78,541 (1) This does not include the City’s contribution of $25k for Capital Improvements as outlined in Amendment 9 beginning in Fiscal Year 2023/24. Capital Improvements contributions are listed in Table 5.
(2) Year to date. There are still approximately 2 months remaining in this fiscal year.
Capital Improvement Funds
The current contract includes provisions for the City to contribute $25,000 annually towards capital improvements. As part of the 6th Amendment to the agreement with SGM, SGM contributed $20k annually towards capital for 2 fiscal years, plus a one-time $15k contribution for water improvements. Prior to the COVID pandemic, SGM contributed $50k per year for capital improvements. In the current agreement, approved in June 2023, SGM contributes $50k, whereas the City contributes $25k for a total of $75k per year.
Table 6: Capital Improvement Contributions per Amendment 9 Year of contract 1 2 3 4 5
Fiscal Year 2023/2024 2024/2025 2025/2026 2027/2028 2028/2029 SGM $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000
Clubhouse $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000
City Contribution $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 Total Capital $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000
Why has the City historically subsidized the Golf Course? The tables above summarize the revenue and expenses of operating the golf course. Notably, they highlight the General Fund's supplemental funding, which offsets the golf course's expenses.
It is essential to recognize that historically, the General Fund has played a crucial role in supporting the golf course financially. However, it's important to understand that the General Fund also subsidizes various other public spaces within the City, including:
▪ Town and Country Park ▪ McNally Park ▪ Pan-American Center ▪ Sunrise Rotary Sports Complex ▪ Frank Bergon ▪ Public pools While the golf course and public pools are the only City facilities typically accessible via payment from visitors, the golf course is the only facility operated by a for-profit private company. This distinction is important in understanding the diverse operational models employed within our community spaces.
Furthermore, while programmed sports fields such as soccer fields and baseball diamonds are available to the public, it's pertinent to acknowledge that private leagues often lease these fields.
However, the rental rates only partially reflect the actual costs of maintaining these facilities. As a result, the General Fund also subsidizes such facilities, emphasizing the broader context of financial support for public amenities within the city.
This holistic perspective underscores the understanding that profitability alone does not serve as the sole measure of the value these facilities bring to our community. Instead, they contribute to residents' overall well-being and enrichment, promoting recreation, leisure, and social cohesion.
Financial Outlook for the Golf Course
With the retirement of the debt, a significant milestone has been achieved. Projections indicate that revenue from the Golf Course is expected to surpass expenses for the first time. Table 7 outlines a summary of projected expenses versus revenue for the upcoming five years, offering an overview of the anticipated financial landscape.
Table 7: Financial Outlook (Revenues minus Expenses) for 5 fiscal years based on assumptions Year 1 2 3 4 5
Fiscal Year 2023/2024 2024/2025 2025/2026 2027/2028 2028/2029 Revenue
Base Fee $65,000 $65,000 $65,000 $65,000 $65,000
Estimated Rounds 30k 30k 30k 30k 30k
Fees Per Round $2.75 $2.75 $2.75 $2.75 $3.00
Revenue for Rounds $82,500 $82,500 $82,500 $82,500 $90,000 Ongoing Expenses
Liability/Property Insurance ($14,459) ($14,458) ($15,000) ($15,000) ($15,000) Payment to Airport ($64,083) ($64,083) ($64,083) ($51,266) ($64,083) City Contribution for CIP ($25,000) ($25,000) ($25,000) ($25,000) ($25,000) Total $43,958 $43,959 $43,417 $56,234 $50,917
ALTERNATIVES:
The staff has no recommendation currently. Request the council review the above information and determine whether it is feasible to stay the course as outlined in Amendment 9 or move forward with a budget adjustment addressing any or all the deferred maintenance items as presented.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution - Approving Ninth Amendment
2. Inspection Report for Madera Golf Course dated November 1, 2023
3. Golf Course Advisory Committee Letter received February 7, 2024 ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 23-113
NINTH AMENDMENT TO THE MADERA MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE
OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT LEASE AGREEMENT WITH SGM INC.
DBA SIERRA GOLF MANAGEMENT INC.
WHEREAS, the City of Madera (City) owns the Madera Municipal Golf Course, hereinafter called golf course for use and benefit of the public; and WHEREAS, the City desires to provide the highest level of service to the community of Madera by providing an improved golf course facility and related operations; and WHERAS, the City and SGM Inc. DBA Sierra Golf Management Inc. (SGM) entered into a five-year agreement on October 7, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the initial five-year agreement allowed for a five-year extension and said fiveyear extension was exercised via Amendment on October 15, 2014; and WHEREAS, on October 3, 2013, the City Council approved the second amendment to the agreement; and
WHEREAS, on October 15, 2014, the City Council approved the third amendment to the agreement; and
WHEREAS, on October 2, 2019, the City Council approved the fourth amendment to the agreement; and
WHEREAS, on April 15, 2020, the City Council approved the Fifth amendment to the agreement; and
WHEREAS, on March 17, 2021, the City Council approved the Sixth amendment to the agreement; and
WHEREAS, on April 27, 2023, the City Council approved the Seventh amendment to the agreement; and
WHEREAS, on May 28, 2023, the City Council approved the Eighth amendment to the agreement; and
WHEREAS, the existing agreement is set to expire on June 30, 2023; and WHEREAS, the City SGM have been in negotiations to develop new lease terms for fullservice golf course operations; and WHEREAS, the City and Sierra Golf Management have agreed to extend the existing agreement to five years including a five-year renewal option; and WHEREAS, all terms and conditions of the agreements shall remain unless expressly amended in the ninth amendment a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and referred to for particulars, is approved; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MADERA, finds, orders and resolves as follows:
1. The above recitals are true and correct.
2. The City Council approves the Ninth Amendment to the Lease Agreement with SGM for Golf Course Operation and Management which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
3. The Mayor of the City of Madera is authorized to execute the Amendment on behalf of the City.
4. This Resolution is effective immediately upon adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Madera this 21st day of June 2023 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Mayor Garcia, Councilmembers Gallegos, Rodriguez, Montes, Evans, Mejia and Villegas.
None.
None.
None.
APPROVED:
SANTOS GARCIA
-·-
Exhibit 1
NINTH AMENDMENT TO MADERA MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MADERA AND SIERRA GOLF MANAGEMENT, INC.
This Ninth Amendment to Madera Municipal Golf Course Operation and Management Lease Agreement {"FIFTH Amendment"} is made by and between the City Of Madera, a California municipal corporation, ("City"), and SGM Inc. dba Sierra Golf Management Inc., Post Office Box 788 Chowchilla, California 93610 ("Sierra") both hereinafter collectively referred to as "the Parties."
RECITALS
WHEREAS City and Sierra entered into an agreement on October 7, 2009, to contract for the operation and management of the Madera Municipal Golf Course ("Agreement"); and WHEREAS, the Parties executed a Second Amendment to Agreement on July 3, 2013, a Third Amendment to Agreement onOctober15, 2014, a Fourth Amendment to Agreement on October 2, 2019, a Fifth Amendment to Agreement on, a Sixth Amendment on April 15, 2020, a Seventh Amendment on 27 April 2023, an Eighth Amendment on May 28, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the Parties have been diligently negotiating a new long-term agreement for the last few months; and
WHEREAS the Agreement is set expire on June 30, 2023; and WHEREAS, the Parties the parties have reached mutual agreement on a new long-term contract.
AMENDMENT
1. Section 2 of the Agreement entitled "Term" and as amended by prior amendments is amended by adding the following to the end of Section 2:
"Notwithstanding the above language, the term of this Agreement shall extend for a period not to exceed five years from the date of execution. Both parties agree to resume discussions related to exercising a five-year option to renew the agreement within 180 days of the termination date.
2. Section 5.1 of the Agreement entitled "Base Rent" and as amended by prior amendments is amended by adding the following to the end of Section 5.1:
"Notwithstanding the above language, the base rent shall be $5416.66 per month during the term as described in Section 2 of the Agreement.
3. Section 5.2 of the Agreement entitled "Per Round Rate" and as amended by prior amendments is amended by adding the following to the end of Section
5.2:
"Notwithstanding the above language and Section 4.6 of the Agreement, the Per Round Rate shall be $2.75 during years one (1) through four (4) and $3.00 in year four (4) through five (5) during the term as described in Section 2 of the Agreement.
Years 1-4
Year 5
$2.75 per round
$3.00 per round
4. Section 5.5 of the Agreement entitled Capital Improvement Account is amended as follows.
Commencing on the Effective Date and continuing through the Initial Term and Renewal Term, the City shall hold in reserves $75,000 in the Golf Course Capital Improvement Account and shall make such funds available exclusively for capital improvement projects at the Leased Premises.
5. Section 5.6 of the Agreement entitled Capital Improvement in the Agreement relating to Capital Improvements is amended as follows. "Each year of the extended Agreement as per the Ninth Amendment, Sierra shall make capital improvements to the leased Premises in the amount of $50,000 per year. Sierra and its Tenant shall make an annual expenditure of no less than $25,000 each or $50,000 in total per calendar year.
The first priority shall be the repair and upgrade of the banquet hall restrooms.
In parallel or soon after, SGM will utilize the unexpended funds, $15,000 previously allotted via Amendment no Sixth to address the issue of potable water. These funds will be utilized to purchase a new water tank and pump.
All other said capital improvements, and order of priority shall be determined by the Golf Course Committee.
6. Section 7.13 of the agreement entitled Restaurant and Banquet Operations is Amended as follows.
Sentence 2 of Paragraph No 2 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with "Should SPS vacate the clubhouse, the City, and SGM will work together to procure a new operator"
7. Section 40 is added to the agreement to read as follows; The City will utilize the Golf course for 5 events;
1. Annual 4th of July Holiday Golf Tournament
2. Fishing Derby
3. Employee Appreciation Day
4. Yet to determined
5. Yet to be determined
8. Section 41 is added to the agreement to read as follow:
Golf Course Advisory Committee - Within 30 days of the effective date of this contract, a Golf Course Working Group shall be mutually established between the parties. The group shall be comprised of:
1. One City Council member
2. Parks Director
3. SGM Representative
4. Service Organization Representative
5. Golfer
6. Food and Beverage Director/Representative
7. At-large Community member
9. Except as amended by this Ninth Amendment, all terms and conditions of the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Madera has caused this Ninth Amendment to Agreement to be executed on its behalf by its Mayor and duly attested by its City Clerk, and SGM Inc. dba Sierra Golf Management Inc. has executed this Ninth Amendment to Madera Municipal Golf Course Operation and Management Lease Agreement on the day and year written below.
CITY OF MADERA, SGM INC. OBA SIERRA GOLF MANAGEMENT
A municipal corporation INC.
Santos Gar~
Date Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Hilda Cantu Montoy,
City Attorney ATTEST:
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 3
2. Madera County Grand Jury Report 2324-06
3. Report to the City Council from August 16, 2023,
Response to Madera County Grand Jury Final Report
2223-02: “City of Madera Fails to Enforce the Golf
Course Contract Requirements”
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
Approved by: Council Meeting of: August 16, 2023
_________________________________ Agenda Number: ___________ Arnoldo Rodriguez, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Response to Madera County Grand Jury Final Report 2223-02: “City of Madera Fails to Enforce the Golf Course Contract Requirements”
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council (Council) review the proposed Response to the Grand Jury Report (Report) and approve the Response as presented or provide direction on changes to the proposed Response
SUMMARY:
The Madera County Grand Jury (MCGJ) issued a report on June 20, 2023. The Council has 90 days to submit a written response. Written responses must be prepared and submitted within specified guidelines provided by the California Penal Code.
DISCUSSION:
The MCGJ issued a Report titled “City of Madera Fails to Enforce the Golf Course Contract Requirements” on June 20, 2023 requiring a response from the Mayor and from City Council. The Mayor and Council has 90 days to submit a written response to the Report and submit it to the Madera County Superior Court Presiding Judge. Staff has prepared a proposed Response to the Report for Council's consideration, consistent with Penal Code requirements to fulfill the required response from the Mayor and from Council.
Note that Penal Code Section 933.05 includes a specific manner for responding to the Findings and the Recommendations provided in the MCGJ Report. That process is outlined below.
A. Response to Findings.
In response to each grand jury finding in a final report, the responding party is statutorily required to indicate one of the following:
1. The respondent agrees with the finding.
2. The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding; in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor.
B. Response to Recommendations.
In response to each grand jury recommendation in a final report, the responding party is statutorily required to indicate one of the following:
1. The recommendation has been implemented; in which case the responding party must include a summary of the implemented action;
2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but the recommendation will be implemented in the future, in which case the responding party must include a timeframe for implementation;
3. The recommendation requires further analysis, in which case the responding party must include an explanation, the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe, not to exceed six months from the date of the final report's publication, for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the applicable agency or department officer, head, or governing body being investigated or reviewed; or
4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is unwarranted or unreasonable, in which case the responding party must include an explanation therefor.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The City's proposed Response to the Madera County Grand Jury does not constitute a direct financial impact to the City.
ALTERNATIVES:
The Council has the following options to consider relating to this matter:
▪ Approve the Response to the Grand Jury as presented.
▪ Approve the Response with amendments.
▪ Direct staff to return with additional information at a Council meeting before September 18, 2023, when response is required by the MCGJ, meeting the 90-day response requirement.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. City of Madera Response to Madera County Grand Jury Final Report 2223-02: " City of Madera Fails to Enforce the Golf Course Contract Requirements”
2. Madera County Grand Jury Report 2223-02
1. City of Madera Response to Madera County Grand Jury Final Report 2223- 02: " City of Madera Fails to Enforce the Golf Course Contract Requirements”
____________, 2023
The Honorable Michael Jurkovich, Supervising Judge
Madera County Superior Court
Supervising Judge for Grand Jury
200 S. G Street
Madera, CA 93637
Re: City of Madera Fails to Enforce the Golf Course Contract Requirements 2022-2023 Madera County Grand Jury Final Report 2223-02; Published on June 16, 2023 Dear Honorable Judge Jurkovich:
This letter is submitted on behalf of the Mayor and City Council of the City of Madera, the City Manager, and the Parks & Community Services Department, collectively referred to as “City” in this Response.
On Tuesday, June 20, 2023, the City of Madera (“City”) received an email from the Madera County Grand Jury, which attached a copy of the Grand Jury’s Report titled “City of Madera Fails to Enforce the Golf Course Contract Requirements” (hereafter “Report”). The report does not stipulate when it would be released to the public. As such, we view the release date as June 20, 2023.
Penal Code Section 933 (c) requires that the governing board of the public agency (here, the City Council) is required to respond not later than 90 days after the public release date. As required, the City respectfully submits the following responses to the Findings and Recommendations in the Report in the form required by the Penal Code.
Please be advised the City has taken the Grand Jury’s Report seriously and has endeavored to address the Report comprehensively, as evidenced by this Response and by the attachments comprising 20 pages.
Great care has been taken to ensure the City responds concisely yet with appropriate details as demonstrated by references to numerous documents which the City has researched, reviewed, and attached to this Response.
Based on the above, the following constitutes the City’s Response to the Grand Jury’s Findings and Recommendations relating to the Report.
FINDINGS
F1: The MCGJ finds that the City’s golf course Budget reports are misleading. This gives the City Council and the public a false understanding of the actual Net Surplus in the City Budget.
Response 1: The City disagrees partially with this finding. As written, it is unclear what the finding is in reference to. The City’s adopted Fiscal Year 2022/23 Operating Budget clearly identifies the City’s debt pertaining to the Golf Course on pages 182, 187, and 244 under the title “Golf Couse Debt Service.”
The City acknowledges that potential confusion may be introduced on Page 245 of the adopted Fiscal Year 2022/23 Operating Budget document where it indicates that the City will “Transfer In” $298,804, allowing the City to service its debt. A transfer is required to service outstanding debt considering the revenue generated is less than debt, and this practice is common in government accounting practices. This means that the City transfers that amount from the General fund to ensure the debt payments are made.
While this terminology is used in public finance, greater explanation may be warranted on how these standards apply to the City budget.
With that said, the City routinely highlights the outstanding golf course loan balance. For example, in the report to the City Council on March 17, 2021, pertaining to the Sixth Amendment, it states:
“It is worth noting that there is outstanding debt for the golf course. The annual debt service for the golf course loan is approximately $328k in calendar years 2021, 2022, and 2023. The annual debt decreases to roughly $164k in 2024 at which time the debt will be retired. In addition, the golf course leases land from the Airport at an annual cost of $60k.”
Moreover, the City’s Fiscal Year 2022/23 Operating Budget, notes, in part:
“The [golf course] fund does not typically cover its operating expenses with annual revenues. Due to a lack of revenue, the General Fund supports the Golf Course Fund with annual transfers‐in” (Page 180)
The City is noting that it "disagrees partially" because of the mandated method for response.
F2: The MCGJ finds that Lease Exhibit A and Exhibit B are obsolete.
Response 2: The City agrees with this finding. Said exhibits were part of the original 2009 Agreement between the City and Sierra Golf Management, Inc. (SGM); however, because the exhibits remain part of the official record and for transparency, they have not been omitted from more recent updates. It is not a typical business practice to delete exhibits from existing agreements as this would create a void in the record.
F3: The MCGJ finds that the record-keeping requirements of the Lease are not being met.
Response 3: The City partially agrees with the finding. The City has records pertaining to Capital Projects and revenues to the City, but lacks records pertaining to the United States Golf Association.
F4: The MCGJ finds that the City appointed the Parks Director to coordinate with Sierra for this golf course planning and oversight role.
Response 4: The City agrees with this finding. The City’s Director of Parks & Community Services is responsible for coordination and oversight of the Municipal Golf Course.
F5: The MCGJ finds that the City has failed to exercise reasonable oversight and enforcement over the golf course maintenance and capital improvements.
Response 5: The City partially disagrees with the finding. The finding, as written, provides insufficient information to either agree or disagree, as the term, “reasonable oversight and enforcement” is unclear.
While not mentioned in Finding 5, the narrative of the Report alludes to sand. The respondent is assuming that this finding is relative to said item. If so, Section 16 of the 2009 Agreement notes that SGM shall be responsible for providing sand; whereas Section
5.6 of the Sixth Amendment notes:
“[S]aid capital improvements shall include repairing of drainage and renovation of 11 bunkers on the course. Said costs includes [sic], but is not limited to materials, equipment, and labor.”
Thus, while additional clarity may be desired, it is clear that the renovation of the bunkers for drainage improvement was deemed an appropriate expense.
More recently, the City did not mandate that the $15,000 connection be made to the Madera Irrigation District line as required by the 6th Amendment. This item was determined to be redundant and would not add water capacity by the City, Sierra Golf Management, Inc. (SGM), and/or Madera Irrigation District, thus said funds were reappropriated to other more pressing water infrastructure. Said reallocation of the $15,000 to add water capacity was approved by the City Council on June 21, 2023, as part of the 9th Amendment to the Agreement.
In terms of capital improvements, Section 34.6 of the original 2009 Agreement indicates:
All records provided for in this section are to be maintained and made available throughout the performance of this Agreement and for a period of not less than five (5) years, additionally any and all such records which pertain to actual disputes, litigation, appeals or claims shall be maintained and made available for a period of not less than five (5) years after final resolution of such disputes, litigation, appeals or claims.
Said records are available for public viewing.
F6: The MCGJ finds that the Lease requires that logos and name “Madera Municipal Golf Course” must always be used for all signage, announcements, menus, events, websites, etc. The MCGJ finds that the logos and word “Municipal” have been often omitted from required usage.
Response: The City agrees with this finding. The City will address this with SGM.
F7: The MCGJ finds that use of the golf course kitchen for catering from the golf course, is offered on both Sierra and Sugar Pine websites. Catering from the golf course is Prohibited and is a breach of the Lease.
Response 7: The City agrees with this finding. It is noted that Section 7.13 of Agreement states:
“…Unless agreed upon in writing, Sierra agrees to limit it's services under this agreement to the facilities at the Golf Course and will not under the auspices of this agreement provide catering services off.”
As part of 9
th Amendment, adopted by the City Council on June 21, 2023, this section was amended to read:
“Sentence 2 of Paragraph No 2 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with “Should SPS [Sugar Pine Smokehouse] vacate the clubhouse, the City, and SGM will work together to procure a new operator””
Thus, as part of the 9th Amendment, the prohibition against catering for off-site events was removed.
F8: The MCGJ finds that in 2021-23 the City gave Sierra unnecessary financial concessions due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
Response 8: The City disagrees with this finding. This finding neglects to recognize the immense uncertainty caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. In a report to the City Council on April 15, 2020, at the onset of the pandemic, City staff noted:
“The City and SGM were close to finalizing these terms last month when the COVID-19 pandemic began to emerge in the United States. The COVID-19 pandemic has had a negative impact on local economies, leaving SGM uncertain of long-term effects this may have on operations and reduction to revenues.
SGM indicated to the City that they could not move forward with the terms of a new agreement due to the unknown variables at this time.” At the time, the City’s agreement with SGM was set to sunset on April 30, 2020, and the City was not in a position to resume responsibility for the operations and maintenance of the golf course. As noted in Response 1, the City was responsible for servicing debt and a comprehensive review of the City’s adopted 2019/20 Operating Budget, and subsequent budgets, support the City’s position that it is unable to resume responsibility without
reallocating substantial monies from other funds. For example, as an alternative, the City could have reallocated monies from other funds, such as General Fund dollars from the Fire or Police Departments, but this would have been irresponsible and would have altered the City’s service delivery model that the community has come to expect.
In addition, the respondent disagrees with the underlying inference that this reduction was somehow inappropriate. The respondent questions the basis of this finding, as this statement does not provide:
▪ Any evidence
▪ Indication of a study or reference to underlying data that defines “unnecessary” ▪ A reasonable alternative
A review of the record clearly demonstrates that the pandemic was a global crisis with significant economic impacts. In a report to the City Council on March 18, 2020, over one month prior to Amendment 5, the City proclaimed a local emergency due to the imminent threat of COVID-19. This declaration was consistent with National, State, and County states of emergency.
The report continues by noting that:
“[T]he exact modes of transmission, the factors facilitating human-to-human transmission, the extent of asymptomatic viral shedding, the groups most at risk of serious illness, the attack rate, and the case fatality rate all remain active areas of investigation.”
In short, the City was not in a position to resume responsibility given the uncertainty of the pandemic. The purpose of the concessions was an attempt to maintain the golf course in operating condition.
F9: The MCGJ finds that Lease section 4.4 unnecessarily excludes the City from receiving any revenue from the described activities.
Response 9: The City disagrees with this finding. The observation that the City excluded itself from receiving any revenue from the described activities is accurate; however, the respondent disagrees with the underlying inference that this fee practice is somehow inappropriate.
Moreover, staff that was involved during the original 2009 Agreement have separated from the City, thus any direct response to counter with rationale would be speculative.
Under the established structure, the City receives a Base Rent, compensating for additional activities.
F10: The MCGJ finds that there are no United States Golf Association [USGA] reports as required by the Lease.
Response 10: The City agrees with this finding. After additional research, SGM acknowledged that they have not contracted with USGA since the agreement was ratified in 2009. Since then, USGA visited the golf course on July 21, 2023. USGA provided a written report which was presented to the City Council on August 2, 2023. This report is attached as Attachment 1.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
R1: The MCGJ recommends that the City Finance Director correct and clarify all budget entries by December 31, 2023.
Response 1: The respondent is under the assumption that this recommendation pertains to the payment from the Golf Course to the Airport. If so, this recommendation has been addressed.
Staff became aware that the Golf Course Fund does not contain appropriations in the Fiscal Year 2022/23 Annual Operating budget to cover the rent payment to the Airport Fund. The payment of $64,083 is made to the Airport Fund as it is the legal owner of a portion of the property on which the golf course resides. To remedy this, at its June 21, 2023, City Council meeting, the Council approved an appropriation through a budget amendment.
R2: The MCGJ recommends that the City of Madera immediately rewrite a new contract for the lease, management, and operation of the Madera Municipal Golf Course.
Response 2: At its June 21, 2023, the day after the Grand Jury submitted its Report to the City, the City Council approved a five-year contract extension. In accordance with the Brown Act, the documents considered by City Council were published on June 17, 2023, days prior to the Grand Jury Report. While the City acknowledges that a contract absent items the Grand Jury considers obsolete may not be ideal, the contract is a legally binding document.
Regardless, the City and SGM have discussed updating the contract.
R3: The MCGJ recommends “Detailed” records of Capital Improvements and Maintenance expenditures and the USGA advice reports, be kept by the City for public viewing and for at least five years or as required by law.
Response 3: This recommendation has been partially implemented and will be ongoing. The City has a long-standing policy relating to the retention of records in conformance with state law; however, the City understands the MCGJ request for greater detail. Moreover, the City prides itself in aiming to be transparent in governance and management of the City. This includes adhering to requests for public documents when requested by the community and all other Public Records requests, per the Public Records Act.
In terms of USGA advice reports, the initial report was made available to the public on August 2, 2023.
R4: The MCGJ recommends that Parks Director or other City Representative immediately begin to monitor and exercise oversight over the golf course Capital Improvement and Maintenance expenditures.
Response 4: This recommendation has been implemented and will be ongoing. Moreover, the 9th Amendment established a Golf Course Committee comprised of:
1. One City Council member
2. Director of Parks & Community Services
3. SGM Representative
4. Service Organization Representative
5. Golfer/At -large Community member
6. Food and Beverage Director/Representative
7. At-large Community member (added during the City Council meeting on June 21, 2023)
The Committee is expected to provide oversight on capital improvements and maintenance. In addition, the 9
th Amendment requires that the City collect capital
improvement funding and reimburse SGM for eligible activities. This is in contrast to the historic practice where SGM would submit receipts to the City.
R5: The MCGJ recommends that the City immediately specify the Maintenance and Capital Improvement categories as defined by USGA to eliminate confusion as to what Sierra is paying and/or has paid for golf course Capital Improvements and Maintenance.
Response 5: USGA visited the golf course on July 21, 2023 and prepared a list of recommendations.
The report was presented to the City Council on August 2, 2023 and will be shared with the Golf Course Advisory Committee at their upcoming meeting.
R6: The MCGJ recommends that the City immediately enforce the Lease provisions requiring the word ‘Municipal’ and all other name and logo requirements.
Response 6: This recommendation has been implemented and will be on-going.
R7: The MCGJ recommends that the City immediately review its position on catering. When making any decision, the City should determine its original purpose for prohibiting offsite food service and catering. City should enforce the agreement or allow the use.
Response 7: The recently approved 9th amendment permits offsite catering. This item was reviewed during recent negotiations and the City cannot determine why said prohibition was originally included.
R8: The MCGJ recommends that the City immediately negotiate for concessions it made during Covid-19. The City should consider increasing its share of revenue by participating in all of Sierra’s income excluded from the City in Lease Section 4.4.
Response 8: On June 21, 2023, the City Council approved the 9th Amendment which outlines how much SGM pays the City to operate the Golf Course. As part of the 9th Amendment, the amount that SGM remits to the City for base rent and per round of golf exceeds what it paid prior to the COVID-19 Pandemic.
R9: The MCGJ recommends that a new Lease be drafted immediately deleting all obsolete terms which unnecessarily exclude the City from City revenue.
Response 9: Given that the recommendation does not identify specifics, the City does not have adequate information to ascertain what obsolete terms this is regarding. Per Finding 2, it is apparent that the Madera County Grand Jury considers Exhibits A and B from the original 2009 Agreement obsolete; however, drafting a new agreement to strike two exhibits appears excessive. In addition, on June 21, 2023, the City Council approved the 9 th Amendment, a five-year extension. Notwithstanding this, both parties have discussed preparing a consolidated agreement.
R10: The MCGJ recommends that the City should immediately make the USGA mandatory annual reports available for public review.
Response: This report was presented to the City Council on August 2, 2023 and is attached.
We thank the Grand Jury for its service to the community. Please let us know if you or the Grand Jury need additional information.
Sincerely,
Arnoldo Rodriguez
City Manager
City of Madera
c: Foreperson, Madera County Grand Jury, PO Box 584, Madera, CA 93639 Attachments:
1. Report to the City Council dated August 2, 2023, including report from the USGA Attachment A: Report to the City Council dated August 2, 2023, including United States Golf Association report
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
Approved by: Council Meeting of: August 2, 2023
Agenda Number: ___________
________________________________
Joseph Hebert, Parks & Community Services Director
_________________________________
Arnoldo Rodriguez, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Informational report on USGA Site visit to the Madera Municipal Golf Course RECOMMENDATION:
This report is submitted for informational purposes only and there is no action requested from the City Council (Council)
SUMMARY:
During the June 21, 2023 Council meeting staff presented the Ninth Amendment to the Madera Municipal Golf Course Operation and Management Lease Agreement with SGM Inc. dba Sierra Golf Management, Inc. There is a provision in the original 2009 contract requiring an annual audit be conducted by the United States Golf Association (USGA); however, the report had not been previously prepared.
The staff is providing this report to inform Council that the USGA annual audit provision has been satisfied.
DISCUSSION:
On July 21, 2023, the USGA conducted its first audit of the Madera Municipal Golf Course. The audit findings were generally favorable. The course is over 30 years old and in good shape, except for several items requiring upgrades or general maintenance.
Recommendations made by USGA are presented below:
1. Upgrade Irrigation System
2. Increase Weed Control
3. Putting Greens – increase sand dilution and decrease surface patch.
4. Bunker renovation
5. Upgrade to hybrid Bermudagrass
The establishment of a seven (7) member golf committee was approved by Council during the July 19, 2023, meeting. The USGA recommendations will be scheduled for discussion during the Committee’s upcoming.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funding for Golf Course Capital improvement projects will be generated by revenues outlined within contract amendment nine.
ALTERNATIVES:
This is an informational item only.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. USGA Site Visit Report for Madera Municipal Golf Course 21 July 2023 Brian Whitlark | Regional Director, West Region | (480) 215-1958 | [email protected] Madera Municipal Golf Club
Madera, California
Visit Date: July 21, 2023
Present:
Jeremy Jordan, Golf Course Superintendent
Dan Bacci, Sierra Golf Management
Jon Christensen, Sierra Golf Management
Brian Whitlark, USGA Green Section
COURSE CONSULTING SERVICE
Site Visit Report
2 Executive Summary
Thank you for the invitation to conduct the first Course Consulting Service visit to Madera Municipal Golf Course on behalf of the USGA Green Section. The purpose of the Course Consulting Service is to collect and distribute information on the proper construction and maintenance of golf courses. Each visit offers an impartial yet concerned perspective regarding turfgrass growth requirements, practical information on maintenance practices to address your needs, and sharing information from other courses that we visit that may be helpful to your operation. This information is provided free of bias since the USGA is not affiliated with manufacturers or suppliers. In short, we are a tool to help your superintendent and management team provide better turf for better golf.
This was my first visit to Madera Municipal Golf Course. The golf course is about 30 years old, and it is clear that there have been no capital improvement projects completed at the golf course. The infrastructure of the golf course is aging, and the most important topic of this report will be the need to upgrade components of the irrigation system. We will also discuss the importance of significantly increasing weed control efforts. A brief summary of the topics discussed in this report is included below:
• Irrigation system. Despite a significant reduction in irrigated turf, the irrigation system is insufficient to properly deliver water adequately and efficiently to this golf course. It is recommended for the City to consider significant upgrades to the pump station and irrigation system at Madera Municipal Golf Course.
• Weed control. Weeds are a significant problem at this golf course, and weed control efforts need to be increased in primary playing areas such as green surrounds, fairways and tees. • Putting greens. The putting greens are in good health in general, but they are very soft and spongy. We will discuss increasing cultural practices to improve sand dilution and decrease surface thatch.
• Bunkers. The bunkers have exposed sumps which are unsightly and impact playability but do help to drain the bunkers during rainfall events. While not an immediate priority in my opinion, a bunker renovation should be considered in the future. • Bermudagrass upgrade. After upgrading the irrigation infrastructure, it is recommended to consider upgrading to hybrid bermudagrass, which could be sprigged to the fairways perhaps nine holes per year. This would improve golf course aesthetics and playability year-round. 3 Table of Contents
Irrigation................................................................................................................................... 4 Observations.............................................................................................................................. 4 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 5 Bermudagrass Upgrade.......................................................................................................... 6 Observations and Recommendations......................................................................................... 6 Weed Control ........................................................................................................................... 7 Observations.............................................................................................................................. 7 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 7 Putting Greens......................................................................................................................... 8 Observations.............................................................................................................................. 8 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 8 Bunkers .................................................................................................................................... 9 Observations.............................................................................................................................. 9 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 9 Closing Comments.................................................................................................................. 9 USGA Green Section............................................................................................................. 10 Turfgrass and Environmental Research ................................................................................... 10 Tools and Solutions.................................................................................................................. 10 Green Section Record.............................................................................................................. 10 4 Irrigation
Observations
1. Antiquated System
The irrigation system is now over 30 years old. Most courses will replace irrigation satellites, sprinklers, lateral and mainline valves between year 15 and 25, and often courses will replace the entire irrigation system at year 30 to 35.
2. System Limitations
The irrigation system does not deliver water adequately and efficiently to this golf course. The system only delivers about 1,200 gallons per minute, which is only about 40% of what a typical golf course will pump out to an 18-hole golf course. This means not enough water can be delivered to the golf course during an evening irrigation cycle, and the time in which to apply water is 11 to 13 hours. A system with adequate pressure and flow could deliver more water in a window of only about six hours. The long water window creates wet conditions for golfers playing early in the morning and does not facilitate deep watering.
3. Multiple Sprinklers Per Valve
Most all golf courses I work with (approximately 90 golf courses per year) have the ability to control every sprinkler individually. At Madera, there are two to three sprinklers per station and, in some cases, five to six sprinklers per station. This means limited ability to apply site-specific water and results in inefficient use of water and overwatering.
4. Inconsistent Spacing
The spacing among the sprinklers is inconsistent, which results in localized wet and dry areas.
5. Valves Not Working
Mainline and lateral line valves are not working properly. This means that to conduct any repairs across the golf course, the team must shut off the pump station. During the summer months, this is a significant inconvenience and puts turfgrass throughout the golf course at risk of failure.
6. Pump Station in Poor Condition
The pump station is in very poor condition and is exposed to the elements.
7. No Independent Watering
It was great to see that irrigated turf was removed several years ago. It was reported that the team now irrigate only about 75 acres of turf compared to about 105 acres of turf several years ago. However, the sprinkler design is not set up to independently water only these 75 turf acres.
This means water is applied where it is not needed.
8. Poor Sprinkler Design Around Greens
There are full-circle sprinklers around greens, which means water must be applied to green surrounds and bunkers when greens are watered. Ideally, greens would be watered with partcircle sprinklers designed only for the greens to allow deep watering of greens without flooding bunkers.
5 Recommendations
1. System Component Replacement
At the very least, it is suggested to replace swing joints, sprinklers and irrigation satellites and add a central irrigation computer. This is the very minimum irrigation component replacement plan. This plan does not allow for redesigning irrigation spacing to accommodate the new turf lines and does not replace lateral line pipes which are more likely to fail in the next five to ten years. Below is an industry reference that provides the expected useful service life of irrigation components:
6 2. Pump Station Replacement
In Central California, the irrigation system is the lifeblood of every golf course and effectively is the most important part of the golf course. Without it, you do not have a golf course. Replacing the irrigation system components in conjunction with upgrading to hybrid bermudagrass would have a significant positive impact on the golfer experience for the long-term viability and sustainability of this golf course. It is strongly recommended to replace the pump station with a system that is capable of delivering at least 2,500 gallons per minute. • You may wish to reach out to Cloudburst Engineering in Palm Desert to assist with the pump station replacement.
• It is also strongly recommended to reach out to in irrigation designer such as BTG Golf LLC for consultation on the system hydraulics. It is critical to size the pipe properly leaving the pump station and throughout the golf course to provide adequate flow. • Below I have included several articles on the importance of replacing the irrigation system. ♦ How Do We Know When It Is a Good Time to Replace Our Irrigation System? ♦ How Long Does an Irrigation System Last?
♦ Irrigation System: There Is More Than Meets the Eye
♦ New Irrigation System Offers Significant Water Savings ♦ Proper Pump Maintenance and Testing
♦ Making Your Case for An Irrigation Renovation
♦ USGA Water Use and Irrigation Literature
Bermudagrass Upgrade
Observations and Recommendations
1. Hodgepodge of Grasses
The primary playing areas in green surrounds, fairways and tees consist of a hodgepodge of grasses including common bermudagrass, cool-season and warm-season weeds, and patches of hybrid bermudagrass. The current combination of grasses and weeds does not provide the ability to deliver good conditions any time of the year. While golfers may consider the conditions acceptable, there is a huge opportunity at this facility if the irrigation system is upgraded to convert to hybrid bermudagrass and deliver a far superior playing experience, and one that will use much less water.
2. Convert To Hybrid Bermudagrass
While many courses are sodding hybrid bermudagrass at a cost of about $.70 per square foot, there is an option to sprig bermudagrass at a cost of about $.15 per square foot. However, this would require closing nine holes for a period of about 90 days during the summer months to complete the conversion. It is important to note that it is not recommended to consider any conversion until the irrigation system is upgraded. The success of the conversion relies on improved irrigation coverage. The current system limitations would significantly limit the success of the conversion. Here is an article that explains bermudagrass conversion in greater detail. 7 Weed Control
Observations
1. Significant Weed Population
Unfortunately, the golf course is littered with both cool-season and warm-season weeds. Green surrounds, fairways and tees have a very high weed population which significantly detracts from the golfer experience. It also weakens the existing turfgrasses.
Recommendations
1. Increased Weed Control Program
While it may be several years until the City has the funds to upgrade the irrigation system and convert to hybrid bermudagrass, weed control efforts should be increased immediately. There is a big opportunity to significantly reduce the weed population during the summer months, which will ultimately increase the health of the common bermudagrass. Please consider the following weed control program:
• Increased nitrogen. First and foremost, nitrogen should be increased on fairways to improve common bermudagrass density and coverage. It is always impressive to see that when bermudagrass density improves, the weed population decreases. Ideally, you would apply at least 2 pounds of nitrogen per 1,000 square feet between mid-September in late October and apply another 2 pounds of nitrogen per 1,000 square feet from early April through the end of May. Nitrogen should be applied only where necessary during the summer months.
• Spring preemergent weed control. Please consider the following two options for preemergence weed control, which should begin in late February or early March:
♦ One option is to spray indaziflam (Specticle®) on green surrounds, fairways and tees.
The Specticle will kill a majority of existing cool-season weeds. Specticle can be expected to provide weed control through the end of August. It is critical to avoid spraying Specticle within a 15-foot barrier of the putting greens. In this zone, it is recommended to use a combination of prodiamine and Pennant Magnum® for preemergence control. A second application will be needed in late May, and the chemistry should be switch to granular Ronstar® to pick up goosegrass control. ♦ The next option is to combine prodiamine with the Pennant Magnum in early March on green surrounds, fairways and tees. A second application will be needed with an alternative chemistry such as oxadiazon (granular Ronstar). Another option is simazine (Princep®).
• Fall postemergence goosegrass control. For postemergence control of goosegrass, it is strongly recommended to have Sencor® on hand. While the two-application strategy in the spring is very important to control the summer weeds, we discussed not using preemergence products in the fall given the common bermudagrass is susceptible to wet and soggy conditions. In fact, the annual bluegrass and ryegrass that recovers each fall effectively improves playing conditions during the winter months, especially in a wet winter, even without overseeding. It is worth noting that if you should ultimately convert the fairways to hybrid bermudagrass, then it would be important to control the winter weeds. 8 • Additional applications. There is also a fair amount of purple nutsedge on the golf course.
For this weed, it is important to use Celero® with two to three applications from mid-July through mid-October. You also may consider purchasing Vexis®, a granular product that can be used to spot apply to the nutsedge areas. The preemergent program provided above will help to control dallisgrass as well. However, when dallisgrass breaks through, it is recommended to spray Monument® as a postemergence control product.
Putting Greens
Observations
1. General Condition
I was able to view multiple greens during our visit, and I'm happy to report that all greens have a healthy combination of bentgrass and Poa annua.
2. Rooting Depth
Closer observation reveals roots extending to 5 to 6 inches in the greens.
3. Shear Strength
I utilized a shear strength tester to measure surface strength of greens. A value less than about 12 Newton meters (Nm) indicates weak surface strength. At Madera Municipal Golf Course, values ranged from 15 to 17 Nm, which is excellent this time of year, especially given the recent heat.
4. Excess Organic Matter
The putting greens are very soft and puffy, and ball marks are quite deep. A soil profile collected from greens reveals there is excess organic matter near the surface of the greens and there has not been enough sand applied for dilution.
Recommendations
1. Aeration and Vertical Mowing
It is recommended to continue with your program to conduct 5/8-inch-diameter core aeration on a 2- by 2-inch spacing this fall. It is recommended to immediately precede this operation with vertical mowing with blades set about 0.150 inches below the bottom of the rollers. Run the vertical mower up and back on the same pass and change directions, thereby making four passes over the greens. Follow by applying ample sand to dilute surface organic matter.
2. Increased Sand Topdressing
During the growing season, it is recommended to apply sand from February or March through October or November at a frequency of two or three times per month. Rates should range from as low as 40 to 50 pounds per 1,000 square feet to as high as 100 to 115 pounds per 1,000 square feet. During the primary growing season, conduct vertical mowing two to four times per month at light intensity. All these practices combined will help to reduce surface thatch and increase firmness. These practices will also help to smooth ball roll. 9 Bunkers
Observations
1. Exposed Sumps
The bunkers have an exposed sump in the lowest area of each bunker to facilitate drainage during rainfall events. While this may be effective to remove water, it is unsightly and negatively impacts play. Golfers must move their golf ball aside when the ball comes to rest in these lowlying areas. I will say this is extremely uncommon to see at golf courses.
2. Ample Sand
I was able to measure sand depth in a few greenside bunkers. It was great to see adequate sand at a depth of 6 to 7 inches. It was also good to hear that golfer comments concerning the bunkers are generally positive.
Recommendations
1. Continued Sand Addition
For the time being, it is recommended to continue to add sand where necessary in greenside bunkers. A good goal is to provide 7 to 9 inches of sand on the bunker floors. This will help with playability and drainage.
2. Bunker Renovation
A bunker renovation is needed at Madera Municipal Golf Course. However, I would strongly recommend focusing your capital monies on irrigation upgrades and converting to hybrid bermudagrass before any work may be considered on the bunkers.
Closing Comments
Thank you for an enjoyable morning spent on the golf course at Madera Municipal. Given that this was my first opportunity to see the property, it was impressive to see the amount of turf reduction and to see the greens in good condition. The major take-home message from this first initial visit is that it is strongly recommended to focus capital improvement funds on irrigation system upgrades and consider upgrading to hybrid bermudagrass. In the short term, it is necessary to increase funds for fertilizing primary playing areas and increasing weed control efforts. Thank you for your support of the USGA Green Section. Please do not hesitate to contact my office should you have any further questions or concerns.
Respectfully submitted,
Brian Whitlark, Regional Director
USGA Green Section, West Region
Distribution:
Dan Bacci, Sierra Golf Management
Jon Christensen, Sierra Golf Management
10 USGA Green Section
Turfgrass and Environmental Research
The USGA Green Section appreciates your support of the Course Consulting Service. First started in 1953, the Course Consulting Service provides unbiased assessments of golf facilities to optimize resources and reduce consumption of critical resources. The proceeds from the Course Consulting Service directly support the USGA’s annual $2 million investment in turfgrass and environmental research, which provides an estimated $2 billion annual benefit to the U.S. golf industry. Follow the QR Code for more information.
Tools and Solutions
The USGA Green Section is proud to offer tools and solutions for golf courses. Innovative products including Deacon, GS3, and GPS Services provide solutions to optimize the golf experience through data-driven communication and resource management.
Green Section Record
The USGA Green Section Record, is a free digital magazine offering the latest information on turfgrass management, environmental sustainability, innovation in golf course maintenance, and turfgrass research. If you would like to stay updated on regional topics, best management practices, and industry trends, please subscribe for free to The Record.
2. Madera County Grand Jury Report 2223-02
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
1 City of Madera
Fails to Enforce the Golf Course
Contract Requirements
2022-2023
Madera County Grand Jury
Final Report 2223-02
Published on June 16, 2023
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
2 Summary
The City of Madera (City) owns the Madera Municipal Golf Course located at 23200 Avenue 17, Madera, CA. It is adjacent to the west side of Madera Airport. The City does not operate this business. The Golf Course includes the building which houses a pro-shop for golfing attire and accessories, a banquet room, kitchen and bar, including onsite food and beverage concessions, and patio area. In 2009 the golf course management and operation were turned over to Sierra Golf Management, Inc. (Sierra) under a Lease Agreement (Lease) with the City. Recently, Sierra made an agreement with Sugar Pine Smokehouse, LLC (Sugar Pine) to operate the golf course food and beverage concessions. Sugar Pine presently operates the food and bar services. The City does not have a copy of the Sierra – Sugar Pine agreement, although the Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) requires the City to approve the agreement before it can issue a Liquor License.
As of March 2023, the City is aware that Sugar Pine has a temporary ABC permit to serve liquor and Sugar Pine is operating the kitchen and bar concessions. The City has not produced any documentation on the Sierra – Sugar Pine agreement after the Madera County Grand Jury (MCGJ) request.
This report explores the City golf course, budgeting, revenue, and its operation by Sierra.
The City has not enforced the Lease requirements for Sierra’s signage and catering violations.
The City budget and financial reports are misleading and failed to include $64,000 rent City pays to the Airport. The City Budget shows a Net Surplus for the golf course which is actually only 10 percent of the amount shown. The City has often deviated from Sierra’s contractual payment requirements, by making revenue concessions to Sierra. The City has been timid in negotiations, lax in oversight, and has not enforced the Lease terms.
The City’s 14-year history of golf course agreements with Sierra, unless renewed by the City terminates on June 30, 2023.
Abbreviations
ABC - California Alcohol Beverage Control
City – City of Madera
Lease - All references to the 2009 Madera Municipal Golf Course Agreement and amendments.
MCGJ - Madera County Grand Jury
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
3 Sierra – Sierra Golf Management, doing business as Sierra Golf Management, Inc.
Sugar Pine – Sugar Pine Smokehouse, LLC
USGA - United States Golf Association
Background
In 1991 the City of Madera established the Madera Municipal Golf Course in an Open Space Zone located at 23200 Avenue 17. In 2009, the City executed the original Lease with Sierra. The Lease includes the use, management, and operation of the 18-hole golf course, pro golf shop, driving range, putting green, golf carts, banquet room, parking lot, kitchen and beverage concessions, and events. The Lease period ended April 30, 2023, however it provided for two 30-day extensions. The City Manager signed the two 30-day extensions with Sierra, which are in effect until June 30, 2023.
Sierra is required to pay for annual Capital Improvements to the golf course. Sierra combined the 2021-22 Capital Improvement payments into the first extension year. Sierra spent $40,000 total to replace drains and sand in 11 bunkers for Capital Improvements. Sierra was to invest $15,000 to hook up a pipeline to the Madera Irrigation District, which as of March, the City states had not been done.
The Lease requires for Sierra to pay the United States Golf Association (USGA), a golf course advisory service, to provide reports annually on golf course Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance and guidance on golf course improvements. After a request to the City no USGA reports were provided to the MCGJ by the City. Sierra is required to keep records and reports for five years (see Lease Section 36). If these reports do not exist, and/or Sierra failed to pay the USGA for annual reviews, then Sierra has materially breached the Lease contract.
Lease Section 7.13 states, “Sierra shall be authorized to sell food and beverages …, or to subcontract for such services . . .” Section 23 allows Sierra to sublet the food and beverage concessions. Sugar Pine claims to have a ten-year lease with the City for the kitchen and bar concessions. The City denied the existence of any additional golf course agreements except the one with Sierra. The City as a prudent landlord should demand a copy of the Sierra – Sugar Pine agreement to evaluate insurance coverage, credit, and the City’s liability exposure.
The ABC Fresno Office has a file open to the public on Sugar Pine’s application for a 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
4 temporary Permit allowing Sugar Pine to serve liquor at the golf course. The ABC cannot issue Sugar Pine a liquor License because no agreement between Sierra and Sugar Pine, and signed by the City, has been submitted to the ABC. The City as the property owner, is required to approve the Sierra – Sugar Pine agreement before the ABC can grant Sugar Pine a liquor license. Thus, the Sierra-Sugar Pine agreement, if and when it is produced to the ABC, will be available to the City and the public. The Sierra - Sugar Pine agreement may be void unless Sierra is able to keep and extend some agreement with the City.
The City did not provide an answer to the MCGJ about whether or not a Public Notice of the expiring golf course contract with Sierra must be put out for public bids.
Methodology
Interviewed key City personnel.
Examined City Lease with Sierra and six amendments.
Studied City budget noting identified loans, debt service, omitted Airport Lease payment, and revenue.
Inspected three years of monthly reports that Sierra filed with the City.
Reviewed equipment list (Exhibit B from original contract).
Followed payment record of Sierra.
Reviewed capital improvement costs for 2021.
Reviewed the City, Sierra, Sugar Pine, North Fork Indian Casino, ABC, and other websites.
Checked Secretary of State’s Business records on Sierra (none exist) and Sugar Pine Smokehouse, LLC.
Reviewed the North Fork Rancheria’s Environmental Impact Review (EIR) for planned casino construction off CA-99.
Contacted and reviewed and the ABC history of the liquor license ownership and present incomplete ABC file on Sierra’s license transfer to Sugar Pine.
Reviewed Sierra ownership and golf courses managed by Sierra.
Visited the premises and observed signage, ABC posting the change of liquor license to Sugar Pine, offsite catering information, menus and pricing, signage, banquet room, dining room, and bar areas.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
5 Reviewed the City water and sewer infrastructure system.
Reviewed the City zoning maps to note designation requirements and property development plans.
Reviewed the USGA website and the services it offers to golfers and golf courses.
Discussion
The MCGJ discovered that many Lease Sections, some of which are presented below are without clear definitions, are inconsistent, lack required updates, and carry forward irrelevant matters over the years. There has been a lack of City oversight and enforcement of Sierra’s contractual requirements. A major portion of the golf course revenue is excluded from the City’s participation. The City’s Budget financial information is misleading. The Net Surplus shown in the Budget is $361,236 when it is only $32,392. The inflated City Budget Report is misleading because it failed to subtract the debt service from the Net Surplus.
On March 17, 2021, the City and Sierra signed the sixth contract amendment to the 2009 Lease Agreement. This contract included all of the prior amendments, Exhibits; and carried with it many irrelevant, contradictory, confusing, and outdated terms. This creates problems for the City decision makers on what the golf course requires for upgrades, and its true financial picture.
During the pandemic, the City made generous financial concessions to Sierra by lowering Sierra’s annual Capital Improvement payments from $50,000 to $20,000 per year. The City reduced Sierra’s annual rent payments from $40,000 to $19,992 per year. These concessions add up to $100,000. However, Sierra’s monthly income reports to the City during that time showed no significant reductions to its income.
Sierra pays City $1.75 for each person playing a round of golf. Sierra’s monthly reports to the City exclude hundreds of rounds of golf in the sales column with $0.00. It is not clear from the monthly reports if all rounds of golf played are paid to the City. The contract definitions are not clear about this.
The City should negotiate for a percentage of excluded income defined in Lease section
4.4 to receive a more equitable share of revenue from Sierra. Reporting the rounds of golf played should not exclude any round or revenue from the City. The City has neglected to exercise reasonable oversight over this valuable public asset.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
6 I. Grossly Misleading City Budget Reports.
According to the 2022-2023 Madera Municipal Golf Course Fiscal Budget there is a $361,236 Golf Operations Net Surplus. This surplus does not include and subtract the golf course annual Debt Service of $328,844. The debt service is paid from the City’s Special Payments account. Line Item 8000 lists $12,744 for Interest Payments, and Line Item 8001 lists $316,100 for Principal Payments. These line-item expenses were not included in the golf course Operations Expense Budget. Deducting this $328,844 debt service from the stated $361,236 Net Surplus total there is only an actual $32,392 Net Surplus. The City admitted that because the Net Surplus is only 10 percent of the Net Surplus stated in the Budget, this could be misleading.
Since the figure is misleading, the City Council, Mayor, City Manager and the public cannot have an accurate financial picture about the golf course operation.
The City golf course makes an annual lease payment to the City Airport. This rent payment is approximately $64,000. This payment was omitted from the City Budget. It is not clear why the golf course charges $40,000 rent and pays the City Airport about $64,000 rent for a 15-acre water storage area. The City explained that the rent differential is an accounting practice adjusting payments between different City projects.
The monthly revenue generated by the golf course is stated in monthly reports that Sierra generates and provides to the City. The Lease requires Sierra to provide the City with monthly reports totaling the income Sierra received that month and the number of golfers using the course. The practice of totaling the revenue and rounds of golf played stopped in March of 2020. Sierra’s reporting change made it difficult for City to see how much money was owed by Sierra, because the City would have to add up all the figures in each column. The MCGJ totaled Sierra’s monthly reports in 2020 – 2022 which showed that during the Covid-19 pandemic, the golf course showed no slowdown in golf course income.
II. The 2009 Lease incorporated Exhibits A and B which are Obsolete.
The Lease, due to years of amendments and extensions without creating a new contract, includes many outdated inconsistent items. For example, Exhibit A has a revenue chart showing a 10-year revenue projection ending in the year 2019. That became obsolete in 2019. Exhibit B is 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
7 the inventory of equipment owned by the City in 2009. The City sold all of this equipment and the pro-shop inventory to Sierra on November 18, 2009, making Exhibit B obsolete.
III. Record Keeping for Capital Improvements. The Lease requires Sierra to keep records for five years of its costs for annual Capital Improvements and Maintenance. Specifically, this requires keeping Capital Improvement and Maintenance plans, design plans, diagrams, work orders, materials, receipts, and proof of Sierra’s payments.
The City produced only one Capital Improvement record for the year 2021. The list shows the purchase of sand for about $7,000, and other items, however there were no plans, details, or evidence of City oversight. That record was a list of materials with corresponding costs. Lease Section 16.4 states that sand is a maintenance expense for Sierra, not a Capitol Improvement expense. However, in 2021, sand was paid as a Capital Improvement instead of a Maintenance expense. Maintenance items should not be credited for Sierra’s annual Capital Improvement costs.
The ultimate guidance for golf course annual planning is the U.S. Golf Association’s Annual Turf Advisory Service (USGA). Lease Section 7.2 states: “Sierra at its sole expense shall coordinate the annual USGA turf service. The annual turf advisory service shall serve as a baseline for course conditions and will provide Sierra and the City another tool for determining and prioritizing capital improvements and maintenance delivery plans.” This service offers the City and Sierra, the USGA’s independent golf course review and advice for improvements. This advice covers grading the slopes for handicapped persons’ access. The USGA offers many other detailed suggestions for capital improvement and maintenance goals to upgrade the golf course each year. Sierra has a mandatory duty to pay for these reports as part of planning. City was not able to provide any of these mandatory annual USGA reports.
IV. The City Oversight Director for the Golf Course.
The City Parks and Community Services Director is assigned to coordinate with Sierra to oversee the golf course, its events, condition, and upkeep. This oversight involves reviewing plans, approving designs, overseeing projects, construction, purchase orders, reports, implementing the USGA baseline improvement goals, and other “details” which are spelled out under annual Capital Improvements and other sections of the Lease. This oversight involves 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
8 construction. As of December 2022, there had been no communication between Sierra and the Parks and Community Services Director who was appointed during the summer of 2022.
Lease Section 8.3 states, “The Director of Administrative Services shall act as City representative with respect to the work to be performed under this Lease Agreement. Such person shall have the complete authority to transmit instructions, receive information, interpret, and define City’s policies and decisions with respect to materials, equipment elements, and systems pertinent to Sierra’s services.” This Director does not exist in City job descriptions.
V. The City Has Failed to Enforce the Contract - Use of Name Violation by Sierra.
Both the Sierra and Sugar Pine websites omit the required City logos and the word “Municipal” from the name. The Lease states, “Sierra shall ensure that all brochures, scorecards, and other printed advertising and marketing materials always bear and maintain the City’s identity with the mandatory use by Sierra of the name ‘Madera Municipal Golf Course’ with the accompanying logos of the City and the City Parks and Community Services department as provided by the City.” The City has not enforced this requirement.
VI. The City Failed to Enforce the Catering Violation – Sierra and Sugar Pine offer Catering.
Sugar Pine has assumed the golf course liquor and food operations from Sierra. Sierra and Sugar Pine websites offer offsite catering services under the heading of FOOD. Sugar Pine offers offsite catering with menus for parties of 10, and individual meals paid for separately. This is in direct conflict with the catering prohibitions in Lease Section 7.13. This section continues, “Sierra agrees to limit its services under this agreement to the facilities at the golf course and will not under the auspices of this agreement provide catering services off of the golf course facility.” Use of the golf course kitchen for offsite food sales violates the catering prohibitions of the Lease. The last paragraph in Section 7.3 states: “Sierra shall have the exclusive rights, license, duty, and privilege to utilize the food and beverage concessions facilities within the restaurant and banquet building and patio at the Golf Course.” Kitchen use for offsite food and beverage delivery and sales is expressly prohibited. The City has not enforced this prohibition.
The ABC issued Sugar Pine a temporary permit to serve liquor from the bar. The ABC cannot issue a liquor license until the City signs off on the Sierra-Sugar Pine agreement. In 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
9 March 2023, the City confirmed Sugar Pine has a temporary permit to serve liquor, and that there is no agreement between the City and Sugar Pine. The City states the only golf course agreement it has is the one with Sierra. Sugar Pine only has a “temporary permit” to serve alcohol because it has failed to submit its agreement with Sierra to the ABC. According to the ABC, the City as the property owner would have to approve any Sierra - Sugar Pine agreement making Sugar Pine the liquor operator before the ABC can change the temporary permit into a license. The City has never requested the Sierra – Sugar Pine agreement.
VII. Reporting Revenue Generated by the Golf Course – The City is Omitted from Most Revenue.
Lease Section 4.4 Permitted Uses - The “permitted uses” is a list of services and activities Sierra offers at the facility. “All revenue generated by Sierra shall be the property of Sierra including one hundred percent of all gross receipts from the sale of green fees, green fees packages, golf equipment, soft goods, supplies, lessons, driving range, cart fees, and food, beverage and banquet operations.”
Sierra advertises various golf – green fee packages ranging from weekly to annually.
These require payment to Sierra of upfront fees, and other monthly/annual fees. These programs require annual payments which range from $1,919 to $4800. Golfing activities and accessories such as golf carts, training, lessons, booking for tournaments, etc., are available.
None of the income from any of these specific activities is shared with the City.
VIII. Confusing Lease Definitions for Sierra Income and Rounds of Golf Played.
Lease Section 5.3. Per Round Rate. States, “per round rate shall be applied to all golf course rounds played in which Sierra received revenue or compensation from golfers.” Reviewing Lease Section 4.4 herein above, green fee packages are 100 percent Sierra income and are not shared with the City. Revenue from membership, green fee packages, or member players are not identified in Sierra’s monthly reports as revenue it received in that month. (See Lease Section 5.4.)
It is unclear if the City has or has not received revenue for each round of golf played where a “green fee package” or membership was sold instead of a day-player, day-payer. This is because the Sierra monthly reports show -0- under “sales” for member rounds of golf. The “sale 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
10 of green fees, green fee packages” are 100 percent excluded from City payments. Each monthly report provided by Sierra to City shows -0- sales in the member column for rounds of golf played by members in that month.
Reporting by Sierra is an honor system based on mutual trust. The City has never done an audit of the Golf Course financial reports. According to City personnel, if an audit was ever conducted, it was an analytical audit. An analytical audit is the historical comparisons of the monthly reports for different years. These audits do not verify the facts and figures listed in prior or current monthly/yearly reports, only the historical trends compared.
Findings:
F 1 The MCGJ finds that the City’s golf course Budget reports are misleading. This gives the City Council and the public a false understanding of the actual Net Surplus in the City Budget.
F 2 The MCGJ finds that Lease Exhibit A and Exhibit B are obsolete.
F 3 The MCGJ finds that the record-keeping requirements of the Lease are not being met.
F 4 The MCGJ finds that the City appointed the Parks Director to coordinate with Sierra for this golf course planning and oversight role.
F 5 The MCGJ finds that the City has failed to exercise reasonable oversight and enforcement over the golf course maintenance and capital improvements.
F 6 The MCGJ finds that the Lease requires that logos and name “Madera Municipal Golf Course” must always be used for all signage, announcements, menus, events, websites, etc. The MCGJ finds that the logos and word “Municipal” have been often omitted from required usage.
F 7 The MCGJ finds that use of the golf course kitchen for catering from the golf course, is offered on both Sierra and Sugar Pine websites. Catering from the golf course is Prohibited and is a breach of the Lease.
F 8 The MCGJ finds that in 2021-23 the City gave Sierra unnecessary financial concessions due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
F 9 The MCGJ finds that Lease section 4.4 unnecessarily excludes the City from receiving any revenue from the described activities.
F 10 The MCGJ finds that there are no United States Golf Association reports as required by the Lease.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
11 Recommendations
R 1 The MCGJ recommends that the City Finance Director correct and clarify all budget entries by December 31, 2023.
R 2 The MCGJ recommends that the City of Madera immediately rewrite a new contract for the lease, management, and operation of the Madera Municipal Golf Course.
R 3 The MCGJ recommends “Detailed” records of Capital Improvements and Maintenance expenditures and the USGA advice reports, be kept by the City for public viewing and for at least five years or as required by law.
R 4 The MCGJ recommends that Parks Director or other City Representative immediately begin to monitor and exercise oversight over the golf course Capital Improvement and Maintenance expenditures.
R 5 The MCGJ recommends that the City immediately specify the Maintenance and Capital Improvement categories as defined by USGA to eliminate confusion as to what Sierra is paying and/or has paid for golf course Capital Improvements and Maintenance.
R 6 The MCGJ recommends that the City immediately enforce the Lease provisions requiring the word ‘Municipal’ and all other name and logo requirements.
R 7 The MCGJ recommends that the City immediately review its position on catering. When making any decision, the City should determine its original purpose for prohibiting offsite food service and catering. City should enforce the agreement or allow the use.
R 8 The MCGJ recommends that the City immediately negotiate for concessions it made during Covid-19. The City should consider increasing its share of revenue by participating in all of Sierra’s income excluded from the City in Lease Section 4.4.
R 9 The MCGJ recommends that a new Lease be drafted immediately deleting all obsolete terms which unnecessarily exclude the City from City revenue.
R 10 The MCGJ recommends that the City should immediately make the USGA mandatory annual reports available for public review.
Required Responses Pursuant to Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the Madera County Grand Jury requests responses as follows:
From the following elected county officials within 60 days:
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
12 Mayor of Madera
Madera City Hall
205 West 4th Street
Madera, CA 93637
Madera City Council
Madera City Hall
205 West 4th Street
Madera, CA 93637
Invited Responses Pursuant to Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the grand jury requests responses as follows:
From the following governing bodies within 90 days:
City Manager
Madera City Hall
205 West 4th Street
Madera, CA 93637
Director of Parks and Community Services
John W. Wells Youth Center
701 East 5th Street
Madera, CA 93638
Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury.