Agenda packet — Madera City Council, August 20, 2025 (part 3 of 4)

ARTICLE XXII – REFUNDS UPON WITHDRAWAL OR INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION ..................... 11 ARTICLE XXIII – TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY............................................................................. 11 ARTICLE XXIV – AUDIT ................................................................................................................... 12 ARTICLE XXV - ARBITRATION ......................................................................................................... 12 ARTICLE XXVI – BINDING EFFECT OF BYLAWS, MASTER PLAN DOCUMENTS, AND MEMORANDA OF COVERAGE .................................................................................................. 12 ARTICLE XXVII - ENCORCEMENT ................................................................................................... 12 ARTICLE XXVIII - AMENDMENTS ................................................................................................... 13 ARTICLE XXIX - NOTICES ................................................................................................................ 13 ARTICLE XXX - COUNTERPARTS ..................................................................................................... 13 Joint Powers Agreement Page 1 Amended and Restated July 1, 2025

AMENDED AND RESTATED JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT

FOR INSURANCE AND RISK MANAGEMENT PURPOSES
THIS AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT, dated for convenience this 1st day of July 2025, made and entered into by, between, and among those Member Cities which become parties to this Agreement by action of their governing boards adopting a resolution agreeing to participate in the joint powers entity created by the terms and conditions of this Agreement; RECITALS:

WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 6500, et. seq. provides that two or more public agencies may, by agreement, exercise any power common to the contracting parties; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Sections 990 and 990.4 provide that a local entity may self-insure, purchase insurance through an authorized insurer, purchase insurance through a surplus line broker, or any combination thereof; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 990.8 provides that two or more local public entities, by a joint powers agreement, may provide insurance for any authorized purpose by any one or more of the methods specified in Section 990.4; and WHEREAS, Article XVI, Section 6, of the California Constitution provides that insurance pooling arrangements under joint exercise of powers agreements shall not be considered the giving or lending of credit as prohibited therein; and
WHEREAS, each of the cities which are parties to this Agreement desires to join together with other cities in order to collectively self-insure or pool their losses and to jointly purchase insurance and administrative services in connection with Joint Protection Programs for said cities; and
WHEREAS, the Tulare-Kings Municipal Risk Management Authority, a public entity, was created by an initial Agreement dated April 1, 1979, among various cities within the Counties of Tulare and Kings; and
WHEREAS, the name of the organization was changed to the Central San Joaquin Valley Risk Management Authority on July 1, 1981; and
WHEREAS, the initial Agreement was amended on January 1, 1985, and July 1, 1994, by a two-thirds vote of the Member Cities' city councils; and WHEREAS, said Member Cities have determined that it is again appropriate and in the public interest to make certain technical corrections and additions to this Agreement which will provide clarification and will permit the governing body to meet a minimum of two times a year to conduct that business which only the governing body may act upon; and Joint Powers Agreement Page 2 Amended and Restated July 1, 2025 WHEREAS, it is therefore necessary to amend said Joint Powers Agreement; and WHEREAS, said Agreement provides that amendments to the Agreement may be made by a vote of two-thirds (2/3rds) of the Member Cities by resolution of the City Councils of said Cities:

NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the execution of this Agreement by twothirds (2/3rds) of the Member Cities, each of the Member Cities which are parties hereto does hereby adopt this amended and restated Agreement, dated July 1, 2025, which concurrently supersedes that certain Agreement creating the Authority, dated April 1, 1979, and all amendments thereto.

ARTICLE I

Joint Powers Agreement Page 3 Amended and Restated July 1, 2025 "Fiscal Year" shall mean the period July 1 to June 30 of each year. "Insurance" shall mean any commercial insurance coverage. "Insurance Premium" shall mean those funds charged for the payment of group purchased insurance.
"Joint Protection Programs" shall mean any program to provide risk sharing or insurance coverage under this Agreement and shall include a determination as to the amount of initial Insurance Premiums and/or Deposit Premiums, a precise allocation plan and formula, and a determination of the amount and type, if any, of excess insurance to be purchased. Included within the term Joint Protection Program is the identification of exposures to accidental loss, the reduction or limitation of losses to Member City properties and from injuries to persons or property caused by the operations of Member Cities and the funding of those risks, together with any other functions appropriate or necessary to the functioning of the Joint Protection Program. "Master Plan Document" shall mean the document, formally adopted by the Executive Committee, setting forth the operations, policies, and provisions of a self-insured or pooled coverage program, which shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

1. The scope of the program;

2. The procedures to be followed;

3. Who may participate;

4. Any limits or restrictions;

5. How Deposit Premiums are determined;

6. How refunds, if any, are determined;

7. Commitments required by participants; and

8. How the document may be amended.
"Member City" shall mean a city which is an incorporated municipality organized with a council, City Manager/Administrator form of government, which has been approved for participation in the Authority by the Executive Committee in accordance with applicable provisions of the Agreement and the Bylaws and has signed the Agreement. "Operating Fund" shall mean the fund established by the Authority for the purpose of paying just demands submitted to the Authority.
"Representative" shall mean the person, designated in writing by the Member City to represent and act for and on behalf of the Member City regarding any matter before the Authority's Board or Executive Committee. The Representative must be either: (a) the City Manager/Administrator or (b) a person designated by the City Manager/Administrator who holds a management/organizational position with the Member City and whose responsibilities include all or part of the Member City’s risk management functions (i.e., finance, human resources, claims/losses, insurance, and safety/risk control).

Joint Powers Agreement Page 4 Amended and Restated July 1, 2025 "Self-Insurance" shall mean the process whereby the Authority maintains sufficient reserves to pay all claims and associated expenses of a risk exposure without purchasing insurance to cover the risk or a portion of the risk.

ARTICLE II

PURPOSES
The purpose of this Agreement is to provide joint powers common to each Member City for insurance purposes; to pool self-insured claims and losses, to purchase or participate in excess pooling or excess insurance coverage, and to provide related administrative services including risk management, consulting, actuarial services, claims adjusting and legal defense services; to implement risk management principles; and to provide for the future inclusion of additional incorporated municipalities desiring to become parties to the Agreement.

ARTICLE III

CREATION OF JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
Pursuant to Section 6500, et. seq. of the California Government Code, the Authority is a public entity separate and apart from the parties to this Agreement. Pursuant to Government Code Section 6508.1, the debts, liabilities, and obligations of this joint powers authority shall not constitute debts, liabilities, or obligations of any party to this Agreement.

It is the express understanding of all parties that the Authority created originally on or about April 1, 1979, is the same Authority continued under this Agreement, even though some powers and procedures may be changed by this Agreement.

The Authority, its Board, officers, membership, and staff shall be governed by this Agreement, the Bylaws, Master Plan Documents, Memoranda of Coverage, and other documents duly adopted by the Authority.

ARTICLE IV

PARTIES TO AGREEMENT
Each city which has applied to and been accepted as a member of the Authority is a party to the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement. Each party to the Agreement shall be bound by this Agreement when two-thirds (2/3rds) of the city councils of the Member Cities have adopted this amended and restated Agreement. A party to this Agreement certifies that it intends to and does contract with the Authority and with all other Member Cities which have signed this Agreement and, in addition, with each city which may hereafter be added as a party to and may sign this Agreement. Each city which has or may hereafter sign this Agreement also certifies that the deletion of any city from the Authority by voluntary withdrawal, involuntary termination, or otherwise, shall not affect this Agreement nor each Member City's intent to contract as described above with the then remaining Member Cities.

Joint Powers Agreement Page 5 Amended and Restated July 1, 2025 Each city which is a member of the Authority at the time this amended and restated Agreement is adopted by two-thirds (2/3rds) of the Member Cities, certifies that it intends to and does hereby contract with the Authority and with all other current Member Cities, and in addition, with each city which may hereafter be added as a party to and may sign this Agreement.

ARTICLE V

MEMBERSHIP
A. ELIGIBILITY
To be a member of this Authority, a city must be an incorporated municipality which is characterized by having professional management as typified by a bona fide Council Manager/Administrator form of government and must be approved for participation in the Authority in the manner provided by the Bylaws.

B. NEW MEMBERS
Eligible incorporated municipalities may become a party to this Agreement pursuant to the Bylaws of the Authority.

ARTICLE VI

TERM OF AGREEMENT
This Agreement, as amended and restated, shall become effective when approved by two thirds (2/3rds) of the respective City Councils of the Member Cities. When effective, this Agreement, as may be amended from time to time, shall continue thereafter until terminated as herein provided.

This Agreement shall become effective as to any new Member City in accordance with the Bylaws and Master Plan Documents of the Authority.

ARTICLE VII

POWERS OF THE AUTHORITY
Pursuant to and to the extent required by Government Code section 6509, the Authority shall be restricted in the exercise of its powers in the same manner as the City of Ripon is restricted in the exercise of its powers. In the event the City of Ripon shall cease to be a Member of the Authority, then the Authority shall be restricted in the exercise of its powers in the same manner as the City of Madera.

The Authority is hereby authorized to do all acts necessary or appropriate for the exercise of said powers, including, but not limited to any or all of the following:

1. Make and enter into contracts;
Joint Powers Agreement Page 6 Amended and Restated July 1, 2025

2. Incur debts, liabilities, and obligations, but no debt, liability, or obligation of the Authority is a debt, liability, or obligation of a Member City except as otherwise provided;

3. Assess Member Cities as deemed appropriate by the Executive Committee;

4. Acquire, hold, or dispose of real and personal property;

5. Receive contributions and donations of property, funds, services, and other forms of assistance from any source;

6. Sue and be sued in its own name;

7. Employ agents and employees;

8. Acquire, construct, manage, and maintain buildings;

9. Lease real or personal property, including property of a Member City; and

10. To exercise all powers necessary and proper to carry out the terms and provisions of this Agreement or otherwise authorized by law.

This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

ARTICLE VIII

BOARD OF DIRECTORS
A. STRUCTURE
The Authority shall be governed by a Board composed of one Representative from each Member City, each serving in an individual capacity as a member of the Board. Each Member City shall appoint one Representative. Appointments shall be limited to the City Manager/Administrator of each Member City or his/her authorized delegate. Each Member City shall also appoint one alternate Representative. The alternate Representative may attend and may participate in any meeting of the Board. When the regular Representative for whom he/she is an alternate is absent from the meeting, the alternate Representative may vote. Each Representative serves at the pleasure of the Member City being represented. Each Representative has one vote as the member of the Board.

Representatives are not entitled to compensation. However, the Executive Committee may authorize reimbursement for expense incurred by a Representative in connection with his/her duties for the Authority.

B. MEETINGS OF THE BOARD
The Board shall hold at least two meetings each year. The Executive Committee shall determine the date upon which and the hour and place at which each regular meeting is to be held.

The President may call for a special meeting of the Board in compliance with open meeting laws in the State of California or a majority of the Representatives may call for a special Joint Powers Agreement Page 7 Amended and Restated July 1, 2025 meeting by filing a written request with the Secretary. The President must then set a date, time, and place for the meeting to be held within 30 days and must make provision for notice of the special meeting being given.

Each meeting of the Board, and each meeting of the Executive Committee, including, without limitation, regular, adjourned regular, and special meetings, shall be called, noticed, held, and conducted in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (Section 54950 et. seq. of the Government Code).

The Authority shall have minutes of regular and special meetings kept. As soon as possible after each meeting, copies of the minutes shall be forwarded to each Member City.

A majority of the members of the Board is a quorum for the transaction of business.

However, less than a quorum may adjourn from time to time. A vote of the majority of a quorum at a meeting is sufficient to take action, unless otherwise specified.

C. POWERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
The Board shall provide policy direction for the Executive Committee, the officers, and the Administrator. The Board may delegate any and all of its authority to the Executive Committee except the following:

1. Amendments to the Bylaws, which requires at least a two-thirds (2/3rds) vote of the Board;

2. Creation of any new Joint Protection Program;

3. Termination of any Joint Protection Program;

4. Expulsion of a Member City;

5. Adoption of an operating budget for the Authority;

6. Amendments to the Authority's Conflict of Interest Code; and

7. Authorization for the issuance, modification, or defeasance of bonds.

ARTICLE IX

BYLAWS AND REGULATIONS
The Board shall adopt Bylaws and general regulations not inconsistent with State law and this Agreement.

ARTICLE X

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
The Board shall establish an Executive Committee and delegate functions not otherwise reserved to the entire Board. The Executive Committee shall be appointed, have the powers, and hold meetings as set forth in the Bylaws.

Joint Powers Agreement Page 8 Amended and Restated July 1, 2025

ARTICLE XI

OFFICERS
The officers of the Authority shall consist of an elected President, First Vice President, and Second Vice President, and an appointed Administrator, Secretary, and Treasurer. Other offices may be created by the Bylaws, Master Plan Documents, or the Administrator, subject to the approval of the Board or the Executive Committee, as applicable. All offices shall be filled and have the powers and responsibilities as prescribed in the Bylaws or Master Plan Documents.

The functions of auditor/controller of the Authority shall be performed by the Authority’s officers or employees. The Treasurer and auditor/controller have the powers, duties, and responsibilities specified in Government Code Section 6505.6. The Authority shall purchase a bond which includes coverage for the duties performed by the Treasurer and the auditor/controller.

ARTICLE XII

JOINT PROTECTION PROGRAMS
A. The Executive Committee may at any time, and from time to time, offer to the Board for adoption such Joint Protection Programs as may be deemed desirable. All Member Cities shall participate in those mandatory Joint Protection Programs as set forth in the Bylaws.

All other Joint Protection Programs shall be optional. The Board shall establish the amount of Deposit Premium, determine the amount of loss reserve contribution, provide for the handling of claims, and otherwise establish the policies and procedures necessary to provide a particular Joint Protection Program for Member Cities.

B. Each Joint Protection Program shall remain separate and distinct from every other Joint Protection Program and the liability and obligations of each program, and its participating Member Cities shall not be a liability or obligation of another program or participating Member City of another program. A Member City's participation in one program shall not obligate it or its funds on deposit with the Authority, to the debts, obligations, or liabilities of any other program. Separate accounting shall be maintained for each Joint Protection Program.

ARTICLE XIII

RESERVE FUNDS
The Authority may establish a fund for the purpose of paying the losses and establishing a reserve to cover the retained portion of losses that may be insured against by the Authority or the Member Cities. The funds shall be invested in compliance with the Authority's Investment Policy and relevant state laws.

Refunds shall be made in accordance with the Master Plan Document for each program.

Joint Powers Agreement Page 9 Amended and Restated July 1, 2025

ARTICLE XIV

OPERATING FUND
The Authority shall establish an Operating Fund. The Operating Fund is for the purpose of paying insurance premiums, broker's fees, adjusting fees, consultant and legal fees, and such other items as are appropriate. Just demands for payment shall be made by warrants in compliance with the adopted budget. The warrants shall be paid as directed by the Executive Committee. The Board may establish such other funds as it considers appropriate which shall be maintained and invested in the same manner as the Operating Fund.

ARTICLE XV
BUDGET
The Board shall adopt a budget annually.

ARTICLE XVI

FUNDING AND PROCEDURES FOR CALCULATING

ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS
The provisions for funding and calculating annual contributions shall be as set forth in the Bylaws and the Master Plan Documents for each program.

ARTICLE XVII

RESPONSIBILITIES OF AUTHORITY
The Authority may perform or have performed the following functions in discharging its responsibilities under this Agreement:

1. Assist Member Cities in developing their risk management programs;

2. Participate in risk management advisory committees formed by Member Cities;

3. Provide loss prevention, safety, and security services;

4. Provide all program services as required by program Master Plan Documents;

5. Provide loss analysis control by use of statistical analysis, data processing, and record and file keeping services. The purpose of this information is to identify high exposure operations and to evaluate proper levels of self-retention and deductibles;

6. Conduct risk management audits to review the participation of each Member City in the program; and

7. Perform other functions as required by the Board for the purpose of accomplishing the goals of this Agreement.

Joint Powers Agreement Page 10 Amended and Restated July 1, 2025

ARTICLE XVIII

RESPONSIBILITIES OF MEMBER CITIES
The Member Cities have the following responsibilities:

1. Pay all financial obligations to the Authority within the time prescribed;

2. Appoint an individual to be responsible for coordinating the risk management activities of his/her Member City with the Authority;

3. Conduct its operations in a manner which enhances safety and loss control consistent with recommendations by Authority staff;

4. Carry out the duties and responsibilities as assigned or mandated by the Board of Directors and/or the Executive Committee which may include, but are not limited to, adherence to and/or adoption of policies and procedures, support of initiatives deemed necessary for the proper functioning of the Authority, and timely execution of tasks deemed necessary for the operation and governance of the Authority;

5. Report to the risk manager during the development stages the addition of new programs or the significant reduction or expansion of existing programs;

6. Permit and assist the Authority in conducting on-site safety and loss control inspections and/or safety or risk management audits as required by the Board;

7. Submit underwriting information requested by the Authority on a timely basis;

8. Provide accurate statistical data concerning the Member City to the Authority when requested;

9. Cooperate fully with the Authority in determining the cause of losses and in the settlement of losses;

10. Cooperate to the fullest extent with the Authority's Litigation Manager on matters of claims and the conduct of defense of claims; and

11. Comply with risk management requirements established under the authority of this Agreement.

ARTICLE XIX

WITHDRAWAL
Any Member City, at their sole discretion, may voluntarily withdraw from membership in the Authority only at the end of any fiscal year by notifying the Authority in writing six (6) months prior to the end of any fiscal year, or at any other time which is agreed to by the Board, unless otherwise prohibited in the Master Plan Document of any program. A notice of withdrawal shall be final and irreversible upon its receipt by the Authority unless the Board authorizes it to be rescinded by the Member City.

Joint Powers Agreement Page 11 Amended and Restated July 1, 2025

ARTICLE XX

INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION
A Member City may be removed from this Agreement by a two-thirds (2/3rds) vote of the Board for non-compliance with any provision of the governing documents. Such involuntary termination shall proceed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Bylaws.

ARTICLE XXI

CONTINUED LIABILITY
Upon any withdrawal or involuntary termination of a Member City, the said Member City shall continue to be responsible for any unpaid insurance premiums, deposit premiums, surcharges, administration costs, and claims and for any debts and assessments in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, the Bylaws, Resolutions, and the Master Plan Documents of Joint Protection Programs in which the Member City has participated.

ARTICLE XXII

REFUNDS UPON WITHDRAWAL OR INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION
In the event a Member City withdraws from the Authority or its membership is involuntarily terminated, said Member City shall thereafter be entitled to receive its unobligated share of monies held by the Authority, less any and all amounts owed the Authority whether contingent or not, by the said withdrawing or terminated Member City. The remainder of any funds held by the Authority for the withdrawing or terminating Member City subject to any retention amount as provided below, shall be the unobligated share and shall be refunded to the Member City and shall be accepted in full settlement and satisfaction against any claims the Member City may have against the Authority. The Authority shall require that sufficient funds are retained on deposit with the Authority to completely pay any and all unpaid insurance premiums, deposit premiums, surcharges, administration costs, or claims, including any amounts for unreported claims and maturity of claims against said withdrawing or terminating Member City, and the amount to be retained on deposit shall be determined by the Authority. Any and all rights, entitlements, benefits, and obligations after withdrawal or termination shall be subject to ongoing obligations and responsibilities agreed to by a Member City by agreeing to participate in any pooled Joint Protection Programs.

ARTICLE XXIII

Joint Powers Agreement Page 12 Amended and Restated July 1, 2025 The Board shall take whatever action is necessary or appropriate to cause these ongoing responsibilities to be discharged and to effectively close out the affairs of the Authority. Upon completion of the liquidation and dissolution of the Authority, the Authority shall pay to each city which was a member of the Authority at the time of termination its pro rata share based on a city's contribution to the Authority, as determined by an independent Certified Public Accountant which has audited the financial records of the Authority, of the remaining assets of the Authority and shall pay to each Member City all monies held by the Authority in the reserve funds of that Member City.

ARTICLE XXIV
AUDIT
The Authority shall obtain an annual certified audit of its accounts and financial records which shall be made by a Certified Public Accountant and shall conform to generally accepted auditing standards.

ARTICLE XXV

ARBITRATION
Any controversy between the parties hereto arising out of this Agreement shall be submitted to arbitration, and such arbitration shall comply with and be governed by the provisions of the California Arbitration Act, Sections 1280 through 1294.2 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.

ARTICLE XXVI

BINDING EFFECT OF BYLAWS, MASTER PLAN DOCUMENTS,

AND MEMORANDA OF COVERAGE
Each party to this Agreement by the execution hereof agrees to be bound by and to comply with all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Bylaws, the Master Plan Documents, Memoranda of Coverage, and any resolution adopted by the Authority, the Board of Directors, or the Executive Committee as they now exist or may hereafter be adopted or amended.

ARTICLE XXVII

ENFORCEMENT
The Authority is hereby granted authority to enforce this Agreement. In the event action is instituted by the Authority to enforce any term of this Agreement, the Bylaws, or the Master Plan Document of any program against any Member City, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred because of said action, in addition to other appropriate relief.

Joint Powers Agreement Page 13 Amended and Restated July 1, 2025

ARTICLE XXVIII

AMENDMENTS
This Agreement may be amended by written resolution approved and signed by two-thirds (2/3rds) of the respective city councils of the Member Cities that are parties to this Agreement. Upon signature of any amendment by two-thirds (2/3rds) of the Member Cities, any Member City failing or refusing to abide by such amendment may be involuntarily terminated as a party to this Agreement as provided herein.

ARTICLE XXIX

NOTICES
Notices under this Agreement shall be sufficient if delivered to the office of the Clerk or Secretary of the respective jurisdictions.

ARTICLE XXX

COUNTERPARTS
This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts and shall be as fully effective as though executed in one document.

Dated:

MEMBER CITY
BY:

Attachment 2: CSJVRMA Joint Powers Agreement as Amended and Restated effective July 1, 2025, red-line version

CENTRAL SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY

RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY

JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
AS AMENDED JULY 1, 20251994

CENTRAL SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY

JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ARTICLE I ......................................................................................................................................... 3 DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................................................... 3 ARTICLE II ........................................................................................................................................ 4 PURPOSES ....................................................................................................................................... 4 ARTICLE III ....................................................................................................................................... 4 CREATION OF JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY ..................................................................................... 4 ARTICLE IV ....................................................................................................................................... 5 PARTIES TO AGREEMENT ................................................................................................................ 5 ARTICLE V ........................................................................................................................................ 5 MEMBERSHIP .................................................................................................................................. 5 ARTICLE VI ....................................................................................................................................... 6 TERM OF AGREEMENT .................................................................................................................... 6 ARTICLE VII ...................................................................................................................................... 6 POWERS OF THE AUTHORITY .......................................................................................................... 6 ARTICLE VIII ..................................................................................................................................... 7 BOARD OF DIRECTORS .................................................................................................................... 7 ARTICLE IX ....................................................................................................................................... 8 BYLAWS AND REGULATIONS ........................................................................................................... 8 ARTICLE X ........................................................................................................................................ 8 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ................................................................................................................. 8 ARTICLE XI ....................................................................................................................................... 9 OFFICERS ......................................................................................................................................... 9 ARTICLE XII ...................................................................................................................................... 9 JOINT PROTECTION PROGRAMS ..................................................................................................... 9 ARTICLE XIII ................................................................................................................................... 10 RESERVE FUNDS ............................................................................................................................ 10 ARTICLE XIV ................................................................................................................................... 10 OPERATING FUND ......................................................................................................................... 10 ARTICLE XV .................................................................................................................................... 10 BUDGET ......................................................................................................................................... 10 ARTICLE XVI ................................................................................................................................... 10 FUNDING AND PROCEDURES FOR CALCULATING ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS ............................. 10 Joint Powers Agreement
Table of Contents

Page 2 ends

ARTICLE XVII .................................................................................................................................. 10 RESPONSIBILITIES OF AUTHORITY ................................................................................................ 11 ARTICLE XVIII ................................................................................................................................. 11 RESPONSIBILITIES OF MEMBER CITIES .......................................................................................... 11 ARTICLE XIX ................................................................................................................................... 12 WITHDRAWAL ............................................................................................................................... 12 ARTICLE XX .................................................................................................................................... 12 INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION ...................................................................................................... 12 ARTICLE XXI ................................................................................................................................... 12 CONTINUED LIABILITY ................................................................................................................... 12 ARTICLE XXII .................................................................................................................................. 12 REFUNDS UPON WITHDRAWAL OR INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION ............................................. 12 ARTICLE XXIII ................................................................................................................................. 13 TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY ...................................................................................................... 13 ARTICLE XXIV ................................................................................................................................. 13 AUDIT ............................................................................................................................................ 14 ARTICLE XXV .................................................................................................................................. 14 ARBITRATION ................................................................................................................................ 14 ARTICLE XXVI ................................................................................................................................. 14 BINDING EFFECT OF BYLAWS, MASTER PLAN DOCUMENTS, AND MEMORANDA OF COVERAGE14 ARTICLE XXVII ................................................................................................................................ 14 ENFORCEMENT ............................................................................................................................. 14 ARTICLE XXVIII ............................................................................................................................... 14 AMENDMENTS .............................................................................................................................. 14 ARTICLE XXIX ................................................................................................................................. 15 NOTICES ........................................................................................................................................ 15 ARTICLE XXX .................................................................................................................................. 15 COUNTERPARTS ............................................................................................................................ 15 Joint Powers Agreement Page 1 Amended July 1, 20251994

AMENDED JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT

FOR INSURANCE AND RISK MANAGEMENT PURPOSES
THIS AMENDED AGREEMENT, dated for convenience this 1st day of July, 20251994, made and entered into by, between, and among those Member Cities which become parties to this Agreement by action of their governing boards adopting a resolution agreeing to participate in the joint powers entity created by the terms and conditions of this Agreement; RECITALS:

WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 6500, et. seq. provides that two or more public agencies may, by agreement, exercise any power common to the contracting parties; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Sections 990 and 990.4 provide that a local entity may self-insure, purchase insurance through an authorized insurer, purchase insurance through a surplus line broker, or any combination thereof; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 990.8 provides that two or more local public entities, by a joint powers agreement, may provide insurance for any authorized purpose by any one or more of the methods specified in Section 990.4; and WHEREAS, Article XVI, Section 6, of the California Constitution provides that insurance pooling arrangements under joint exercise of powers agreements shall not be considered the giving or lending of credit as prohibited therein; and
WHEREAS, each of the cities which are parties to this Agreement desires to join together with other cities in order to collectively self-insure or pool their losses and to jointly purchase insurance and administrative services in connection with Joint Protection Programs for said cities; and
WHEREAS, the Tulare-Kings Municipal Risk Management Authority, a public entity, was created by an initial Agreement dated April 1, 1979, among various cities within the Counties of Tulare and Kings; and
WHEREAS, the name of the organization was changed to the Central San Joaquin Valley Risk Management Authority on July 1, 1981; and
WHEREAS, the initial Agreement was amended on January 1, 1985 and July 1, 1994 by a two-thirds vote of the Member Cities' city councils; and Joint Powers Agreement Page 2 Amended July 1, 20251994
WHEREAS, said Member Cities have determined that it is again appropriate and in the public interest to make certain technical corrections and additions to this Agreement which will provide clarification and will permit the governing body to meet a minimum of two times a year to conduct that business which only the governing body may act upon; and WHEREAS, it is therefore necessary to amend said Joint Powers Agreement; and WHEREAS, said Agreement provides that amendments to the Agreement may be made by a vote of two-thirds (2/3rds) of the Member Cities by resolution of the City Councils of said Cities:

NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the execution of this Agreement by twothirds (2/3rds) of the Member Cities, each of the Member Cities which are parties hereto does hereby adopt this amended Agreement, dated July 1, 20251994, which concurrently supersedes that certain Agreement creating the Authority, dated April 1, 1979, and all amendments thereto.

Joint Powers Agreement Page 3 Amended July 1, 20251994

ARTICLE I

DEFINITIONS
The following words, when typed in bold print within the provisions of this Agreement, shall have the following definitions:
"Administrator" shall mean that person or group appointed by the Executive Committee and given responsibility for the management, administration, and operation of the Authority.
“Agreement” shall mean the Joint Powers Agreement creating the Central San Juoaquin Valley Risk Management Authority.
"Authority" shall mean the Central San Joaquin Valley Risk Management Authority, aka the RMA.
"Board of Directors" or "Board" shall mean the governing body of the Authority. "Broker" shall mean the insurance broker hired by the Executive Committee to acquire insurance coverage.
"Claims" shall mean demands made against the Authority arising out of occurrences which are claimed to be within one of the Authority'sJoint Protection Programs as developed by the Board.
"Deposit Premium" shall mean the annual dollar amount determined by the Board of Directors payable by each Member City for the purpose of self-insurance coverage, excess insurance premiums, and administrative costs, charged for the purpose of carrying out the powers of the Authority. those funds charged for the purpose of self-insured coverage. "Executive Committee" shall mean the elected officers and the representatives appointed by each region to represent that region.
"Fiscal Year" shall mean the period July 1 to June 30 of each year. "Insurance" shall mean any commercial insurance coverage. "Insurance Premium" shall mean those funds charged for the payment of group purchased insurance.
"Joint Protection Programs" shall mean any program to provide risk sharing or insurance coverage under this Agreement and shall include a determination as to the amount of initial Insurance Premiums and/or Deposit Premiums, a precise allocation plan and formula, and a determination of the amount and type, if any, of excess insurance to be purchased. .

Included within the term Joint Protection Program is the identification of exposures to accidental loss, the reduction or limitation of losses to Member City properties and from injuries to persons or property caused by the operations of Member Cities and the funding Joint Powers Agreement Page 4 Amended July 1, 20251994
of those risks, together with any other functions appropriate or necessary to the functioning of the Joint Protection Program.
"Master Plan Document" shall mean the document, formally adopted by the Executive Committeeparticipating Member Cities, containing the provisions setting forth the operations, policies, and provisions of a self-insured or pooled coverage program, which shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

1. The scope of the program;

2. The procedures to be followed;

3. Who may participate;

4. Any limits or restrictions;

5. How Deposit Premiums are determined;

6. How refunds, if any, are determined;

7. Commitments required by participants; and

8. How the document may be amended.
"Member City" shall mean a city which is an incorporated municipality organized with a council, City Manager/Administrator form of government, which has been approved for participation in the Authority by the Executive Committee in accordance with applicable provisions of the Agreement and the Bylaws, and has signed the Agreement. "Operating Fund" shall mean the fund established by the Authority for the purpose of paying just demands submitted to the Authority. ;
"Representative" shall mean the person, normally the City Manager/Administrator of the Member City , who has been designated in writing by the Member City to represent and act for and on behalf of the Member City regarding any matter before the Authority's Board or Executive Committee. The Representative must be either: (a) the City Manager/Administrator or (b) a person designated by the City Manager/Administrator who holds a management/organizational position with the Member City and whose responsibilities include all or part of the Member City’s risk management functions (i.e., finance, human resources, claims/losses, insurance, and safety/risk control). "Self-Insurance" shall mean the process whereby the Authority maintains sufficient reserves to pay all claims and associated expenses of a risk exposurearea without purchasing insurance to cover the risk or a portion of the risk.

ARTICLE II

PURPOSES
The purpose of this Agreement is to provide joint powers common to each Member City for insurance purposes; to pool self-insured claims and losses, to purchase or participate in excess pooling or excess insurance coverage, and to provide related administrative services including risk management, consulting, actuarial services, claims adjusting and legal defense services;and share risks; to implement risk management principles; and to provide for the future inclusion of additional incorporated municipalities desiring to become parties to the Agreement.

Joint Powers Agreement Page 5 Amended July 1, 20251994

ARTICLE III

CREATION OF JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
A.

Pursuant to Section 6500, et. seq. of the California Government Code, the Authority is a public entity separate and apart from the parties to this Agreement. Pursuant to Government Code Section 6508.1, the debts, liabilities, and obligations of this joint powers authority shall not constitute debts, liabilities, or obligations of any party to this Agreement.

B. It is the express understanding of all parties that the Authority created originally on or about April 1, 1979, is the same Authority continued under this Agreement, even though some powers and procedures may be changed by this Agreement.

C. The Authority, its Board, officers, membership, and staff shall be governed by this Agreement, the Bylaws, Master Plan Documents, Memoranda of Coverage, and other documents duly adopted by the Authority.

ARTICLE IV

PARTIES TO AGREEMENT
A. Each city which has applied to and been accepted as a member of the Authority is a party to the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement. . Each party to the Agreement shall be bound by this Agreement when two-thirds (2/3rds) of the city councils of the Member Cities have adopted this amended Agreement. . A party to this Agreement certifies that it intends to and does contract with the Authority and with all other Member Cities which have signed this Agreement and, in addition, with each city which may hereafter be added as a party to and may sign this Agreement. . Each city which has or may hereafter sign this Agreement also certifies that the deletion of any city from the Authority by voluntary withdrawal, involuntary termination, or otherwise, shall not affect this Agreement nor each Member City's intent to contract as described above with the then remaining Member Cities.

B. Each city which is a member of the Authority at the time this amended Agreement is adopted by two-thirds (2/3rds) of the Member Cities, certifies that it intends to and does hereby contract with the Authority and with all other current Member Cities, and in addition, with each city which may hereafter be added as a party to and may sign this Agreement.

ARTICLE V

MEMBERSHIP
A. ELIGIBILITY
Joint Powers Agreement Page 6 Amended July 1, 20251994
To be a member of this Authority, a city must be an incorporated municipality which is characterized by having professional management as typified by a bona fide Council Manager/Administrator form of government and must be approved for participation in the Authority in the manner provided by the Bylaws.

B. NEW MEMBERS
Eligible incorporated municipalities may become a party to this Agreement pursuant to the Bylaws of the Authority.

ARTICLE VI

TERM OF AGREEMENT
This Agreement, as amended, shall become effective when approved by two thirds (2/3rds) of the respective City Councils of the Member Cities. . When effective, this Agreement, as may be amended from time to time, shall continue thereafter until terminated as herein provided. . This Agreement shall become effective as to any new Member City in accordance with the Bylaws and Master Plan Documents of the Authority.

ARTICLE VII

POWERS OF THE AUTHORITY
A. The Authority shall have all of the powers common to Member Cities and all additional powers set forth in Section 6500, et. seq. and Section 989, et. seq. of the Government Code and other applicable law. The Authority shall have all of the rights, immunities, privileges, and defenses afforded each Member City and peculiar to the particular Member City being sued or against which there has been a claim.

Pursuant to and to the extent required by Government Code section 6509, the Authority shall be restricted in the exercise of its powers in the same manner as the City of Ripon is restricted in the exercise of its powers. In the event the City of Ripon shall cease to be a Member of the Authority, then the Authority shall be restricted in the exercise of its powers in the same manner as the City of Madera.

The Authority is hereby authorized to do all acts necessary or appropriate for the exercise of said powers, including, but not limited to any or all of the following:

1. to mMake and enter into contracts;

2. to iIncur debts, liabilities, and obligations, but no debt, liability, or obligation of the Authority is a debt, liability, or obligation of a Member City which is a part of this Agreementexcept as otherwise provided;
Joint Powers Agreement Page 7 Amended July 1, 20251994

3. to aAssess Member Cities as deemed appropriate for good cause as determined by the Executive Committee;

4. to aAcquire, hold, or dispose of real and personal property;

5. to rReceive contributions and donations of property, funds, services, and other forms of assistance from any sources;

6. to sSue and be sued in its own name;

7. to eEmploy agents and employees;

8. to aAcquire, construct, manage, and maintain buildings;

9. to lLease real or personal property, including propertythat of a Member City; and

10. to exercise all powers necessary and proper to carry out the terms and provisions of this Agreement or otherwise authorized by law.

B. Whenever in this Agreement any consent or approval is required, the same shall not be unreasonably withheld. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

ARTICLE VIII

BOARD OF DIRECTORS
A. STRUCTURE
The Authority shall be governed by a Board composed of one Representative from each Member City, each serving in an individual capacity as a member of the Board. . Each Member City shall appoint one Representative. . Appointments shall be limited to the City Manager/Administrator of each Member City or his/her authorized delegate. . Each Member City shall also appoint one alternate Representative. . The alternate Representative may attend and may participate in any meeting of the Board. . When the regular Representative for whom he/she is an alternate is absent from the meeting, the alternate Representative may vote. . Each Representative serves at the pleasure of the Member City being represented. . Each Representative has one vote as the member of the Board. . Representatives are not entitled to compensation. . However, the Executive Committee may authorize reimbursement for expense incurred by a Representative in connection with his/her duties for the Authority.

B. MEETINGS OF THE BOARD
The Board shall hold at least two meetings each year. . The Executive Committee shall determinefix by resolution the date upon which and the hour and place at which each regular meeting is to be held.

The President may call for a special meeting of the Board in compliance with open meeting laws in the State of California or a majority of the Representatives may call for a special meeting by filing a written request with the Secretary. . The President must then set a date, time, and place for the meeting to be held within 30 days and must make provision for Commented [JW1]: Meetings will continue to
be adopted by the EC, but in a less
formal manner than by resolution.

Joint Powers Agreement Page 8 Amended July 1, 20251994
notice of the special meeting being given.

The Authority shall have minutes of regular and special meetings kept. . As soon as possible after each meeting, copies of the minutes shall be forwarded to each Member City.

A majority of the members of the Board is a quorum for the transaction of business. .

However, less than a quorum may adjourn from time to time. . A vote of the majority of a quorum at a meeting is sufficient to take action, unless otherwise specified.

C. POWERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
The Board shall provide policy direction for the Executive Committee, the officers, and the Administrator. . The Board may delegate any and all of its authority to the Executive Committee except the following:

1. Amendments toTo change the Bylaws, which requires at least a two-thirds (2/3rds) vote of the Board;

2. To creation ofe any new Joint Protection Program;

3. To termination of ae any Joint Protection Program;

4. To expulsion ofel a Member City;

5. To adoption of an operating budget for the Authority;

6. To change or reviseAmendments to the Authority's Conflict of Interest Code; and

7. To Aauthorization for e the issuance, modification, or defeasance of bonds.

ARTICLE IX

BYLAWS AND REGULATIONS
The Board shall adopt Bylaws and general regulations not inconsistent with State law and this Agreement.

ARTICLE X

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

The Board shall establish an Executive Committee and delegate functions not otherwise reserved to the entire Board. . The Executive Committee shall be appointed, have the powers, and hold meetings as set forth in the Bylaws.

Joint Powers Agreement Page 9 Amended July 1, 20251994

ARTICLE XI

OFFICERS
The officers of the Authority shall consist of an elected President, First Vice President, and Second Vice President, and an appointed Administrator, Secretary, and Treasurer. . Other offices may be created by the Bylaws, Master Plan Documents, or the Administrator, subject to the approval of the Board or the Executive Committee, as applicable. . All offices shall be filled and have the powers and responsibilities as prescribed in the Bylaws or Master Plan Documents.

The president shall appoint someone other than the treasurer to perform the functions of auditor/controller of the Authority shall be performed by the Authority’s contracted administration firmofficers or employees or in-house staff, or the president may assume these functions as a collateral duty of the presidency. The auditor/controller must be a member of the Board. The Ttreasurer and auditor/controller have the powers, duties, and responsibilities specified in Government Code Section 6505.6. The Board shall require the treasurer and auditor/controller to file with the Authority an official bond in the amount to be fixed by the Board. The Authority shall pay the cost of bond premiums required by this section. The Authority shall purchase a bond which includes coverage for the duties performed by the Treasurer and the auditor/controller.

ARTICLE XII

JOINT PROTECTION PROGRAMS
A. The Executive Committee may at any time, and from time to time, offer to the Board for adoption such Joint Protection Programs as may be deemed desirable. . All Member Cities shall participate in those mandatory Joint Protection Programs as set forth in the Bylaws. .

All other Joint Protection Programs shall be optional. . The Board shall establish the amount of Deposit Premium, determine the amount of loss reserve contribution, provide for the handling of claims, and otherwise establish the policies and procedures necessary to provide a particular Joint Protection Program for Member Cities.

B. Each Joint Protection Program shall remain separate and distinct from every other Joint Protection Program and the liability and obligations of each program, and its participating Member Cities shall not be a liability or obligation of another program or participating Member City of another program. . A Member City's participation in one program shall not obligate it or its funds on deposit with the Authority, to the debts, obligations, or liabilities of any other program. . Separate accounting shall be maintained for each Joint Protection Program.

ARTICLE XIII

RESERVE FUNDS
The Authority may establish a fund for the purpose of paying the losses and establishing a reserve Commented [JR2]: Staff conformed this
section to reflect current
practices/align with 6505.6.

Joint Powers Agreement Page 10 Amended July 1,
20251994
to cover the retained portion of losses that may be insured against by the Authority or the Member Cities. . The funds treasurer shall be invested and reinvest the funds in compliance with the Authority's Investment Policy and relevant Sstate laws. and in the same manner as if they were Member City funds.

Refunds shall be made in accordance with the Master Plan Document for each program.

ARTICLE XIV

OPERATING FUND
The Authority shall establish an Operating Fund. The Operating Fund is for the purpose of paying insurance premiums, broker's fees, adjusting fees, consultant and legal fees, and such other items as are appropriate. . Just demands for payment shall be made by warrants in compliance with the adopted budget. . The warrants shall be paid as directed by the Executive Committee. . The Board may establish such other funds as it considers appropriate which shall be maintained and invested in the same manner as the Operating Fund.

ARTICLE XV
BUDGET
The Board shall adopt a budget annually.

ARTICLE XVI

FUNDING AND PROCEDURES FOR CALCULATING

ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS
The provisions for funding and calculating annual contributions shall be as set forth in the Bylaws and the Master Plan Documents for each program.

ARTICLE XVII

RESPONSIBILITIES OF AUTHORITY
The Authority may perform or have performed the following functions in discharging its responsibilities under this Agreement:

1. assist Member Cities in developing their risk management programs ;

2. participate in risk management advisory committees formed by Member Cities;

3. provide loss prevention, safety, and security services;

4. provide all program services as required by program Master Plan Documents ;

5. provide loss analysis control by use of statistical analysis, data processing, and Commented [JR3]: This change is to allow
for the potential formation of a captive
entity, and investment under other state
laws.

Commented [JR4]: The MPD will be amended to
provide for flexibility in the payment
of refunds. Recall board action to
ratify decisions of executive committee
in withholding refund amounts.

Joint Powers Agreement Page 11 Amended July 1,
20251994
record and file keeping services. . The purpose of this information is to identify high exposure operations and to evaluate proper levels of self-retention and deductibles;

6. conduct risk management audits to review the participation of each Member City in the program; and

7. perform other functions as required by the Board for the purpose of accomplishing the goals of this Agreement.

ARTICLE XVIII

RESPONSIBILITIES OF MEMBER CITIES
The Member Cities have the following responsibilities:

1. pay all financial obligations to the Authority within the time prescribed;

2. appoint an individual to be responsible for coordinating the risk management activities of his/her Member City with the Authority;

3. conduct its operations in a manner which enhances safety and loss control consistent with recommendations by Authority staff;

4. adopt a risk management program ;carry out the duties and responsibilities as assigned or mandated by the Board of Directors and/or the Executive Committee which may include, but are not limited to, adherence to and/or adoption of policies and procedures, support of initiatives deemed necessary for the proper functioning of the Authority, and timely execution of tasks deemed necessary for the operation and governance of the Authority;

5. establish a risk management advisory committee to work with the risk manager of the Authority;

6. maintain an active safety committee;

7. report to the risk manager during the development stages the addition of new programs or the significant reduction or expansion of existing programs;

8. permit and assist the Authority in conducting on-site safety and loss control inspections and/or safety or risk management audits as required by the Board;

9. submit DE3-DPs to the Authority concurrent with the submission dates established by the State of California;

10. submit underwriting information requested by the Authority on a timely basis;

11. provide accurate statistical data concerning the Member City to the Authority when requested;

12. cooperate fully with the Authority in determining the cause of losses and in the settlement of losses;

13. cooperate to the fullest extent with the Authority's Litigation Manager on matters of claims and the conduct of defense of claims; and

14. comply with risk management requirements established under the authority of this Agreement.

ARTICLE XIX
Commented [JW5]: This will be included in
the program master plan document
Joint Powers Agreement Page 12 Amended July 1,
20251994

WITHDRAWAL
Any Member City, at their sole discretion, may voluntarily withdraw from membership in the Authority only at the end of any fiscal year by notifying the Authority in writing six (6) months prior to the end of any fiscal year, or at any other time which is agreed to by the Board, unless otherwise prohibited in the Master Plan Document of any program. . A notice of withdrawal shall be final and irreversible upon its receipt by the Authority unless the Board authorizes it to be rescinded by the Member City.

ARTICLE XX

INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION
A Member City may be removed from this Agreement by a two-thirds (2/3rds) vote of the Board for non-compliance with any provision of the governing documents. . Such involuntary termination shall proceed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Bylaws.

ARTICLE XXI

ARTICLE XXII

REFUNDS UPON WITHDRAWAL OR INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION
A. In the event a Member City withdraws from the Authority or its membership is involuntarily terminated, said Member City shall thereafter be entitled to receive its unobligated share of monies held by the Authority, less any and all amounts owed the Authority whether contingent or not, by the said withdrawing or terminated Member City. . The remainder of any funds held by the Authority for the withdrawing or terminating Member City subject to any retention amount as provided below, shall be the unobligated share and shall be refunded to the Member City and shall be accepted in full settlement and satisfaction against any claims the Member City may have against the Authority. . The Authority shall require that sufficient funds are retained on deposit with the Authority to completely pay any and all unpaid insurance premiums, deposit premiums, surcharges, administration costs, or claims, including any amounts for unreported claims and maturity of claims against said withdrawing or terminating Member City, and the amount to be retained on deposit shall be determined by the Authority. . Any and all rights, entitlements, benefits, and obligations after withdrawal or termination shall be subject to ongoing obligations and responsibilities agreed to by a Member City by agreeing to Joint Powers Agreement Page 13 Amended July 1,
20251994
participate in any pooled Joint Protection Programs.

ARTICLE XXIII

TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY
The Authority may be terminated at any time if two-thirds (2/3rds) of the respective city councils of the then-Member Cities adopt a resolution requesting termination of the Authority; provided, however, that this Joint Powers Agreement and the Authority shall continue to exist for the purpose of disposing of all claims, concluding any pending litigations, for the liquidation and distribution of assets, and for all other functions necessary to conclude the affairs of the Authority. . The Board shall take whatever action is necessary or appropriate to cause these ongoing responsibilities to be discharged and to effectively close out the affairs of the Authority. . Upon completion of the liquidation and dissolution of the Authority, the Authority shall pay to each city which was a member of the Authority at the time of termination its pro rata share based on a city's contribution to the Authority, as determined by an independent Certified Public Accountant which has audited the financial records of the Authority, of the remaining assets of the Authority and shall pay to each Member City all monies held by the Authority in the reserve funds of that Member City.

ARTICLE XXIV
AUDIT
A. The Authority shall obtain an annual certified audit of its accounts and financial records which shall be made by a Certified Public Accountant and shall conform to generally accepted auditing standards.

Joint Powers Agreement Page 14 Amended July 1,
20251994

ARTICLE XXV

ARTICLE XXVI

BINDING EFFECT OF BYLAWS, MASTER PLAN DOCUMENTS,

ARTICLE XXVII

ENFORCEMENT
The Authority is hereby granted authority to enforce this Agreement. . In the event action is instituted by the Authority to enforce any term of this Agreement, the Bylaws, or the Master Plan Document of any program against any Member City, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred because of said action, in addition to other appropriate relief.

ARTICLE XXVIII

AMENDMENTS
This Agreement may be amended by written resolution approved and signed by two-thirds (2/3rds) of the respective city councils of the Member Cities that are parties to this Agreement. . Upon signature of any amendment by two-thirds (2/3rds) of the Member Cities, any Member City failing or refusing to abide by such amendment may be involuntarily terminated as a party to this Agreement as provided herein.

ARTICLE XXIX

NOTICES

Notices under this Agreement shall be sufficient if delivered to the office of the Clerk or Secretary of the respective jurisdictions.

Joint Powers Agreement Page 15 Amended July 1,
20251994

ARTICLE XXX

COUNTERPARTS
This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts and shall be as fully effective as though executed in one document.

Dated:

MEMBER CITY
BY:

REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
Approved by:

Council Meeting of: August 20, 2025
________________________________ Agenda Number: ___________ Alicia Gonzales, City Clerk
_________________________________
Arnoldo Rodriguez, City Manager
SUBJECT:

Certificate of Recognition Honoring Ginger Latimer Recipient of the Crystal Tower Award RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Minute Order Approving a Certificate of Recognition Honoring Ginger Latimer Recipient of the Crystal Tower Award
SUMMARY:

On August 2, 2023, the City Council adopted a policy governing the issuance of ceremonial documents, including certificates of recognition. The policy ensures a transparent and systematic process, requiring requests to be submitted in writing at least 45 days prior to the requested presentation date.

In this context, on August 11, 2025, the Madera County Superintendent of Schools requested a Certificate of Recognition for Ginger Latimer, recipient of the 2025 Crystal Tower Award. The award will be presented at Madera County Compact’s Annual Business and Education Shareholders Luncheon on August 26, 2025.

Nominated by Brandon Gilles, Director of Visual and Performing Arts for Madera Unified, Ms.

Latimer has continued to partner with the district and the Madera County Arts Council following her retirement. Through the Madera County Theatre Project, she has established a community theater, created career pathways for artists, provided student opportunities to work with professionals, and mentored new drama teachers.

Per the Ceremonial Documents policy, signatures shall be reserved for Councilmembers who vote in the affirmative. For Councilmembers that vote in the negative, their signature block shall be B-22
omitted from the ceremonial document unless they notify the City Clerk in writing otherwise at least five business days prior to the meeting when the Certificates will be issued.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There were nominal expenses for the preparation of this report or the proclamation. Costs related to custom supplies, such as proclamations, certificates, frames, and folders, have been purchased, and funds were appropriated in the adopted budget.

ALTERNATIVES:

If approved by a majority vote, staff will prepare the Certificate of Recognition for presentation Madera County Compact’s Annual Business and Education Shareholders Luncheon on August 26, 2025. In the alternative, Council may:
 Deferral for Further Discussion: Council may opt to defer the decision for further discussion, allowing additional time to address specific concerns or gather more information.
 Denial of Certificate of Recognition: If the majority vote is not in the affirmative or no action is taken, the request will be considered denied.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Email requesting a “Certificate of Recognition Honoring Certificate of Recognition Honoring Ginger Latimer Recipient of the Crystal Tower Award” from Madera County Superintendent of Schools.

From: Kimberly Vass
Subject: Certificate Request
Date: Monday, August 11, 2025 8:23:57 AM
Good Morning,
The Madera County Compact is pleased to present Ginger Latimer with the 2025 Crystal Tower Award recognizing her partnerships with schools in Madera County and the Madera Theater Project. Will your office please provide a certificate of recognition? The information for the recipient is below. The Crystal Tower Award will be presented at the Business and Education Shareholders’ Luncheon on Tuesday, August 26, 2025 at the Madera County Superintendent of Schools. Each year, the luncheon is held to honor local businesses that have developed and maintained exemplary partnerships with local schools.

Ginger Latimer
Madera Theater Project
Sorry for the late notice. We will need the certificates by August 22nd. Thank you in advance for providing certificates for this year’s Crystal Tower Awards! Please let me know if you have any questions.

Kim Vass
Special Events Assistant
Madera County Superintendent of Schools
559-662-3878 | [email protected]

REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
Approved by: Council Meeting of: August 20, 2025
_________________________________ Agenda Number: ___________ Keith Helmuth, City Engineer
_________________________________
Arnoldo Rodriguez, City Manager
SUBJECT:

Updated Intersection Control Evaluation Report for the Lake Street/4th Street/Central Avenue Intersection
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council (Council) consider the information within the Intersection Control Evaluation Report (Report) and provide direction to staff regarding course of future activity for this intersection.

SUMMARY:

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with the results of the updated Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) study for the Lake Street/4th Street/Central Avenue intersection and to seek direction on the preferred alternative for future improvements.

BACKGROUND:

The Lake Street/4th Street/Central Avenue intersection is a five-legged intersection currently operating with all-way stop control. In 2016, the City retained Omni-Means to evaluate longterm intersection control alternatives based on current and projected traffic volumes. In 2019, Omni-Means was acquired by GHD, Inc., which completed the original ICE study.

Three alternatives were considered:

1. Maintaining all-way stop control

2. Installation of a Traffic Signal

3. Installation of a Roundabout
These alternatives were presented at the February 19, 2020 Council meeting. At the time, Council directed staff to proceed with the design and construction of a traffic signal. This action occurred prior to the modifications to the Caltrans’ Downtown Madera Capital Preventive Approved by:
_________________________________
Keith Helmuth, City Engineer
Approved by:

C-1
Maintenance (CAPM) project that includes three roundabouts and a road diet along Yosemite Avenue. The roundabouts are scheduled to be installed at C, D, and Lake Streets. With the CAPM progressing, City staff returned to Council on August 21, 2024 to discuss how that project could potentially impact the Lake Street/4th Street/Central Avenue project. Staff was particularly concerned about the projected increased traffic impacts resulting from Caltrans’ project and after discussion, Council agreed and directed staff to revisit the roundabout option.

Subsequently, on October 2, 2024, Council approved $45,738 for Amendment No. 4 to the contract with GHD, Inc. to update the ICE study.

DISCUSSION:

GHD, Inc. updated the ICE using current (2024) traffic volumes and projected volumes for the 2045 design year. Forecasts indicate a 20 percent increase in traffic volume at the intersection over the next 20 years, primarily due to new development. The analysis focused on the AM (7-9 am) and PM (4-6 pm) peak hours using modeling and data from the Madera County Transportation Commission. The updated intent was to account for traffic impacts from the Yosemite Avenue road diet project.

The revised ICE evaluated three alternatives noted previously.

All alternatives were evaluated using Caltrans Traffic Operations Policy Directive 13-02, which considers all modes of transportation, system performance, and safety; not just traffic throughput.

Summary of Alternatives
No-Build Condition (i.e. Existing Condition)
Under existing 2024 conditions, the intersection generally functions at a Level of Service (LOS) of A in the AM peak hour and a LOS F in the PM peak hour, with growth pressures and the Yosemite Avenue road diet expected to increase congestion. By the 2045 design year, traffic volumes are projected to increase by approximately 20 percent. Without a traffic signal or roundabout, the intersection is expected to operate at LOS C in the AM peak and continue at LOS F in the PM peak, with queues exceeding available storage on several approaches. Due to the existing LOS F in the PM peak hour the City received Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funding to mitigate the heavy congestion at the five-way stop.

Traffic Signal Alternative
The Traffic Signal Alternative would replace the existing all-way stop control at the fivelegged Lake Street/4th Street/Central Avenue intersection with a signalized configuration and modified lane geometry. This alternative also includes closing the 4th Street leg east of the intersection. Reducing from a five-legged intersection to a four-legged one can improve safety, efficiency, and driver comprehension by simplifying traffic movements and reducing the number of potential conflict points where crashes can occur. Fewer legs also mean shorter signal cycles which can lower delays, improve traffic flow, and enhance pedestrian crossing safety with shorter crossing distances. Additionally, the reclaimed roadway space from removing one leg can be repurposed for landscaping or pedestrian amenities.

With the Traffic Signal Alternative, AM peak-hour delays in 2045 are anticipated to be a similar LOS as the No-Build Alternative however with less delays and PM peak-hour delays would improve significantly, with only the northbound Lake Street approach experiencing occasional spillback to the 5th Street intersection. This alternative would:
 Require the elimination of approximately 29 on-street parking spaces  Minor drainage modifications
 Relocation of a fire hydrant, and
 Acquisition of right-of-way at the northwest corner for a larger curb return.

The Traffic Signal Alternative would provide improvements during the PM peak at a lower cost than the Roundabout Alternative; however, it would not offer the same level of operational effectiveness.

Roundabout Alternative
The Roundabout alternative would reconfigure the intersection and construct a single lane roundabout that would accommodate the 2045 Design Year traffic volumes. This alternative would alter the intersection by constructing a circular central island and slightly widening the roadway at the approaches to the intersection. This alternative also includes closing the 4th Street leg east of the intersection. Reducing from a five-legged intersection to a four-legged one can improve safety, efficiency, and driver comprehension by simplifying traffic movements and reducing the number of potential conflict points where crashes can occur. Additionally, the reclaimed roadway space from removing one leg can be repurposed for landscaping or pedestrian amenities (Refer to Attachment 3 for the Updated Preliminary Layout). For the 2045 Design Year, the Roundabout Alternative would operate better than both the No-Build and Traffic Signal alternatives for both the AM and PM Peak Hours. Queuing would not exceed available storage and is an improvement over the other options. LOS is expected to be A for the AM and PM peak hours for the 2045 Design year.

The preliminary layout presented in 2020, based on a more traditional roundabout design, indicated full takes of three properties at the intersection. However, upon further revisions of the preliminary layout:
 The expected right-of-way (ROW) cost has reduced from the original estimate of $1,500,000 in 2020 to $59,200.
 There are no full property takes and the required ROW has much less impact on the existing properties.
 Approximately 40 on-street parking spaces would be eliminated with this alternative along all legs of the intersection to accommodate the revised configuration.  A raised median island would be constructed with this Alternative in all legs of the intersection to channel traffic. This would have an impact on the use of the two driveways south of the intersection on Lake Street by the property owners.  The existing drainage inlets at the intersection would require adjustments or relocation due to improvements with this alternative.

Safety Considerations
Safety considerations were included in the analysis. Safety is a key evaluation factor and one of the goals of the previously mentioned Caltrans Policy Directive 13-02 which is to identify projects that would ensure a reasonable level of safety and operational performance for all users.

Historically, the use of roundabouts has been demonstrated to be a proven safety strategy for improving intersection safety by eliminating or altering conflict types, reducing crash severity and causing drivers to reduce speeds as they proceed into and through the intersection. As a result of their geometric design elements, roundabouts have fewer conflicting points when compared to other intersection types. In a typical 4-legged intersection, traffic signals have 32 conflict points, whereas roundabouts have eight (8). Figure 1 below shows the various vehicle conflict points for signalized and roundabout-controlled intersections.

Figure 1
Vehicle Conflict Point Comparison
Project Cost Estimates
The City was awarded a Federal CMAQ grant to partially fund the project. Additional sources of funding include Local Transportation Funds (LTF), Measure T and Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) sources. Funding for this project has been programmed into Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 and FY 2026/27 CIP Budget at the higher project cost level. Table 1 summarizes the estimated project costs and Table 2 summarizes the funding sources for the project as established in the FY 2025/26 CIP.

Table 1: Costs per Alternative
Project Costs Traffic Signal Alternative Roundabout Alternative Project Costs (Design, Right of Way, & Construction)
Design, including staff costs $20,000 $480,000
Right of Way, including staff costs $41,200 $59,200
Construction, including staff costs $2,100,000 $3,200,000 Total $2,161,200 $3,739,200
Table 2: Funding Sources
Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) $451,458
Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) $107,026 Measure T $3,841,974
Local Transportation Funds (LTF) $47,000
Total $3,996,000
Comparison of Alternatives
The Traffic Signal alternative would perform better than the No-Build alternative in both the AM and PM peak hours, though queuing may impact the 5th Street intersection. To build the Traffic Signal alternative, additional ROW would be needed to construct a new curb return at the northwest corner. The Traffic Signal alternative would impact on-street parking. It is estimated that 29 parking spaces would need to be eliminated along the approach roadways to accommodate additional turn lanes. Construction costs are estimated at $2,100,000.

The Roundabout alternative would perform substantially better than the Traffic Signal alternative. The Roundabout alternative would cause the greatest impact on the intersection, however. Approximately 40 on-street parking spaces would be lost on the approach roadways to accommodate the proposed curb alignments and splitter islands. There is approximately 572 square feet in total of ROW that would need to be acquired from the five properties at the corners of the intersection. Construction costs are estimated at $3,200,000.

The Intersection Control Evaluation Report concludes that the Roundabout Alternative is the preferred option from an operational standpoint.

Lake and 4th Streets are designated as arterials in the City's General Plan. Per the original design intent associated with the widening of 4th Street, it was anticipated that when traffic volumes increase, 4th Street would be re-striped with 2 lanes in each direction. Such striping would cause the removal of on-street parking. While not part of a stated plan, it could be assumed that Lake Street, as an arterial might also have been restriped to four lanes along some or all segments. Of note, property owners along Lake Street do have parking areas that can be accessed from the alleys behind their homes.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

Project funding would come from a federal grant and local transportation funding sources mentioned previously. The FY 2025/26 CIP project budget is sufficient for the roundabout alternative based on the costs provided in the ICE. This project would not require funding from the City's General Fund.

ALTERNATIVES:

Three alternatives were analyzed with the Intersection Control Evaluation Report. Council may choose to direct staff to proceed with the Traffic Signal Alternative or Roundabout Alternative. If the Traffic Signal Alternative is selected Staff will proceed to finalize the 90% plans and move to construction. If the Roundabout Alternative is selected Staff will seek to retain a design consultant. Council may alternatively direct staff to provide more information and comparison of alternatives.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Updated Intersection Control Evaluation Report

2. 90% Design Layout – Traffic Signal Alternative

3. Updated Preliminary Layout – Roundabout Alternative

Attachment 1
Updated Intersection Control Evaluation Report

Intersection Control
Evaluation Report
Lake Street/4th Street/Central Avenue
City of Madera
June 19, 2025
The Power of Commitment
The Power of Commitment
Project name 4TH/LAKE/CENTRAL INTERSECT IMPR PH1
Document title Intersection Control Evaluation Report | Lake Street/4th Street/Central Avenue Project number 11144963
File name 11144963RPT005.docx
Status
Code
Revision Author Reviewer Approved for issue
Name Signature Name Signature Date
[Status
code]
[Status
code]
[Status
code]
[Status
code]
[Status
code]
GHD
Contact: Travis Low, Senior Engineer | GHD
1101 Monterey Street, Suite 120
San Luis Obispo, California 93401, United States
T +1 805 242 0461 | ghd.com

© GHD 2025
GHD | City of Madera | 11144963 | Intersection Control Evaluation Report i This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.

Contents

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Purpose 1

1.2 Project Setting and Land Uses 1

2. Screening Objectives 2

2.1 Project Analysis Scenarios 2

2.1.1 Existing Year (2024) 3

2.1.2 Design Year (2045) 4

2.2 Project Design Alternatives 4

2.2.1 No Build Alternative 4

2.2.2 Traffic Signal Alternatives 4

2.2.3 Roundabout Alternative 4

3. Screening Criteria 5

3.1 Traffic Operations Analysis 5

3.2 Analysis Factors 6

4. Capacity Analysis – No Build Alternative 7

4.1 Existing Year (2024) 7

4.2 Design Year (2045) 7

5. Build Alternatives Footprint Development & Assessment 8

5.1 Traffic Signal Alternatives 8

5.1.1 Traffic Signal Alternative 1 9

5.1.2 Traffic Signal Alternative 2 9

5.1.3 Traffic Signal Performance Checks 9

5.2 Roundabout Alternative 11

5.2.1 Roundabout Performance Checks 11

5.2.2 Fastest Path and Vehicle Speed Checks 14

5.2.3 Sight Distance 15

5.2.4 View Angles 16

6. Capacity Analysis – Build Alternatives 16

6.1 Traffic Signal Alternatives Analysis 16

6.1.1 Existing Year (2024) 16

6.1.2 Design Year (2045) 17

6.2 Roundabout Alternative Analysis 18

6.2.1 Existing Year (2024) 18

6.2.2 Design Year (2045) 19

6.3 Intersection LOS Summary 19

7. Safety Considerations 20

7.1 Historic Collision Data 20

7.2 Safety Analysis 20

7.2.1 Crash Modification Factors 20
GHD | City of Madera | 11144963 | Intersection Control Evaluation Report ii This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.

7.2.2 Number of Conflicting Points 21

7.2.3 Traffic Calming and Collision Severity 21

7.2.4 Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety 21

8. Alternatives Comparison 22

8.1 Traffic Signal Alternatives 22

8.2 Roundabout Alternative 22

9. Life-Cycle Analysis 23

9.1 Collision Costs 23

9.2 Capital Costs 23

9.2.1 Construction Costs 23

9.2.2 Right-of-Way Costs 23

9.3 Other Costs 24

9.3.1 Operation & Maintenance Cost 24

9.3.2 Landscape Maintenance Cost 24

9.3.3 Pavement Rehabilitation Cost 24

9.4 Environmental Considerations 25

9.5 Service Life 25

10. Summary of Findings 25

11. Conclusions 27
Table index
Table 3.1 Level of Service (LOS) Criteria 6
Table 4.1 No Build – Existing Year (2024) Peak Hour Traffic Operations 7 Table 4.2 No Build – Design Year (2045) Peak Hour Traffic Operations 8 Table 5.1 Fastest Path Speeds (MPH) 14
Table 5.2 Intersection Sight Distance 15
Table 5.3 Stopping Sight Distance to Entry 15
Table 5.4 Stopping Sight Distance to Pedestrian Crossing 16 Table 6.1 Traffic Signal 1 – Existing Year (2024) Peak Hour Traffic Operations 17 Table 6.2 Traffic Signal 2 – Existing Year (2024) Peak Hour Traffic Operations 17 Table 6.3 Traffic Signal 1 – Design Year (2045) Peak Hour Traffic Operations 18 Table 6.4 Traffic Signal 2 – Design Year (2045) Peak Hour Traffic Operations 18 Table 6.5 Roundabout – Existing Year (2024) Peak Hour Traffic Operations 19 Table 6.6 Roundabout – Design Year (2045) Peak Hour Traffic Operations 19 Table 6.7 Intersection LOS Summary 20
Table 7.1 Collision Data 20
Table 9.1 Preliminary Right-of-Way Impacts and Costs 24 Table 10.1 Alternative Performance Comparison 26
Table 10.2 Life Cycle Cost Comparison 27
GHD | City of Madera | 11144963 | Intersection Control Evaluation Report iii This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.

Figure index
Figure 1.1 Study Area 1
Figure 2.1 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 3
Figure 5.1 Traffic Signal Alternative Preliminary Layout 10 Figure 5.2 Roundabout Alternative Preliminary Layout 13 Figure 5.3 Fast Path Critical Speed Locations 14
Figure 7.1 Typical Conflict Points at Typical Intersections 21 Appendices
Appendix A Traffic Count Data Sheets
Appendix B Synchro Reports
Appendix C SIDRA Reports
Appendix D Layouts and Cost Estimates
GHD | City of Madera | 11144963 | Intersection Control Evaluation Report 1 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.

1. Introduction

1.1 Purpose
This document has been prepared to present the results of a conceptual alternatives analysis performed by GHD for the City of Madera in support of the Intersection Control Evaluation process. The analysis evaluates potential alternative improvements at the Lake Street/4th Street/Central Avenue intersection. Though this intersection is not on the State Highway System, this analysis has been conducted largely consistent with Caltrans guidelines for intersection improvements on the State Highway System while maintaining consistency with City policy.

The purpose of the study is to identify viable alternatives (project) to improve safety, reduce delay, and enhance mobility for all travel modes at the intersection of Lake Street/4th Street/Central Avenue. The project would need to improve traffic circulation, access, and safety for all modes of transportation. It would need to provide acceptable operations for existing traffic volumes as well as those anticipated with future development planned in the City and surrounding areas.

There are five approaches to the intersection as shown in Figure 1.1 and the 5-legged nature of this intersection presents unique design and operational challenges.

Figure 1.1 Study Area

1.2 Project Setting and Land Uses
The intersection of Lake Street/4th Street/Central Avenue is located in the northeast quadrant of the City of Madera, in the urbanized City limits, south of the Fresno River, east of Route 99 (Golden State Highway) and northwest of Route 145 (Yosemite Avenue). Lake Street serves as a north-south roadway in the City and is classified as an arterial north of Route 145, including through the study intersection. The southwest leg of 4th Street is an arterial and has a partial interchange with Route 99 about half a mile southwest of the study intersection. The northeast leg of 4th Street is a local road that terminates at Flume Street after one block. Central Avenue is an east/west collector street that extends from H Street to Lake Street.

GHD | City of Madera | 11144963 | Intersection Control Evaluation Report 2 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.

The primary land use directly adjacent to the study intersection is single family residential. Centennial Park is located northeast of the intersection at the end of 4th Street. It includes a pool, youth and community center, and a community garden. City of Madera Fire Station #56 is located north of the study intersection on Lake Street.

Although there are residential homes located at each corner of the intersection, there are not a significant number of driveways. Most properties in this area have vehicular access from rear alleys running parallel to the streets, minimizing impacts to property access from any street modifications.

The City offers fixed-route transit services, known as Madera Metro. Currently, none of the routes operate through the study intersection. The City’s current Transit Plan, approved in 2022, does not propose any routes that would operate through the study intersection.

Lake Street crosses the Fresno River approximately 400 feet north of the study intersection. The bridge at this location is a constraint and any impacts to it should be avoided.

2. Screening Objectives
Consistent with best practices, the objective of this report is to first determine which intersection control strategies are context-appropriate, practical to implement, and merit further consideration.

2.1 Project Analysis Scenarios
This section contains a brief description of the time frames for which the traffic operations analysis was conducted.

The project design alternatives (discussed within the next section) were analyzed for Existing Year (Year 2024) and Design Year (Year 2045) conditions. The analysis was conducted for both the Weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions. The peak hour turning movement volumes are summarized on Figure 2.1.

GHD | City of Madera | 11144963 | Intersection Control Evaluation Report 3 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.

Figure 2.1 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

2.1.1 Existing Year (2024)
Traffic volume counts for this study were collected when local schools were in session on Thursday, September 19, 2024, during the AM and PM peak periods. Pedestrian, cyclist, and truck volumes were measured as part of the counts, and peak hour factors were determined. These volumes were used as a base line for future year projections.

See Figure 2.1 for a summary of the turning movement volumes for the study intersection. The traffic count data sheets are included in Appendix A.

GHD | City of Madera | 11144963 | Intersection Control Evaluation Report 4 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.

Comparing the traffic data, there were about 35% more vehicles entering the intersection in the PM peak hour than the AM peak hour. The northwest-bound Lake Street and northeast-bound 4th Street approaches have significantly more vehicles in the PM peak hour than in the AM Peak Hour. The other three approach legs are more balanced between the two peak hours. The highest volume movement during the AM peak hour is southbound Lake Street turning right to 4th Street, whereas during the PM peak hour the opposite movement is the highest, northeast-bound 4th Street turning left to Lake Street.

There were 2 cyclists using the study intersection during the AM peak hour and 8 during the PM peak hour. There were 27 pedestrians using the intersection during the AM peak hour and 23 during the PM peak hour.

2.1.2 Design Year (2045)
GHD received year 2035 forecast volumes from the Madera County Transportation Commission (MCTC) Regional Travel Demand Model (RTDM) on February 22, 2017. The forecast volumes were link-based volumes; therefore, GHD converted the existing traffic count data to approach volumes, in order to compare them to the data provided by MCTC. The growth rates between 2017 traffic counts and MCTC's 2035 traffic forecast volumes were calculated for each leg of the intersection and were found to be about 4%.

As a 4%/year growth rate seemed high, GHD requested existing year volumes that were used in the MCTC RTDM.

GHD received the requested 2017 link-based traffic volumes from the RTDM and determined that these traffic volumes had an average annual growth rate of about 0-1.1% between the RTDM’s 2017 and 2035 volumes. Based on this determination, GHD used a 1% annual growth rate applied on the existing turning movements’ counts to the year 2045. See Figure 2.1 for the forecasted 2045 traffic volumes.

2.2 Project Design Alternatives
This study analyzes four alternatives. The first is a No Build Alternative that assumes existing lane geometrics and allway stop control. The second and third alternatives are signalization with modified lane geometrics. The fourth alternative is a yield-control roundabout with modified lane geometrics.

2.2.1 No Build Alternative
The No-Build Alternative leaves the existing lane geometrics and all-way stop-control in place.

2.2.2 Traffic Signal Alternatives
With these alternatives, the intersection is signalized and the lane geometrics have been modified to accommodate the Design Year volumes. The northeast leg of 4th Street will be terminated at the alley, and the intersection will only feature 4 legs. The Signal Alternatives general layout is shown on Figure 5.1 and is provided in Appendix D of this report.

2.2.3 Roundabout Alternative
This alternative would replace the intersection with a modern single lane roundabout designed to accommodate the Design Year traffic forecast volumes. The northeast leg of 4th Street will be terminated at the alley, and the intersection will only feature 4 legs. The Roundabout Alternative layout is shown on Figure 5.2 and is provided in Appendix D of this report.

GHD | City of Madera | 11144963 | Intersection Control Evaluation Report 5 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.

3. Screening Criteria
The traffic operations for the No-Build Alternative, Signal Alternatives, and Roundabout Alternative were analyzed for the Weekday AM and PM peak hours under existing (2024) and design (2045) year conditions.

Both the No-Build and Signal Alternatives were analyzed using Synchro 11 and SimTraffic analysis software. Synchro 11 is a macroscopic analysis and optimization application that reports the Level of Service (LOS) and delay as per the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition methodologies. SimTraffic is a traffic micro-simulation application that individually tracks and records each vehicle in the model simulating real world conditions. SimTraffic was used to record queuing characteristics for the No-Build and Traffic Signal Alternatives.

SIDRA analysis software was used for the Roundabout Alternative to determine the LOS, volume to capacity ratio (V/C), delay, and the 95th percentile queues. The volume to capacity ratio (V/C) compares roadway demand (vehicle volume) with roadway carrying capacity. A V/C of 1.00 indicates that a roadway facility is operating at full capacity.

3.1 Traffic Operations Analysis
Traffic operations have been quantified through the determination of LOS. LOS is a qualitative measure of traffic conditions, whereby a letter grade "A" through "F" is assigned to an intersection or roadway segment representing progressively worsening traffic conditions. LOS definitions for different types of intersection controls are outlined in Table 3.1.

GHD | City of Madera | 11144963 | Intersection Control Evaluation Report 6 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.

Table 3.1 Level of Service (LOS) Criteria
In the City's current General Plan Circulation and Infrastructure Element, adopted in 2009, Policy CI-22 states that "in the Downtown District (as defined in the Land Use Element of this General Plan), the City shall seek to maintain LOS D." The study intersection is located within the Downtown District; therefore, LOS "D" is assumed to represent the appropriate LOS target.

In addition to providing acceptable LOS and delay, a goal of the build alternatives will be to reduce standing queues on all approaches.

3.2 Analysis Factors
The following criteria are incorporated in the analysis in order to most accurately reflect intersection operating conditions:
– The peak hour factor (PHF) was calculated based on data from the traffic counts collected in September 2024.

The PHF represents how constant vehicle volumes are during the peak hour and is equal to the peak hour volume divided by 4 times the peak 15-minute volume. A PHF of 0.86 and 0.92 was used for the AM peak hour in Signalized/
Roundabout
SideStreet/AllWay Stop
Level of
Service
Type of
Flow Delay Maneuverability
Stopped Delay/Vehicle
A
Stable
Flow
Very slight delay. Progression is very favorable, with
most vehicles arriving during the green phase not
stopping at all.

Turning movements are easily made,
and nearly all drivers find freedom of
operation.
<10.0 <10.0
B
Stable
Flow
Good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More
vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of
average delay.

Vehicle platoons are formed. Many
drivers begin to feel somewhat
restricted within groups of vehicles.
>10.0
and
<20.0
>10.0
and
<15.0
C
Stable Flow
Higher delays resulting from fair progression and/or
longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may
begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles
stopping is significant, although many still pass
through the intersection without stopping.

Back-ups may develop behind
turning vehicles. Most drivers feel
somewhat restricted
>20.0
and
<35.0
>15.0
and
<25.0
D
Approaching
Unstable Flow
The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable.

Longer delays may result from some combination of
unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high
volume-to-capacity ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the
proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable.

Maneuverability is severely limited
during short periods due to
temporary back-ups.
>35.0
and
<55.0
>25.0
and
<35.0
E
Unstable Flow
Generally considered to be the limit of acceptable
delay. Indicative of poor progression, long cycle
lengths, and high volume-to-capacity ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences.

There are typically long queues of
vehicles waiting upstream of the
intersection.
>55.0
and
<80.0
>35.0
and
<50.0
F
Forced Flow
Generally considered to be unacceptable to most
drivers. Often occurs with over saturation. May also
occur at high volume-to-capacity ratios. There are
many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and
long cycle lengths may also be major contributing
factors.

Jammed conditions. Back-ups from
other locations restrict or prevent
movement. Volumes may vary
widely, depending principally on the
downstream back-up conditions.
>80.0 >50.0
GHD | City of Madera | 11144963 | Intersection Control Evaluation Report 7 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document. the 2024 and 2045 analysis respectively, and a PHF of 0.97 was used for the PM peak hour in both analysis years.
– Truck percentages were calculated based on data from counts collected in September 2024. The AM peak hour experiences about 2% heavy vehicles, and about 1% in the PM peak hour in both analysis years. – SIDRA software includes an environmental factor that modifies capacity reflecting driver response times, standard of intersection geometry, visibility, operating speeds, vehicle sizes, pedestrians, parking, buses stopping, etc. For the analysis performed for this report, an environmental factor of 1.05 was used for 2024 analysis and 1.0 for 2045 analysis.

4. Capacity Analysis – No Build Alternative
This section includes a traffic operations capacity assessment and analysis of the existing 5-legged Lake Street/4th Street/Central Avenue intersection for the No Build Alternative. This alternative is evaluated under both Existing (2024) and Design Year (2045) conditions. LOS worksheets for each analysis condition are provided in Appendix B.

4.1 Existing Year (2024)
Table 4.1 presents the Existing Condition peak hour intersection LOS and queuing for the No Build Alternative.

Table 4.1 No Build – Existing Year (2024) Peak Hour Traffic Operations As shown, the study intersection overall is currently operating with acceptable LOS A during the AM peak hour and unacceptable LOS F during the PM peak hour. The 95th percentile queues exceed available storage for the following movements:
– The queue for the southbound Lake Street right turn exceeds the available storage during the PM peak hour. – The queue for northbound Lake Street exceeds the available storage during the PM peak hour. – The queue for the eastbound 4th Street left turn exceeds the available storage during the AM and PM peak hours. – The queue for the eastbound 4th Street through exceeds the available storage during the PM peak hour. – The queue for the eastbound 4th Street right turn exceeds the available storage during the PM peak hour.

4.2 Design Year (2045)
Table 4.2 presents the Design Year Condition peak hour intersection LOS and queuing for the No Build Alternative.

Delay
(sec) LOS4
Delay
(sec) LOS
95th
Percentile
Queue (ft)
Available
Storage
Delay
(sec) LOS
95th
Percentile
Queue (ft)
Available
Storage
N Lake St & E 4th St/E Central Ave 9.4 A - - 62.9 F - - EB Left/Thru/Right 9.4 A 56 435 21.1 C 78 435
SB Left/Thru 13.3 B 150 670 65.5 F 500 670
SB Right 10.2 B 47 65 55.8 F 186 65
NWB Left/Thru/Right 10.4 B 87 365 53.3 F 397 365
NEB Left 9.9 A 78 60 104.3 F 117 60
NEB Thru 0.0 A 19 315 100.8 F 528 315
NEB Right 5.2 A 46 75 58.9 F 186 75
SWB Left/Thru/Right 12.3 B 21 325 10.2 B 15 325
Notes:

3. Bold = Unacceptable LOS and/or Queuing Conditions

4. Target LOS per the City of Madera General Plan

1. AWSC = All Way Stop Control

2. LOS = Delay based on average of all approaches
1 AWSC 35 D
# Intersection
Control
Type1,2
Target AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
GHD | City of Madera | 11144963 | Intersection Control Evaluation Report 8 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.

Table 4.2 No Build – Design Year (2045) Peak Hour Traffic Operations As shown, the study intersection overall is projected to operate with acceptable LOS C during the AM peak hour and unacceptable LOS F during the PM peak hour. The 95th percentile queues are projected to exceed available storage for the following movements:
– The queue for the southbound Lake Street left/through would exceed the available storage during the PM peak hour. The queue would spill back through the Riverside Drive South intersection. – The queue for the southbound Lake Street right turn would exceed the available storage during the AM and PM peak hours.
– The queue for northbound Lake Street would exceed the available storage during the PM peak hour. The queue would spill back through the 5th Street intersection.
– The queue for the eastbound 4th Street left turn would exceed the available storage during the AM and PM peak hours.
– The queue for the eastbound 4th Street through would exceed the available storage during the PM peak hour. The queue would spill back through the A Street intersection. – The queue for the eastbound 4th Street right turn would exceed the available storage during the PM peak hour.

5. Build Alternatives Footprint Development &
Assessment
The following section summarizes the development of preliminary concept layouts of both a Traffic Signal Alternative and for a Roundabout Alternative. The layouts are useful for preliminary right-of-way needs for each alternative and also to illustrate truck-turning movements. The lane geometry for the alternatives is the same for all analysis scenarios and include terminating the northeast leg of 4th Street at the alley in advance of the intersection. Termination of this leg was discussed with and agreed to by the City.

5.1 Traffic Signal Alternatives
The Traffic Signal Alternative features converting the intersection of Lake Street/4th Street/Central Avenue from a 5- way all-way stop-control to a 4-way traffic signal as shown in Figure 5.1. The Lake Street bridge over the Fresno River will be retained with no impacts to the structure. In order to accommodate the design vehicle turning movements, all Delay
(sec) LOS4
Delay
(sec) LOS
95th
Percentile
Queue (ft)
Available
Storage
Delay
(sec) LOS
95th
Percentile
Queue (ft)
Available
Storage
N Lake St & E 4th St/E Central Ave 22.9 C - - 139.3 F - - EB Left/Thru/Right 13.1 B 70 435 25.7 D 98 435
SB Left/Thru 38.4 E 413 670 185.2 F 777 670
SB Right 35.7 E 183 65 133.9 F 240 65
NWB Left/Thru/Right 17.8 C 129 365 136.6 F 756 365
NEB Left 16.8 C 97 60 167.9 F 101 60
NEB Thru 0.0 A 73 315 0.0 A 457 315
NEB Right 7.6 A 71 75 112.6 F 169 75
SWB Left/Thru/Right 16.5 C 26 325 25.4 D 15 325
Notes:

1. AWSC = All Way Stop Control
# Intersection
Control
Type1,2
Target AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
1 AWSC 35 D

2. LOS = Overall Delay based on average of all approaches

3. Bold = Unacceptable LOS and/or Queuing Conditions

4. Target LOS per the City of Madera General Plan
GHD | City of Madera | 11144963 | Intersection Control Evaluation Report 9 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document. five curb returns will need to be reconstructed. Two signal alternatives with varying lane geometries were analyzed to determine how each layout affects signal operations.

5.1.1 Traffic Signal Alternative 1
Traffic Signal Alternative 1 intersection lane geometrics improvements are illustrated in Figure 5.1 and are listed below:
– The northbound 4th Street approach shows the existing left turn lane eliminated, and the existing through lane converted to a left turn lane.
– The northbound Lake Street approach features a narrow median with a separate left turn lane and a through lane. – The southbound 4th Street approach is terminated at the alley in advance of the intersection. – The southbound Lake Street approach remains two lanes at the intersection. – Central Avenue remains a single lane approach.
– The traffic signal footprint encroaches beyond the right-of-way on the northwest corner of Central Avenue and Lake Street.

5.1.2 Traffic Signal Alternative 2
Traffic Signal Alternative 2 intersection lane geometrics improvements are the same as illustrated for Traffic Signal Alternative 1 except the northbound 4th Street approach has the existing left turn lane remaining and the existing through lane is converted to a left turn lane for dual lefts, with the Lake Street north leg striped to two lanes.

5.1.3 Traffic Signal Performance Checks
The following design criteria were used to analyze the geometrics and safety performance of the proposed Traffic Signal Alternative:
– The “WB-40” design vehicle from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 5th Edition (updated 2004), shall be accommodated on all movements.
– The “S-BUS-40” design vehicle from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 5th Edition (updated 2004), shall be accommodated on all movements.

Exhibits illustrating the truck turns for each condition are provided in Appendix D.

GHD | City of Madera | 11144963 | Intersection Control Evaluation Report 10 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.

Figure 5.1 Traffic Signal Alternative Preliminary Layout 2 5
6P
6 2
7 7P
8P
8 8P
S
S

G G G G G

G G G G
G
G
G
G
G
G
8 8
7 6
6 5
5 7
7 6P
6P
8P
8P
7P
7P
8P
8 7
6 8J8U
6J4U
6J4L
SNS
R73-3 (CA) (MOD)
EVD-A
8 8P
R60B (CA)
EVD-D
SNS
2 R61-19 (CA)
EVD-B
SNS
2I4U
5J1U
7J9U
7J9L
2"C 1 DLC
2"C, 1 DLC

SEE DETAIL A
EAST 4TH ST

EAST CENTRAL AVE

NORTH LAKE ST

NORTH LAKE ST
6PPB
8PPB
7PPB
8PPB
7PPB
8PPB
8PPB
6PPB
2 EVD-C
SNS
6 R61-7 (CA) (MOD)
2 2I2U

LIMIT LINE
230' TO
40 MPH
2"C, 1 DLC
G G
6J2U LIMIT LINE 230' TO
40 MPH
2"C 1 DLC
GHD Inc.
30 River Park Place West Suite 220
Fresno California 93720 USA
T 1 559 326 5900 W www.ghd.com

PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
90%
LAKE ST /4TH ST /CENTRAL AVE

INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS

CITY OF MADERA

ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT
205 WEST 4TH STREET
MADERA, CA 93637
Aug/31/2022 9:30 AM
\\GHDNET\GHD\US\SAN LUIS OBISPO\PROJECTS\561\11144963\DIGITAL_DESIGN\ACAD 2018\SHEETS\2264E001

PRELIMINARY
PLANS
Reuse of Documents
This document and the ideas and designs incorporated herein, as an instrument of professional service, is the property of GHD and shall not be reused in whole or in part for any other project without GHD's written authorization. © 2022 GHD Sheet No.

This document shall not be used for
construction unless signed and sealed for
construction.

Scale
0 1"
Bar is one inch on
original size sheet
Original Size
Arch D
Title
PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:

DATE
GHD Project No. 11144963
Know what's below.

Call before you dig.
8/16/2022
N
0 10' 20' 40'

ELECTRICAL
PLANS
E-001
13 128'
126'

PROPOSED PHASE DIAGRAM

EMERGENCY VEHICLE PREEMPTION (EVP)
EVD-A = 2 + 5
EVD-B = 7
EVD-C = 6
EVD-D = 8
GENERAL NOTES: (SHEETS E1 & E2)

1. ALL TRAFFIC SIGNAL WORK SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE

LATEST EDITION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARD PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS.

2. INSTALL PULL BOXES AT MAXIMUM 200' SPACING.

3. ALL PULL BOXES SHALL BE NO. 5(E) UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

4. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE SERVICE CONNECTION WITH PG&E.

PROJECT NOTES: (SHEETS E1 & E2)
FURNISH AND INSTALL MODEL 332L CABINET WITH MODEL 2070LX

CONTROLLER ASSEMBLY AND BATTERY BACKUPS SYSTEM ON
FOUNDATION. CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH AND INSTALL ANY AUXILIARY

EQUIPMENT NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT A FOUR PHASE OPERATION AND AN OPTICOM EMERGENCY VEHICLE DETECTION SYSTEM.

CONTRACTOR TO FURNISH AND INSTALL TYPE III-CF SERVICE EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE FOR 120/240 V PER STANDARD PLAN ES-2F. THE FOLLOWING CIRCUIT BREAKERS WILL BE PROVIDED:
3"C TO PG&E SERVICE POINT PER PG&E REQUIREMENTS. CONDUCTORS BY PG&E.
2"C, 3#2 (120/240 V SERVICE).

LEVEL, 4" THICK CONCRETE PAD. TOP OF PAD ELEVATION TO MATCH ADJACENT CONCRETE FINISH GRADES.

AMPS VOLTS POLES NAME PLATE METER PHOTOELECTRIC

CONTROL TYPE
100 240 2 MAIN DISCONNECT YES
50 120 1 TRAFFIC SIGNAL YES
30 120 1 SPARE YES
METER 1

AMPS VOLTS POLES NAME PLATE METER PHOTOELECTRIC

CONTROL TYPE
100 240 2 MAIN DISCONNECT YES
30 240 2 INTERSECTION LIGHTING YES IV
20 240 2 PARK LIGHTING YES II
20 240 2 SPARE YES
METER 2
6E
6E

SIDEWALK

DETAIL A
SCALE 1 " = 5'

TYPICAL LOOP DETECTOR SPACING

NOT TO SCALE

0.5' 10' 10' 10'
3'
10'
TYP.

INSTALL 6'x6' TYPE
"D" LOOP DETECTOR

C OF LANE L
INSTALL 6" DIA. TYPE
"E" LOOP DETECTOR

CROSSWALK OR LIMIT LINE
DL1
DL2 DL3

ADVANCE LOOP
TYPE "D" LOOP

DETECTOR
NOTE: THIS PLAN ACCURATE FOR ELECTRICAL WORK ONLY
7'
10'

FURNISH AND INSTALL APS PUSH BUTTON PER POLE AND EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE. PUSH BUTTON HEIGHT SHALL MEET ADA REQUIREMENTS.

SIGN LEGEND:

R73-3 (CA) (MOD)

ONLY NO U TURN
R61-7 (CA) (MOD)
1" = 20'
GHD | City of Madera | 11144963 | Intersection Control Evaluation Report 11 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.

5.2 Roundabout Alternative
The Roundabout Alternative features converting the intersection of Lake Street/4th Street/Central Avenue from a 5-way all-way stop-control to a modern 4-leg single lane roundabout as shown on Figure 5.2. All approaches to the intersection are shown with shared lane markings. The Madera County Transportation Commission (MCTC) Active Transportation Plan, adopted in 2018, does not propose any dedicated bicycle lanes at the study intersection. The Lake Street bridge over the Fresno River will be retained with no impacts to the structure. The roundabout has an inscribed circle diameter of 116 feet with an 84 feet diameter central island, 16 feet circulatory roadway, and an 8 feet truck apron. The shared-use path has a width of 10 feet with a minimum landscaped buffer of 3-5 feet. Pedestrian crossings are shown a minimum of 20-25 feet from the circulatory roadway, and the pedestrian refuges at the splitter islands are at least 6 feet wide. Other intersection lane geometrics improvements are illustrated in Appendix D and are listed below:
– The roundabout was centered in between the existing structures located on each corner, in order to minimize right-of-way impacts.
– The northbound 4th Street approach shows a wider median, in order to provide speed control on this entry. – In order to accommodate a right turning truck, a truck blister was added to the northwest and southern corners of the roundabout. The truck blister is constructed out of the same material as the truck apron and allows the back tires of the truck's trailer to off-track onto it as the truck completes the right turn. – The approach roadways are shown with splitter islands, which provide necessary deflection and speed control for entering vehicles.
– The roundabout footprint encroaches beyond the right-of-way in four of the five corners with impacts to the adjacent properties. Property impacts could be reduced by modifying the minimum width of the proposed shareduse path and landscape buffer. The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 672 entitled "Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, 2nd Edition" is the design guide used to design roundabouts. This guide recommends a shared-use path width of 10 feet with 8 feet being the minimum, and a landscape buffer of 5 feet with 3 feet being the minimum. Removing the landscape buffer can be done, but a vertical barrier would be required between the circulatory roadway and the shared-use path, in order to be ADA compliant. – In addition to direct property impacts due to the construction footprint, there are other property impacts due to sight distance requirements. As illustrated on Figure 5.2, these property impacts encroach into three corners, and buildings on the west side restrict the available sight distance.

5.2.1 Roundabout Performance Checks
Due to the complexity in the design, several performance checks have been conducted to verify the Roundabout's feasibility. These performance checks meet Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM) 405.10 which mandates conformance with the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 672 entitled "Roundabouts:

An Informational Guide, 2nd Edition".

The following design criteria were used to analyze the geometrics and safety performance of the proposed Roundabout Alternative:
– Criteria and methodologies to be consistent with Caltrans DIB 80-01, Caltrans HDM, and NCHRP Report 672.

This document supersedes the original roundabout guide published by the FHWA in 2000. – The “WB-40” design vehicle from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 5th Edition (updated 2004), shall be accommodated on all movements. This vehicle shall be accommodated such that the tractor portion of the vehicle does not need to mount any truck aprons.
– The “S-BUS-40” design vehicle from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 5th Edition (updated 2004), shall be accommodated on all movements. This vehicle shall be accommodated such that the bus does not need to mount any truck aprons.

GHD | City of Madera | 11144963 | Intersection Control Evaluation Report 12 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document. – Fast path entry speeds on single lane roundabout approaches should be 25 mph or less. – Minimum stopping sight distance for posted speed limits should be provided for vehicles approaching roundabout entrances and pedestrian crosswalks.
– View angles for all legs of the roundabout should be no more than 15 degrees. – Entry angles for all legs of the roundabout should be between 20 and 40 degrees.

Exhibits illustrating the truck turns for each condition and the fastest path analysis, stopping sight and intersection sight distance analysis, and intersection view angle exhibits are provided in Appendix D.

GHD | City of Madera | 11144963 | Intersection Control Evaluation Report 13 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.

Figure 5.2 Roundabout Alternative Preliminary Layout

GHD | City of Madera | 11144963 | Intersection Control Evaluation Report 14 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.

5.2.2 Fastest Path and Vehicle Speed Checks
The “Fastest Path” represents the path that the most aggressive drivers could take through the roundabout and assumes no other traffic to be within the intersection. NCHRP Report 672 indicates that the recommended maximum vehicle entry speeds along the fastest path should be less than 25 mph at urban single-lane roundabouts. NCHRP Report 672 also indicates that the differential speed between consecutive or conflicting projected fast path speeds should be less than 15 mph.

Fastest path speeds are determined for five locations per approach. These include entry speeds (referred to as V1); through movement circulating speeds (V2); exiting speeds (V3); left turn movement circulating speeds (V4); and right turn speeds (V5). A diagram of the described locations for a generic roundabout is shown in Figure 5.3.

Figure 5.3 Fast Path Critical Speed Locations
Fastest path speeds for the Roundabout Alternative are shown in Table 5.1. Exhibits illustrating the fastest path analysis can be found in Appendix D.

Table 5.1 Fastest Path Speeds (MPH)
As shown, the fastest path entering and right turn speeds are less than the maximum speed of 25 mph for a single lane approach. Therefore, these fastest path speeds are acceptable for this planning document. Because the Roundabout Alternative naturally slows vehicles to 25 mph or less, the vehicle traffic will be quieter than the Traffic Signal Alternative.

GHD | City of Madera | 11144963 | Intersection Control Evaluation Report 15 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.

5.2.3 Sight Distance
Intersection sight distance differs at roundabouts versus other intersections. Drivers must be able to see potentially conflicting oncoming traffic from the left as they approach the roundabout entry. NCHRP Report 672 provides methodologies to establish the required sight distance triangles for conflicting traffic, as well as pedestrians in crosswalks, for both the entering and circulating vehicle movements. The stopping and intersection sight distance triangles were overlaid onto the proposed Roundabout Alternative to show clear vision areas for the intersection. Sight distance lengths vary according to vehicle fast path vehicle speeds. Intersection sight distances were calculated using a critical headway time tc of 5.0 seconds, unless noted otherwise.

Table 5.2 presents the required intersection sight distances with the corresponding sight triangles shown in Appendix D.

Table 5.2 Intersection Sight Distance
Required stopping sight distances at the entries to the roundabout are provided in Table 5.3 and the pedestrian crossing stopping distances are provided in Table 5.4.

Table 5.3 Stopping Sight Distance to Entry
GHD | City of Madera | 11144963 | Intersection Control Evaluation Report 16 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.

Table 5.4 Stopping Sight Distance to Pedestrian Crossing From Table 5.2, Table 5.3, Table 5.4, and the corresponding figures in Appendix D, the proposed Roundabout Alternative provides sufficient sight distance. Special consideration to landscaping features in the sight triangles will be necessary to ensure proper sight distance at the intersection.

5.2.4 View Angles
The angle between consecutive entries must not be overly acute in order to allow drivers to comfortably turn their heads to the left to view oncoming traffic from the adjacent upstream entry. Guidance from the NCHRP section 6.7.4 recommends a minimum 75° intersection angle (15° view angle). All approaches have view angles that are less than 15°; see Appendix D for the figure showing the view angles.

6. Capacity Analysis – Build Alternatives
This section includes a capacity assessment and analysis of the 4-leg Lake Street/4th Street/Central Avenue intersection for the Traffic Signal Alternatives and for the Roundabout Alternative. Each alternative is evaluated under both Existing (2024) and Design Year (2045) conditions.

6.1 Traffic Signal Alternatives Analysis
This section provides a summary of the peak hour intersection operations associated with the Traffic Signal Alternatives under Existing Year (2024) and Design Year (2045) conditions. LOS worksheets for each analysis condition are provided in Appendix B.

6.1.1 Existing Year (2024)
Table 6.1 and Table 6.2 show the LOS and 95th percentile queues for Existing Year conditions with single and dual configurations, respectively.

GHD | City of Madera | 11144963 | Intersection Control Evaluation Report 17 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.

Table 6.1 Traffic Signal 1 – Existing Year (2024) Peak Hour Traffic Operations As shown, the Traffic Signal 1 Alternative is projected to provide acceptable intersection LOS for the study intersection with acceptable 95th percentile queues.

Table 6.2 Traffic Signal 2 – Existing Year (2024) Peak Hour Traffic Operations As shown, the Traffic Signal 2 Alternative is projected to provide acceptable intersection LOS for the study intersection with acceptable 95th percentile queues.

6.1.2 Design Year (2045)
Table 6.3 and Table 6.4 show the LOS and 95th percentile queues for Design Year conditions with single and dual configurations, respectively.

Delay
(sec) LOS4
Delay
(sec) LOS
95th
Percentile
Queue (ft)
Available
Storage
Delay
(sec) LOS
95th
Percentile
Queue (ft)
Available
Storage
N Lake St & E 4th St/E Central Ave 21.1 C - - 20.4 C - - EB Left/Right 27.9 C 97 435 27.0 C 116 435
SB Thru 19.1 B 115 670 21.5 C 133 670
SB Right 19.8 B 165 300 21.0 C 181 300
NWB Left 30.6 C 79 220 28.7 C 90 220
NWB Thru 10.6 B 70 365 12.7 B 119 365
NEB Left 26.1 C 130 315 22.4 C 196 315
NEB Right 20.7 C 71 315 16.0 B 94 315
Notes:

1. Signal analyzed using HCM 2000 Methodology
# Intersection
Control
Type1,2
Target AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
1 Signal 55 D

2. LOS = Delay based on average of all approaches

3. Bold = Unacceptable LOS and/or Queuing Conditions

4. Target LOS per the City of Madera General Plan
Delay
(sec) LOS4
Delay
(sec) LOS
95th
Percentile
Queue (ft)
Available
Storage
Delay
(sec) LOS
95th
Percentile
Queue (ft)
Available
Storage
N Lake St & E 4th St/E Central Ave 19.2 B - - 17.3 B - - EB Left/Right 25.5 C 87 435 23.0 C 111 435
SB Thru 17.5 B 119 670 18.2 B 128 670
SB Right 18.1 B 167 300 17.8 B 187 300
NWB Left 27.6 C 85 220 23.8 C 95 220
NWB Thru 9.2 A 88 365 9.8 A 139 365
NEB Left 23.0 C 110 315 18.8 B 160 315
NEB Right 21.4 C 62 315 17.0 B 77 315
Notes:

1. Signal analyzed using HCM 2000 Methodology
# Intersection
Control
Type1,2
Target AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
1 Signal 55 D

2. LOS = Delay based on average of all approaches

3. Bold = Unacceptable LOS and/or Queuing Conditions

4. Target LOS per the City of Madera General Plan
GHD | City of Madera | 11144963 | Intersection Control Evaluation Report 18 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.

Table 6.3 Traffic Signal 1 – Design Year (2045) Peak Hour Traffic Operations As shown, the Traffic Signal 1 Alternative is projected to provide acceptable intersection LOS for the study intersection with acceptable 95th percentile queues.

Table 6.4 Traffic Signal 2 – Design Year (2045) Peak Hour Traffic Operations As shown, the Traffic Signal 2 Alternative is projected to provide acceptable intersection LOS for the study intersection with acceptable 95th percentile queues.

6.2 Roundabout Alternative Analysis
This section provides a summary of the peak hour intersection operations associated with the Roundabout Alternative under Existing Year (2024) and Design Year (2045) conditions. LOS worksheets for each analysis condition and lane geometrics used for this analysis are provided in Appendix C.

6.2.1 Existing Year (2024)
Table 6.5 shows the LOS and 95th percentile queues for Existing Year conditions.

Delay
(sec) LOS4
Delay
(sec) LOS
95th
Percentile
Queue (ft)
Available
Storage
Delay
(sec) LOS
95th
Percentile
Queue (ft)
Available
Storage
N Lake St & E 4th St/E Central Ave 23.1 C - - 23.7 C - - EB Left/Right 30.7 C 107 435 29.4 C 131 435
SB Thru 20.6 C 146 670 25.4 C 177 670
SB Right 22.2 C 206 300 25.1 C 264 300
NWB Left 36.8 D 97 220 41.9 D 123 220
NWB Thru 11.5 B 90 365 15.3 B 168 365
NEB Left 27.2 C 157 315 24.2 C 250 315
NEB Right 20.6 C 70 315 15.9 B 134 315
Notes:

1. Signal analyzed using HCM 2000 Methodology
# Intersection
Control
Type1,2
Target AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
1 Signal 55 D

2. LOS = Delay based on average of all approaches

3. Bold = Unacceptable LOS and/or Queuing Conditions

4. Target LOS per the City of Madera General Plan
Delay
(sec) LOS4
Delay
(sec) LOS
95th
Percentile
Queue (ft)
Available
Storage
Delay
(sec) LOS
95th
Percentile
Queue (ft)
Available
Storage
N Lake St & E 4th St/E Central Ave 20.5 C - - 19.1 B - - EB Left/Right 27.6 C 102 435 24.7 C 135 435
SB Thru 18.5 B 135 670 20.2 C 173 670
SB Right 19.9 B 205 300 20.1 C 240 300
NWB Left 31.5 C 105 220 30.0 C 122 220
NWB Thru 9.8 A 104 365 11.2 B 166 365
NEB Left 23.2 C 145 315 19.7 B 188 315
NEB Right 21.4 C 60 315 17.4 B 106 315
Notes:

1. Signal analyzed using HCM 2000 Methodology
# Intersection
Control
Type1,2
Target AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
1 Signal 55 D

2. LOS = Delay based on average of all approaches

3. Bold = Unacceptable LOS and/or Queuing Conditions

4. Target LOS per the City of Madera General Plan
GHD | City of Madera | 11144963 | Intersection Control Evaluation Report 19 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.

Table 6.5 Roundabout – Existing Year (2024) Peak Hour Traffic Operations As shown, the Roundabout Alternative is projected to provide acceptable intersection LOS for the study intersection with acceptable 95th percentile queues.

6.2.2 Design Year (2045)
Table 6.6 shows the LOS and 95th percentile queues for Design Year conditions.

Table 6.6 Roundabout – Design Year (2045) Peak Hour Traffic Operations As shown, the Roundabout Alternative is projected to provide acceptable intersection LOS for the study intersection with acceptable 95th percentile queues.

6.3 Intersection LOS Summary
Table 6.7 summarizes the intersection LOS for each alternative under both Existing Year and Design Year conditions as previously shown.

Delay
(sec) LOS4
Delay
(sec) LOS
95th
Percentile
Queue (ft)
Available
Storage
Delay
(sec) LOS
95th
Percentile
Queue (ft)
Available
Storage
N Lake St & E 4th St/E Central Ave 7.3 A - - 7.8 A - -
EB Left/Thru/Right 7.8 A 17 435 7.3 A 17 435
SB Left/Thru/Right 6.3 A 74 670 6.4 A 64 670
NWB Left/Thru/Right 7.0 A 37 365 7.6 A 66 365
NEB Left/Thru/Right 9.2 A 44 315 9.5 A 79 315
Notes:

1. RNDBT = Roundabout
# Intersection
Control
Type1,2
Target AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
1 RNDBT 55 D

2. LOS = Delay based on average of all approaches

3. Bold = Unacceptable LOS and/or Queuing Conditions

4. Target LOS per the City of Madera General Plan
Delay
(sec) LOS4
Delay
(sec) LOS
95th
Percentile
Queue (ft)
Available
Storage
Delay
(sec) LOS
95th
Percentile
Queue (ft)
Available
Storage
N Lake St & E 4th St/E Central Ave 7.5 A - - 8.3 A - -
EB Left/Thru/Right 8.3 A 21 435 7.8 A 22 435
SB Left/Thru/Right 6.3 A 85 670 6.6 A 83 670
NWB Left/Thru/Right 7.2 A 43 365 8.1 A 88 365
NEB Left/Thru/Right 9.4 A 52 315 10.4 B 111 315
Notes:

1. RNDBT = Roundabout
# Intersection
Control
Type1,2
Target AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
1 RNDBT 55 D

2. LOS = Delay based on average of all approaches

3. Bold = Unacceptable LOS and/or Queuing Conditions

4. Target LOS per the City of Madera General Plan
GHD | City of Madera | 11144963 | Intersection Control Evaluation Report 20 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.

Table 6.7 Intersection LOS Summary

7. Safety Considerations
Safety is a key evaluation factor, and one of the goals of the evaluation process is to identify projects that will ensure a reasonable level of safety and operational performance for all users.

7.1 Historic Collision Data
Historical collision data for a five-year interval (2019 through 2023) was obtained from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). Table 7.1 provides the summary of the types of collisions that were reported to have occurred during that time at the study intersection.

Table 7.1 Collision Data
As shown, there were 10 collisions reported at the study intersection for the five-year interval. There were no fatalities, severe injuries, other visible injuries, or complaints of pain reported; all collisions resulted in property damage only.

Half were rear end collisions, more than any other type. 4 of the 5 rear end collisions were as a result of unsafe speeds when approaching the intersection. There was one reported pedestrian related collision that was due to a pedestrian right of way violation.

7.2 Safety Analysis

7.2.1 Crash Modification Factors
The CMF Clearinghouse, hosted by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), documents Crash Modification Factors (CMF). These values represent the expected proportion of existing collisions that would occur following implementation of a countermeasure. The Clearinghouse includes CMF values for conversion of intersection geometry:

AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
No Build A F C F
Traffic Signal 1 C C C C
Traffic Signal 2 B B C B
Roundabout A A A A
Notes:

1. Bold = Unacceptable LOS

2. Target LOS per the City of Madera General Plan
Alternative
Target
LOS2
Existing Year (2024) Design Year (2045) 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Fatal Severe Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Head On Sideswipe Rear End BroadsideHit ObjectOverturnedVehicle-Pedestrian
N Lake St & E 4th St/E Central Ave 2 3 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 2 5 1 1 0 1 10 Year Severity Collision Type
IntersectionTotal
GHD | City of Madera | 11144963 | Intersection Control Evaluation Report 21 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document. – CMF for converting stop control to roundabout: 0.28 (equivalent to 72% reduction) – CMF for converting stop control to traffic signal: 0.61 (equivalent to 39% reduction) As shown, converting to a roundabout would be expected to bring about a larger reduction in collisions than would converting to a traffic signal.

7.2.2 Number of Conflicting Points
CMF factors do not account for the 5-legged intersection, which needs a detailed examination of conflict point parameters for both the Signal Alternative and Roundabout Alternatives the number of conflicting points within an intersection directly correlates to the risk of an incident, especially at intersections. Conflicting points are locations at which a roadway user can cross, merge, diverge, etc. with another roadway user. A diagram of conflict locations at typical 4-legged intersections are provided in Figure 7.1.

Figure 7.1 Typical Conflict Points at Typical Intersections The number of conflicting points for each of the proposed alternatives is as follows:
– Traffic Signal Alternatives: 32 Conflicts
– Roundabout Alternative: 8 Conflicts
The analysis above illustrates the advantages that the Roundabout Alternative provides by significantly reducing the number of conflict points between vehicles and further justifies the lower CMF value as the exposure to risk is significantly reduced at roundabout intersections.

7.2.3 Traffic Calming and Collision Severity
Typically, the roundabout geometric design necessitates drivers to reduce speed in the intersection to 15-25 MPH, resulting in traffic calming. Conversely, drivers can potentially travel through a signalized intersection at speeds higher than posted speed limits due to the lack of geometric constraints. Due to lower travel speeds through the intersection, the Roundabout Alternative is likely to reduce the severity of any collisions that do occur.

7.2.4 Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety
Since no dedicated bicycle lanes are proposed at the study intersection in the MCTC Active Transportation Plan, no bike lanes are proposed with any alternative. Cyclists would share the travel lane with vehicles as with the existing configuration.

GHD | City of Madera | 11144963 | Intersection Control Evaluation Report 22 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.

With the Roundabout Alternative, cyclists would ride in the roundabout as do vehicles. Cyclists may have increased comfort due to the slower speeds that a roundabout provides; the average vehicle speed in a roundabout is nearly the same speed as a cyclist. The sidewalk is separated from the roundabout circulatory roadway with a landscaped buffer.

This buffer screens pedestrians from the moving vehicles and directs pedestrians to the marked crossing locations.

The crosswalks are split into two stages with the provision of pedestrian refuges in the splitter island. Thereby, pedestrians only need to cross one direction of traffic at a time and the amount of sustained time a pedestrian is in potential conflict with vehicles is reduced.

With the traffic signal alternatives, pedestrians would wait for Walk signs to cross. Compared to the Roundabout Alternative, where pedestrians would only cross one lane of traffic at a time, with the traffic signal alternatives pedestrians would need to cross up to four lanes of traffic at a time.

8. Alternatives Comparison

8.1 Traffic Signal Alternatives
Based on the geometric concept shown on Figure 5.1 and also provided in Appendix D, the Traffic Signal Alternatives have the following potential impacts and considerations:
– The intersection improvements under this alternative would encroach into the adjacent property at the northwest corner of the intersection. Partial acquisition of this parcel would be required. – Reconstructed curb return with ADA compliant pedestrian ramps will be provided on the northwest return. – The northeast leg of 4th Street will be terminated at the alley and will no longer be part of the intersection. A sidewalk connection will be provided between Lake Street and the existing sidewalk on this leg of 4th Street. – Approximately 29 on-street parking spaces will be eliminated on the approach roadways to accommodate the additional turn lanes. Eleven of these spaces are part of the northeast leg of 4th Street that will be removed. – The intersection will be converted from all-way stop control, and a traffic signal will be installed.

8.2 Roundabout Alternative
Based on the geometric concept shown on Figure 5.2 and also provided in Appendix D, the Roundabout Alternative has the following potential impacts and considerations:
– The intersection improvements under this alternative would encroach into the adjacent properties at the corners of the intersection. Partial acquisition of each parcel would be required. – The northeast leg of 4th Street will be terminated at the alley and will no longer be part of the intersection. A sidewalk connection will be provided between Lake Street and the existing sidewalk on this leg of 4th Street. – Shared-use paths (10 feet) are proposed to be provided on each corner of the intersection with landscaped buffers.
– Approximately 40 on-street parking spaces will be eliminated on the approach roadways to accommodate the proposed curb alignments. Eleven of these spaces are part of the northeast leg of 4th Street that will be removed.

GHD | City of Madera | 11144963 | Intersection Control Evaluation Report 23 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.

9. Life-Cycle Analysis

9.1 Collision Costs
Collision costs for each alternative have been calculated based on the recent collision history, the expected crash reduction (CMF) for the intersection type, and the approximate societal costs of each collision severity from the Highway Safety Manual (HSM). The societal costs per collision, adjusted to 2024 dollars, are as follows:
– Fatal Collision: $8,808,200
– Severe Injury Collision: $474,600
– Other Visible Injury Collision: $173,600
– Complaint of Pain Collision: $98,700
– Property Damage Only (PDO) Collision: $16,200
At the study intersection, there were a total of 10 reported collisions for the five-year interval analyzed (2019-2023). All were property damage only collisions. As such, the total collision cost is calculated to be $162,000. The annual collision cost is calculated to be $32,400.
– Using the CMF of 0.61, the expected collision cost for the Signal Alternatives is $19,800/year. – Using the CMF of 0.28, the expected collision cost for the Roundabout Alternative is $9,100/year.

Therefore, the Roundabout Alternative would be expected to result in lower annual collision costs when compared to the Signal Alternatives.

9.2 Capital Costs

9.2.1 Construction Costs
Preliminary estimated construction costs have been developed for both the Traffic Signal Alternatives and the Roundabout Alternative with copies of these preliminary cost estimates provided in Appendix D. The estimated construction costs for each alternative, escalated to 2024 dollars, are provided below:
– $2.1 Million for the Traffic Signal Alternatives
– $3.2 Million for the Roundabout Alternative
As shown, the construction costs, which represent an initial project capital investment, will be lower for the Traffic Signal Alternatives when compared to the Roundabout Alternative.

Additionally, for any alternative the landscape construction cost for the park on the east leg of 4th Street is estimated at $320,000.

9.2.2 Right-of-Way Costs
Preliminary costs for right-of-way were estimated and are provided in Table 9.1. For this study, $7.50 per square foot was assumed for partial right-of-way takes. No full right-of-way takes were assumed to be necessary.

GHD | City of Madera | 11144963 | Intersection Control Evaluation Report 24 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.

Table 9.1 Preliminary Right-of-Way Impacts and Costs
As shown, the Roundabout Alternative has a larger impact on the adjacent properties and results in greater right-ofway costs when compared to the Traffic Signal Alternatives. Right-of-way costs also represent an initial project capital investment.

9.3 Other Costs

9.3.1 Operation & Maintenance Cost
The maintenance and operation cost for a traffic signal includes providing power service to the signal and street lighting ($3,000 annually), signal retiming ($2,000 every three years), and signal maintenance for power outages/new detector loops/etc. ($3,000 annually) for a total annual cost of approximately $8,000.

The roundabout alternative would incur much lower operation and maintenance costs limited to the cost to power street lighting, which is estimated at $1,500 annually.

9.3.2 Landscape Maintenance Cost
It is difficult to quantify the landscape maintenance cost at this level since the cost is directly proportional to the area covered by the landscape. Roundabouts typically have a central island covered by landscaping, as well as other landscaping features not typical for a signal.

The landscape maintenance cost is projected to be $3,000 per year for the Roundabout Alternative. The Traffic Signal Alternatives are assumed to have no landscaping that will need to be maintained; therefore, a cost of $0 per year was used for landscape maintenance cost.

9.3.3 Pavement Rehabilitation Cost
It is necessary for the function of a roadway to keep the pavement in good condition and maintain roadway striping and markings to assist users to navigate through an intersection or corridor safely and efficiently.

Intersections with traffic signals experience significant differential loading and pavement heaving perpendicular to the direction of travel. This is caused by frequent stopping and starting of vehicles at the intersection.

Roundabout intersections experience less severe pavement heaving, but when heaving does occur at roundabouts, it is typically parallel to the direction of travel and occurs near the outer edge of the roadway, along the curb line. This is caused by the constant angular forces experienced in and near the circulatory roadway. As a result, roundabout intersections do not typically require structural section reconstruction but just resurfacing.

Proper maintenance of the roadway profiles and cross slopes also ensure proper drainage flow and friction levels with tires. A roadway is typically resurfaced every 5-10 years. This report assumes pavement rehabilitation is expected to occur in the study area every 8 years.

The costs associated with pavement rehabilitation include removing and reconstructing the roadway structural section, resurfacing, and pavement delineation. Traffic signal rehabilitation projects typically require more structural section reconstruction than roundabout intersections, but roundabout intersections require more labor-intensive control when replacing the pavement delineation (striping and markings).

Property
Traffic Signal
Alternatives
Roundabout
Alternative
NW Corner of Lake St and Central Ave $1,200 $6,000
SW Corner of Central Ave and 4th St $0 $3,000
North Side Central Ave West of Lake St $0 $1,200
SE Corner of 4th St and Lake St $0 $3,000
NE Corner of 4th St and Lake St $0 $6,000
Estimated Right-of-Way Costs $1,200 $19,200
GHD | City of Madera | 11144963 | Intersection Control Evaluation Report 25 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.

9.4 Environmental Considerations
It is expected that the Roundabout Alternative would provide environmental benefits when compared to the Signal Alternatives since average vehicle delay would be lower. Additionally, vehicles approaching roundabouts in queues typically do not come to complete stops. As a result, fuel consumption and emissions would likely be lower throughout the life of the Roundabout Alternative, when compared to the Traffic Signal Alternatives.

9.5 Service Life
The proposed build alternatives are all projected to operate with acceptable LOS and queues in the Design Year 2045; however, the Roundabout Alternative is projected to operate with lower intersection delay than the Traffic Signal Alternatives.

It can be concluded that the Roundabout Alternative will provide increased benefit with regards to service life, when compared to the Traffic Signal Alternatives.

10. Summary of Findings
The forecasted traffic volumes for the Lake Street/4th Street/Central Avenue intersection reflect the anticipated growth in the City and surrounding areas. The No Build Alternative analysis shows increased congestion and delay in the Design Year 2045 indicating that significant improvements would need to be made to the study intersection.

Table 10.1 summarizes and compares the performance for two proposed Build Alternatives, Traffic Signal 2 (dual configuration) and Roundabout. Traffic Signal 1 (single configuration) was not selected for the comparison since the vehicular delay is higher than Traffic Signal 2.

GHD | City of Madera | 11144963 | Intersection Control Evaluation Report 26 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.

Table 10.1 Alternative Performance Comparison
Table 10.2 summarizes and compares the life cycle costs for the two alternatives.

Performance Measure
Traffic Signal 2
Alternative
Roundabout
Alternative
Delay - LOS "D" or better 3.5 5.0
LOS A rated at 5 and E rated at 1. P PP
95th % Queue - Adequate queue storage P P
C A
P PP
$8,000 $4,500
P
$19,800 $9,100
P
$90,600 $37,200
P
$2,421,200 $3,539,200
P
Expected fuel consumption and emissions P
Serves design vehicle for all movements P P
32 8
P
4 1
35-45 mph 15-25mph
PP
Bicycle Safety - Exposure to traffic in terms of number of lanes, conflict points, and speed differential
P
$1,200 $19,200
P
Maintains local access and circulation P P
Total Performance Score 7 15
Pedestrian Safety - Exposure to traffic in terms of number of lanes, conflict points, crossing times, and expected vehicular speeds.

Property Impacts
Local Access
Environmental Considerations
Truck Accommodations
Safety
Vehicle Conflicts - The number of potential conflict points that may occur at the intersection based on layout geometry
Property Impacts
Capital Costs
Costs
Operations & Maintenance - Annualized
Collision Costs - Annualized
Delay Costs - Annualized
Cumulative Condition
Future Investment Needs
Service Life – function past the design year
GHD | City of Madera | 11144963 | Intersection Control Evaluation Report 27 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.

Table 10.2 Life Cycle Cost Comparison

11. Conclusions
As shown in Table 10.1, 15 performance measure points were assigned to the Roundabout Alternative, as compared to 7 for the Traffic Signal Alternative. As shown in Table 10.2, when compared to the Traffic Signal Alternative, implementation of the Roundabout Alternative will result in lower life cycle costs. Based on these results, the Roundabout Alternative would provide superior performance at a lower overall cost than the Traffic Signal Alternative for the Lake Street/4th Street/Central Avenue intersection.

Life Cycle Costs (to Design Year 2045)
Traffic Signal 2
Alternative
Roundabout
Alternative
Societal Collision Costs $415,100 $190,600
Delay Costs $1,991,100 $817,300
Operations and Maintenance Costs $168,000 $94,500
Project Costs (including Right-of-Way) $2,421,200 $3,539,200 Total Life Cycle Costs (Existing Year $) $4,995,400 $4,641,600 Collision and Mobility Costs
Project Costs including design, construction, and maintenance GHD | City of Madera | 11144963 | Intersection Control Evaluation Report 28 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.

Appendices
GHD | City of Madera | 11144963 | Intersection Control Evaluation Report 29 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.

Appendix A
Traffic Count Data Sheets
National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: N Lake St & E Central Ave/E 4th St
City: Madera Project ID:

Control: 4-Way Stop Date:

NS/EW Streets:

Explanation for extra leg movements
0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NL NT NR NU NL2 SL ST SR SU SR2 EL ET ER EU EU2 WL WT WR WU WT2 E2U E2L2 E2T2 E2R2 E2U2 TOTAL Movements entering the extra leg 7:00 AM 11 12 0 0 6 0 12 38 0 1 24 0 8 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 117 7:15 AM 6 30 0 0 8 0 32 53 0 3 24 0 17 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 18 0 194 SR2 Movements coming from SB on N Lake St entering into the Extra Leg (E Central Ave) 7:30 AM 11 39 1 0 9 0 42 57 0 2 42 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 21 0 245 WT2 Movements coming from WB on E 4th St entering into the Extra Leg (E Central Ave) 7:45 AM 11 38 0 0 8 1 49 64 0 33 36 0 17 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 27 0 288 NL2 Movements coming from NB on N Lake St entering into the Extra Leg (E Central Ave) 8:00 AM 8 36 1 0 15 0 49 45 0 7 50 0 22 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 12 0 249 EU2 Movements coming from EB on E 4th St entering into the Extra Leg (E Central Ave) 8:15 AM 10 24 0 0 4 1 39 45 0 1 47 0 21 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 1 7 0 205 8:30 AM 4 21 0 0 7 0 25 47 0 5 43 0 19 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 180 Movements exiting the extra leg 8:45 AM 4 31 1 0 10 1 31 36 0 3 31 1 16 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 4 0 6 0 177 E2U2 Movements exiting from Extra Leg (E Central Ave) entering into E 4th St heading EB.

E2R2 Movements exiting from Extra Leg (E Central Ave) entering into N Lake St heading NB.

NL NT NR NU NL2 SL ST SR SU SR2 EL ET ER EU EU2 WL WT WR WU WT2 E2U E2L2 E2T2 E2R2 E2U2 TOTAL E2T2 Movements exiting from Extra Leg (E Central Ave) entering into E 4th St heading WB.

TOTAL VOLUMES : 65 231 3 0 67 3 279 385 0 55 297 1 131 0 0 3 4 4 0 0 0 23 1 103 0 1655 E2L2 Movements exiting from Extra Leg (E Central Ave) entering into N Lake St SB.

APPROACH %'s : 17.76% 63.11% 0.82% 0.00% 18.31% 0.42% 38.64% 53.32% 0.00% 7.62% 69.23% 0.23% 30.54% 0.00% 0.00% 27.27% 36.36% 36.36% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 18.11% 0.79% 81.10% 0.00% PEAK HR : 7:30 AM 39 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 40 137 2 0 36 2 179 211 0 43 175 0 71 0 0 3 1 2 0 0 0 17 1 67 0 987 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.909 0.878 0.500 0.000 0.600 0.500 0.913 0.824 0.000 0.326 0.875 0.000 0.807 0.000 0.000 0.750 0.250 0.500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.472 0.250 0.620 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU NBL2 SBL SBT SBR SBU SBR2 EBL EBT EBR EBU EBU2 WBL WBT WBR WBU WBT2 EB2U EB2L2 EB2T2 EB2R2 EB2U2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NL NT NR NU NL2 SL ST SR SU SR2 EL ET ER EU EU2 WL WT WR WU WT2 E2U E2L2 E2T2 E2R2 E2U2 TOTAL 2:00 PM 13 24 0 0 12 0 44 33 0 6 45 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 16 1 220 2:15 PM 15 35 0 0 10 0 38 39 0 2 50 0 18 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 11 0 223 2:30 PM 11 47 0 0 12 0 46 39 0 6 52 2 22 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 5 0 18 0 264 2:45 PM 12 58 1 0 19 2 46 58 0 21 51 1 20 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 4 0 11 0 306 3:00 PM 17 55 2 0 17 0 57 34 0 22 54 0 23 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 15 0 301 3:15 PM 20 62 1 0 9 0 52 45 0 9 48 0 26 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 0 23 0 302 3:30 PM 10 65 2 0 16 0 52 41 0 13 68 0 14 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 12 0 19 1 315 3:45 PM 14 58 1 0 7 0 54 41 0 8 59 0 19 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 1 14 1 284 4:00 PM 11 66 0 0 18 0 55 41 0 10 63 1 25 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 17 3 316 4:15 PM 12 54 1 0 21 0 62 38 0 13 75 1 24 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 5 0 14 0 323 4:30 PM 12 60 0 0 14 0 44 46 0 11 66 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 1 23 1 321 4:45 PM 13 49 0 0 16 0 61 33 0 12 79 0 35 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 6 0 22 0 328 5:00 PM 10 69 0 0 12 0 41 43 0 11 91 1 29 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 22 1 335 5:15 PM 12 72 0 0 6 0 53 48 0 9 71 0 31 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 17 0 325 5:30 PM 13 61 0 0 13 0 41 55 0 25 72 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 21 0 342 5:45 PM 12 48 0 0 20 1 49 50 0 20 75 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 12 0 314 NL NT NR NU NL2 SL ST SR SU SR2 EL ET ER EU EU2 WL WT WR WU WT2 E2U E2L2 E2T2 E2R2 E2U2 TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES : 207 883 8 0 222 3 795 684 0 198 1019 6 389 0 5 4 5 6 1 1 0 98 2 275 8 4819 APPROACH %'s : 15.68% 66.89% 0.61% 0.00% 16.82% 0.18% 47.32% 40.71% 0.00% 11.79% 71.81% 0.42% 27.41% 0.00% 0.35% 23.53% 29.41% 35.29% 5.88% 5.88% 0.00% 25.59% 0.52% 71.80% 2.09% PEAK HR : 4:45 PM 12:00 AM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 48 251 0 0 47 0 196 179 0 57 313 1 130 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 21 0 82 1 1330 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.923 0.872 0.000 0.000 0.734 0.000 0.803 0.814 0.000 0.570 0.860 0.250 0.929 0.000 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.875 0.000 0.932 0.250 24-090116-001
9/19/2024
04:45 PM - 05:45 PM

0.972 0.951 0.893 0.919 0.375

PM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
EASTBOUND2
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM

0.857 0.896 0.740 0.854 0.750

AM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
Data - Total
N Lake St N Lake St E Central Ave/E 4th St E Central Ave/E 4th St National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: N Lake St & E Central Ave/E 4th St
City: Madera Project ID:

Control: 4-Way Stop Date:

NS/EW Streets:
0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NL NT NR NU NL2 SL ST SR SU SR2 EL ET ER EU EU2 WL WT WR WU WT2 E2U E2L2 E2T2 E2R2 E2U2 TOTAL 7:00 AM 11 12 0 0 5 0 12 38 0 1 24 0 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 115 7:15 AM 5 29 0 0 8 0 32 50 0 2 23 0 16 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 15 0 183 7:30 AM 11 38 1 0 9 0 42 56 0 2 41 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 21 0 242 7:45 AM 11 38 0 0 8 1 49 63 0 33 36 0 17 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 27 0 287 8:00 AM 8 35 1 0 15 0 46 45 0 7 49 0 21 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 12 0 243 8:15 AM 10 21 0 0 4 1 38 43 0 0 46 0 19 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 1 7 0 195 8:30 AM 3 21 0 0 7 0 24 46 0 5 42 0 18 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 175 8:45 AM 4 30 1 0 10 1 31 36 0 3 31 1 16 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 4 0 6 0 176 NL NT NR NU NL2 SL ST SR SU SR2 EL ET ER EU EU2 WL WT WR WU WT2 E2U E2L2 E2T2 E2R2 E2U2 TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES : 63 224 3 0 66 3 274 377 0 53 292 1 125 0 0 3 4 4 0 0 0 23 1 100 0 1616 APPROACH %'s : 17.70% 62.92% 0.84% 0.00% 18.54% 0.42% 38.76% 53.32% 0.00% 7.50% 69.86% 0.24% 29.90% 0.00% 0.00% 27.27% 36.36% 36.36% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 18.55% 0.81% 80.65% 0.00% PEAK HR : 7:30 AM 39 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 40 132 2 0 36 2 175 207 0 42 172 0 68 0 0 3 1 2 0 0 0 17 1 67 0 967 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.909 0.868 0.500 0.000 0.600 0.500 0.893 0.821 0.000 0.318 0.878 0.000 0.810 0.000 0.000 0.750 0.250 0.500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.472 0.250 0.620 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU NBL2 SBL SBT SBR SBU SBR2 EBL EBT EBR EBU EBU2 WBL WBT WBR WBU WBT2 EB2U EB2L2 EB2T2 EB2R2 EB2U2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NL NT NR NU NL2 SL ST SR SU SR2 EL ET ER EU EU2 WL WT WR WU WT2 E2U E2L2 E2T2 E2R2 E2U2 TOTAL 2:00 PM 13 24 0 0 12 0 42 33 0 6 45 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 16 1 218 2:15 PM 14 34 0 0 10 0 38 38 0 2 46 0 17 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 11 0 215 2:30 PM 11 46 0 0 11 0 44 38 0 6 51 2 22 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 5 0 18 0 258 2:45 PM 12 55 1 0 19 2 46 55 0 21 50 1 19 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 4 0 11 0 298 3:00 PM 16 55 2 0 16 0 53 32 0 22 54 0 23 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 14 0 292 3:15 PM 20 61 1 0 9 0 52 44 0 9 47 0 26 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 0 23 0 299 3:30 PM 10 64 2 0 16 0 51 41 0 13 68 0 13 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 10 0 19 1 310 3:45 PM 14 58 1 0 7 0 54 40 0 8 59 0 19 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 1 14 1 283 4:00 PM 10 66 0 0 18 0 54 38 0 10 61 1 25 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 17 3 309 4:15 PM 11 54 1 0 21 0 62 38 0 12 75 1 24 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 5 0 14 0 321 4:30 PM 12 60 0 0 14 0 44 44 0 11 66 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 1 23 1 319 4:45 PM 11 49 0 0 16 0 61 33 0 12 79 0 35 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 6 0 22 0 326 5:00 PM 10 68 0 0 12 0 41 41 0 11 90 1 28 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 22 1 330 5:15 PM 12 71 0 0 6 0 53 47 0 9 71 0 31 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 17 0 323 5:30 PM 13 60 0 0 13 0 41 55 0 25 72 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 20 0 340 5:45 PM 12 48 0 0 20 1 49 50 0 20 75 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 12 0 314 NL NT NR NU NL2 SL ST SR SU SR2 EL ET ER EU EU2 WL WT WR WU WT2 E2U E2L2 E2T2 E2R2 E2U2 TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES : 201 873 8 0 220 3 785 667 0 197 1009 6 385 0 5 4 5 6 1 1 0 96 2 273 8 4755 APPROACH %'s : 15.44% 67.05% 0.61% 0.00% 16.90% 0.18% 47.52% 40.38% 0.00% 11.92% 71.81% 0.43% 27.40% 0.00% 0.36% 23.53% 29.41% 35.29% 5.88% 5.88% 0.00% 25.33% 0.53% 72.03% 2.11% PEAK HR : 4:45 PM 292 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 46 248 0 0 47 0 196 176 0 57 312 1 129 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 21 0 81 1 1319 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.885 0.873 0.000 0.000 0.734 0.000 0.803 0.800 0.000 0.570 0.867 0.250 0.921 0.000 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.875 0.000 0.920 0.250 24-090116-001
9/19/2024
04:45 PM - 05:45 PM

0.970 0.947 0.886 0.931 0.375
PM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
EASTBOUND2
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM

0.842 0.890 0.729 0.857 0.750
AM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
Data - Cars
N Lake St N Lake St E Central Ave/E 4th St E Central Ave/E 4th St National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: N Lake St & E Central Ave/E 4th St
City: Madera Project ID:

Control: 4-Way Stop Date:

NS/EW Streets:
0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NL NT NR NU NL2 SL ST SR SU SR2 EL ET ER EU EU2 WL WT WR WU WT2 E2U E2L2 E2T2 E2R2 E2U2 TOTAL 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7:15 AM 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 11 7:30 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 8:15 AM 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 8:30 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 8:45 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 NL NT NR NU NL2 SL ST SR SU SR2 EL ET ER EU EU2 WL WT WR WU WT2 E2U E2L2 E2T2 E2R2 E2U2 TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES : 2 7 0 0 1 0 5 8 0 2 5 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 39 APPROACH %'s : 20.00% 70.00% 0.00% 0.00% 10.00% 0.00% 33.33% 53.33% 0.00% 13.33% 45.45% 0.00% 54.55% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 7:30 AM 39 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 5 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 1 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.417 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.333 0.500 0.000 0.250 0.750 0.000 0.375 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU NBL2 SBL SBT SBR SBU SBR2 EBL EBT EBR EBU EBU2 WBL WBT WBR WBU WBT2 EB2U EB2L2 EB2T2 EB2R2 EB2U2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NL NT NR NU NL2 SL ST SR SU SR2 EL ET ER EU EU2 WL WT WR WU WT2 E2U E2L2 E2T2 E2R2 E2U2 TOTAL 2:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2:15 PM 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 2:30 PM 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2:45 PM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 3:00 PM 1 0 0 0 1 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 9 3:15 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3:30 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 5 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4:00 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 4:15 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4:45 PM 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5:00 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5:15 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5:30 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NL NT NR NU NL2 SL ST SR SU SR2 EL ET ER EU EU2 WL WT WR WU WT2 E2U E2L2 E2T2 E2R2 E2U2 TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES : 6 10 0 0 2 0 10 17 0 1 10 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 64 APPROACH %'s : 33.33% 55.56% 0.00% 0.00% 11.11% 0.00% 35.71% 60.71% 0.00% 3.57% 71.43% 0.00% 28.57% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 4:45 PM 292 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 11 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.250 0.750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.375 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 24-090116-001
9/19/2024
04:45 PM - 05:45 PM

0.550 0.625 0.375 0.250
PM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
EASTBOUND2
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM

0.500 0.417 0.563 0.500
AM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
Data - HT
N Lake St N Lake St E Central Ave/E 4th St E Central Ave/E 4th St National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: N Lake St & E Central Ave/E 4th St
City: Madera Project ID:

Control: 4-Way Stop Date:

NS/EW Streets:
0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NL NT NR NU NL2 SL ST SR SU SR2 EL ET ER EU EU2 WL WT WR WU WT2 E2U E2L2 E2T2 E2R2 E2U2 TOTAL 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NL NT NR NU NL2 SL ST SR SU SR2 EL ET ER EU EU2 WL WT WR WU WT2 E2U E2L2 E2T2 E2R2 E2U2 TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 7:30 AM 39 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU NBL2 SBL SBT SBR SBU SBR2 EBL EBT EBR EBU EBU2 WBL WBT WBR WBU WBT2 EB2U EB2L2 EB2T2 EB2R2 EB2U2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NL NT NR NU NL2 SL ST SR SU SR2 EL ET ER EU EU2 WL WT WR WU WT2 E2U E2L2 E2T2 E2R2 E2U2 TOTAL 2:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 2:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 5:00 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5:15 PM 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5:30 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NL NT NR NU NL2 SL ST SR SU SR2 EL ET ER EU EU2 WL WT WR WU WT2 E2U E2L2 E2T2 E2R2 E2U2 TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 4 0 0 0 1 3 4 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 27 APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 10.00% 30.00% 40.00% 0.00% 20.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 80.00% 20.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 4:45 PM 292 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 8 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 24-090116-001
9/19/2024
04:45 PM - 05:45 PM

0.667 0.500 0.375
PM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
EASTBOUND2
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM

0.250 0.250 0.250
AM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
Data - Bikes
N Lake St N Lake St E Central Ave/E 4th St E Central Ave/E 4th St National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count Location: N Lake St & E Central Ave/E 4th St Project ID:

City: Madera Date:

NS/EW Streets:

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
7:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
7:15 AM 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 5
7:30 AM 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 6
7:45 AM 0 0 0 4 0 4 1 0 0 3 12
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 4
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 5
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 4
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 6

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 1 0 0 7 2 10 2 5 4 13 44
APPROACH %'s : 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 16.67% 83.33% 28.57% 71.43% 23.53% 76.47% PEAK HR : 7:30 AM 38 -1 -1 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 1 0 0 4 1 6 2 3 3 7 27
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.375 0.500 0.375 0.750 0.583 Headers NEB NWB SEB SWB ENS ESB WNB WSB W2NB W2SB

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
2:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2
2:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2
2:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
2:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3:00 PM 1 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 6
3:15 PM 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 5
3:30 PM 0 1 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 7
3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2
4:00 PM 0 1 0 5 2 3 1 0 0 0 12
4:15 PM 1 0 4 0 4 0 1 0 5 0 15
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 4
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 2 6
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
5:30 PM 0 0 5 3 0 0 3 2 1 0 14
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 2 2 13 9 12 13 7 7 9 7 81
APPROACH %'s : 50.00% 50.00% 59.09% 40.91% 48.00% 52.00% 50.00% 50.00% 56.25% 43.75% PEAK HR : 4:45 PM 289 -3 -3 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 5 3 1 3 4 2 3 2 23
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.375 0.333 0.250 0.375 0.250 24-090116-001
9/19/2024

0.411 0.250 0.500 0.300 0.313
WEST LEG 2
04:45 PM - 05:45 PM

PM NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG

0.563 0.250 0.250 0.438 0.625 0.833
WEST LEG 2
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM

AM NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG
Data - Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
N Lake St N Lake St E Central Ave/E 4th St E Central Ave/E 4th St Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 24-090116-001 Day:

City: Madera Date:

AM 211 179 2 0 AM
NOON 0000 NOON
PM 179 196 0 0 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
1100 0.5 102

0.5 101
000 00 103
175 0 313 1 TEV 823 0 1121 0 000
001 1 PHF 0.86 0.97
71 0 130 1 0010

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 48 251 0 PM
NOON 0000 NOON
AM 0 40 137 2 AM
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Cars (PM) HT (PM)
0 253

NORTHBOUND
N Lake St
Cars (NOON) HT (NOON)
NONE
104
Cars (AM) 327 HT (AM)
E Central Ave/E 4th St

EASTBOUND

WESTBOUND
E Central Ave/E 4th St
252 0 228

CONTROL
4-Way Stop
0 NONE
04:45 PM - 05:45 PM 565
N Lake St & E Central Ave/E 4th St
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
N Lake St Thursday
SOUTHBOUND 9/19/2024
PEAK HOURS 2:00 PM - 06:00 PM 07:30 AM - 08:30 AM 314 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM

COUNT PERIODS

AM NOON PM

PMAMAMNOONPM
PM
NOON
AMAM
NOON
PM
NOON
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
20 340 2
5 0 04
0 3
10 1
30 6
0 0 10
0 0
00 1 001
300
230
00 0 000
000
000
00 3 003
440
050
11 129 1
1 312
176
196 0
46 248 0
00 0 000
000
000
21 68 3
0 172
207
175 2
40 132 2
GHD | City of Madera | 11144963 | Intersection Control Evaluation Report 30 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.

Appendix B
Synchro Reports
6LP7UDIILFm3HUIRUPDQFHm5HSRUW
B[LVWLQJmQRQGLWLRQVmy0 W5 ([LVWLQJ
rWK >W n 8DNH >W /l( >LPuUDIILF <HSRUW

0.y
g&mBmAWKm6Wm m1m/DNHm6Wm mBmQHQWUDOmyYHm3HUIRUPDQFHmE\mPRYHPHQWm 5RYHPHQW (d8m (d8 (d< >d8m >d8 >d< >d<m 3%8m 3%8 3%< 3%<m 3(8 yHQLHG yHOD\ 4KUh IkI IkI IkI IkI IkI IkI IkI IkI IkI IkI IkI Ikm yHQLHG yHOeUHK 4Vh IkC IkC IkC Ikp Ikf Ikf Tkr IkT IkT IkT Ikf Tkp uRWDO yHOD\ 4KUh IkI IkI IkC IkI Ikc Ikc IkC IkC IkC IkT IkI Ikf uRWDO yHOeUHK 4Vh okT okr RkC okp CTkT CIkm rkr CIkr oko RkI okR oko >WRS yHOD\ 4KUh IkI IkI IkC IkI Ikf Ikf IkI IkC IkC Ikm IkI Ikr >WRS yHOeUHK 4Vh RkC ckf ckc RkI CIkT pko TkT Rkc Rkm ckI pkc Rkp g&mBmAWKm6Wm m1m/DNHm6Wm mBmQHQWUDOmyYHm3HUIRUPDQFHmE\mPRYHPHQWm 5RYHPHQW 3(< >%8 >%u >%<m WOO
yHQLHG yHOD\ 4KUh IkC IkI IkI IkI Ikr
yHQLHG yHOeUHK 4Vh Tkp IkC IkC IkC Ckr
uRWDO yHOD\ 4KUh IkC IkI IkI IkI mkc
uRWDO yHOeUHK 4Vh fkm Rkc CmkT rkR okr
>WRS yHOD\ 4KUh IkC IkI IkI IkI mkC
>WRS yHOeUHK 4Vh rko ckm pkT rko RkR
7RWDOm1HWZRUNm3HUIRUPDQFHm
yHQLHG yHOD\ 4KUh Ikr
yHQLHG yHOeUHK 4Vh Ckr
uRWDO yHOD\ 4KUh mkp
uRWDO yHOeUHK 4Vh CIkm
>WRS yHOD\ 4KUh mkT
>WRS yHOeUHK 4Vh pkT
4XHXLQJmDQGmwORFNLQJm5HSRUW
B[LVWLQJmQRQGLWLRQVmy0 W5 ([LVWLQJ
rWK >W n 8DNH >W /l( >LPuUDIILF <HSRUW

0.y
,QWHUVHFWLRQ&mg&mBmAWKm6Wm m1m/DNHm6Wm mBmQHQWUDOmyYH
5RYHPHQW (d >d >d 3% 3( 3( 3( >%
yLUHFWLRQV >HUYHG D8< D8< B D8<B D8 u < 8u<B
5D[LPXP 7XHXH 4IWh Rr Cpf cr CIo oI mf fc TI
WYHUDJH 7XHXH 4IWh TT pr CT fC rR C mr f
ofWK 7XHXH 4IWh fc CfI rR pR Rp Co rc mC
8LQN yLVWDQFH 4IWh fRp fof ccp ToT TmI
QSVWUHDP dON uLPH 4th
7XHXLQJ 9HQDOW\ 4YHKh
>WRUDJH dD\ yLVW 4IWh cf cI Rf
>WRUDJH dON uLPH 4th Cf I r I
7XHXLQJ 9HQDOW\ 4YHKh R I T I
1HWZRUNm6XPPDU\
3HWZRUN ZLGH 7XHXLQJ 9HQDOW\G CI
6LP7UDIILFm3HUIRUPDQFHm5HSRUW
B[LVWLQJmQRQGLWLRQVm30 71 ([LVWLQJ
rWK <W n VDNH <W 5l( <LP>UDIILF AHSRUW

0.y
gNmBmMWKm6Wm m1m/DNHm6Wm mBmQHQWUDOmyYHm3HUIRUPDQFHmE\mPRYHPHQWm 1RYHPHQW (dVm (dA (dAm <dV <dA <dAm 8UVm 8UV 8UA 8(Vm 8(V 8(> yHQLHG yHOD\ 4KUh IkI IkI IkI Ikf Ikr Ikm IkI IkI IkI IkI rkT IkI yHQLHG yHOeQHK 4Vh Ikm Ikm IkC pkc Rkp CTkf Ikr Ikr Ikr mrkC rpko CIckp >RWDO yHOD\ 4KUh IkC Ikr IkI Tkf mko Ikc IkR IkR TkT IkI okI IkI >RWDO yHOeQHK 4Vh mCkC CckT CokR cfkf ffkp TfkI fCkI fTkT rRkr CITkR CIrkT CIIkp <WRS yHOD\ 4KUh IkC Ikr IkI Tkf TkI Ikf IkR IkR TkT IkI okT IkI <WRS yHOeQHK 4Vh Cpko CfkR Cpkm cfkp fRkf TTkp fIkI fmkf rpkI CIRkc CIpkf ookp gNmBmMWKm6Wm m1m/DNHm6Wm mBmQHQWUDOmyYHm3HUIRUPDQFHmE\mPRYHPHQWm 1RYHPHQW 8(A <UV <UAm WOO
yHQLHG yHOD\ 4KUh Ckf IkI IkI IkI RkI
yHQLHG yHOeQHK 4Vh rckr IkC IkC CokI
>RWDO yHOD\ 4KUh Cko IkI IkI IkI mTkI
>RWDO yHOeQHK 4Vh fpko CIkm pkC cmko
<WRS yHOD\ 4KUh mkI IkI IkI IkI mTkf
<WRS yHOeQHK 4Vh cIkc pkT pkm crkT
7RWDOm1HWZRUNm3HUIRUPDQFHm
yHQLHG yHOD\ 4KUh RkI
yHQLHG yHOeQHK 4Vh CokI
>RWDO yHOD\ 4KUh mTkr
>RWDO yHOeQHK 4Vh cTkf
<WRS yHOD\ 4KUh mTkp
<WRS yHOeQHK 4Vh crkR
4XHXLQJmDQGmwORFNLQJm5HSRUW
B[LVWLQJmQRQGLWLRQVm30 71 ([LVWLQJ
rWK <W n VDNH <W 5l( <LP>UDIILF AHSRUW

0.y
,QWHUVHFWLRQNmgNmBmMWKm6Wm m1m/DNHm6Wm mBmQHQWUDOmyYH
1RYHPHQW (d <d <d 8U 8( 8( 8( A V>AB
1D[LPXP 9XHXH 4IWh of rTo Ccf TRp CII rCf CTf TI
WYHUDJH 9XHXH 4IWh rm mmC cf CcR of mRR CIf m
ofWK 9XHXH 4IWh Rp fII Cpc ToR CCR fmp Cpc Cf
VLQN yLVWDQFH 4IWh fcf fof ccp TpT TmI
uSVWUHDP dON >LPH 4th p I rp
9XHXLQJ 7HQDOW\ 4YHKh I I I
<WRUDJH dD\ yLVW 4IWh cf cI Rf
<WRUDJH dON >LPH 4th cR I pc I C
9XHXLQJ 7HQDOW\ 4YHKh Tp I CCm I m
1HWZRUNm6XPPDU\
8HWZRUN ZLGH 9XHXLQJ 7HQDOW\G CfT
6LP7UDIILFm3HUIRUPDQFHm5HSRUW
N4ulm1RmvXLOGmbRQGLWLRQVmk0 v7 kLIC 1R nXLOG
IWK xW o 3DNH xW VW( xLPQUDIILF >HSRUW
./y
5MmwmuWKm6Wm m1m/DNHm6Wm mwmbHQWUDOmkYHm3HUIRUPDQFHmE\mPRYHPHQWm 7RYHPHQW (n3k (n3 (n> xn3k xn3 xn> xn>k 1%3k 1%3 1%> 1%>k 1(3 yHQLHG yHOD\ uKUi LSL LSL LSL LSL LSL LSL LSL LSL LSL LSL LSL LSk yHQLHG yHO&UHK uVi LSk LSk LSC LSE LSE eSe LSe LSk LSe LSE eSm QRWDO yHOD\ uKUi LSa LSL LSe LSL kSe kSE LSk LSk LSk LSC LSL aSL QRWDO yHO&UHK uVi aeSa aaSa kESr eTSI eCSm aESI aISC aISe aaST amST aEST xWRS yHOD\ uKUi LSa LSL LSk LSL kSe kSE LSk LSk LSk LSC LSL LSr xWRS yHO&UHK uVi aLST aLSe kESC eESr eCST aeSE aaST aaST aLST aESI aIST 5MmwmuWKm6Wm m1m/DNHm6Wm mwmbHQWUDOmkYHm3HUIRUPDQFHmE\mPRYHPHQWm 7RYHPHQW 1(> x%3 x%Q x%>k vOO
yHQLHG yHOD\ uKUi LSa LSL LSL LSL LSC
yHQLHG yHO&UHK uVi eSm LSa LSa LSa aSI
QRWDO yHOD\ uKUi LSk LSL LSL LSL mSm
QRWDO yHO&UHK uVi mSE TST aESC mSa kkSr
xWRS yHOD\ uKUi LSk LSL LSL LSL mSe
xWRS yHO&UHK uVi ESr mSe akSa mSa kaSm
7RWDOm1HWZRUNm3HUIRUPDQFHm
yHQLHG yHOD\ uKUi LSC
yHQLHG yHO&UHK uVi aSI
QRWDO yHOD\ uKUi TSL
QRWDO yHO&UHK uVi keSm
xWRS yHOD\ uKUi mSC
xWRS yHO&UHK uVi kkSe
4XHXLQJmDQGmvORFNLQJm5HSRUW
N4ulm1RmvXLOGmbRQGLWLRQVmk0 v7 kLIC 1R nXLOG
IWK xW o 3DNH xW VW( xLPQUDIILF >HSRUW
./y
,QWHUVHFWLRQMm5MmwmuWKm6Wm m1m/DNHm6Wm mwmbHQWUDOmkYH
7RYHPHQW (n xn xn 1% 1( 1( 1( x%
yLUHFWLRQV xHUYHG R3> R3> G R3>G R3 Q > 3Q>G
7D[LPXP <XHXH uIWi TT CkL aEC aEE aLL aeT rm eI
vYHUDJH <XHXH uIWi IL kLr Ea mL Ea aa ek m
rCWK <XHXH uIWi mL Iae aTe akr rm me ma kE
3LQN yLVWDQFH uIWi CmT CrC EET ere ekL
gSVWUHDP nON QLPH uNi
<XHXLQJ 8HQDOW\ uYHKi
xWRUDJH nD\ yLVW uIWi EC EL mC
xWRUDJH nON QLPH uNi Ee L aC L
<XHXLQJ 8HQDOW\ uYHKi ek L ae L
1HWZRUNm6XPPDU\
1HWZRUN ZLGH <XHXLQJ 8HQDOW\f IC
6LP7UDIILFm3HUIRUPDQFHm5HSRUW
N4ulm1RmvXLOGmbRQGLWLRQVm30 9/ kLIC VR nXLOG
IWK >W o 7DNH >W 8W( >LPxUDIILF <HSRUW
.1y
51mwmuWKm6Wm m1m/DNHm6Wm mwmbHQWUDOmAYHm3HUIRUPDQFHmE\mPRYHPHQWm /RYHPHQW (n7k (n< (n<k >n7 >n< >n<k VU7k VU7 VU< V(7k V(7 V(x yHQLHG yHOD\ uKUi LSL LSL LSL aIST aeSe ISC LSe LSe aSE LSa CmSL LSa yHQLHG yHO&gHK uVi LSk LSk LSa kkrSL kkkSC keeSL aCSm kkSL arSk eeESL CkrSe xRWDO yHOD\ uKUi LSk LSE LSL aLSI rSe kSk kSL kSL aLSa LSL aeSa LSL xRWDO yHO&gHK uVi kCSm kaSE aISI aTCSk aTLST aeeSr akeSC aeESE akkSk aCkSI aEmSr >WRS yHOD\ uKUi LSk LSE LSL aaSL aLSL kSe kSa kSa aLSE LSL aeST LSL >WRS yHO&gHK uVi keSC kLST aeSC arESe areSm aIaSL akmSr aIaSr akTSI aELSC amESC 51mwmuWKm6Wm m1m/DNHm6Wm mwmbHQWUDOmAYHm3HUIRUPDQFHmE\mPRYHPHQWm /RYHPHQW V(< >U7 >Ux >U<k vOO
yHQLHG yHOD\ uKUi kkSI LSL LSL LSL aaISI
yHQLHG yHO&gHK uVi CeISC LSa LSa kCmSI
xRWDO yHOD\ uKUi eSk LSL LSL LSL CeSk
xRWDO yHO&gHK uVi aakSE kCSI TSa aerSe
>WRS yHOD\ uKUi eSe LSL LSL LSL CESL
>WRS yHO&gHK uVi aaTSL kkSC TSk aIESm
7RWDOm1HWZRUNm3HUIRUPDQFHm
yHQLHG yHOD\ uKUi aaISI
yHQLHG yHO&gHK uVi kCmSI
xRWDO yHOD\ uKUi CeSE
xRWDO yHO&gHK uVi aerSE
>WRS yHOD\ uKUi CESI
>WRS yHO&gHK uVi aIESr
4XHXLQJmDQGmvORFNLQJm5HSRUW
N4ulm1RmvXLOGmbRQGLWLRQVm30 9/ kLIC VR nXLOG
IWK >W o 7DNH >W 8W( >LPxUDIILF <HSRUW
.1y
,QWHUVHFWLRQ1m51mwmuWKm6Wm m1m/DNHm6Wm mwmbHQWUDOmAYH
/RYHPHQW (n >n >n VU V( V( V( >U
yLUHFWLRQV >HUYHG R7<G R7< G R7< R7 x < 7x<G
/D[LPXP AXHXH uIWi aka Eem aEC EIT aLL IeC aeC kr
vYHUDJH AXHXH uIWi CI CCE akC eTT aLL erT aeL k
rCWK AXHXH uIWi rT mmm kIL mCE aLa ICm aEr aC
7LQN yLVWDQFH uIWi CEC CrC EET eTe ekL
QSVWUHDP nON xLPH uNi mE kk rm
AXHXLQJ 9HQDOW\ uYHKi L L L
>WRUDJH nD\ yLVW uIWi EC EL mC
>WRUDJH nON xLPH uNi rr L aLL L a
AXHXLQJ 9HQDOW\ uYHKi Er L aCC a I
1HWZRUNm6XPPDU\
VHWZRUN ZLGH AXHXLQJ 9HQDOW\f kkr
+&0M6LJQDOL]HGM,QWHUVHFWLRQM&DSDFLW\M$QDO\VLV
p&M(sM1WKM6WsMaM1sM/DNHM6WsMaM&HQWUDOM$YHs rcrR4/LJQDO4VRQGLWLRQV4fI rcrR4fI4/LJQDO /\QFKUR4hh4,HSRUW
68(
IRYHPHQW )uF )u, wuFr wuF wuk /uk /u, /u,r w)F w),
FDQH4VRQILJXUDWLRQV
kUDIILF4-ROXPH4CYSKo hG pH Rh 1p h1D hHh rhh R1 hGe Gh
7XWXUH4-ROXPH4CYSKo hG pH Rh 1p h1D hHh rhh R1 hGe Gh
3GHDO47ORZ4CYSKSOo hHcc hHcc hHcc hHcc hHcc hHcc hHcc hHcc hHcc hHcc kRWDO4FRVW4WLPH4CVo RMe RMe RMe RMe RMe RMe RMe
FDQH4PWLOM47DFWRU hMcc hMcc hMcc hMcc hMcc hMcc hMcc
7USEs4SHGyELNHV cMDH hMcc hMcc hMcc hMcc hMcc hMcc
7OSEs4SHGyELNHV hMcc hMcc hMcc hMcc hMcc hMcc hMcc
7UW cMHD hMcc hMcc hMcc cMHe hMcc cMHe
7OW4UURWHFWHG cMDD cMDe hMcc hMcc hMcc cMDe hMcc
/DWGM47ORZ4CSURWo herR hpGp hGpe hGpe hecc hpGp hecc
7OW4UHUPLWWHG cMDD cMDe hMcc hMcc hMcc cMDe hMcc
/DWGM47ORZ4CSHUPo herR hpGp hGpe hGpe hecc hpGp hecc
UHDNAKRXU4IDFWRUs4U87 cMHp cMHp cMHp cMHp cMHp cMHp cMHp cMHp cMHp cMHp fGMM47ORZ4CYSKo rc GD RH Rr hpr rhc rRe ec rc1 H1
,k.,4,HGXFWLRQ4CYSKo c c c c c c Dh c c pp
FDQH46URXS47ORZ4CYSKo DD c c Dc hpr rhc rcR c rc1 hG
VRQIOM4UHGVM4CiyKUo h e R G R G h e
kXUQ4k\SH UURW UURW UURW wf wf UURW UURW UURW
UURWHFWHG4UKDVHV H h h p r r G G
UHUPLWWHG4UKDVHV
fFWXDWHG46UHHQs464CVo HMR pMR rDM1 hHMR hHMR h1Mc h1Mc
)IIHFWLYH46UHHQs4J4CVo HMR pMR rDM1 hHMR hHMR h1Mc h1Mc fFWXDWHG4JyV4,DWLR cMh1 cMhc cMRp cMrD cMrD cMrc cMrc
VOHDUDQFH4kLPH4CVo RMe RMe RMe RMe RMe RMe RMe
-HKLFOH4)[WHQVLRQ4CVo 1Mc 1Mc 1Mc 1Mc 1Mc 1Mc 1Mc
FDQH46US4VDS4CYSKo hDD hpG Hce ece RrD 11D 1c1
YyV4,DWLR4UURW FcMcp FcMce cMcD cMhr FcMhR FcMhr cMch
YyV4,DWLR4UHUP
YyF4,DWLR cMec cMeR cMrc cMRr cMRH cMpc cMcp
PQLIRUP4(HOD\s4Gh reMD rGMe hcMR hHMe hHMD r1Mr rcMp
UURJUHVVLRQ47DFWRU hMcc hMcc hMcc hMcc hMcc hMcc hMcc
3QFUHPHQWDO4(HOD\s4Gr rMc 1M1 cMh cMp cMH rMH cMh
(HOD\4CVo rGMD 1cMH hcMp hDMh hDMH rpMh rcMG
FHYHO4RI4/HUYLFH V V u u u V V
fSSURDFK4(HOD\4CVo rGMD hGMH hDMe rRMe
fSSURDFK4F./ V u u V
3QWHUVHFWLRQ4/XPPDU\
8VI4rccc4VRQWURO4(HOD\ rhMh 8VI4rccc4FHYHO4RI4/HUYLFH V 8VI4rccc4-ROXPH4WR4VDSDFLW\4UDWLR cMer
fFWXDWHG4V\FOH4FHQJWK4CVo4 pRMr /XP4RI4ORVW4WLPH4CVo hHMc 3QWHUVHFWLRQ4VDSDFLW\4PWLOL]DWLRQ RDMRn 3VP4FHYHO4RI4/HUYLFH f fQDO\VLV4UHULRG4CPLQo he
F4444VULWLFDO4FDQH46URXS
6LP7UDIILFm3HUIRUPDQFHm5HSRUW
l4ldm6LJQDOmyRQGLWLRQVmv0
oeoG4.>4%LJQDO4 %LPPUDIILF4UHSRUW
37/
gEmQ2mdWKm6W2m m12m/DNHm6W2m myHQWUDOmvYH2m3HUIRUPDQFHmE\mPRYHPHQWm >RYHPHQW V1< V1U x1<o x1< x1P %1P %1U %1Uo xV< xVU .OO
/HQLHG4/HOD\4aKUl ece ece ece ece ece ecp eco ece eco ece ecD /HQLHG4/HOR:HK4aVl ecp eco tcv tcE ecG pcp tcH tcH tcE ecD oco PRWDO4/HOD\4aKUl ecp ecH ect eco ect ecv pcp eco pce ecG GcB PRWDO4/HOR:HK4aVl oocB oHcp oHcv oGcv Bce pGcD pvcB pEco opcp oecG pEce %WRS4/HOD\4aKUl ecp ecH ect eco eco ecH ecB eco ecB ecG Gcp %WRS4/HOR:HK4aVl pBcv otcD otcp oocG HcB pecD pHce pHcG pEcp pBcD pHcp 7RWDOm1HWZRUNm3HUIRUPDQFHm
/HQLHG4/HOD\4aKUl ecD
/HQLHG4/HOR:HK4aVl oco
PRWDO4/HOD\4aKUl Hcp
PRWDO4/HOR:HK4aVl pBce
%WRS4/HOD\4aKUl Gco
%WRS4/HOR:HK4aVl pHct
4XHXLQJmDQGmbORFNLQJm5HSRUW
l4ldm6LJQDOmyRQGLWLRQVmv0
oeoG4.>4%LJQDO4 %LPPUDIILF4UHSRUW
37/
,QWHUVHFWLRQEmgEmQ2mdWKm6W2m m12m/DNHm6W2m myHQWUDOmvYH2 >RYHPHQW V1 x1 x1 %1 %1 xV xV
/LUHFWLRQV4%HUYHG D[LPXP4kXHXH4aIWl ppG Bv BD pGp pEp pvE BE
.YHUDJH4kXHXH4aIWl GE Go to HE BH ve oE
BHWK4kXHXH4aIWl Bv vB ve ppH pDH pte vp
<LQN4/LVWDQFH4aIWl GDt GHH tve Hve
wSVWUHDP41ON4PLPH4ail
kXHXLQJ4QHQDOW\4aYHKl
%WRUDJH41D\4/LVW4aIWl ooe tee tpH
%WRUDJH41ON4PLPH4ail
kXHXLQJ4QHQDOW\4aYHKl
1HWZRUNm6XPPDU\
xHWZRUN4ZLGH4kXHXLQJ4QHQDOW\L4e
+&0M6LJQDOL]HGM,QWHUVHFWLRQM&DSDFLW\M$QDO\VLV
p&M(sM1WKM6WsMaM1sM/DNHM6WsMaM&HQWUDOM$YHs rcrR4,LJQDO4VRQGLWLRQV4UI rcrR4UI4,LJQDO ,\QFKUR4hh4-HSRUW
97(
IRYHPHQW )uF )u- )u-r wuFr wuF wuA ,uA ,u- ,u-r w)Fr w)F w)- FDQH4VRQILJXUDWLRQV
AUDIILF4OROXPH4CYSKo rh Hr h RD RG rer hDp hGD eG h 1h1 h1h 8XWXUH4OROXPH4CYSKo rh Hr h RD RG rer hDp hGD eG h 1h1 h1h 5GHDO48ORZ4CYSKSOo hHcc hHcc hHcc hHcc hHcc hHcc hHcc hHcc hHcc hHcc hHcc hHcc ARWDO4FRVW4WLPH4CVo RMe RMe RMe RMe RMe RMe RMe
FDQH4jWLOM48DFWRU hMcc hMcc hMcc hMcc hMcc hMcc hMcc
8UW cMHD hMcc hMcc hMcc cMHe hMcc cMHe
8OW4UURWHFWHG cMDD cMDe hMcc hMcc hMcc cMDe hMcc
,DWGM48ORZ4CSURWo heGe hpD1 hGHr hGHr hehe hpD1 hehe
8OW4UHUPLWWHG cMDD cMDe hMcc hMcc hMcc cMDe hMcc
,DWGM48ORZ4CSHUPo heGe hpD1 hGHr hGHr hehe hpD1 hehe
UHDNPKRXU4IDFWRUs4U78 cMDG cMDG cMDG cMDG cMDG cMDG cMDG cMDG cMDG cMDG cMDG cMDG fGMM48ORZ4CYSKo rr He h eh RH rpc rcr hHe eD h 1r1 h1e
-A.-4-HGXFWLRQ4CYSKo hcc c c c c c c DH c c c Dp
FDQH49URXS48ORZ4CYSKo H c c c DD rpc rcr hRp c c 1rR 1D AXUQ4A\SH UURW UURW UURW wf wf UURW UURW UURW UURW
UURWHFWHG4UKDVHV H h h p r r G G G
UHUPLWWHG4UKDVHV
fFWXDWHG49UHHQs494CVo RMp pMD reMH hRMR hRMR hHMh hHMh
)IIHFWLYH49UHHQs4J4CVo RMp pMD reMH hRMR hRMR hHMh hHMh fFWXDWHG4JyV4-DWLR cMcG cMhh cMRr cMr1 cMr1 cMrD cMrD
VOHDUDQFH4ALPH4CVo RMe RMe RMe RMe RMe RMe RMe
OHKLFOH4)[WHQVLRQ4CVo 1Mc 1Mc 1Mc 1Mc 1Mc 1Mc 1Mc
FDQH49US4VDS4CYSKo hhp hHH GRh Rh1 1eh RDR RRr
YyV4-DWLR4UURW FcMch FcMcp cMhe FcMhh cMhc FcMhD cMc1
YyV4-DWLR4UHUP
YyF4-DWLR cMcG cMe1 cM1e cMRD cMRr cMpp cMcD
jQLIRUP4(HOD\s4Gh rpMG rpMc hrMR rcMp rcMr hDMr hpMc
UURJUHVVLRQ48DFWRU hMcc hMcc hMcc hMcc hMcc hMcc hMcc
5QFUHPHQWDO4(HOD\s4Gr cM1 rMG cM1 cMD cMH 1Mh cMh
(HOD\4CVo rGMc rHMG hrMG rhMe rhMc rrMR hpMc
FHYHO4RI4,HUYLFH V V u V V V u
fSSURDFK4(HOD\4CVo rGMc hGMh rhM1 rcMe
fSSURDFK4F., V u V V
5QWHUVHFWLRQ4,XPPDU\
7VI4rccc4VRQWURO4(HOD\ rcMR 7VI4rccc4FHYHO4RI4,HUYLFH V 7VI4rccc4OROXPH4WR4VDSDFLW\4UDWLR cMer
fFWXDWHG4V\FOH4FHQJWK4CVo4 prMc ,XP4RI4ORVW4WLPH4CVo hHMc 5QWHUVHFWLRQ4VDSDFLW\4jWLOL]DWLRQ epMen 5Vj4FHYHO4RI4,HUYLFH u fQDO\VLV4UHULRG4CPLQo he
F4444VULWLFDO4FDQH49URXS
6LP7UDIILFm3HUIRUPDQFHm5HSRUW
l4ldm6LJQDOmyRQGLWLRQVm30
oeoG4u>4ULJQDO ULP%UDIILF4kHSRUW
65/
g.mQ2mdWKm6W2m m12m/DNHm6W2m myHQWUDOmvYH2m3HUIRUPDQFHmE\mPRYHPHQWm >RYHPHQW V1A V1k V1ko <1Ao <1A <1% U1% U1k U1ko <VAo <VA <Vk /HQLHG4/HOD\4aKUl ece ece ece ece ece ece ecp eco ecp ece ect ece /HQLHG4/HOR:HK4aVl eco eco ecp tcD tcD ecD pce tcH tcH Gco tcD pce %RWDO4/HOD\4aKUl eco ecv ece ecG ect ecB pcp pco ect ece pcB ecD %RWDO4/HOR:HK4aVl tpct tpcp ovct oBcE oEco poct pBcH oocG ooce tocH opco pDcB UWRS4/HOD\4aKUl eco ecv ece ect ect ecD ecB pce ect ece pcH ecD UWRS4/HOR:HK4aVl ovcv oEcB oGcD oDcE oHco EcH pGcB pBcp pEcE ovcv pvco pHcv g.mQ2mdWKm6W2m m12m/DNHm6W2m myHQWUDOmvYH2m3HUIRUPDQFHmE\mPRYHPHQWm >RYHPHQW .OO
/HQLHG4/HOD\4aKUl ecE
/HQLHG4/HOR:HK4aVl ocp
%RWDO4/HOD\4aKUl vcv
%RWDO4/HOR:HK4aVl oecG
UWRS4/HOD\4aKUl DcG
UWRS4/HOR:HK4aVl pDcB
7RWDOm1HWZRUNm3HUIRUPDQFHm
/HQLHG4/HOD\4aKUl ecE
/HQLHG4/HOR:HK4aVl ocp
%RWDO4/HOD\4aKUl Ecp
%RWDO4/HOR:HK4aVl opcH
UWRS4/HOD\4aKUl DcG
UWRS4/HOR:HK4aVl pvce
4XHXLQJmDQGmbORFNLQJm5HSRUW
l4ldm6LJQDOmyRQGLWLRQVm30
oeoG4u>4ULJQDO ULP%UDIILF4kHSRUW
65/
,QWHUVHFWLRQ.mg.mQ2mdWKm6W2m m12m/DNHm6W2m myHQWUDOmvYH2 >RYHPHQW V1 <1 <1 U1 U1 <V <V
/LUHFWLRQV4UHUYHG Ak( dA % % k( dA k
>D[LPXP4QXHXH4aIWl pGG ppe pGo pDH opo ooG ptE
.YHUDJH4QXHXH4aIWl Do GE DD vv peD ppv Ge
BHWK4QXHXH4aIWl ppD Be ppB ptt pEp pBD BG
ALQN4/LVWDQFH4aIWl GHo GHH tve HHB
wSVWUHDP41ON4%LPH4ail
QXHXLQJ4uHQDOW\4aYHKl
UWRUDJH41D\4/LVW4aIWl ooe tee tpH
UWRUDJH41ON4%LPH4ail
QXHXLQJ4uHQDOW\4aYHKl
1HWZRUNm6XPPDU\
<HWZRUN4ZLGH4QXHXLQJ4uHQDOW\L4e
+&0M6LJQDOL]HGM,QWHUVHFWLRQM&DSDFLW\M$QDO\VLV
p&M(sM1WKM6WsMaM1sM/DNHM6WsMaM&HQWUDOM$YHs AdAy4(XDO4FHIW4/LJQDO4VRQGLWLRQV4NI AdAy4NI4/LJQDO /\QFKUR4ss4,HSRUW
68(
IRYHPHQW )TF )T, wTFA wTF wTk /Tk /T, /T,A w)F w),
FDQH4VRQILJXUDWLRQV
kUDIILF4-ROXPH4fYSKt sr h1 ys Mh sMR s1s Ass yM src rs
7XWXUH4-ROXPH4fYSKt sr h1 ys Mh sMR s1s Ass yM src rs
3GHDO47ORZ4fYSKSOt s1dd s1dd s1dd s1dd s1dd s1dd s1dd s1dd s1dd s1dd kRWDO4FRVW4WLPH4fVt yCc yCc yCc yCc yCc yCc yCc
FDQH4PWLOC47DFWRU sCdd sCdd sCdd sCdd sCdd dCRr sCdd
7USEg4SHGoELNHV dCR1 sCdd sCdd sCdd sCdd sCdd sCdd
7OSEg4SHGoELNHV sCdd sCdd sCdd sCdd sCdd sCdd sCdd
7UW dC1R sCdd sCdd sCdd dC1c sCdd dC1c
7OW4UURWHFWHG dCRR dCRc sCdd sCdd sCdd dCRc sCdd
/DWGC47ORZ4fSURWt scAy shrh srhc srhc scdd MAcA scdd
7OW4UHUPLWWHG dCRR dCRc sCdd sCdd sCdd dCRc sCdd
/DWGC47ORZ4fSHUPt scAy shrh srhc srhc scdd MAcA scdd
UHDNnKRXU4IDFWRUg4U87 dC1h dC1h dC1h dC1h dC1h dC1h dC1h dC1h dC1h dC1h NGMC47ORZ4fYSKt Ad rR y1 yA shA Asd Ayc cd AdM 1M
,k.,4,HGXFWLRQ4fYSKt d d d d d d Rd d d rd
FDQH46URXS47ORZ4fYSKt RR d d Rd shA Asd Adc d AdM sM
VRQIOC4UHGVC4fuoKUt s c y r y r s c
kXUQ4k\SH UURW UURW UURW wN wN UURW UURW UURW
UURWHFWHG4UKDVHV 1 s s h A A r r
UHUPLWWHG4UKDVHV
NFWXDWHG46UHHQg464fVt 1CM hCy A1Cc srCh srCh RCr RCr
)IIHFWLYH46UHHQg4J4fVt 1CM hCy A1Cc srCh srCh RCr RCr
NFWXDWHG4JoV4,DWLR dCsy dCss dCy1 dCAR dCAR dCsh dCsh
VOHDUDQFH4kLPH4fVt yCc yCc yCc yCc yCc yCc yCc
-HKLFOH4)[WHQVLRQ4fVt MCd MCd MCd MCd MCd MCd MCd
FDQH46US4VDS4fYSKt Asd sr1 1M1 csr yyd cAc AyA
YoV4,DWLR4UURW FdCdh FdCdc dCdR dCsA FdCsy FdCdh dCds
YoV4,DWLR4UHUP
YoF4,DWLR dCyr dCcs dCsR dCys dCyr dCMR dCdh
PQLIRUP4(HOD\g4Gs AMC1 AcCM RCs srCd srCy AACc AsCM
UURJUHVVLRQ47DFWRU sCdd sCdd sCdd sCdd sCdd sCdd sCdd
3QFUHPHQWDO4(HOD\g4GA sCr ACM dCs dCc dC1 dCc dCs
(HOD\4fVt AcCc ArCh RCA srCc s1Cs AMCd AsCy
FHYHO4RI4/HUYLFH V V N T T V V
NSSURDFK4(HOD\4fVt AcCc scC1 srCR AACc
NSSURDFK4F./ V T T V
3QWHUVHFWLRQ4/XPPDU\
8VI4Addd4VRQWURO4(HOD\ sRCA 8VI4Addd4FHYHO4RI4/HUYLFH T 8VI4Addd4-ROXPH4WR4VDSDFLW\4UDWLR dCyc
NFWXDWHG4V\FOH4FHQJWK4fVt4 hdCd /XP4RI4ORVW4WLPH4fVt s1Cd 3QWHUVHFWLRQ4VDSDFLW\4PWLOL]DWLRQ yyCcl 3VP4FHYHO4RI4/HUYLFH N NQDO\VLV4UHULRG4fPLQt sc
F4444VULWLFDO4FDQH46URXS
6LP7UDIILFm3HUIRUPDQFHm5HSRUW
u4uLmbXDOm/HIWm6LJQDOmvRQGLWLRQVmN0
oeoG4.>4%LJQDO %LPPUDIILF4UHSRUW
38/
DMmy2mLWKm6W2m m12m/DNHm6W2m mvHQWUDOmNYH2m3HUIRUPDQFHmE\mPRYHPHQWm >RYHPHQW V1< V1U x1<o x1< x1P %1P %1U %1Uo xV< xVU .OO
/HQLHG4/HOD\4aKUl ece ece ece ece ece ecp eco ece eco ece ecD /HQLHG4/HOR:HK4aVl eco eco tcE tcv ecH pcp tcH tcH tcE ecv oco PRWDO4/HOD\4aKUl ecp ecG ect ect ect ecE pce eco pce ecG GcE PRWDO4/HOR:HK4aVl oocv oocH oGcH oGce Ecv pGcH pvct pvcD opcH oecG pvcD %WRS4/HOD\4aKUl ecp ecG ect eco eco ecH ecB eco ecB ecG Gce %WRS4/HOR:HK4aVl pBcD opco opcv opcG HcB pecH pGcG pGcv pEcv pBcE pGcE 7RWDOm1HWZRUNm3HUIRUPDQFHm
/HQLHG4/HOD\4aKUl ecD
/HQLHG4/HOR:HK4aVl oco
PRWDO4/HOD\4aKUl Hcp
PRWDO4/HOR:HK4aVl pEcD
%WRS4/HOD\4aKUl Gcp
%WRS4/HOR:HK4aVl pHce
4XHXLQJmDQGmkORFNLQJm5HSRUW
u4uLmbXDOm/HIWm6LJQDOmvRQGLWLRQVmN0
oeoG4.>4%LJQDO %LPPUDIILF4UHSRUW
38/
IQWHUVHFWLRQMmDMmy2mLWKm6W2m m12m/DNHm6W2m mvHQWUDOmNYH2 >RYHPHQW V1 x1 x1 %1 %1 xV xV xV
/LUHFWLRQV4%HUYHG D[LPXP4kXHXH4aIWl ppv BH pet pGp pBB vH pte Bp
.YHUDJH4kXHXH4aIWl GG GE Go Dp Bv v HB ot
BHWK4kXHXH4aIWl Ev EH EE ppB pDv tD ppe Do
<LQN4/LVWDQFH4aIWl GHp GGB tve HDo
wSVWUHDP41ON4PLPH4ail
kXHXLQJ4QHQDOW\4aYHKl
%WRUDJH41D\4/LVW4aIWl ooe tee tpH tpH
%WRUDJH41ON4PLPH4ail
kXHXLQJ4QHQDOW\4aYHKl
1HWZRUNm6XPPDU\
xHWZRUN4ZLGH4kXHXLQJ4QHQDOW\L4e
+&0M6LJQDOL]HGM,QWHUVHFWLRQM&DSDFLW\M$QDO\VLV
p&M(sM1WKM6WsMaM1sM/DNHM6WsMaM&HQWUDOM$YHs PdPy4(XDO4FHIW4,LJQDO4VRQGLWLRQV4UI PdPy4UI4,LJQDO ,\QFKUR4ss4-HSRUW
97(
IRYHPHQW )TF )T- )T-P wTFP wTF wTA ,TA ,T- ,T-P w)FP w)F w)- FDQH4VRQILJXUDWLRQV
AUDIILF4OROXPH4fYSKt Ps 1P s yR yr PcP sRh srR cr s MsM sMs 8XWXUH4OROXPH4fYSKt Ps 1P s yR yr PcP sRh srR cr s MsM sMs 5GHDO48ORZ4fYSKSOt s1dd s1dd s1dd s1dd s1dd s1dd s1dd s1dd s1dd s1dd s1dd s1dd ARWDO4FRVW4WLPH4fVt yCc yCc yCc yCc yCc yCc yCc
FDQH4jWLOC48DFWRU sCdd sCdd sCdd sCdd sCdd dCRr sCdd
8UW dC1R sCdd sCdd sCdd dC1c sCdd dC1c
8OW4UURWHFWHG dCRR dCRc sCdd sCdd sCdd dCRc sCdd
,DWGC48ORZ4fSURWt scrc shRM sr1P sr1P scsc MP1c scsc
8OW4UHUPLWWHG dCRR dCRc sCdd sCdd sCdd dCRc sCdd
,DWGC48ORZ4fSHUPt scrc shRM sr1P sr1P scsc MP1c scsc
UHDNnKRXU4IDFWRUg4U78 dCRr dCRr dCRr dCRr dCRr dCRr dCRr dCRr dCRr dCRr dCRr dCRr NGMC48ORZ4fYSKt PP 1c s cs y1 Phd PdP s1c cR s MPM sMc
-A.-4-HGXFWLRQ4fYSKt RR d d d d d d Rh d d d sdh
FDQH49URXS48ORZ4fYSKt R d d d RR Phd PdP sy1 d d MPy PR AXUQ4A\SH UURW UURW UURW wN wN UURW UURW UURW UURW
UURWHFWHG4UKDVHV 1 s s h P P r r r
UHUPLWWHG4UKDVHV
NFWXDWHG49UHHQg494fVt yCc hCh PyCP sMCs sMCs ssCr ssCr
)IIHFWLYH49UHHQg4J4fVt yCc hCh PyCP sMCs sMCs ssCr ssCr NFWXDWHG4JoV4-DWLR dCd1 dCsP dCyc dCPy dCPy dCPP dCPP
VOHDUDQFH4ALPH4fVt yCc yCc yCc yCc yCc yCc yCc
OHKLFOH4)[WHQVLRQ4fVt MCd MCd MCd MCd MCd MCd MCd
FDQH49US4VDS4fYSKt sMs Pdr 1dd yMM Mh1 rsM MP1
YoV4-DWLR4UURW FdCds FdCdh dCsc FdCss dCsd FdCsd dCdP
YoV4-DWLR4UHUP
YoF4-DWLR dCdr dCy1 dCMM dCyr dCyd dCyc dCdR
jQLIRUP4(HOD\g4Gs PPC1 PPCd RCh srCy srCs s1CM shC1
UURJUHVVLRQ48DFWRU sCdd sCdd sCdd sCdd sCdd sCdd sCdd
5QFUHPHQWDO4(HOD\g4GP dCP sCr dCP dC1 dCr dCc dCs
(HOD\4fVt PMCd PMC1 RC1 s1CP srC1 s1C1 srCd
FHYHO4RI4,HUYLFH V V N T T T T
NSSURDFK4(HOD\4fVt PMCd sMCr s1Cd s1CM
NSSURDFK4F., V T T T
5QWHUVHFWLRQ4,XPPDU\
7VI4Pddd4VRQWURO4(HOD\ srCM 7VI4Pddd4FHYHO4RI4,HUYLFH T 7VI4Pddd4OROXPH4WR4VDSDFLW\4UDWLR dCys
NFWXDWHG4V\FOH4FHQJWK4fVt4 cMCR ,XP4RI4ORVW4WLPH4fVt s1Cd 5QWHUVHFWLRQ4VDSDFLW\4jWLOL]DWLRQ yrChl 5Vj4FHYHO4RI4,HUYLFH N NQDO\VLV4UHULRG4fPLQt sc
F4444VULWLFDO4FDQH49URXS
6LP7UDIILFm3HUIRUPDQFHm5HSRUW
u4uLmbXDOm/HIWm6LJQDOmvRQGLWLRQVm30
oeoG4u>4ULJQDO ULP%UDIILF4kHSRUW
67/
D1my2mLWKm6W2m m12m/DNHm6W2m mvHQWUDOmkYH2m3HUIRUPDQFHmE\mPRYHPHQWm >RYHPHQW V1A V1k V1ko <1Ao <1A <1% U1% U1k U1ko <VAo <VA <Vk /HQLHG4/HOD\4aKUl ece ece ece ece ece ece ecp eco ecp ece ect ece /HQLHG4/HOR:HK4aVl eco eco ecp tcD tcv ecD pce tcH tcG tcG tcD ecB %RWDO4/HOD\4aKUl eco ecv ece ect ecG ecE pce pcp ect ece pcD ecD %RWDO4/HOR:HK4aVl tecp tpce pocD oBct tecH ppcH pvcE ooce oecH pBcp pBco pDcB UWRS4/HOD\4aKUl eco ecv ece ect ect ecD ecv pce ect ece pct ecH UWRS4/HOR:HK4aVl oDct oBce ppce oDco ovct vcv ptco pEcB pvct pDcv pHcv pDcp D1my2mLWKm6W2m m12m/DNHm6W2m mvHQWUDOmkYH2m3HUIRUPDQFHmE\mPRYHPHQWm >RYHPHQW .OO
/HQLHG4/HOD\4aKUl ecE
/HQLHG4/HOR:HK4aVl ocp
%RWDO4/HOD\4aKUl vcp
%RWDO4/HOR:HK4aVl pBcG
UWRS4/HOD\4aKUl HcB
UWRS4/HOR:HK4aVl pDcp
7RWDOm1HWZRUNm3HUIRUPDQFHm
/HQLHG4/HOD\4aKUl ecE
/HQLHG4/HOR:HK4aVl ocp
%RWDO4/HOD\4aKUl vcD
%RWDO4/HOR:HK4aVl oecG
UWRS4/HOD\4aKUl Dce
UWRS4/HOR:HK4aVl pDco
4XHXLQJmDQGmAORFNLQJm5HSRUW
u4uLmbXDOm/HIWm6LJQDOmvRQGLWLRQVm30
oeoG4u>4ULJQDO ULP%UDIILF4kHSRUW
67/
IQWHUVHFWLRQ1mD1my2mLWKm6W2m m12m/DNHm6W2m mvHQWUDOmkYH2 >RYHPHQW V1 <1 <1 U1 U1 <V <V <V
/LUHFWLRQV4UHUYHG Ak( dA % % k( dA A k
>D[LPXP4QXHXH4aIWl pGG ppo pvE ptv ott ptB pDv ppv
.YHUDJH4QXHXH4aIWl HD Ho vH vo peD te Be oB
BHWK4QXHXH4aIWl ppp BH ptB poE pEv peD pDe vv
ALQN4/LVWDQFH4aIWl GtE GGB tve HHo
wSVWUHDP41ON4%LPH4ail
QXHXLQJ4uHQDOW\4aYHKl
UWRUDJH41D\4/LVW4aIWl ooe tee tpH tpH
UWRUDJH41ON4%LPH4ail e e
QXHXLQJ4uHQDOW\4aYHKl e e
1HWZRUNm6XPPDU\
<HWZRUN4ZLGH4QXHXLQJ4uHQDOW\L4e
+&0M6LJQDOL]HGM,QWHUVHFWLRQM&DSDFLW\M$QDO\VLV
p&M(sM1WKM6WsMaM1sM/DNHM6WsMaM&HQWUDOM$YHs hy1R4,LJQDO4uRQGLWLRQV4T. hy1R4T.4,LJQDO ,\QFKUR4cc4-HSRUW
86V
.RYHPHQW (fw (f- Ufwh Ufw Ufj ,fj ,f- ,f-h U(w U(-
wDQH4uRQILJXUDWLRQV
jUDIILF4OROXPH4lYSKC hR Gh Rc 1R ceG hcp hRR Ry hcR Ge
)XWXUH4OROXPH4lYSKC hR Gh Rc 1R ceG hcp hRR Ry hcR Ge
7GHDO4)ORZ4lYSKSOC cGyy cGyy cGyy cGyy cGyy cGyy cGyy cGyy cGyy cGyy jRWDO4wRVW4WLPH4lVC 1AR 1AR 1AR 1AR 1AR 1AR 1AR
wDQH43WLOA4)DFWRU cAyy cAyy cAyy cAyy cAyy cAyy cAyy
)UW yAHy cAyy cAyy cAyy yAGR cAyy yAGR
)OW4PURWHFWHG yAHH yAHR cAyy cAyy cAyy yAHR cAyy
,DWGA4)ORZ4lSURWC cRe1 cepe cpeR cpeR cRyy cepe cRyy
)OW4PHUPLWWHG yAHH yAHR cAyy cAyy cAyy yAHR cAyy
,DWGA4)ORZ4lSHUPC cRe1 cepe cpeR cpeR cRyy cepe cRyy
PHDNsKRXU4IDFWRUt4P6) yAHh yAHh yAHh yAHh yAHh yAHh yAHh yAHh yAHh yAHh TGMA4)ORZ4lYSKC hp GH RR 1H cGr hre hpp R1 hr1 Hr
-j9-4-HGXFWLRQ4lYSKC y y y y y y Hc y y pr
wDQH48URXS4)ORZ4lYSKC cce y y cy1 cGr hre h1y y hr1 hy
jXUQ4j\SH PURW PURW PURW UT UT PURW PURW PURW
PURWHFWHG4PKDVHV G c c e h h p p
PHUPLWWHG4PKDVHV
TFWXDWHG48UHHQt484lVC GAp eAR hHAp cGAp cGAp c1Ae c1Ae
(IIHFWLYH48UHHQt4J4lVC GAp eAR hHAp cGAp cGAp c1Ae c1Ae TFWXDWHG4JMu4-DWLR yAcr yAcy yA1R yAhG yAhG yAhh yAhh
uOHDUDQFH4jLPH4lVC 1AR 1AR 1AR 1AR 1AR 1AR 1AR
OHKLFOH4([WHQVLRQ4lVC rAy rAy rAy rAy rAy rAy rAy
wDQH48US4uDS4lYSKC hy1 cer pGG 1He 1hc rep rhH
YMV4-DWLR4PURW FyAyp FyAye yAcy yAcr FyAce FyAc1 yAyc
YMV4-DWLR4PHUP
YMF4-DWLR yARp yAe1 yAhr yA1G yARp yAe1 yAye
3QLIRUP4VHOD\t4Gc hpAc hGAH ccA1 cHAG hyAR hrAR hyAR
PURJUHVVLRQ4)DFWRU cAyy cAyy cAyy cAyy cAyy cAyy cAyy
7QFUHPHQWDO4VHOD\t4Gh rAe pAH yAh yAp cAG rAe yAc
VHOD\4lVC ryAp reAG ccAR hyAe hhAh hpAh hyAe
wHYHO4RI4,HUYLFH u V f u u u u
TSSURDFK4VHOD\4lVC ryAp hyAp hcAR hRAr
TSSURDFK4w9, u u u u
7QWHUVHFWLRQ4,XPPDU\
6u.4hyyy4uRQWURO4VHOD\ hrAc 6u.4hyyy4wHYHO4RI4,HUYLFH u 6u.4hyyy4OROXPH4WR4uDSDFLW\4UDWLR yAey
TFWXDWHG4u\FOH4wHQJWK4lVC4 eeAR ,XP4RI4ORVW4WLPH4lVC cGAy 7QWHUVHFWLRQ4uDSDFLW\43WLOL]DWLRQ RhAyg 7u34wHYHO4RI4,HUYLFH T TQDO\VLV4PHULRG4lPLQC cR
F4444uULWLFDO4wDQH48URXS
6LP7UDIILFm3HUIRUPDQFHm5HSRUW
g4Cdm6LJQDOmbRQGLWLRQVmk0
pRtG4)>4%LJQDO %LPPUDIILF4UHSRUW
Vs3
5:mw2mCWKm6W2m m12m/DNHm6W2m mbHQWUDOmkYH2m3HUIRUPDQFHmE\mPRYHPHQWm >RYHPHQW 8.< 8.U x.<p x.< x.P %.P %.U %.Up x8< x8U )OO
3HQLHG43HOD\4nKUa RfR RfR Rfe RfR RfR Rfe Rfo Rfe Rfp RfR Rfv 3HQLHG43HOc:HK4nVa Rfp Rfp ofv ofD RfG efo ofG ofH ofD Rfv pfo PRWDO43HOD\4nKUa Rfp RfH Rft Rft RfG efR efG Rfo efH RfG HfE PRWDO43HOc:HK4nVa pDft pHfp pDfE oRft EfD eHfv pRfH peft ptfv eEfE pRft %WRS43HOD\4nKUa Rfp RfH Rfo Rfo Rfo RfD efp Rfo efo Rft Gfv %WRS43HOc:HK4nVa pofv ptfo pGfR pDfH HfG epfo eHfE eDfH pefp eEfR eDfR 7RWDOm1HWZRUNm3HUIRUPDQFHm
3HQLHG43HOD\4nKUa Rfv
3HQLHG43HOc:HK4nVa pfo
PRWDO43HOD\4nKUa Dfo
PRWDO43HOc:HK4nVa peft
%WRS43HOD\4nKUa Gfv
%WRS43HOc:HK4nVa eDfe
4XHXLQJmDQGmvORFNLQJm5HSRUW
g4Cdm6LJQDOmbRQGLWLRQVmk0
pRtG4)>4%LJQDO %LPPUDIILF4UHSRUW
Vs3
IQWHUVHFWLRQ:m5:mw2mCWKm6W2m m12m/DNHm6W2m mbHQWUDOmkYH2 >RYHPHQW 8. x. x. %. %. x8 x8
3LUHFWLRQV4%HUYHG D[LPXP4kXHXH4nIWa epR epR eeD evp pto eEp vo
)YHUDJH4kXHXH4nIWa HR Go to DD epe EG ot
EGWK4kXHXH4nIWa eRD ED ER etH pRH eGD DR
<LQN43LVWDQFH4nIWa tHo tGG oDR GDR
wSVWUHDP4.ON4PLPH4nSa
kXHXLQJ4QHQDOW\4nYHKa
%WRUDJH4.D\43LVW4nIWa ppR oRR oeG
%WRUDJH4.ON4PLPH4nSa R
kXHXLQJ4QHQDOW\4nYHKa R
1HWZRUNm6XPPDU\
xHWZRUN4ZLGH4kXHXLQJ4QHQDOW\B4R
+&0M6LJQDOL]HGM,QWHUVHFWLRQM&DSDFLW\M$QDO\VLV
p&M(sM1WKM6WsMaM1sM/DNHM6WsMaM&HQWUDOM$YHs hy1R4,LJQDO4uRQGLWLRQV4Uw hy1R4Uw4,LJQDO ,\QFKUR4cc4-HSRUW
63V
wRYHPHQW (fI (f- (f-h 8fIh 8fI 8fA ,fA ,f- ,f-h 8(Ih 8(I 8(- IDQH4uRQILJXUDWLRQV
AUDIILF4OROXPH4lYSKC hR cyy c ec RR rye hrR hcp py c rpH cRe )XWXUH4OROXPH4lYSKC hR cyy c ec RR rye hrR hcp py c rpH cRe 7GHDO4)ORZ4lYSKSOC cGyy cGyy cGyy cGyy cGyy cGyy cGyy cGyy cGyy cGyy cGyy cGyy ARWDO4IRVW4WLPH4lVC 1PR 1PR 1PR 1PR 1PR 1PR 1PR
IDQH4jWLOP4)DFWRU cPyy cPyy cPyy cPyy cPyy cPyy cPyy
)UW yPGH cPyy cPyy cPyy yPGR cPyy yPGR
)OW4UURWHFWHG yPHH yPHR cPyy cPyy cPyy yPHR cPyy
,DWGP4)ORZ4lSURWC cRp1 ceHr cpGh cpGh cRcR ceHr cRcR
)OW4UHUPLWWHG yPHH yPHR cPyy cPyy cPyy yPHR cPyy
,DWGP4)ORZ4lSHUPC cRp1 ceHr cpGh cpGh cRcR ceHr cRcR
UHDNsKRXU4IDFWRUt4U3) yPHp yPHp yPHp yPHp yPHp yPHp yPHp yPHp yPHp yPHp yPHp yPHp TGMP4)ORZ4lYSKC he cyr c er Rp rcR h1h hh1 ph c rHc cec -A.-4-HGXFWLRQ4lYSKC ccp y y y y y y HG y y y cyG
IDQH46URXS4)ORZ4lYSKC cr y y y chy rcR h1h cHG y y rHh Rr AXUQ4A\SH UURW UURW UURW 8T 8T UURW UURW UURW UURW
UURWHFWHG4UKDVHV G c c e h h p p p
UHUPLWWHG4UKDVHV
TFWXDWHG46UHHQt464lVC RPc ePG hePG cRPR cRPR hhPy hhPy
(IIHFWLYH46UHHQt4J4lVC RPc ePG hePG cRPR cRPR hhPy hhPy TFWXDWHG4JMu4-DWLR yPyG yPcy yP1y yPhr yPhr yPrr yPrr
uOHDUDQFH4ALPH4lVC 1PR 1PR 1PR 1PR 1PR 1PR 1PR
OHKLFOH4([WHQVLRQ4lVC rPy rPy rPy rPy rPy rPy rPy
IDQH46US4uDS4lYSKC ccH cpy pyG 1yH r1G RRh 1H1
YMV4-DWLR4UURW FyPyc FyPyp yPcG FyPc1 yPcr FyPhr yPyr
YMV4-DWLR4UHUP
YMF4-DWLR yPcc yPpc yP11 yPRH yPRp yPpc yPcc
jQLIRUP4VHOD\t4Gc hHPy hHPr c1PH hrPc hrPy cHPH cRPG
UURJUHVVLRQ4)DFWRU cPyy cPyy cPyy cPyy cPyy cPyy cPyy
7QFUHPHQWDO4VHOD\t4Gh yP1 chPR yP1 hPr hPc 1Pr yPc
VHOD\4lVC hHP1 1cPH cRPr hRP1 hRPc h1Ph cRPH
IHYHO4RI4,HUYLFH u V f u u u f
TSSURDFK4VHOD\4lVC hHP1 hhPe hRPr hcPG
TSSURDFK4I., u u u u
7QWHUVHFWLRQ4,XPPDU\
3uw4hyyy4uRQWURO4VHOD\ hrPp 3uw4hyyy4IHYHO4RI4,HUYLFH u 3uw4hyyy4OROXPH4WR4uDSDFLW\4UDWLR yPec
TFWXDWHG4u\FOH4IHQJWK4lVC4 epP1 ,XP4RI4ORVW4WLPH4lVC cGPy 7QWHUVHFWLRQ4uDSDFLW\4jWLOL]DWLRQ eRPcg 7uj4IHYHO4RI4,HUYLFH u TQDO\VLV4UHULRG4lPLQC cR
F4444uULWLFDO4IDQH46URXS
6LP7UDIILFm3HUIRUPDQFHm5HSRUW
g4Cdm6LJQDOmbRQGLWLRQVm30
pRtG4u>4ULJQDO ULP%UDIILF4kHSRUW
37/
5Emw2mCWKm6W2m m12m/DNHm6W2m mbHQWUDOmAYH2m3HUIRUPDQFHmE\mPRYHPHQWm >RYHPHQW V.A V.k V.kp <.Ap <.A <.% U.% U.k U.kp <VAp <VA <Vk /HQLHG4/HOD\4nKUa RfR RfR RfR Rfe Rfe Rfe Rfe Rfp Rfe RfR Rft RfR /HQLHG4/HOc:HK4nVa Rfp Rfp Rfe ofG ofG RfD efo ofG ofG pfR ofG efe %RWDO4/HOD\4nKUa Rfp RfE RfR RfG RfH eft efD pfp RfD RfR pfE Rfv %RWDO4/HOc:HK4nVa otft oefo pEfD otfe oHfp eHfE pGfe oGfH oGfD pofp pHfH pRfH UWRS4/HOD\4nKUa Rfp RfE RfR RfG RfH efR efo pfR RfH RfR pfo Rfv UWRS4/HOc:HK4nVa oRfp pEfR pHfe oRfD opfH epfR eEfD oefo oefp pRfp peft evfv 5Emw2mCWKm6W2m m12m/DNHm6W2m mbHQWUDOmAYH2m3HUIRUPDQFHmE\mPRYHPHQWm >RYHPHQW )OO
/HQLHG4/HOD\4nKUa efR
/HQLHG4/HOc:HK4nVa pfp
%RWDO4/HOD\4nKUa epfp
%RWDO4/HOc:HK4nVa pHfv
UWRS4/HOD\4nKUa eRfp
UWRS4/HOc:HK4nVa ppft
7RWDOm1HWZRUNm3HUIRUPDQFHm
/HQLHG4/HOD\4nKUa efR
/HQLHG4/HOc:HK4nVa pfp
%RWDO4/HOD\4nKUa epfv
%RWDO4/HOc:HK4nVa pDfE
UWRS4/HOD\4nKUa eRfp
UWRS4/HOc:HK4nVa ppft
4XHXLQJmDQGmvORFNLQJm5HSRUW
g4Cdm6LJQDOmbRQGLWLRQVm30
pRtG4u>4ULJQDO ULP%UDIILF4kHSRUW
37/
IQWHUVHFWLRQEm5Emw2mCWKm6W2m m12m/DNHm6W2m mbHQWUDOmAYH2 >RYHPHQW V. <. <. U. U. <V <V
/LUHFWLRQV4UHUYHG Aky NA % % ky NA k
>D[LPXP4QXHXH4nIWa eHE etH eER poR oRo pEv pev
)YHUDJH4QXHXH4nIWa Dt HD EH ED eGo eGH Go
EGWK4QXHXH4nIWa eoe epo eHv eDD pHt pGR eot
ALQN4/LVWDQFH4nIWa tGp tGG oDR GGE
wSVWUHDP4.ON4%LPH4nSa R
QXHXLQJ4uHQDOW\4nYHKa R
UWRUDJH4.D\4/LVW4nIWa ppR oRR oeG
UWRUDJH4.ON4%LPH4nSa R e R
QXHXLQJ4uHQDOW\4nYHKa R p R
1HWZRUNm6XPPDU\
<HWZRUN4ZLGH4QXHXLQJ4uHQDOW\B4p
+&0M6LJQDOL]HGM,QWHUVHFWLRQM&DSDFLW\M$QDO\VLV
p&M(sM1WKM6WsMaM1sM/DNHM6WsMaM&HQWUDOM$YHs soMy4VXDO4wHIW4-LJQDO4TRQGLWLRQV4B. soMy4B.4-LJQDO -\QFKUR4dd4kHSRUW
86V
.RYHPHQW (Nw (Nk UNws UNw UN, -N, -Nk -Nks U(w U(k
wDQH4TRQILJXUDWLRQV
,UDIILF4OROXPH4eYSKf sy rs yd My dcr sdh syy yo sdy rc
)XWXUH4OROXPH4eYSKf sy rs yd My dcr sdh syy yo sdy rc
7GHDO4)ORZ4eYSKSOf droo droo droo droo droo droo droo droo droo droo ,RWDO4wRVW4WLPH4eVf Mny Mny Mny Mny Mny Mny Mny
wDQH4jWLOn4)DFWRU dnoo dnoo dnoo dnoo dnoo on1h dnoo
)UW on1o dnoo dnoo dnoo onry dnoo onry
)OW4PURWHFWHG on11 on1y dnoo dnoo dnoo on1y dnoo
-DWGn4)ORZ4eSURWf dycM dchc dhcy dhcy dyoo Asys dyoo
)OW4PHUPLWWHG on11 on1y dnoo dnoo dnoo on1y dnoo
-DWGn4)ORZ4eSHUPf dycM dchc dhcy dhcy dyoo Asys dyoo
PHDNgKRXU4IDFWRUi4P6) on1s on1s on1s on1s on1s on1s on1s on1s on1s on1s BGMn4)ORZ4eYSKf sh r1 yy M1 drA sAc shh yM sAM 1A
k,9k4kHGXFWLRQ4eYSKf o o o o o o 1o o o hh
wDQH48URXS4)ORZ4eYSKf ddc o o doM drA sAc sMd o sAM dc
,XUQ4,\SH PURW PURW PURW UB UB PURW PURW PURW
PURWHFWHG4PKDVHV r d d c s s h h
PHUPLWWHG4PKDVHV
BFWXDWHG48UHHQi484eVf rnM cny s1no drno drno donh donh
(IIHFWLYH48UHHQi4J4eVf rnM cny s1no drno drno donh donh BFWXDWHG4JCT4kDWLR ondM ondd onMh ons1 ons1 ondh ondh
TOHDUDQFH4,LPH4eVf Mny Mny Mny Mny Mny Mny Mny
OHKLFOH4([WHQVLRQ4eVf Ano Ano Ano Ano Ano Ano Ano
wDQH48US4TDS4eYSKf sdA dhc rAo ydy MAr ycM sco
YCV4kDWLR4PURW Fonoh Fonoc ondo ondA Fondc Fonoh onod
YCV4kDWLR4PHUP
YCF4kDWLR onyM ony1 onss onMc onyy onMd onoc
jQLIRUP4VHOD\i4Gd sMnr scnA 1nc dhnr drnM ssnh sdnA
PURJUHVVLRQ4)DFWRU dnoo dnoo dnoo dnoo dnoo dnoo dnoo
7QFUHPHQWDO4VHOD\i4Gs snr yns ond onc dny ony ond
VHOD\4eVf shnc Adny 1nr drny d1n1 sAns sdnM
wHYHO4RI4-HUYLFH T T B N N T T
BSSURDFK4VHOD\4eVf shnc dhnc d1nA ssnc
BSSURDFK4w9- T N N T
7QWHUVHFWLRQ4-XPPDU\
6T.4sooo4TRQWURO4VHOD\ sony 6T.4sooo4wHYHO4RI4-HUYLFH T 6T.4sooo4OROXPH4WR4TDSDFLW\4UDWLR onys
BFWXDWHG4T\FOH4wHQJWK4eVf4 cdnc -XP4RI4ORVW4WLPH4eVf drno 7QWHUVHFWLRQ4TDSDFLW\4jWLOL]DWLRQ Myn1a 7Tj4wHYHO4RI4-HUYLFH B BQDO\VLV4PHULRG4ePLQf dy
F4444TULWLFDO4wDQH48URXS
6LP7UDIILFm3HUIRUPDQFHm5HSRUW
D4lLmvXDOm/HIWm6LJQDOmkRQGLWLRQVm&0
pRtG4)>4%LJQDO %LPPUDIILF4UHSRUW
Vs3
5Amb2mlWKm6W2m m12m/DNHm6W2m mkHQWUDOm&YH2m3HUIRUPDQFHmE\mPRYHPHQWm >RYHPHQW 8.< 8.U x.<p x.< x.P %.P %.U %.Up x8< x8U )OO
3HQLHG43HOD\4nKUa RfR RfR Rfe RfR RfR Rfe Rfo RfR Rfp RfR Rfv 3HQLHG43HOc:HK4nVa Rfp Rfp ofv ofH RfG efo ofG ofG ofD Rfv pfp PRWDO43HOD\4nKUa Rfp RfH Rft Rfo RfG efR efH Rfo efH Rft HfE PRWDO43HOc:HK4nVa pDfp pHft pvfG pvfH EfG eHfe pRfv pRfE pGfR pRfR pRfo %WRS43HOD\4nKUa Rfp RfH Rft Rfo Rfo RfD efo Rfp eft Rft GfD %WRS43HOc:HK4nVa pofH ptfD pGfD pGfv HfG eefD eDfp eDfR pefH eEfe eDfR 7RWDOm1HWZRUNm3HUIRUPDQFHm
3HQLHG43HOD\4nKUa Rfv
3HQLHG43HOc:HK4nVa pfp
PRWDO43HOD\4nKUa Dfp
PRWDO43HOc:HK4nVa pefo
%WRS43HOD\4nKUa Gfv
%WRS43HOc:HK4nVa eDfe
4XHXLQJmDQGmNORFNLQJm5HSRUW
D4lLmvXDOm/HIWm6LJQDOmkRQGLWLRQVm&0
pRtG4)>4%LJQDO %LPPUDIILF4UHSRUW
Vs3
BQWHUVHFWLRQAm5Amb2mlWKm6W2m m12m/DNHm6W2m mkHQWUDOm&YH2 >RYHPHQW 8. x. x. %. %. x8 x8 x8
3LUHFWLRQV4%HUYHG D[LPXP4kXHXH4nIWa eoR eoH ept eDt pov ept eHp ER
)YHUDJH4kXHXH4nIWa Gt GD Gp Do ept eG vt pt
EGWK4kXHXH4nIWa eRp eRG eRt eoG pRG HE etG HR
<LQN43LVWDQFH4nIWa tGe ttE oDR GHp
wSVWUHDP4.ON4PLPH4nSa
kXHXLQJ4QHQDOW\4nYHKa
%WRUDJH4.D\43LVW4nIWa ppR oRR oeG oeG
%WRUDJH4.ON4PLPH4nSa
kXHXLQJ4QHQDOW\4nYHKa
1HWZRUNm6XPPDU\
xHWZRUN4ZLGH4kXHXLQJ4QHQDOW\B4R
+&0M6LJQDOL]HGM,QWHUVHFWLRQM&DSDFLW\M$QDO\VLV
p&M(sM1WKM6WsMaM1sM/DNHM6WsMaM&HQWUDOM$YHs soMy4VXDO4IHIW4,LJQDO4TRQGLWLRQV4Uw soMy4Uw4,LJQDO ,\QFKUR4dd4-HSRUW
63V
wRYHPHQW (NI (N- (N-s 8NIs 8NI 8NA ,NA ,N- ,N-s 8(Is 8(I 8(- IDQH4TRQILJXUDWLRQV
AUDIILF4OROXPH4eYSKf sy doo d cd yy Poc sPy sdh ho d Ph1 dyc )XWXUH4OROXPH4eYSKf sy doo d cd yy Poc sPy sdh ho d Ph1 dyc 7GHDO4)ORZ4eYSKSOf droo droo droo droo droo droo droo droo droo droo droo droo ARWDO4IRVW4WLPH4eVf Mny Mny Mny Mny Mny Mny Mny
IDQH4jWLOn4)DFWRU dnoo dnoo dnoo dnoo dnoo on1h dnoo
)UW onr1 dnoo dnoo dnoo onry dnoo onry
)OW4UURWHFWHG on11 on1y dnoo dnoo dnoo on1y dnoo
,DWGn4)ORZ4eSURWf dyhM dc1P dhrs dhrs dydy Psry dydy
)OW4UHUPLWWHG on11 on1y dnoo dnoo dnoo on1y dnoo
,DWGn4)ORZ4eSHUPf dyhM dc1P dhrs dhrs dydy Psry dydy
UHDNgKRXU4IDFWRUi4U3) on1h on1h on1h on1h on1h on1h on1h on1h on1h on1h on1h on1h BGMn4)ORZ4eYSKf sc doP d cP yh Pdy sMs ssM hs d P1d dcd -A.-4-HGXFWLRQ4eYSKf ddc o o o o o o 1y o o o dsP
IDQH46URXS4)ORZ4eYSKf dM o o o dso Pdy sMs sod o o P1s Pr AXUQ4A\SH UURW UURW UURW 8B 8B UURW UURW UURW UURW
UURWHFWHG4UKDVHV r d d c s s h h h
UHUPLWWHG4UKDVHV
BFWXDWHG46UHHQi464eVf yno cnh synh dMny dMny dPnh dPnh
(IIHFWLYH46UHHQi4J4eVf yno cnh synh dMny dMny dPnh dPnh BFWXDWHG4JCT4-DWLR ono1 onds onMM onsy onsy onsM onsM
TOHDUDQFH4ALPH4eVf Mny Mny Mny Mny Mny Mny Mny
OHKLFOH4([WHQVLRQ4eVf Pno Pno Pno Pno Pno Pno Pno
IDQH46US4TDS4eYSKf dPy d1y h1o MMc Ph1 hhh Pyr
YCV4-DWLR4UURW Fonod Fonoh ondr FondM ondP Fonds onoP
YCV4-DWLR4UHUP
YCF4-DWLR ondo oncs onMo onyM onyP onyo ondd
jQLIRUP4VHOD\i4Gd sMnM sMnM don1 drnr drnr d1ns dhnP
UURJUHVVLRQ4)DFWRU dnoo dnoo dnoo dnoo dnoo dnoo dnoo
7QFUHPHQWDO4VHOD\i4Gs onP ynh onP dnM dnP ony ond
VHOD\4eVf sMnh Pono ddns sons sond d1nh dhnM
IHYHO4RI4,HUYLFH T T N T T N N
BSSURDFK4VHOD\4eVf sMnh dcnM sond d1no
BSSURDFK4I., T N T N
7QWHUVHFWLRQ4,XPPDU\
3Tw4sooo4TRQWURO4VHOD\ d1nd 3Tw4sooo4IHYHO4RI4,HUYLFH N 3Tw4sooo4OROXPH4WR4TDSDFLW\4UDWLR onM1
BFWXDWHG4T\FOH4IHQJWK4eVf4 yhn1 ,XP4RI4ORVW4WLPH4eVf drno 7QWHUVHFWLRQ4TDSDFLW\4jWLOL]DWLRQ yMnPa 7Tj4IHYHO4RI4,HUYLFH B BQDO\VLV4UHULRG4ePLQf dy
F4444TULWLFDO4IDQH46URXS
6LP7UDIILFm3HUIRUPDQFHm5HSRUW
D4lLmvXDOm/HIWm6LJQDOmARQGLWLRQVm30
pRtG4u>4ULJQDO ULP%UDIILF4kHSRUW
36/
5Mmb2mlWKm6W2m m12m/DNHm6W2m mAHQWUDOmNYH2m3HUIRUPDQFHmE\mPRYHPHQWm >RYHPHQW V.A V.k V.kp <.Ap <.A <.% U.% U.k U.kp <VAp <VA <Vk /HQLHG4/HOD\4nKUa RfR RfR RfR Rfe Rfe Rfe Rfe Rfp Rfe RfR Rft RfR /HQLHG4/HOc:HK4nVa Rfp Rfp Rfe ofH ofG RfD efp ofG ofG pfR ofG efe %RWDO4/HOD\4nKUa Rfo Rfv RfR RfG RfH efp efG pfR RfD RfR pft Rfv %RWDO4/HOc:HK4nVa oefo pEfo evfD oofD otfR etfe ppfH opfo oefp tfv ppfE pRfR UWRS4/HOD\4nKUa Rfp Rfv RfR RfG RfG Rfv efp efv RfH RfR efE Rfv UWRS4/HOc:HK4nVa pDfp pDfR eHfH oRfp oRfo Efv eDft pvfe pDfp ofR evfD evfH 5Mmb2mlWKm6W2m m12m/DNHm6W2m mAHQWUDOmNYH2m3HUIRUPDQFHmE\mPRYHPHQWm >RYHPHQW )OO
/HQLHG4/HOD\4nKUa efR
/HQLHG4/HOc:HK4nVa pfe
%RWDO4/HOD\4nKUa eRfv
%RWDO4/HOc:HK4nVa ptfR
UWRS4/HOD\4nKUa EfR
UWRS4/HOc:HK4nVa pRfe
7RWDOm1HWZRUNm3HUIRUPDQFHm
/HQLHG4/HOD\4nKUa efR
/HQLHG4/HOc:HK4nVa pfe
%RWDO4/HOD\4nKUa eefo
%RWDO4/HOc:HK4nVa pGfR
UWRS4/HOD\4nKUa Efe
UWRS4/HOc:HK4nVa pRfp
4XHXLQJmDQGmkORFNLQJm5HSRUW
D4lLmvXDOm/HIWm6LJQDOmARQGLWLRQVm30
pRtG4u>4ULJQDO ULP%UDIILF4kHSRUW
36/
BQWHUVHFWLRQMm5Mmb2mlWKm6W2m m12m/DNHm6W2m mAHQWUDOmNYH2 >RYHPHQW V. <. <. U. U. <V <V <V
/LUHFWLRQV4UHUYHG Aky NA % % ky NA A k
>D[LPXP4QXHXH4nIWa eHG etH pRD pop pDR eHt pet eoR
)YHUDJH4QXHXH4nIWa Dp HD Et Ev etH GR eeH tD
EGWK4QXHXH4nIWa eoG epp eHH eDo ptR ett evv eRH
ALQN4/LVWDQFH4nIWa tov ttE oDR GGp
wSVWUHDP4.ON4%LPH4nSa R
QXHXLQJ4uHQDOW\4nYHKa R
UWRUDJH4.D\4/LVW4nIWa ppR oRR oeG oeG
UWRUDJH4.ON4%LPH4nSa R e
QXHXLQJ4uHQDOW\4nYHKa R p
1HWZRUNm6XPPDU\
<HWZRUN4ZLGH4QXHXLQJ4uHQDOW\B4p
GHD | City of Madera | 11144963 | Intersection Control Evaluation Report 31 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.

Appendix C
SIDRA Reports
/d1fN6800d5<
6LWHvNnsnN>f[LVWLQJNd0N0 /DNHN6WNRN]HQWUDONdYHxaWKN6WNi6LWHN mROGHUvNa0/HJt@
HHZw-LWH
-LWHw.çWHJRU\WwoHRQHr
/RXQGçxRXW
/DQHN8VHNDQGN3HUIRUPDQFH
lvTUHlw
f[V4-
OMCwpU.kwVfw
.çS) s2v2v
lHJ)
-çWQ
[çQH
2WLO)
UYHU)
lHOç\
[HYHOwRI
-HUYLFH
[çQHww
.RQILJ
[çQHww
[HQJWK
.çS)
UGM)
]URx)w
pORFN)
8w1RWçO h0w& 8w0HK lLVWw&

YHKRK C YHKRK YRF C VHF IW IW C C
-RXWKvçVWWwHpwn [çNHw-W
[çQHwdG bMd b)u duEu u)bEb duu F)u [V-wU d)M DF)b fXOO dAuu u)u u)u USSURçFK bMd b)u u)bEb F)u [V-wU d)M DF)b
HRUWKWw-pwn [çNHw-W
[çQHwdG MuA b)u dbOO u)DLO duu A)D [V-wU b)O FD)M fXOO dAuu u)u u)u USSURçFK MuA b)u u)DLO A)D [V-wU b)O FD)M
4HVWWwvpwn .HQWUçOwUYH
[çQHwdG duu b)u LbL u)dbd duu F)L [V-wU u)F dA)O fXOO dAuu u)u u)u USSURçFK duu b)u u)dbd F)L [V-wU u)F dA)O
-RXWK4HVWWwHvpwn EWKw-W
[çQHwdG bLF b)u OLu u)bOD duu O)b [V-wU d)F EE)E fXOO dAuu u)u u)u USSURçFK bLF b)u u)bOD O)b [V-wU d)F EE)E
jQWHUVHFWLRQ ddEE b)u u)DLO F)D [V-wU b)O FD)M
-LWHw[HYHOwRIw-HUYLFHwo[V-rwTHWKRGWwlHOç\wawYRFwoh.TwAr)w-LWHw[V-wTHWKRGwLVwVSHFLILHGwLQwWKHw]çUçPHWHUw-HWWLQJVwGLçORJwo-LWH Wçxr) /RXQGçxRXWw[V-wTHWKRGWw-çPHwçVw-LJQçOLVHGwjQWHUVHFWLRQV) [çQHw[V-wYçOXHVwçUHwxçVHGwRQwçYHUçJHwGHOç\wçQGwYRFwUçWLRwoGHJUHHwRIwVçWXUçWLRQrwSHUwOçQH) [V-wfwZLOOwUHVXOWwLIwYRFwBwdwLUUHVSHFWLYHwRIwOçQHwGHOç\wYçOXHwoGRHVwQRWwçSSO\wIRUwçSSURçFKHVwçQGwLQWHUVHFWLRQr) jQWHUVHFWLRQwçQGwUSSURçFKw[V-wYçOXHVwçUHwxçVHGwRQwçYHUçJHwGHOç\wIRUwçOOwOçQHVwoYRFwQRWwXVHGwçVwVSHFLILHGwLQwh.TwAr) /RXQGçxRXWw.çSçFLW\wTRGHOWw-jl/Uw-WçQGçUG)
lHOç\wTRGHOWw-jl/Uw-WçQGçUGwocHRPHWULFwlHOç\wLVwLQFOXGHGr) sXHXHwTRGHOWwh.TwsXHXHwfRUPXOç)
cçSnUFFHSWçQFHw.çSçFLW\Ww-jl/Uw-WçQGçUGwoUNoHOLNwTDlr)
h0woCrwYçOXHVwçUHwFçOFXOçWHGwIRUwUOOwTRYHPHQWw.OçVVHVwRIwUOOwhHçY\w0HKLFOHwTRGHOwlHVLJQçWLRQ) G lRPLQçQWwOçQHwRQwURXQGçxRXWwçSSURçFK
dSSURDFKN/DQHNmORZVNiYHKxKt
-RXWKvçVWWwHpwn [çNHw-W
TRY) [b [d /d 1RWçO Ch0
.çS)
YHKRK
lHJ)
-çWQ
YRF
[çQH
2WLO)
C
]URx)
-[wVY)
C
VY)
[çQH
HR)
fURPw-vw
1Rwv[LWW -4 4 H
[çQHwd EL Eb dAb bMd b)u duEu u)bEb duu HU HU
USSURçFK EL Eb dAb bMd b)u u)bEb
HRUWKWw-pwn [çNHw-W
TRY) [d /d /b 1RWçO Ch0
.çS)
YHKRK
lHJ)
-çWQ
YRF
[çQH
2WLO)
C
]URx)
-[wVY)
C
VY)
[çQH
HR)
fURPwHw
1Rwv[LWW -v -4 4
[çQHwd bdu bEM Mu MuA b)u dbOO u)DLO duu HU HU
HSSURDFK tse t E Ee EeB t9e e9:Cn
dHVWlrgVr8 /HQWUDOrHYH
FRY9 Nt (s (: IRWDO 2iw
/DS9
YHKWK
DHJ9
)DWQ
YWF
NDQH
fWLO9
2 7URE9
)NrxY9
2 xY9
NDQH
mR9
SURPrdr
IRrg[LWl m )g )d
NDQHrs te -n s see t9e CtC e9sts see mH mH
HSSURDFK te -n s see t9e e9sts
)RXWKdHVWlrmgVr8 WKr)W
FRY9 N: Ns (t IRWDO 2iw
/DS9
YHKWK
DHJ9
)DWQ
YWF
NDQH
fWLO9
2 7URE9
)NrxY9
2 xY9
NDQH
mR9
SURPr)dr
IRrg[LWl d m )g
NDQHrs s te: C: tC- t9e nCe e9tn: see mH mH
HSSURDFK s te: C: tC- t9e e9tn:

IRWDO 2iw DHJ9)DWQr4YWF5
PQWHUVHFWLRQ ss t9e e9:Cn
NDQHrIORZrUDWHVrJLYHQrLQrWKLVrUHSRUWrDUHrEDVHGrRQrWKHrDUULYDOrIORZrUDWHVrVXEMHFWrWRrXSVWUHDPrFDSDFLW\rFRQVWUDLQWrZKHUHrDSSOLFDEOH9 0HUJHrPQDO\VLV
g[LW
NDQH
mXPEHU
)KRUW
NDQH
NHQJWK
7HUFHQW
xSQJrLQ
NDQH
xSSRVLQJ
SORZr(DWH
/ULWLFDO
UDS
SROORZ8XS
iHDGZD\
NDQH
SORZ
(DWH
/DSDFLW\ DHJ9
)DWQ
FLQ9
DHOD\
FHUJH
DHOD\
IW 2 YHKWK SFXWK VHF VHF YHKWK YHKWK YWF VHF VHF
)RXWKgDVWrg[LWlrmVr8 NDNHr)W
FHUJHrI\SHlr1RWrPSSOLHG
SXOOrNHQJWKrNDQH s FHUJHrHQDO\VLVrQRWrDSSOLHG9
mRUWKrg[LWlr)Vr8 NDNHr)W
FHUJHrI\SHlr1RWrPSSOLHG
SXOOrNHQJWKrNDQH s FHUJHrHQDO\VLVrQRWrDSSOLHG9
dHVWrg[LWlrgVr8 /HQWUDOrHYH
FHUJHrI\SHlr1RWrPSSOLHG
SXOOrNHQJWKrNDQH s FHUJHrHQDO\VLVrQRWrDSSOLHG9
)RXWKdHVWrg[LWlrmgVr8 WKr)W
FHUJHrI\SHlr1RWrPSSOLHG
SXOOrNHQJWKrNDQH s FHUJHrHQDO\VLVrQRWrDSSOLHG9
6,m5Pr,17(56(u7,21r0dI _r uRS\ULJKWrrRIIIpRIRIrPNFHOLNrDQGrPVVRFLDWHVr3W\r/WG _r VLGUDVROXWLRQVdFRP xUJDQLVDWLRQlrUiDrPm/9 _r NLFHQFHlrmgIdx(OrWrgQWHUSULVH _r 7URFHVVHGlrFRQGD\3rxFWREHUrtC3rtet rstlEelEEr7F 7URMHFWlr ||JKGQHW|JKG|f)|)DQrNXLVrxELVSR|7URMHFWV|EBs|sss nB:|IHFK|IUDIILF|)LGUD|NDNH\)W\/HQWUDO\HYH\ WK\)W\(mDVI9VLSn /o1fN6800o5<
6LWHlNnsnN>f[LVWLQJN30N0 /DNHN6WNRN)HQWUDONoYHx-WKN6WNi6LWHN mROGHUlN-0/HJt@
HHZw-LWH
-LWHw.çWHJRU\WwoHRQHr
/RXQGçxRXW
/DQHN8VHNDQGN3HUIRUPDQFH
lvTUHlw
f[V4-
OMCwpU.kwVfw
.çS) s3v3v
lHJ)
-çWQ
[çQH
3WLO)
UYHU)
lHOç\
[HYHOwRI
-HUYLFH
[çQHww
.RQILJ
[çQHww
[HQJWK
.çS)
UGM)
]URx)w
pORFN)
2w1RWçO h0w& 2w0HK lLVWw&

YHKRK C YHKRK YRF C VHF IW IW C C
-RXWKvçVWWwHpwn [çNHw-W
[çQHwdG DMO d)u OEd u)DLd duu F)A [V-wU b)A AM)F fXOO dAuu u)u u)u USSURçFK DMO d)u u)DLd F)A [V-wU b)A AM)F
HRUWKWw-pwn [çNHw-W
[çQHwdG EEM d)u dbFO u)DEL duu A)E [V-wU b)A AE)D fXOO dAuu u)u u)u USSURçFK EEM d)u u)DEL A)E [V-wU b)A AE)D
4HVWWwvpwn .HQWUçOwUYH
[çQHwdG duF d)u LOd u)dbu duu F)D [V-wU u)F dA)A fXOO dAuu u)u u)u USSURçFK duF d)u u)dbu F)D [V-wU u)F dA)A
-RXWK4HVWWwHvpwn EWKw-W
[çQHwdG EMO d)u dudu u)EME duu O)M [V-wU D)d FO)b fXOO dAuu u)u u)u USSURçFK EMO d)u u)EME O)M [V-wU D)d FO)b
jQWHUVHFWLRQ dDFu d)u u)EME F)L [V-wU D)d FO)b
-LWHw[HYHOwRIw-HUYLFHwo[V-rwTHWKRGWwlHOç\wawYRFwoh.TwAr)w-LWHw[V-wTHWKRGwLVwVSHFLILHGwLQwWKHw]çUçPHWHUw-HWWLQJVwGLçORJwo-LWH Wçxr) /RXQGçxRXWw[V-wTHWKRGWw-çPHwçVw-LJQçOLVHGwjQWHUVHFWLRQV) [çQHw[V-wYçOXHVwçUHwxçVHGwRQwçYHUçJHwGHOç\wçQGwYRFwUçWLRwoGHJUHHwRIwVçWXUçWLRQrwSHUwOçQH) [V-wfwZLOOwUHVXOWwLIwYRFwBwdwLUUHVSHFWLYHwRIwOçQHwGHOç\wYçOXHwoGRHVwQRWwçSSO\wIRUwçSSURçFKHVwçQGwLQWHUVHFWLRQr) jQWHUVHFWLRQwçQGwUSSURçFKw[V-wYçOXHVwçUHwxçVHGwRQwçYHUçJHwGHOç\wIRUwçOOwOçQHVwoYRFwQRWwXVHGwçVwVSHFLILHGwLQwh.TwAr) /RXQGçxRXWw.çSçFLW\wTRGHOWw-jl/Uw-WçQGçUG)
lHOç\wTRGHOWw-jl/Uw-WçQGçUGwocHRPHWULFwlHOç\wLVwLQFOXGHGr) sXHXHwTRGHOWwh.TwsXHXHwfRUPXOç)
cçSnUFFHSWçQFHw.çSçFLW\Ww-jl/Uw-WçQGçUGwoUNoHOLNwTDlr)
h0woCrwYçOXHVwçUHwFçOFXOçWHGwIRUwUOOwTRYHPHQWw.OçVVHVwRIwUOOwhHçY\w0HKLFOHwTRGHOwlHVLJQçWLRQ) G lRPLQçQWwOçQHwRQwURXQGçxRXWwçSSURçFK
oSSURDFKN/DQHNmORZVNiYHKxKt
-RXWKvçVWWwHpwn [çNHw-W
TRY) [b [d /d 1RWçO Ch0
.çS)
YHKRK
lHJ)
-çWQ
YRF
[çQH
3WLO)
C
]URx)
-[wVY)
C
VY)
[çQH
HR)
fURPw-vw
1Rwv[LWW -4 4 H
[çQHwd Md EL bAu DMO d)u OEd u)DLd duu HU HU
USSURçFK Md EL bAu DMO d)u u)DLd
HRUWKWw-pwn [çNHw-W
TRY) [d /d /b 1RWçO Ch0
.çS)
YHKRK
lHJ)
-çWQ
YRF
[çQH
3WLO)
C
]URx)
-[wVY)
C
VY)
[çQH
HR)
fURPwHw
1Rwv[LWW -v -4 4
[çQHwd bub dLM MO EEM d)u dbFO u)DEL duu HU HU
VSSURDFK :s: tnB Bl EEB tWs sW En
jHVWvrS/r3 DHQWUDOrVYH
mRYW F: )t ) fRWDO 2Pd
DDSW
YHKeK
gHJW
IDWQ
YeF
FDQH
wWLOW
2 uUREW
IFr7YW
2 7YW
FDQH
xRW
UURPrjr
fRrS[LWv x IS Ij
FDQHrt :: nB t tsC tWs nlt sWt:s tss xV xV
VSSURDFK :: nB t tsC tWs sWt:s
IRXWKjHVWvrxS/r3 EWKrIW
mRYW F Ft ): fRWDO 2Pd
DDSW
YHKeK
gHJW
IDWQ
YeF
FDQH
wWLOW
2 uUREW
IFr7YW
2 7YW
FDQH
xRW
UURPrIjr
fRrS[LWv j x IS
FDQHrt t : t B EBl tWs tsts sWEBE tss xV xV
VSSURDFK t : t B EBl tWs sWEBE
fRWDO 2Pd gHJWIDWQr8YeF5
bQWHUVHFWLRQ t Cs tWs sWEBE
FDQHrIORZrUDWHVrJLYHQrLQrWKLVrUHSRUWrDUHrEDVHGrRQrWKHrDUULYDOrIORZrUDWHVrVXEMHFWrWRrXSVWUHDPrFDSDFLW\rFRQVWUDLQWrZKHUHrDSSOLFDEOHW 0HUJHrPQDO\VLV
S[LW
FDQH
xXPEHU
IKRUW
FDQH
FHQJWK
uHUFHQW
7SQJrLQ
FDQH
7SSRVLQJ
UORZr)DWH

DULWLFDO
iDS
UROORZ3XS
PHDGZD\
FDQH
UORZ
)DWH
DDSDFLW\ gHJW
IDWQ
mLQW
gHOD\
mHUJH
gHOD\
IW 2 YHKeK SFXeK VHF VHF YHKeK YHKeK YeF VHF VHF
IRXWKSDVWrS[LWvrx/r3 FDNHrIW
mHUJHrf\SHvr1RWrPSSOLHG
UXOOrFHQJWKrFDQH t mHUJHrVQDO\VLVrQRWrDSSOLHGW
xRUWKrS[LWvrI/r3 FDNHrIW
mHUJHrf\SHvr1RWrPSSOLHG
UXOOrFHQJWKrFDQH t mHUJHrVQDO\VLVrQRWrDSSOLHGW
jHVWrS[LWvrS/r3 DHQWUDOrVYH
mHUJHrf\SHvr1RWrPSSOLHG
UXOOrFHQJWKrFDQH t mHUJHrVQDO\VLVrQRWrDSSOLHGW
IRXWKjHVWrS[LWvrxS/r3 EWKrIW
mHUJHrf\SHvr1RWrPSSOLHG
UXOOrFHQJWKrFDQH t mHUJHrVQDO\VLVrQRWrDSSOLHGW
6,m5Pr,17(56(u7,21r0dI _r uRS\ULJKWrrRIIIpRIRIrPNFHOLNrDQGrPVVRFLDWHVr3W\r/WG _r VLGUDVROXWLRQVdFRP 7UJDQLVDWLRQvriPgrbxDW _r FLFHQFHvrxSfj7)NrerSQWHUSULVH _r uURFHVVHGvrmRQGD\.r7FWREHUr:n.r:s:Ert:vBsvBCrum uURMHFWvr KKJKGQHWKJKGKwIKIDQrFXLVr7ELVSRKuURMHFWVKB-tKtttEEl- KfHFKKfUDIILFKILGUDKFDNH6IW6DHQWUDO6VYH6EWK6IW6)xg/fWVLSl /g1PN6800g5<
6LWH/NmumN>]XPXODWLYHNg0N0 /DNHN6WNRN]HQWUDONgYHCvWKN6WNi6LWHN fROGHU/Nv0/HJt@
HHZw-LWH
-LWHw.çWHJRU\WwoHRQHr
/RXQGçxRXW
/DQHN8VHNDQGN3HUIRUPDQFH
lvTUHlw
f[V7-
OMCwpU.kwVfw
.çS) s2v2v
lHJ)
-çWQ
[çQH
2WLO)
UYHU)
lHOç\
[HYHOwRI
-HUYLFH
[çQHww
.RQILJ
[çQHww
[HQJWK
.çS)
UGM)
]URx)w
pORFN)
3w1RWçO h8w& 3w8HK lLVWw&

YHKRK C YHKRK YRF C VHF IW IW C C
-RXWKvçVWWwHpwn [çNHw-W
[çQHwdG bLF b)u duAF u)bAO duu F)b [V-wU d)F ED)u fXOO dAuu u)u u)u USSURçFK bLF b)u u)bAO F)b [V-wU d)F ED)u
HRUWKWw-pwn [çNHw-W
[çQHwdG MAF b)u dDDD u)EbA duu A)D [V-wU D)D LE)A fXOO dAuu u)u u)u USSURçFK MAF b)u u)EbA A)D [V-wU D)D LE)A
7HVWWwvpwn .HQWUçOwUYH
[çQHwdG ddF b)u LDO u)dEu duu L)D [V-wU u)L bu)L fXOO dAuu u)u u)u USSURçFK ddF b)u u)dEu L)D [V-wU u)L bu)L
-RXWK7HVWWwHvpwn EWKw-W
[çQHwdG DbL b)u dudu u)DbM duu O)E [V-wU b)u Md)M fXOO dAuu u)u u)u USSURçFK DbL b)u u)DbM O)E [V-wU b)u Md)M
jQWHUVHFWLRQ dDuu b)u u)EbA F)M [V-wU D)D LE)A
-LWHw[HYHOwRIw-HUYLFHwo[V-rwTHWKRGWwlHOç\wawYRFwoh.TwAr)w-LWHw[V-wTHWKRGwLVwVSHFLILHGwLQwWKHw]çUçPHWHUw-HWWLQJVwGLçORJwo-LWH Wçxr) /RXQGçxRXWw[V-wTHWKRGWw-çPHwçVw-LJQçOLVHGwjQWHUVHFWLRQV) [çQHw[V-wYçOXHVwçUHwxçVHGwRQwçYHUçJHwGHOç\wçQGwYRFwUçWLRwoGHJUHHwRIwVçWXUçWLRQrwSHUwOçQH) [V-wfwZLOOwUHVXOWwLIwYRFwBwdwLUUHVSHFWLYHwRIwOçQHwGHOç\wYçOXHwoGRHVwQRWwçSSO\wIRUwçSSURçFKHVwçQGwLQWHUVHFWLRQr) jQWHUVHFWLRQwçQGwUSSURçFKw[V-wYçOXHVwçUHwxçVHGwRQwçYHUçJHwGHOç\wIRUwçOOwOçQHVwoYRFwQRWwXVHGwçVwVSHFLILHGwLQwh.TwAr) /RXQGçxRXWw.çSçFLW\wTRGHOWw-jl/Uw-WçQGçUG)
lHOç\wTRGHOWw-jl/Uw-WçQGçUGwocHRPHWULFwlHOç\wLVwLQFOXGHGr) sXHXHwTRGHOWwh.TwsXHXHwfRUPXOç)
cçSnUFFHSWçQFHw.çSçFLW\Ww-jl/Uw-WçQGçUGwoUNoHOLNwTDlr)
h8woCrwYçOXHVwçUHwFçOFXOçWHGwIRUwUOOwTRYHPHQWw.OçVVHVwRIwUOOwhHçY\w8HKLFOHwTRGHOwlHVLJQçWLRQ) G lRPLQçQWwOçQHwRQwURXQGçxRXWwçSSURçFK
gSSURDFKN/DQHNfORZVNiYHKCKt
-RXWKvçVWWwHpwn [çNHw-W
TRY) [b [d /d 1RWçO Ch8
.çS)
YHKRK
lHJ)
-çWQ
YRF
[çQH
2WLO)
C
]URx)
-[wVY)
C
VY)
[çQH
HR)
fURPw-vw
1Rwv[LWW -7 7 H
[çQHwd MM EO dLD bLF b)u duAF u)bAO duu HU HU
USSURçFK MM EO dLD bLF b)u u)bAO
HRUWKWw-pwn [çNHw-W
TRY) [d /d /b 1RWçO Ch8
.çS)
YHKRK
lHJ)
-çWQ
YRF
[çQH
2WLO)
C
]URx)
-[wVY)
C
VY)
[çQH
HR)
fURPwHw
1Rwv[LWW -v -7 7
[çQHwd bDA bFF ME MAF b)u dDDD u)EbA duu HU HU
VSSURDFK EC nn -B -Cn et teB C
dHVWMrS/rW DHQWUDOrVYH
mRYe F (: (E IRWDO 2Pw
DDSe
YHKsK
gHJe
)DWQ
YsF
FDQH
fWLOe
2 9UREe
)Fr8Ye
2 8Ye
FDQH
xRe
UURPrdr
IRrS[LWM x )S )d
FDQHr: n lv : ::n et lEv te:Bt :tt xV xV
VSSURDFK n lv : ::n et te:Bt
)RXWKdHVWMrxS/rW BWKr)W
mRYe FE F: ( IRWDO 2Pw
DDSe
YHKsK
gHJe
)DWQ
YsF
FDQH
fWLOe
2 9UREe
)Fr8Ye
2 8Ye
FDQH
xRe
UURPr)dr
IRrS[LWM d x )S
FDQHr: : EB vE E l et :t:t teE - :tt xV xV
VSSURDFK : EB vE E l et teE -
IRWDO 2Pw gHJe)DWQr7YsF5
bQWHUVHFWLRQ :Ett et teB C
FDQHrIORZrUDWHVrJLYHQrLQrWKLVrUHSRUWrDUHrEDVHGrRQrWKHrDUULYDOrIORZrUDWHVrVXEMHFWrWRrXSVWUHDPrFDSDFLW\rFRQVWUDLQWrZKHUHrDSSOLFDEOHe 0HUJHrPQDO\VLV
S[LW
FDQH
xXPEHU
)KRUW
FDQH
FHQJWK
9HUFHQW
8SQJrLQ
FDQH
8SSRVLQJ
UORZr(DWH

DULWLFDO
iDS

UROORZWXS
PHDGZD\
FDQH
UORZ
(DWH
DDSDFLW\ gHJe
)DWQ
mLQe
gHOD\
mHUJH
gHOD\
IW 2 YHKsK SFXsK VHF VHF YHKsK YHKsK YsF VHF VHF
)RXWKSDVWrS[LWMrx/rW FDNHr)W
mHUJHrI\SHMr1RWrPSSOLHG
UXOOrFHQJWKrFDQH : mHUJHrVQDO\VLVrQRWrDSSOLHGe
xRUWKrS[LWMr)/rW FDNHr)W
mHUJHrI\SHMr1RWrPSSOLHG
UXOOrFHQJWKrFDQH : mHUJHrVQDO\VLVrQRWrDSSOLHGe
dHVWrS[LWMrS/rW DHQWUDOrVYH
mHUJHrI\SHMr1RWrPSSOLHG
UXOOrFHQJWKrFDQH : mHUJHrVQDO\VLVrQRWrDSSOLHGe
)RXWKdHVWrS[LWMrxS/rW BWKr)W
mHUJHrI\SHMr1RWrPSSOLHG
UXOOrFHQJWKrFDQH : mHUJHrVQDO\VLVrQRWrDSSOLHGe
6,m5Pr,17(56(u7,21r0dI _r uRS\ULJKWrrRIIIpRIRIrPNFHOLNrDQGrPVVRFLDWHVr3W\r/WG _r VLGUDVROXWLRQVdFRP 8UJDQLVDWLRQMriPgrbxDe _r FLFHQFHMrxSId8(NrsrSQWHUSULVH _r 9URFHVVHGMrIXHVGD\0r8FWREHUr v0r t Br::M::M trVm 9URMHFWMr ||JKGQHW|JKG|f)|)DQrFXLVr8ELVSR|9URMHFWV|-C:|:::BBvCE|IHFK|IUDIILF|)LGUD|FDNH\)W\DHQWUDO\VYH\BWK\)W\(xg/IeVLSv /d1sN6800d5<
6LWHrNmumN>)XPXODWLYHN30N0 /DNHN6WNRN)HQWUDONdYHCvWKN6WNi6LWHN fROGHUrNv0/HJt@
HHZw-LWH
-LWHw.çWHJRU\WwoHRQHr
/RXQGçxRXW
/DQHN8VHNDQGN3HUIRUPDQFH
lvTUHlw
f[V0-
OMCwpU.kwVfw
.çS) s4v4v
lHJ)
-çWQ
[çQH
4WLO)
UYHU)
lHOç\
[HYHOwRI
-HUYLFH
[çQHww
.RQILJ
[çQHww
[HQJWK
.çS)
UGM)
]URx)w
pORFN)
8w1RWçO h3w& 8w3HK lLVWw&

YHKRK C YHKRK YRF C VHF IW IW C C
-RXWKvçVWWwHpwn [çNHw-W
[çQHwdG EDM d)u ODb u)EAF duu L)d [V-wU D)M LL)D fXOO dAuu u)u u)u USSURçFK EDM d)u u)EAF L)d [V-wU D)M LL)D
HRUWKWw-pwn [çNHw-W
[çQHwdG MDL d)u dDuA u)Edb duu A)A [V-wU D)D LD)D fXOO dAuu u)u u)u USSURçFK MDL d)u u)Edb A)A [V-wU D)D LD)D
0HVWWwvpwn .HQWUçOwUYH
[çQHwdG dDu d)u LFF u)dEL duu F)L [V-wU u)O bd)L fXOO dAuu u)u u)u USSURçFK dDu d)u u)dEL F)L [V-wU u)O bd)L
-RXWK0HVWWwHvpwn EWKw-W
[çQHwdG MMD d)u dudL u)MED duu du)E [V-wp E)E ddu)F fXOO dAuu u)u u)u USSURçFK MMD d)u u)MED du)E [V-wp E)E ddu)F
jQWHUVHFWLRQ dAMA d)u u)MED L)D [V-wU E)E ddu)F
-LWHw[HYHOwRIw-HUYLFHwo[V-rwTHWKRGWwlHOç\wawYRFwoh.TwAr)w-LWHw[V-wTHWKRGwLVwVSHFLILHGwLQwWKHw]çUçPHWHUw-HWWLQJVwGLçORJwo-LWH Wçxr) /RXQGçxRXWw[V-wTHWKRGWw-çPHwçVw-LJQçOLVHGwjQWHUVHFWLRQV) [çQHw[V-wYçOXHVwçUHwxçVHGwRQwçYHUçJHwGHOç\wçQGwYRFwUçWLRwoGHJUHHwRIwVçWXUçWLRQrwSHUwOçQH) [V-wfwZLOOwUHVXOWwLIwYRFwBwdwLUUHVSHFWLYHwRIwOçQHwGHOç\wYçOXHwoGRHVwQRWwçSSO\wIRUwçSSURçFKHVwçQGwLQWHUVHFWLRQr) jQWHUVHFWLRQwçQGwUSSURçFKw[V-wYçOXHVwçUHwxçVHGwRQwçYHUçJHwGHOç\wIRUwçOOwOçQHVwoYRFwQRWwXVHGwçVwVSHFLILHGwLQwh.TwAr) /RXQGçxRXWw.çSçFLW\wTRGHOWw-jl/Uw-WçQGçUG)
lHOç\wTRGHOWw-jl/Uw-WçQGçUGwocHRPHWULFwlHOç\wLVwLQFOXGHGr) sXHXHwTRGHOWwh.TwsXHXHwfRUPXOç)
cçSnUFFHSWçQFHw.çSçFLW\Ww-jl/Uw-WçQGçUGwoUNoHOLNwTDlr)
h3woCrwYçOXHVwçUHwFçOFXOçWHGwIRUwUOOwTRYHPHQWw.OçVVHVwRIwUOOwhHçY\w3HKLFOHwTRGHOwlHVLJQçWLRQ) G lRPLQçQWwOçQHwRQwURXQGçxRXWwçSSURçFK
dSSURDFKN/DQHNfORZVNiYHKCKt
-RXWKvçVWWwHpwn [çNHw-W
TRY) [b [d /d 1RWçO Ch3
.çS)
YHKRK
lHJ)
-çWQ
YRF
[çQH
4WLO)
C
]URx)
-[wVY)
C
VY)
[çQH
HR)
fURPw-vw
1Rwv[LWW -0 0 H
[çQHwd AD MF DdM EDM d)u ODb u)EAF duu HU HU
USSURçFK AD MF DdM EDM d)u u)EAF
HRUWKWw-pwn [çNHw-W
TRY) [d /d /b 1RWçO Ch3
.çS)
YHKRK
lHJ)
-çWQ
YRF
[çQH
4WLO)
C
]URx)
-[wVY)
C
VY)
[çQH
HR)
fURPwHw
1Rwv[LWW -v -0 0
[çQHwd bEb bbE Fb MDL d)u dDuA u)Edb duu HU HU
VSSURDFK :E: ::E C: B n tWs sWEt:
dHVWvrS/r0 DHQWUDOrVYH
mRYW F: (t ( IRWDO 2Pw
DDSW
YHKeK
gHJW
)DWQ
YeF
FDQH
fWLOW
2 uUREW
)Fr6YW
2 6YW
FDQH
xRW
UURPrdr
IRrS[LWv x )S )d
FDQHrt :- ts t t s tWs nCC sWtEn tss xV xV
VSSURDFK :- ts t t s tWs sWtEn
)RXWKdHVWvrxS/r0 EWKr)W
mRYW F Ft (: IRWDO 2Pw
DDSW
YHKeK
gHJW
)DWQ
YeF
FDQH
fWLOW
2 uUREW
)Fr6YW
2 6YW
FDQH
xRW
UURPr)dr
IRrS[LWv d x )S
FDQHrt t lt t-t BB tWs tstn sWBE tss xV xV
VSSURDFK t lt t-t BB tWs sWBE
IRWDO 2Pw gHJW)DWQr5YeF3
bQWHUVHFWLRQ t-B- tWs sWBE
FDQHrIORZrUDWHVrJLYHQrLQrWKLVrUHSRUWrDUHrEDVHGrRQrWKHrDUULYDOrIORZrUDWHVrVXEMHFWrWRrXSVWUHDPrFDSDFLW\rFRQVWUDLQWrZKHUHrDSSOLFDEOHW 0HUJHrPQDO\VLV
S[LW
FDQH
xXPEHU
)KRUW
FDQH
FHQJWK
uHUFHQW
6SQJrLQ
FDQH
6SSRVLQJ
UORZr(DWH

DULWLFDO
iDS
UROORZ0XS
PHDGZD\
FDQH
UORZ
(DWH
DDSDFLW\ gHJW
)DWQ
mLQW
gHOD\
mHUJH
gHOD\
IW 2 YHKeK SFXeK VHF VHF YHKeK YHKeK YeF VHF VHF
)RXWKSDVWrS[LWvrx/r0 FDNHr)W
mHUJHrI\SHvr1RWrPSSOLHG
UXOOrFHQJWKrFDQH t mHUJHrVQDO\VLVrQRWrDSSOLHGW
xRUWKrS[LWvr)/r0 FDNHr)W
mHUJHrI\SHvr1RWrPSSOLHG
UXOOrFHQJWKrFDQH t mHUJHrVQDO\VLVrQRWrDSSOLHGW
dHVWrS[LWvrS/r0 DHQWUDOrVYH
mHUJHrI\SHvr1RWrPSSOLHG
UXOOrFHQJWKrFDQH t mHUJHrVQDO\VLVrQRWrDSSOLHGW
)RXWKdHVWrS[LWvrxS/r0 EWKr)W
mHUJHrI\SHvr1RWrPSSOLHG
UXOOrFHQJWKrFDQH t mHUJHrVQDO\VLVrQRWrDSSOLHGW
6,m5Pr,17(56(u7,21r0dI _r uRS\ULJKWrrRIIIpRIRIrPNFHOLNrDQGrPVVRFLDWHVr3W\r/WG _r VLGUDVROXWLRQVdFRP 6UJDQLVDWLRQvriPgrbxDW _r FLFHQFHvrxSId6(NrerSQWHUSULVH _r uURFHVVHGvrIXHVGD\.r6FWREHUr:l.r:s:ErttvttvtlrVm uURMHFWvr ||JKGQHW|JKG|f)|)DQrFXLVr6ELVSR|uURMHFWV|B-t|tttEEl- |IHFK|IUDIILF|)LGUD|FDNH\)W\DHQWUDO\VYH\EWK\)W\(xg/IWVLSl GHD | City of Madera | 11144963 | Intersection Control Evaluation Report 32 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.

Appendix D
Layouts and Cost Estimates
Preliminary Opinion of Costs (Construction Costs Only)
4th Street/Lake Street/Central Avenue Intersection - Signal Alternative City of Madera 1/12/2018
55-4549-03/2264
No. Item Description Units Quantity Unit Cost Total
1 Traffic Control System LS 1 $60,000.00 $60,000.00
2 Remove Thermoplastic Traffic Stripe LF 200 $4.25 $850.00 3 Remove Thermoplastic Pavement Marking SQFT 50 $12.50 $625.00 4 Remove Roadside Sign EA 10 $155.00 $1,550.00
5 Remove Concrete Sidewalk SQYD 30 $31.50 $945.00
6 Remove Concrete (Curb & Gutter) LF 340 $12.50 $4,250.00 7 Roadway Excavation CY 560 $32.00 $17,920.00
8 Class 2 Aggregate Base CY 150 $53.00 $7,950.00
9 Hot Mix Asphalt (Type B) TON 140 $90.00 $12,600.00
10 Minor Concrete (Median Curb) CY 20 $770.00 $15,400.00 11 Minor Concrete (Curb and Gutter) CY 10 $355.00 $3,550.00 12 Minor Concrete (Medians) SQFT 150 $6.00 $900.00
13 Minor Concrete (Sidewalk) CY 20 $540.00 $10,800.00
14 Thermoplastic Traffic Stripe LF 1000 $2.00 $2,000.00 15 Thermoplastic Pavement Marking SQFT 840 $7.00 $5,880.00 16 Landscape SQFT 7800 $5.00 $39,000.00
17 Signs EA 20 $380.00 $7,600.00
18 Signals and Lighting LS 1 $350,000.00 $350,000.00
19 Storm Drain System LS 1 $50,000.00 $50,000.00
20 Mobilization LS 1 $53,200.00 $53,200.00
Subtotal (Construction Costs) $ 645,020.00
Minor/ Supplemental Items 30% $ 194,000.00
Construction Contingency 25% $ 210,000.00
$ 1,049,020.00
$ 1,050,000.00
Total Construction Costs
Rounded
R2264C003
R2264C004
Preliminary Opinion of Costs (Construction Costs Only)
4th Street/Lake Street/Central Avenue Intersection Improvements - Roundabout Alternative City of Madera 1/2/2018
55-4549-03/2264
No. Item Description Units Quantity Unit Cost Total
1 Traffic Control System LS 1 $90,000.00 $90,000.00
2 Remove Tree EA 5 $800.00 $4,000.00
3 Remove Fence LF 220 $20.00 $4,400.00
4 Remove Thermoplastic Traffic Stripe LF 570 $4.25 $2,422.50 5 Remove Thermoplastic Pavement Marking SQFT 50 $12.50 $625.00 6 Remove Roadside Sign EA 20 $155.00 $3,100.00
7 Remove Concrete Curb LF 500 $19.50 $9,750.00
8 Remove Concrete Sidewalk SQYD 560 $31.50 $17,640.00
9 Remove Concrete (Curb & Gutter) LF 1900 $12.50 $23,750.00 10 Roadway Excavation CY 2400 $32.00 $76,800.00
11 Class 2 Aggregate Base CY 770 $53.00 $40,810.00
12 Hot Mix Asphalt (Type B) TON 720 $90.00 $64,800.00
13 Minor Concrete (Stamped Concrete -Truck Apron) CY 40 $690.00 $27,600.00 14 Minor Concrete (Median Curb) CY 40 $770.00 $30,800.00 15 Minor Concrete(Curb-Truck Apron) CY 10 $780.00 $7,800.00 16 Minor Concrete (Curb and Gutter) CY 80 $355.00 $28,400.00 17 Minor Concrete (Sidewalk) CY 140 $405.00 $56,700.00
18 Thermoplastic Traffic Stripe LF 3800 $2.00 $7,600.00 19 Thermoplastic Pavement Marking SQFT 640 $7.00 $4,480.00 20 Landscape SQFT 20000 $5.00 $100,000.00
21 Signs EA 30 $380.00 $11,400.00
22 Lighting and Sign Illumination LS 1 $250,000.00 $250,000.00 23 Storm Drain System LS 1 $50,000.00 $50,000.00
24 Mobilization LS 1 $82,300.00 $82,300.00
Subtotal (Construction Costs) $ 995,177.50
Minor/ Supplemental Items 30% $ 299,000.00
Construction Contingency 25% $ 324,000.00
$ 1,618,177.50
$ 1,620,000.00
Total Construction Costs
Rounded
GHD | City of Madera | 11144963 | Intersection Control Evaluation Report 33 This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document. ghd.com The Power of Commitment
Attachment 2
90% Design Layout – Traffic Signal Alternative

2 5
6P
6 2
7 7P
8P
8 8P
S
S

G G G G G

G G G G
G
G
G
G
G
G
8 8
7 6
6 5
5 7
7 6P
6P
8P
8P
7P
7P
8P
8 7
6 8J8U
6J4U
6J4L
SNS
R73-3 (CA) (MOD)
EVD-A
8 8P
R60B (CA)
EVD-D
SNS
2 R61-19 (CA)
EVD-B
SNS
2I4U
5J1U
7J9U
7J9L
2"C 1 DLC
2"C, 1 DLC

SEE DETAIL A
EAST 4TH ST

EAST CENTRAL AVE

NORTH LAKE ST

NORTH LAKE ST
6PPB
8PPB
7PPB
8PPB
7PPB
8PPB
8PPB
6PPB
2 EVD-C
SNS
6 R61-7 (CA) (MOD)
2 2I2U

LIMIT LINE
230' TO
40 MPH
2"C, 1 DLC
G G
6J2U LIMIT LINE 230' TO
40 MPH
2"C 1 DLC
GHD Inc.
30 River Park Place West Suite 220
Fresno California 93720 USA
T 1 559 326 5900 W www.ghd.com

PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
90%
LAKE ST /4TH ST /CENTRAL AVE

INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS

CITY OF MADERA

ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT
205 WEST 4TH STREET
MADERA, CA 93637
Aug/31/2022 9:30 AM
\\GHDNET\GHD\US\SAN LUIS OBISPO\PROJECTS\561\11144963\DIGITAL_DESIGN\ACAD 2018\SHEETS\2264E001

This document shall not be used for
construction unless signed and sealed for
construction.

Scale
0 1"
Bar is one inch on
original size sheet
Original Size
Arch D
Title
PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:

DATE
GHD Project No. 11144963
Know what's below.

Call before you dig.
8/16/2022
N
0 10' 20' 40'

ELECTRICAL
PLANS
E-001
13 128'
126'

PROPOSED PHASE DIAGRAM

EMERGENCY VEHICLE PREEMPTION (EVP)
EVD-A = 2 + 5
EVD-B = 7
EVD-C = 6
EVD-D = 8
GENERAL NOTES: (SHEETS E1 & E2)

1. ALL TRAFFIC SIGNAL WORK SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE

LATEST EDITION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARD PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS.

2. INSTALL PULL BOXES AT MAXIMUM 200' SPACING.

3. ALL PULL BOXES SHALL BE NO. 5(E) UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

4. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE SERVICE CONNECTION WITH PG&E.

PROJECT NOTES: (SHEETS E1 & E2)
FURNISH AND INSTALL MODEL 332L CABINET WITH MODEL 2070LX

CONTROLLER ASSEMBLY AND BATTERY BACKUPS SYSTEM ON
FOUNDATION. CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH AND INSTALL ANY AUXILIARY

EQUIPMENT NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT A FOUR PHASE OPERATION AND AN OPTICOM EMERGENCY VEHICLE DETECTION SYSTEM.

LEVEL, 4" THICK CONCRETE PAD. TOP OF PAD ELEVATION TO MATCH ADJACENT CONCRETE FINISH GRADES.

AMPS VOLTS POLES NAME PLATE METER PHOTOELECTRIC

CONTROL TYPE
100 240 2 MAIN DISCONNECT YES
50 120 1 TRAFFIC SIGNAL YES
30 120 1 SPARE YES
METER 1

AMPS VOLTS POLES NAME PLATE METER PHOTOELECTRIC

CONTROL TYPE
100 240 2 MAIN DISCONNECT YES
30 240 2 INTERSECTION LIGHTING YES IV
20 240 2 PARK LIGHTING YES II
20 240 2 SPARE YES
METER 2
6E
6E

SIDEWALK

DETAIL A
SCALE 1 " = 5'

TYPICAL LOOP DETECTOR SPACING

NOT TO SCALE

0.5' 10' 10' 10'
3'
10'
TYP.

INSTALL 6'x6' TYPE
"D" LOOP DETECTOR

C OF LANE L
INSTALL 6" DIA. TYPE
"E" LOOP DETECTOR

CROSSWALK OR LIMIT LINE
DL1
DL2 DL3

ADVANCE LOOP
TYPE "D" LOOP

DETECTOR
NOTE: THIS PLAN ACCURATE FOR ELECTRICAL WORK ONLY
7'
10'

FURNISH AND INSTALL APS PUSH BUTTON PER POLE AND EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE. PUSH BUTTON HEIGHT SHALL MEET ADA REQUIREMENTS.

SIGN LEGEND:

R73-3 (CA) (MOD)

ONLY NO U TURN
R61-7 (CA) (MOD)
1" = 20'
Attachment 3
Updated Preliminary Layout – Roundabout Alternative

REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
Approved by:
________________________________
Joseph Hebert, Parks & Community Services Director
_________________________________
Arnoldo Rodriguez, City Manager
SUBJECT:

Amendment No. 3 to the West Coast Arborists, Inc. Agreement for City-wide Tree Management and Maintenance Services and budget amendment to the FY 2025/26 budget RECOMMENDATION:
ϭ͘ Adopt a Resolution Approving a Third Amendment to the Agreement for Tree Management and Maintenance Services with West Coast Arborists, Inc. (WCA), for additional work at $39,900
2͘ Adopt a Resolution Amending the City’s FY 2025/26 Operating Budget approving related expenditure line item for the execution of a Third Amendment to the Agreement for Tree Management Maintenance Services with West Coast Arborists, Inc. for an additional $39,ϵ00
SUMMARY:

During the last several weeks, staff have been made aware of tree maintenance needed along Mainberry Drive, WeƐt 3rd Street, and Westgate Drive medians. With a Contractor Services Agreement with WCA reaching its maximum amount for the year, staff is recommending increasing the Agreement by an additional $39,900 to cover the necessary work. This would constitute the third amendment to the Agreement.

DISCUSSION:

The City utilizes a tree maintenance contractor to oversee and perform various tasks related to the City's urban forest. This is due to the City's responsibility for maintaining street trees within the public right-of-way, as well as trees within parks, Landscape Maintenance Districts (LMDs), open spaces, City facilities, and other pubůiĐ ƐpaĐeƐ. To keep up with this volume of work, the City utilizes a tree maintenance contractor.

Council Meeting of: August 20, 2025
Agenda Number: ___D-1____ _
In 2020, a Request for Proposals (RFP) was published in compliance with the City's Purchasing Policy. Based on the submittals received, the review committee recommended that an agreement be awarded to West Coast Arborists, Inc. ;tͿ for $150,000 per year for a three-year term. The Agreement was approved bǇ the itǇ ounĐiů on November 3, 2021. Due to the Agreement’s three-year term, the Agreement was set to ƐunƐet on November 3, 2024, with the option for an additional two years iĨ approved by both parties.

Amendment No. 1 was approved bǇ the itǇ ounĐiů on June 19, 2024, as recorded by Resolution No. 24-99. The amendment allowed for an additional one-time $18,800 to be allocated towards the removal and pruning of several trees at Lions Town & Country Park. This increased the Agreement amount to $168,800 for the third year only.

Amendment No. 2 was approved on October 2, 2024, as recorded by Resolution No. 24-159. The amendment allowed for a two-year extension through November 3, 2026. The Amendment also noted an increase in the Agreement amount to $200,000 per year.

Several reasons for requesting additional funds for the WCA agreement have surfaced in the last weeks. /nĐůuding͗
 Earlier this year, a large tree branch fell along Mainberry Drive from a tree in the median.

The entire tree was removed in July 2025, after the recommendation of an arborist with WCA. The tree had been affected by a rotting trunk. The tree was beyond repair, as the rot was extensive.
 The tree type also played a role, as the tree was a type of ash tree, which has a finite lifespan and is prone to bark splitting at the base and falling limbs.  It was during the inspection of trees on Mainberry Drive that the immediate neighboring area along Westgate Drive and West 3rd Street also became a focus, as the medians in this area have the same tree type and similar conditions. All trees along the median in this area are ash trees.
 The arborist has recommended that all trees on the medians of Mainberry Drive, Westgate Drive, and West 3rd Street be pruned or trimmed to prevent future damage from branch breakage by reducing the weight on heavy, extended limbs, thus preventing limb failure.
 This area has approximately 150 trees that require trimming.

These trees are trimmed on a five-year cycle, with the last trimming completed in 2021. Although the next trimming was originally scheduled for next year, consultation with the WCA arborist has resulted in a recommendation to advance the schedule.

The work mentioned above cannot be completed in-house, as it requires specialized equipment beyond the City’s inventory, as well as expertise in tree trimming that staff does not possess. This includes a four-person crew, estimated to take 10.5 days. The necessary equipment consists of an aerial tower, chipper truck, chipper, and a Foreman truck to address the required pruning and trimming in the area.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

Tree maintenance services are budgeted within the Contracted Service line item in Parks Maintenance budget (10206100) and various Landscape Maintenance Zone (LMZ) budgets (45010000 through 45830000). These services are funded by a combination of General Fund, Solid Waste Fund, and LMZ assessments. The Solid Waste Fund contributes to this agreement, which is utilized for right-of-way clearance trimming.

WCA has provided a quote that takes into consideration the cost of addressing the ϭ50 trees in need of maintenance. The quote provided totals $39,900.

The City has a balance remaining under the existing contract agreement with WCA. These funds are slated to be expended through October 2025 on other previously scheduled tree trimming efforts within the City and are not sufficient to cover the newly requested amount. The Agreement term renews once again in November 2025 for an additional $200,000 per year.

Staff is recommending using General Fund balance to cover the $39,900 cost. The trees in this area are not part of the LMZ, rather theǇ are in the City’s designated medians. Thus, utilizing the LMZ budget is not an option.
thiůe the itǇ maǇ ǁait͕ the ĐonĐern iƐ that the ĐoƐt oĨ tree trimming haƐ inĐreaƐed and thiƐ oneͲtime budget aůůoĐation ǁiůů mitigate the iƐƐue at hand͘ ALTERNATIVES:

In considering the Council’s options, several potential alternatives are identified for consideration:
 The Council may choose to request that staff bring additional information back to a subsequent meeting.
 The Council may decide to reject the request altogether. This would assume trees damaged and maintenance of trees in need would be halted until further notice.

ATTACHMENTS:
ϭ͘ Resolution Approving a Third Amendment to the Agreement for Tree Management and Maintenance Services with West Coast Arborists, Inc. (WCA), for additional work at $39,900
a͘ Exhibit A – First Amendment
2͘ Resolution Amending the City’s FY 2025/26 Operating Budget approving related expenditure line item for the execution of a Third Amendment to the Agreement for Tree Management Maintenance Services with West Coast Arborists, Inc. for an additional $39,ϵ00
a͘ Exhibit A – Budget Adjustment
ϯ͘ Quote Dated July 24, 2025, from West Coast Arborists, Inc. ϰ͘ Map of Area Θ dreeƐ

5. Photos of Trees
6͘ Dap oĨ rea in ompariƐon to the /mmediate >andƐĐape DaintenanĐe oneƐ ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution Approving a Third Amendment to the Agreement for Tree Management and Maintenance Services with West Coast Arborists, Inc. (WCA), for additional work at $39,900
Exhibit A – dhird Amendment
RESOLUTION NO. 25-______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MADERA,

CALIFORNIA APPROVING A THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT

FOR TREE MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES WITH WEST
COAST ARBORISTS, INC. (WCA), FOR ADDITIONAL WORK AT $39,900 WHEREAS, City utilizes a tree maintenance contractor to oversee and perform various tasks related to the City’s urban forest; and
WHEREAS, on November 3, 2021, Council approved a three-year Contractor Services Agreement with West Coast Arborists, Inc. (WCA); and
WHEREAS, the Contractor Services Agreement was initially set for three years, at $150,000 per year; and
WHEREAS, Amendment No. 1 was approved on June 19, 2024, as recorded by Resolution No. 24-99, allowing for an additional $18,800 towards the removal and pruning of several trees at Lions Town & Country Park; and
WHEREAS, Amendment No. 2 was approved on October 2, 2024, as recorded by Resolution No. 24-159, allowing for a two-year extension through November 3, 2026, as well as increasing the Agreement amount to $200,000 per year; and WHEREAS, an additional $39,900 is being requested for additionaů work that needs to be completed along Mainberry Drive, W 3rd Street, and Westgate Drive medians; and WHEREAS, the additional work would increase the agreement with WCA to $239,900 through October 2025; and
WHEREAS, the $200,000 per year resets in November 2025; and WHEREAS, no additional changes are being made to the agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MADERA hereby resolves, finds, determines and orders as follows:

1. The above recitals are true and correct.

2. The City Council approves the increase of $39,900 towards the additional work needed at Mainberry Drive, West 3rd Street, and Westgate Drive medians, under the West Coast Arborists, Inc., Contractor Services Agreement, as the Third Amendment.

3. This Resolution is effective immediately upon adoption. * * * * * * * *
Exhibit A – Third Amendment to Contractor Services Agreement

THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR TREE MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES WITH WEST COAST ARBORIST, INC. (WCA) FOR AN ADDITIONAL $39,900 This THIRD Amendment to the Contractor Services Agreement for tree management and maintenance services is made by and between the City of Madera, a California municipal corporation, (“City”) and West Coast Arborist, Inc. (WCA), both hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Parties.”

RECITALS
WHEREAS, City utilizes a tree maintenance contractor to oversee and perform various tasks related to the City’s urban forest; and
WHEREAS, on November 3, 2021, Council approved a three-year Contractor Services Agreement with West Coast Arborists, Inc. (WCA); and
WHEREAS, the Contractor Services Agreement was initially set for three years, at $150,000 per year; and
WHEREAS, Amendment No. 1 was approved on June 19, 2024, as recorded by Resolution No. 24-99, allowing for an additional $18,800 towards the removal and pruning of several trees at Lions Town & Country Park; and
WHEREAS, Amendment No. 2 was approved on October 2, 2024, as recoded by Resolution No. 24-159, allowing for a two-year extension through November 3, 2026, as well as increasing the Agreement amount to $200,000 per year; and WHEREAS, an additional $39,900 is being requested for additionaů work that needs to be completed along Mainberry Drive, W 3rd Street, and Westgate Drive medians; and WHEREAS, the additional work would increase the agreement with WCA to $239,900 through October 2025; and
WHEREAS, the $200,000 per year resets in November 2025; and WHEREAS, no additional changes are being made to the agreement.

AMENDMENT
ϭ͘ dhiƐ d,/Z mendment ƐetƐ the greement amount not to eǆĐeed Ψ2ϯϵ͕ϵ00 through OĐtober ϯϭ͕ 2025͘
2͘
ǆĐept aƐ amended bǇ thiƐ d,/Z mendment͕ aůů termƐ and ĐonditionƐ oĨ the greement͕ aƐ amended Ɛhaůů Đontinue in Ĩuůů ĨorĐe and eĨĨeĐt͘ ϯ͘ dhiƐ d,/Z mendment Ɛhaůů be eĨĨeĐtiǀe on uguƐt 20͕ 2025͘ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Madera has caused this THIRD Amendment to Agreement to be executed on its behalf by its Mayor and duly attested by its City Clerk, and West Coast Arborist, Inc. has executed this THIRD Amendment on the day and year written below.

CITY OF MADERA WEST COAST ARBORIST, INC.
__________________________ __________________________________ Cecelia K. Gallegos, MAYOR Patrick Mahoney, President
__________________________ _________________________
Date. Date.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
Shannon L. Chaffin, City Attorney
ATTEST:
_________________________
Alicia Gonzales, City Clerk
ATTACHMENT 2
Resolution Amending the City’s FY 2025/26 Operating Budget approving related expenditure line item for the execution of a Third Amendment to the Agreement for Tree Management Maintenance Services with West Coast Arborists, Inc. for an additional $39,ϵ00 Exhibit A – Budget Adjustment
RESOLUTION NO. 25-_______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MADERA, CALIFORNIA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2025/26 OPERATING BUDGET,

APPROVING RELATED EXPENDITURE LINE ITEM FOR THE EXECUTION OF A

THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT FOR TREE MANAGEMENT
MAINTENANCE SERVICES WITH WEST COAST ARBORISTS, INC. FOR AN ADDITIONAL $39,900
WHEREAS, the City Council previously approved the Operating City-wide Budget for 2025/26 Fiscal Year; and
WHEREAS, the City has an existing City-wide Tree Management and Maintenance Services Agreement with West Coast Arborists, Inc.; and WHEREAS, an amendment to the City’s Adopted Budget for the 2025/26 Fiscal Year, listed in Exhibit A, attached hereto, is necessary for additional work needed related to citywide tree trimming services; and
WHEREAS, the additional funds requested are $39,900, to be documented as Amendment No. 3 to the Agreement between the City of Madera and West Coast Arborists, Inc.

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 appropriations for the items listed in Exhibit A, attached hereto, are approved.

3. A signed copy of this Resolution shall be placed on file in the office of the Director of Financial Services, who shall prepare the entries necessary to reflect budget changes identified in the City's accounting system.

4. This Resolution is effective immediately upon adoption. *****

ORG OBJECT
FUND CODE CODE DESCRIPTION (+) (-)
General Fund
10206100 4900 Budgetary Carryover $ 39,900
10206100 6440 Contracted Services 39,900
$ 39,900 $ 39,900

EXHIBIT A

CITY OF MADERA
Budget Appropriations: Res. 25-______
Budget Adjustments for Fiscal Year 2025/26
1 ATTACHMENT 3
Quote Dated July 24, 2025, from West Coast Arborists, Inc.

JOB LOCATION
Mainberry: Howard Rd to Sunset Ave and Third Street/Westgate Median from Schnoor Ave to Autumn Rd

SCOPE OF WORK
Tree Maintenance Services

CUSTOMER INFORMATION
Main Contact Billing Contact

HECTOR SANCHEZ HECTOR SANCHEZ

CITY OF MADERA
701 E. 5TH STREET
MADERA, CA 93638
559.474.5293 [email protected]

CITY OF MADERA
701 E. 5TH STREET
MADERA, CA 93638
559.661.5485 [email protected]
Inventory Needed Link Funds to Job # Purchase Order # DIR Project ID # Yes

QTY DESCRIPTION U/M UNIT PRICE TOTAL
380.00 Crew Rental - per man (Safety Prune Approx.150 Trees) Man Hour $105.00 $39,900.00 GRAND TOTAL: $39,900.00

COMMENTS
DISCLAIMER: West Coast Arborists, Inc. ensures the quality of work performed, however, we do not ensure the agency's entire tree population from failure. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances. The controlling authority must manage trees and accept some degree of risk. Only work identified in the scope of the proposal and in the contract line item is included in our quote or invoice. All work will be completed in accordance with ANSI A300 standards. Price reflects payment under prevailing wage rates under the wage determination: Tree Maintenance Laborer and report of certified payroll to the Department of Industrial Relations as applicable in accordance with state labor laws. PROPOSAL IS VALID FOR 90 DAYS.

CA Contractors License 366764 Federal Tax ID: 95-3250682 CA DIR Registration 1000000956 STEVE HUNT 07/24/25

ESTIMATED BY TITLE DATE

ACCEPTED BY TITLE DATE

AREA MANAGER
WEST COAST ARBORISTS, INC.
5424 N. Barcus Avenue Fresno, CA 93722
559.275.2086 Phone 559.275.7865 Fax WCAINC.COM
Proposal
# 97859

PROPOSAL FOR TREE MAINTENANCE SERVICES PROPOSAL FOR TREE MAINTENANCE SERVICES Printed on: 8/6/2025 3:01:05 PM Page 1 of 1

ATTACHMENT
ϰ
Dap oĨ rea Θ dreeƐ
ATTACHMENT 5
Photo Below Shows the Median Area & Trees Along Mainberry Drive Photos Below Show the Median Area & Trees Along Westgate Drive and W 3rd Street

dd,D
Edϲ
Dap oĨ rea in ompariƐon to the /mmediate >andƐĐape DaintenanĐe oneƐ

REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
Approved by: Council Meeting of: August 20, 2025
_________________________________ Agenda Number: __________ Keith Helmuth, City Engineer
Arnoldo Rodriguez, City Manager
SUBJECT:

Water Main Replacement Project, City Project No. W-43
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution approving the contract award for the Water Main Replacement Project City Project No. W-43 in the amount of $4,449,360.00 to Mid Cal Pipeline & Utilities, Inc. and adopt a Class 2 categorical Exemption (Replacement or Reconstruction) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15302
SUMMARY:

On August 6, 2025 the City received five bids for the Water Main Replacement Project City Project W-43 (Project). The Project is funded with Water Utility Funds. Mid Cal Pipeline & Utilities, Inc. (Mid Cal Pipeline) submitted the lowest, responsive bid. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Capital Projects Budget includes funding for the project.

BACKGROUND:

Water main replacement work was identified in the March 2021 Sewer and Water Renewal & Replacement Plan in order to proactively replace high risk pipelines and maintain a high level of service for existing customers. The work within the Project was part of a 5-year improvement plan which is based on a total risk score as well as proximity to other improvements.

The City Engineer executed a Task Order with Provost & Pritchard Engineering under the On-Call Engineering Services Agreement in July 2023 for design engineering services necessary to prepare bid documents for several water main replacement projects identified in the Capital Improvement Project. This first bid package is for City Project W-43. The remaining projects are approximately 50 percent complete.

Approved by:
_________________________________
Keith Helmuth, City Engineer
Arnoldo Rodriguez, City Manager
Approved by:
_________________________________
Keith Helmuth, City Engineer
Approved by:

D-2
This project aims to:
 Replace all water utilities within State Route 145 in the downtown area in advance of the Caltrans Capital Preventive Maintenance (CAPM) Road Diet project that is slated for construction in January 2026.
 Replacement of the water main in Lake Street from Yosemite Avenue to Riverside Drive in advance of planned intersection improvements at 4th Street/Lake Street/Central Avenue.
 Replacement of the water main within State Route 145, south of El Dorado Drive In doing so the City can ensure the roadway improvements will not be disturbed by City water improvement projects in the near future.

DISCUSSION:

The general scope of work consists of water main replacement in State Route 145 from Storey Road to 9th Street and Lake Street from Riverside Drive to Yosemite Avenue. The water main replacements range from 6” PVC to 12” PVC lines and include gate valves, valve boxes, lateral connections, and fire hydrant connections. The pipeline installation requires two jack and bore installations under the Union Pacific Railroad Road near E Street and Madera Irrigation District pipeline, respectively. Work also includes the Lake Street Bridge water main replacement. The waterlines proposed for replacement are approximately 75 years old, necessitating their replacement. As part of this project, new gate valves will be installed at appropriate locations to allow the City to isolate segments of the line should repairs be required in the future. This improvement is important, as the City recently experienced a prolonged water leak along this same line due to inoperable gate valves. In that instance, shutting down the line would have required turning off water service to a relatively large geographic area.

During construction, temporary inconveniences to drivers and pedestrians are anticipated due to construction equipment, noise, dust, etc. Temporary steel plates may be required, and pedestrian routes may need to be rerouted for safety. Additionally, once the waterline is replaced, the pavement trench will be backfilled and restored per City Standards and Specifications. However, since Caltrans is scheduled to begin the Road Diet project in early 2026, any unsightliness of the trench will be replaced with a new roadway at that time.

City staff will be mindful of the potential impacts to visitors and local businesses; however, these repairs are necessary to address aging infrastructure that has reached the end of its useful life.

While some disruptions are unavoidable, staff will work closely with the contractor to minimize impacts and maintain access routes whenever possible.

Competitive Bidding Process
On June 18, 2025 the City released the project for public bidding on the PlanetBids web portal.

Also, an “Advertisement for Bids” was duly published in the Madera Tribune Newspaper on June 18 and June 25, 2025.

On August 6, 2025 five bids were received. The bids were checked for accuracy against bidding requirements, validity of licenses, and bid security. The bids received are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Bid Overview
Bidder Total Base Bid

1. Mid Cal Pipeline & Utilities, Inc. $4,449,360

2. DG Construction, Inc. $5,078,853

3. Floyd Johnston Construction, Co, Inc. $6,829,905

4. Dawson-Mauldin, LLC. $7,566,140

5. Haydon Construction, Inc. $9,063,815
Engineer’s Opinion of Cost $5,116,060
Mid Cal Pipeline submitted the lowest, responsive, and responsible bid that meets the contract requirements. Moreover, the City received two bids lower than the Engineer’s Opinion of Cost.

Staff recommends awarding the project to Mid Cal Pipeline in the amount of $4,449,360, plus an additional $889,872 or 20 percent of the base bid as a contingency fund. While construction projects are typically budgeted with a 10 percent contingency, staff is recommending a higher than typical contingency due to the complexity of the work, the age of nearby infrastructure, and the possibility (italics added for emphasis) that existing as-built plans may not fully reflect actual conditions. The increased contingency is intended to minimize the risk of work stoppages and ensure the project can proceed without unnecessary delays should unforeseen conditions arise.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT:

The project is categorically exempt under Class 2, Replacement or Reconstruction per Section 15302 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. This applies to:
a. Replacement or reconstruction of existing schools and hospitals to provide earthquake resistant structures which do not increase capacity more than 50 percent. b. Replacement of a commercial structure with a new structure of substantially the same size, purpose, and capacity.
c. Replacement or reconstruction of existing utility systems and/or facilities involving negligible or no expansion of capacity.
d. Conversion of overhead electric utility distribution system facilities to underground including connection to existing overhead electric utility distribution lines where the surface is restored to the condition existing prior to the undergrounding.

The proposed work consists of replacing aging waterlines within the existing public right-of-way.

In accordance with CEQA, a Notice of Exemption (NOE) was filed with the Madera County Clerk’s office on October 23, 2023.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact on the City’s General Fund. The Project is programmed in the CIP FY 25/26 budget with Water Utility funds.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternative to awarding the project is to reject all bids. Rebidding the project could result in higher bids and would result in delays in the watermain replacement project causing the project to be put on hold until Caltrans completes their work and incur significant cost increases for pavement restoration per Caltrans requirements
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution approving Contract
a. Exhibit A - Agreement

2. Project Map
Attachment 1
Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. 25-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MADERA,

CALIFORNIA APPROVING THE CONTRACT AWARD FOR WATER MAIN
REPLACEMENT PROJECT, CITY PROJECT W-43 IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,449,360 TO MID CAL PIPELINE & UTILITIES, INC. AND AUTHORIZING

CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCIES RELATING TO THE CONTRACT
WHEREAS, on June 18, 2025 the City of Madera (City) Engineering Department advertised a solicitation for construction bids for the Water Main Replacement Project, City Project No. W-43 hereinafter referred to as “the Project”; and WHEREAS, five sealed bids were received on August 6, 2025 and opened by the City Engineer; and
WHEREAS, Mid Cal Pipeline & Utilities, Inc. was selected as the lowest, responsive and responsible bidder; and
WHEREAS, funding for the Project is programmed in the Capital Improvement Projects Budget for Fiscal Year 2025/26 under CIP Project W-43;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MADERA HEREBY finds, orders and resolves as follows:

1. The above recitals are true and correct.

2. The City Council (Council) has reviewed and considered all of the information presented including the report to Council from the Engineering Department.

3. The City finds that Mid Cal Pipeline & Utilities, Inc. is the lowest responsible and responsive bidder.

4. The contract for the Project in the Amount of $4,449,360 to Mid Cal Pipeline, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and referred to for particulars, is approved.

5. Council authorizes Construction Contingencies of up to 20 percent as approved by the City Engineer.

6. This Resolution is effective immediately upon adoption. *******
Exhibit A
Agreement

AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of , 2025, between the City of Madera, hereinafter called “OWNER”, and Mid Cal Pipeline & Utilities, Inc., doing business as (an individual), or (a partnership), or (a corporation), hereinafter called “CONTRACTOR”.

WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the payments and agreements hereinafter mentioned:

1. The CONTRACTOR shall commence and complete all WORK required for the “Water Main Replacement Project, City Project No. W-43”

2. The CONTRACTOR shall furnish all of the material, supplies, tools, equipment, labor and other services necessary for the construction and completion of the WORK described herein.

3. The CONTRACTOR shall commence the WORK required by the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS within 10 calendar days after the date of the NOTICE TO PROCEED and will complete the same within the time period set forth in the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. The CONTRACTOR shall submit a Payment Bond and Performance Bond in the amount of
$4,449,360.00, each and Insurance Certificates as specified in the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS prior to commencing any WORK.

4. The CONTRACTOR agrees to perform all of the WORK described in the DOCUMENTS for the unit and lump sum prices set forth in the Bid Schedule.

5. The term “CONTRACT DOCUMENTS” means and includes the following:
(A) Advertisement for Bids
(B) Information for Bidders
(C) Bid Proposal
(D) Bid Bond
(E) Agreement
(F) Payment Bond
(G) Performance Bond
(H) Insurance Requirements for Contractors
(I) Section 1, General Conditions
(J) Section 2, Special Conditions
(K) Section 3, City of Madera Standard Specifications and Drawings (L) Section 4, Bid Items
(M) Section 5, Technical Specifications
(N) State Standard Plans and Specifications

Addendum No. 1, dated June 26, 2025
Addendum No. 2, dated June 30, 2025
Addendum No. 3, dated July 17, 2025
Addendum No. 4, dated July 24, 2025
Addendum No. 5, dated July 29, 2025
Addendum No. 6, dated July 31, 2025

6. In the event the CONTRACTOR does not complete the WORK within the time limit specified herein or within such further time as authorized, the CONTRACTOR shall pay to the OWNER liquidated damages in the amount of Two Thousand ($2,000.00) per day for each and every calendar day delay in finishing the WORK beyond the completion date so specified.

7. The OWNER will pay to the CONTRACTOR in the manner and at such times as set forth in the General Conditions such amounts as required by the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. In no event shall total compensation exceed $4,449,360.00 except as may otherwise be authorized in writing per Section 16. For any moneys earned by the CONTRACTOR and withheld by the OWNER to ensure the performance of the Contract, the CONTRACTOR may, at his request and expense, substitute securities equivalent to the amount withheld in the form and manner and subject to the conditions provided in Division 2, Part 5, Section 22300 of the Public Contract Code of the State of California.

8. In the event of a dispute between the OWNER and the CONTRACTOR as to an interpretation of any of the specifications or as to the quality or sufficiency of material or workmanship, the decision of the OWNER shall for the time being prevail and the CONTRACTOR, without delaying the job, shall proceed as directed by the OWNER without prejudice to a final determination by negotiation, arbitration by mutual consent or litigation, and should the CONTRACTOR be finally determined to be either wholly or partially correct, the OWNER shall reimburse him for any added costs he may have incurred by reason of work done or material supplied beyond the terms of the contract as a result of complying with the OWNER’S directions as aforesaid. In the event the CONTRACTOR shall neglect to prosecute the work properly or fail to perform any provisions of the CONTRACT, the OWNER, after three days written notice to the CONTRACTOR, may, without prejudice to any other remedy it may have, make good such deficiencies and may deduct the cost thereof from the payment then or thereafter due to the CONTRACTOR, subject to final settlement between the parties as in this paragraph herein above provided. 8A. CLAIMS RESOLUTION PROCESS FOR DISPUTES.

It is the intent of this Contract that disputes regarding the Contract be resolved promptly and fairly between the Contractor and the Owner. However, it is recognized that some disputes will require detailed investigation and review by one or both parties before a determination and resolution can be reached.

For the protection of the rights of both the Contractor and the Owner, the following provisions are provided for the resolution of disputes which cannot be resolved by the Owner and the Contractor within three business days after either party gives verbal notice of dispute or potential dispute to the other's attention and prior to the commencement of such work.

The following provisions are intended by Contractor and Owner to comply with Public Contract Code Sections 9204 and 20104 et. seq.

A. Claims:

The term “claim” refers to a separate demand by Contractor sent by registered mail or certified mail with return receipt requested, for one or more of the following:

1. A time extension, including, without limitation, for relief from damages or penalties for delay assessed by Owner under this Contract.

2. Payment by the Owner of money or damages arising from work done by, or on behalf of, the Contractor pursuant to the Contract and payment for which is not otherwise expressly provided or to which the Contractor is not otherwise entitled.

3. Payment of an amount that is disputed by the Owner.

B. The Claim Must Be Timely and in Writing:

For all claims the claim must be in writing and include the documents necessary to substantiate the claim. A notice of potential claim must be filed within five (5) business days of Contractor’s completion of work that is a potential claim. Notice of an actual claim must be filed on or before the date of final payment.

C. Receipt of Claim by Owner:

Upon receipt of a claim pursuant to this section, the Owner will conduct a reasonable review of the claim and, within a period not to exceed 45 days from the date of receipt, will provide the Contractor with a written statement identifying what portion of the claim is disputed and what portion is undisputed. Upon receipt of a claim, Owner and Contractor may, by mutual agreement, extend the time period provided in this section.

The Contractor shall furnish reasonable documentation to support the claim. If additional information is thereafter required, it shall be requested and provided upon mutual agreement by the Owner and the Contractor. The District's written response to the claim, as further documented, shall be submitted to the claimant within 30 days after receipt of the further documentation, or within a period of time no greater than that taken by the Contractor in producing the additional information or requested documentation.

D. City Council Approval:

If the Owner needs approval from the City Council to provide the Contractor a written statement identifying the disputed portion and the undisputed portion of the claim, and the City Council does not meet within the 45 days or within the mutually agreed to extension of time following receipt of a claim sent by registered mail or certified mail, return receipt requested, the Owner shall have up to three days following the next duly publicly noticed regular meeting of the City Council after the 45-day period or extension expires to provide the Contractor a written statement identifying the disputed portion and the undisputed portion.

E. Payment of Claim:

Any payment due on an undisputed portion of the claim shall be processed and made within 60 days after the Owner issues its written statement. If the Owner fails to issue a written statement, paragraph F below shall apply.

F. Meet and Confer:

If the Contractor disputes the Owner’s written response, or if the Owner fails to respond to a claim issued pursuant to this section within the time prescribed, the Contractor may demand in writing an informal conference to meet and confer for settlement of the issues in dispute.

Upon receipt of a demand in writing sent by registered mail or certified mail, return receipt requested, the Owner shall schedule a meet and confer conference within 30 days for settlement of the dispute.

Within 10 business days following the conclusion of the meet and confer conference, if the claim or any portion of the claim remains in dispute, the Owner shall provide the Contractor a written statement identifying the portion of the claim that remains in dispute and the portion that is undisputed. Any payment due on an undisputed portion of the claim shall be processed and made within 60 days after the Owner issues its written statement. Any disputed portion of the claim, as identified by the contractor in writing, shall be submitted to nonbinding mediation, with the Owner and the Contractor sharing the associated costs equally. The Owner and Contractor shall mutually agree to a mediator within 10 business days after the disputed portion of the claim has been identified in writing. If the parties cannot agree upon a mediator, each party shall select a mediator and those mediators shall select a qualified neutral third party to mediate with regard to the disputed portion of the claim. Each party shall bear the fees and costs charged by its respective mediator in connection with the selection of the neutral mediator. If mediation is unsuccessful, the parts of the claim remaining in dispute shall be subject to applicable procedures outside this section.

Under this Contract, mediation includes any nonbinding process, including, but not limited to, neutral evaluation or a dispute review board, in which an independent third party or board assists the parties in dispute resolution through negotiation or by issuance of an evaluation. Any mediation utilized shall conform to the timeframes in this section.

Unless otherwise agreed to by the Owner and the Contractor in writing, the mediation conducted pursuant to this section shall excuse any further obligation under Public Contract Code Section 20104.4 to mediate after litigation has been commenced.

If mediation as set forth above does not resolve the parties’ dispute, the parties will proceed to arbitration of disputes under private arbitration or the Public Works Contract Arbitration Program.

G. Filing a Government Code Written Claim Notice:

Following the meet and confer conference, if the claim or any portion remains in dispute, the Contractor may file a claim under the Torts Claims Act as provided in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 900) and Chapter 2 commencing with Section 910) of Part 3 of Division 3.6 of Title 1 of the Government Code Section 900.

H. Owner’s Failure to Respond to Claim:

Failure by the Owner to respond to a claim from Contractor within the time periods described above or to otherwise meet the time requirements set forth above shall result in the claim being deemed rejected in its entirety. A claim that is denied by reason of the Owner’s failure to have responded to a claim, or its failure to otherwise meet the time requirements of this section, shall not constitute an adverse finding with regard to the merits of the claim or the responsibility or qualifications of the Contractor.

I. Interest:

Amounts not paid in a timely manner as required by this section shall bear interest at 7 percent per annum.

J. Subcontractor Claims:

If a subcontractor or a lower tier subcontractor lacks legal standing to assert a claim against Owner because privity of contract does not exist, the Contractor may present to the Owner a claim on behalf of a subcontractor or lower tier subcontractor. For purposes of this paragraph, the term “subcontractor’ means any type of subcontractor within the meaning of Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 7000) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code who either is in direct contract with the Contractor or is a lower tier subcontractor. A subcontractor may request in writing, either on his or her own behalf or on behalf of a lower tier subcontractor, that the Contractor present a claim for work which was performed by the subcontractor or by a lower tier subcontractor on behalf of the subcontractor. The subcontractor requesting that the claim be presented to the Owner shall furnish reasonable documentation to support the claim. Within 45 days of receipt of this written request, the Contractor shall notify the subcontractor in writing as to whether the contractor presented the claim to the Owner and, if the original contractor did not present the claim, provide the subcontractor with a statement of the reasons for not having done so.

K. Filing of Action on Unresolved Claims:

The parties shall follow the procedures set forth in Public Contracts Code Section 20104.4 if an action is filed to resolve claims under the foregoing provisions. Any action shall be filed in Madera County.

9. Attention is directed to Section 1735 of the Labor Code, which reads as follows:
“No discrimination shall be made in the employment of persons upon public works because of the race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical conditions, marital status, or sex of such persons except as provided in Section 12940 of the Government Code, and every contractor for public works violating this section is subject to all the penalties imposed for by violation of this chapter”.

10. In accordance with the provisions of Article 5, Chapter l, Part 7, Division 2 (commencing with Section 1860) and Chapter 4, Part l, Division 4 (commencing with Section 3700) of the Labor Code of the State of California, the CONTRACTOR is required to secure the payment of compensation to his employees and shall for that purpose obtain and keep in effect adequate Worker’s Compensation Insurance.

The undersigned CONTRACTOR is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against Liability for Worker’s Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions before commencing the performance of the WORK of this Agreement.

11. The CONTRACTOR shall comply with Part 7, Chapter l, Article 2, Section 1775 of the Labor Code of the State of California. The CONTRACTOR shall, as a penalty to the OWNER, forfeit fifty dollars ($50.00) for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each workman paid less than the prevailing rates for such work or craft in which such workman is employed for any public work done under the Contract by him or by any SUBCONTRACTOR under him. The difference between such prevailing wage rates and the amount paid to each workman for each calendar day or portion thereof for which each workman was paid less than a prevailing wage rate, shall be paid to each workman by the CONTRACTOR.

12. The CONTRACTOR shall comply with Part 7, Chapter l, Article 2, Section 1776 of the Labor Code of the State of California. The CONTRACTOR shall keep and require that all SUBCONTRACTORS keep accurate payroll records showing the name, address, social security number, work classification, straight time and overtime hours worked each day and week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice worker or other employee employed by him in connection with public work. Such payroll records shall be certified and shall be available for inspection at all reasonable hours at the principal office of the CONTRACTOR by the OWNER, its officers and agents and to the representatives of the Division of Labor Law Enforcement of the State Department of Industrial Relations. In the event of non-compliance with the requirements of Section 1776, the CONTRACTOR shall have 10 days in which to comply subsequent to receipt of written notice specifying in what respects the CONTRACTOR must comply. Should non-compliance still be evident after the ten (10) day period, the CONTRACTOR shall, as a penalty to the OWNER forfeit twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker until strict compliance is effectuated. Upon the request of the Division of Apprenticeship Standards or the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, these penalties shall be withheld from progress payments then due.

13. Attention is directed to the provisions in Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 of the Labor Code concerning the employment of apprentices by the CONTRACTOR or any SUBCONTRACTOR under him. It is the CONTRACTOR’S responsibility to ensure compliance by both itself and all SUBCONTRACTORS.

Section 1777.5 provides, in part, as follows:

The CONTRACTOR or SUBCONTRACTOR, if he is covered by this section, upon the issuance of the approval certificate, or if he has been previously approved in the craft or trade, shall employ the number of apprentices or the ratio of apprentices to journeyman stipulated in the apprenticeship standards. Upon proper showing by the CONTRACTOR that he employs apprentices in the craft or trade in the State on all of his/her contracts on an annual average of not less than one hour of apprentice work for every five hours of labor performed by a journeyman, or in the land surveyor classification, one apprentice for each five journeyman, the Division of Apprenticeship Standards may grant a certification exempting the CONTRACTOR from the one (1) to five (5) hourly ratio as set forth in this section. This section shall not apply to contracts of general CONTRACTORS or to contracts of specialty contractors not bidding for work through a general or prime CONTRACTOR, when the contracts of general CONTRACTORS, or those specialty CONTRACTORS involve less than thirty thousand dollars ($30,000). Any work performed by a journeyman in excess of eight hours per day or forty (40) hours per week shall not be used to calculate the hourly ratio required by this section.

Apprenticeable craft or trade, as used in this section, shall mean a craft or trade determined as an apprenticeable occupation in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by the Apprenticeship Council. The joint apprenticeship committee shall have the discretion to grant a certificate, which shall be subject to the approval of the Administrator of Apprenticeship, exempting a CONTRACTOR from the 1 to 5 ratio set forth in this section when it finds that any one of the following conditions is met:
(a) In the event unemployment for the previous three-month period in such area exceeds an average of 15 percent, or
(b) In the event the number of apprentices in training in such area exceeds a ratio of 1 to 5, or (c) If there is a showing that the apprenticeable craft or trade is replacing at least one-thirtieth of its journeymen annually through apprenticeship training, either (1) on a statewide basis, or (2) on a local basis, or
(d) If assignment of an apprentice to any work performed under a public works contract would create a condition which should jeopardize his life or the life, safety, or property of fellow employees, or the public at large or if the specific task to which the apprentice is to be assigned is of a nature that training cannot be provided by a journeyman.

When such exemptions are granted to an organization which represents CONTRACTORS in a specific trade from the 1 to 5 ratio on a local or statewide basis the member CONTRACTORS will not be required to submit individual applications for approval to local joint apprenticeship committees, provided they are already covered by the local apprenticeship standards.

The CONTRACTOR is required to make contributions to funds established for the administration of apprenticeship programs if he employs registered apprentices or journeymen in apprenticeable trade on such contracts and if other CONTRACTORS on the public work site are making such contributions. The CONTRACTOR, and any SUBCONTRACTOR under him, shall comply with the requirements of Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 of the Labor Code in the employment of apprentices.

Information relative to number of apprentices, identifications, wages, hours of employment and standards of working conditions shall be obtained from the Division of Apprenticeship Standards. Consult the white pages of your telephone directory under California, State of, Industrial Relations, Apprenticeship Standards, for the telephone number and address of the nearest office. Willful failure by the CONTRACTOR to comply with the provisions of Sections 1777.5 will subject the CONTRACTOR to the penalties set forth in Section 1777.7 of the Labor Code.

14. Pursuant to California Labor Code Section 1813, eight hours in any one calendar day and forty (40) hours in any calendar week shall be the maximum hours any workman is required or permitted to work, except in cases of extraordinary emergency caused by fires, flood, or danger to life and property.

The CONTRACTOR doing the work, or his duly authorized agent, shall file with OWNER a report, verified by his oath, setting forth the nature of the said emergency, which report shall contain the name of said worker and the hours worked by him on the said day, and the CONTRACTOR and each SUBCONTRACTOR shall also keep an accurate record showing the names and actual hours worked of all workers employed by him in connection with the work contemplated by this Agreement, which record shall be open at all reasonable hours to the inspection of the OWNER, or its officer or agents and to the Chief of all Division of Labor Statistics and Law Enforcement of the Department of Industrial Relations, his deputies or agents; and it is hereby further agreed that said CONTRACTOR shall forfeit as a penalty to the OWNER the sum of Twenty-Five Dollars ($25.00) for each laborer, workman or any SUBCONTRACTOR under him for each calendar day during which such laborer, workman or mechanic is required or permitted to labor more than eight (8) hours in violation of this stipulation.

Overtime and shift work may be established as a regular procedure by the CONTRACTOR with reasonable notice and written permission of the OWNER. No work other than overtime and shift work established as a regular procedure shall be performed between the hours of 6:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. nor on Saturdays, Sundays or holidays except such work as is necessary for the proper care and protection of the work already performed or in case of an emergency.

CONTRACTOR agrees to pay the costs of overtime inspection except those occurring as a result of overtime and shift work established as a regular procedure. Overtime inspection shall include inspection required during holidays, Saturdays, Sundays and weekdays. Costs of overtime inspection will cover engineering, inspection, general supervision and overhead expenses which are directly chargeable to the overtime work. CONTRACTOR agrees that OWNER shall deduct such charges from payments due the CONTRACTOR.

15. The CONTRACTOR shall comply with Division 2, Chapter 4, Part 1 of the Public Contract Code relating to subletting and subcontracting, specifically included but not limited to Sections 4104, 4106, and 4110, which by this reference are incorporated into this Agreement as though fully set forth herein.

16. The CONTRACTOR and the OWNER agree that changes in this Agreement or in the work to be done under this Agreement shall become effective only when written in the form of a supplemental agreement or change order and approved and signed by the OWNER and the CONTRACTOR. It is specifically agreed that the OWNER shall have the right to request any alterations, deviations, reductions or additions to the contract or the plans and specifications or any of them, and the amount of the cost thereof shall be added to or deducted from the amount of the contract price aforesaid by fair and reasonable valuations thereof.

This contract shall be held to be completed when the work is finished in accordance with the original plans and specifications as amended by such changes. No such change or modification shall release or exonerate any surety upon any guaranty or bond given in connection with this contract.

17. Contractor shall indemnify, defend with legal counsel approved by City, and hold harmless City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers from and against all liability, loss, damage, expense, and cost (including without limitation reasonable legal counsel fees, expert fees and all other costs and fees of litigation) of every nature arising out of or in connection with Contractor's negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct in the performance of work hereunder, or its failure to comply with any of its obligations contained in this AGREEMENT, except such loss or damage caused by the sole active negligence or willful misconduct of the City. Should conflict of interest principles preclude a single legal counsel from representing both City and Contractor, or should City otherwise find Contractor’s legal counsel unacceptable, then Contractor shall reimburse the City its costs of defense, including without limitation, reasonable legal counsel fees, expert fees, and all other costs and fees of litigation.

The Contractor shall promptly pay any final judgment rendered against the City (and its officers, officials, employees and volunteers) with respect to claims determined by a trier of fact to have been the result of the Contractor’s negligent, reckless, or wrongful performance. It is expressly understood and agreed that the foregoing provisions are intended to be as broad and inclusive as is permitted by the law of the State of California and will survive termination of this Agreement.

Contractor obligations under this section apply regardless of whether or not such claim, charge, damage, demand, action, proceeding, loss, stop notice, cost, expense, judgment, civil fine or penalty, or liability was caused in part or contributed to by an Indemnitee. However, without affecting the rights of City under any provision of this agreement, Contractor shall not be required to indemnify and hold harmless City for liability attributable to the active negligence of City, provided such active negligence is determined by agreement between the parties or by the findings of a court of competent jurisdiction. In instances where City is shown to have been actively negligent and where City’s active negligence accounts for only a percentage of the liability involved, the obligation of Contractor will be for that entire portion or percentage of liability not attributable to the active negligence of City.

Contractor agrees to obtain or cause to be obtained executed defense and indemnity agreements with provisions identical to those set forth in this Section from each and every Subcontractor and Subconsultant, of every Tier. In the event the Contractor fails to do so, Contractor agrees to be fully responsible to provide such defense and indemnification according to the terms of this Section.

18. Contractor must comply with the insurance requirements as described in the section “INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTRACTOR”, pages 39-40 of the Contract Documents.

19. Amendments- Any changes to this Agreement requested by either City or Mid Cal Pipeline & Utilities, Inc. may only be effected if mutually agreed upon in writing by duly authorized representatives of the parties hereto. This Agreement shall not be modified or amended or any rights of a party to it waived except by such writing.

20. Termination.

A. This Agreement may be terminated at any time by either party upon fifteen (15) calendar days written notice. In the event the Agreement is terminated by either party Mid Cal Pipeline & Utilities, Inc. shall be compensated for services performed to the date of termination based upon the compensation rates and subject to the maximum amounts payable agreed to together with such additional services performed after termination which are authorized in writing by the City representative to wind up the work performed to date of termination.

B. City may immediately suspend or terminate this Agreement in whole or in part by written notice where, if in the determination of City, there is:

1. An illegal use of funds by Mid Cal Pipeline & Utilities, Inc.;

2. A failure by Mid Cal Pipeline & Utilities, Inc. to comply with any material term of this Agreement;

3. A substantially incorrect or incomplete report submitted by Mid Cal Pipeline & Utilities, Inc. to City.

In no event shall any payment by City or acceptance by Mid Cal Pipeline & Utilities, Inc. constitute a waiver by such party of any breach of this Agreement or any default which may then exist on the part of either party. Neither shall such payment impair or prejudice any remedy available to either party with respect to such breach or default. City shall have the right to demand of Mid Cal Pipeline & Utilities, Inc. the repayment to City of any funds disbursed to Mid Cal Pipeline & Utilities, Inc. under this Agreement which, as determined by the appropriate court or arbitrator, were not expended in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.

Notice of termination shall be mailed to the City:

City of Madera
Engineering Department
428 E. Yosemite Avenue
Madera, Ca 93638
To the Contractor Mid Cal Pipeline & Utilities, Inc.

Notices. All notices and communications from the Mid Cal Pipeline & Utilities, Inc. shall be to City's designated Project Manager or Principal-In-Charge. Verbal communications shall be confirmed in writing.

All written notices shall be provided and addressed as soon as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days after termination.

21. Compliance With Laws- City shall comply with all Federal, State and local laws, ordinances, regulations and provisions applicable in the performance of City’s services.

Wherever reference is made in this Agreement to standards or codes in accordance with which work is to be performed or tested, the edition or revision of the standards or codes current on the effective date of this Agreement shall apply, unless otherwise expressly stated.

22. Attorneys’ Fees/Venue- In the event that any action is brought to enforce the terms of this Agreement, the party found by the court to be in default agrees to pay reasonable attorneys’ fees to the successful party in an amount to be fixed by the Court. The venue for any claim being brought for breach of this Agreement shall be in Madera County or as appropriate in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, located in the City of Fresno.

23. Governing Law- The laws of the State of California shall govern the rights and obligations of the parties under the Agreement, including the interpretation of the Agreement. If any part of the Agreement is adjudged to be invalid or unenforceable, such invalidity shall not affect the full force and effect of the remainder of the Agreement.

24. City’s Authority- Each individual executing or attesting to this Agreement on behalf of the City hereby covenants and represents: (i) that he or she is duly authorized to execute or attest and deliver this Agreement on behalf of such corporation in accordance with a duly adopted resolution of the corporation’s articles of incorporation or charter and bylaws; (ii) that this Agreement is binding upon such corporation; and (iii) that Contractor is a duly organized and legally existing municipal corporation in good standing in the State of California.

25. Contractor’s Legal Authority - Each individual executing or attesting this Agreement on behalf of Mid Cal Pipeline & Utilities, Inc. hereby covenants and represents: (i) that he or she is duly authorized to execute or attest and deliver this Agreement on behalf of such corporation in accordance with such corporation’s articles of incorporation or charter and by-laws; (ii) that this Agreement is binding upon such corporation; and (iii) that Mid Cal Pipeline & Utilities, Inc. is a duly organized and legally existing corporation in good standing in the State of California.

26. Remedies for Default. Failure by a party to perform any term, condition or covenant required of the party under this Agreement shall constitute a “default” of the offending party under this Agreement. In the event that a default remains uncured for more than ten (10) days following receipt of written notice of default from the other party, a "breach" shall be deemed to have occurred. Any failure or delay by a party in asserting any of its rights and remedies as to any default shall not operate as a waiver of any default or of any rights or remedies associated with a default.

27. Independent Contractor. In performance of the work, duties, and obligations assumed by the Contractor under this Agreement, it is mutually understood and agreed that the City, including any and all of City’s officers, agents and employees will, at all times, be acting and performing as an independent contractor, and shall act in an independent capacity and not as an officer, agent, servant, employee, joint venturer, partner, or associate of City. Furthermore, City shall have no right to control or supervise or direct the manner or method by which City shall perform its work and functions. The City shall comply with all applicable provisions of law and the rules and regulations, if any, of governmental authorities having jurisdiction over the subject matter hereof.

Because of its status as an independent contractor, City shall have absolutely no right to employment rights and benefits available to City employees. City shall be solely liable and responsible for providing to, or on behalf of, its employees all legally required employee benefits. In addition, City shall be solely responsible and hold City harmless from all matters relating to payment of City’s employees, including compliance with Social Security, withholding and all other regulations governing such matters. It is acknowledged that during the term of this Agreement, City may be providing services to others unrelated to City or to this Agreement.

28. Sole Agreement- This instrument constitutes the sole and only Agreement between City and Mid Cal Pipeline & Utilities, Inc. in connection to the Project and correctly sets forth the obligations of the City and Mid Cal Pipeline & Utilities, Inc. to each other as of its date. Any Agreements or representations in connection with the Project, not expressly set forth in this instrument are null and void.

29. Assignment-Neither the Mid Cal Pipeline & Utilities, Inc. nor City will assign its interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the other.

30. This Agreement shall be binding upon all parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed, or caused to be executed by their duly authorized officials, this Agreement in THREE copies, each of which shall be deemed an original on the date first above written.

City of Madera
Herein Called OWNER
By:

Cecelia K. Gallegos, Mayor
APPROVE AS TO FORM:

Shannon L. Chaffin, City Attorney
ATTEST:

Alicia Gonzales, City Clerk
BY:

Herein Called CONTRACTOR
BY:

Federal Tax I.D. No.

Contractor License Number

DIR Registration Number
NOTE: This Notary Acknowledgment on the following page is required for verification of Contractor’s signature.

Acknowledgment
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

California Notary acknowledgement required to be attached.

Attachment 2
Project Map
Project Map

REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
Council Meeting of: August 20, 2025
Agenda Number: ___________
Keith Helmuth, Department Director
Arnoldo Rodriguez, City Manager
SUBJECT:

Domestic Well Mitigation Program (DWMP)
RECOMMENDATION:

Receive update and provide direction regarding information provided as part of this report to City Council
SUMMARY:

The City of Madera (City) is one of seven agencies that have established a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) within the boundaries of Madera Groundwater Subbasin (Subbasin) pursuant to the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). The seven GSAs include the following members:
 City of Madera (City)  Gravelly Ford Water District
 County of Madera (County)  Root Creek Water District  Madera Irrigation District (MID)  New Stone Water District (NWSD)  Madera Water District (MWD)
Four GSAs, including the City, County, MID, and MWD, prepared one joint Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP).

The original joint GSP, prepared in 2020, requires GSAs to achieve groundwater sustainability in the Subbasin by 2040. Combined, the original joint GSP GSAs are responsible for approximately 95 percent of the Subbasin.

Approved by:

Groundwater Sustainability Agency
E-1
The remaining three GSAs, Gravelly Ford Water District GSA, Root Creek Water District GSA and New Stone Water District GSA, each prepared their own individual GSPs, which, when combined with the joint GSP, collectively cover and manage the entire Subbasin as required by SGMA including impacts to domestic wells.

All GSAs are required to prepare and implement a DWMP for the Madera Subbasin. While not a direct component in reaching sustainability, the DWMP can be considered a factor in the time frame required to achieve sustainability. Without a DWMP to mitigate well impacts, the urgency of reaching sustainability would be heightened to avoid greater losses of residential wells.

DISCUSSION:

The Madera Subbasin GSAs through the GSA Coordination Workgroup (Workgroup) have continued with coordination and focused planning efforts to develop a DWMP since the last DWMP update to City Council (Council) on April 16, 2025 having met three times. The DWMP, when complete, is intended to provide assistance to domestic and municipal wells adversely impacted by declining groundwater levels that interfere with groundwater production or quality.

The program is not intended to mitigate well issues not caused by regional groundwater conditions nor is it intended to resolve issues related to normal wear and tear. It is expected that the DWMP, when implemented will continue until groundwater sustainability is achieved. After 2040, groundwater levels will stabilize at historical levels if sustainability efforts are successful, avoiding undesirable results for groundwater users.

As part of the Council update on April 16, Council provided direction that the City should participate in DWMP based on proportionate cost of its contribution to overdraft.

Based on progress achieved at recent Workgroup meetings, staff finds that it must seek additional input from Council.

There are, at present, several items for consideration. These possible changes should be taken in context with a separate discussion between the four GSAs associated with the joint Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP). The remainder of this report will, as a first part, focus on the progress associated with the Workgroup. The second will focus on the separate discussion.

Workgroup
1) Participation Methodology:

Council has provided direction that it supports proportionate cost responsibility (Proportionate) based on contribution to overdraft as opposed to proximity based. At present, four GSAs support Proportionate, including the City. One GSA does not support and indicates it does not wish to participate in the program or provide input to the DWMP. A second has indicated its intent to prepare and manage its own DWMP but has expressed a willingness to participate in discussions about what a DWMP looks like. It is unclear what the remaining GSA will ultimately do other than announcing its intention to continue participating in the discussion. These decisions to not support Proportionate along with statements of intent to form separate DWMPs has left staff uncertain of how discussions will continue and what it means toward the goal of meeting the requirements of SGMA. In fact, the Workgroup Mediator (Mediator) has expressed a concern that there may be an impasse associated with the methodology.

As a result, the Mediator contacted representatives from the Department of Water Resources’ (DWR) Sustainable Groundwater Management Office to discuss and confirm their expectations about well mitigation efforts in GSAs across the state. The discussions with DWR illustrated the following:
 DWR needs to see confirmation that within a given groundwater basin or subbasin, there is a responsible party(ies) that have a documented plan in place to provide mitigation coverage for all domestic wells if they experience dewatering associated with groundwater use under the jurisdiction of SGMA.
 While DWR does not have specific guidance or opinion on how one or more parties (particularly GSAs) account for this complete coverage for domestic wells, DWR does not advocate any specific method and defers to the principle of “local control” for GSAs to determine how they will prove such mitigation (short-term and/or longterm) individually or collectively meets SGMA requirements. As such, each GSA in the Madera Subbasin is able to determine if they prefer to develop an individual well mitigation plan, or to partner with one or more other GSAs to create a multiagency mitigation program. 2) Calculation of Proportionate Value:

The current proportionate value for the City is 2% based on the GSP consultants water model from the end of last year. This value does not fully address the City’s efforts toward completing its projects since that time. Nor does it take into account the City likely ability to install all meters within about one year. While Workgroup discussions have included the potential to adjust values based on near-up-to-date information and to reconsider the value on a yearly or five-year basis, those options have not materialized in the Agreement as of yet. Rather, the draft agreement included as Appendix C to Attachment 2 currently provides for a five-year review of the Proportionate value responsibility with a highlight indicating further discussion or approval is required.

City projects include a joint project with the Madera Irrigation District (MID) for the use of the Berry Storm Basin for Recharge and installation of water meters at all parcels.

The Berry Basin project is complete. Meters are in excess of 99% complete when considering total connections. In fact, based on latest information as recently researched by the water meter project(s) Project Manager, it appears as though there are no more than 125 meters left to install in the City. As such, the actual percentage would be substantially less than 2% Staff has repetitively indicated that the City Proportionate value should be more reflective of completion of projects. This statement seems to have been accepted by a number of GSAs but at present, the collective understanding appears to be contradictory as seen in Attachments 1 and 2 which provides the current assumed Proportionate value as 2% based on the 2025 GSP Plan Amendment.

The program as now being considered does not look backward to mitigate wells that went dry prior to a certain time frame or perhaps completion of the DWMP itself. It is generally assumed that State programs have addressed those previously dry wells. 3) Should all components of DWMP participation be based on proportionate value? There are two cost components currently envisioned in the DWMP. First is the actual cost of mitigating failed wells. At present, it appears this cost may have increased to $35,000 from $30,000 based on additional information from the County. It is reasonable to assume that the City participates in actual well cost based on proportionate value. Second is administrative/operating costs of the program. There is belief/support by a number of GSAs that this cost should be shared equally given the program is essentially State mandated. Staff agrees with this interpretation but is of the opinion that it should sunset at some point after the City’s projects are fully complete. Attachment 1 provides the current distribution of costs based on 2% proportionate share.

The DWMP itself remains in draft form (Attachment 2). The form seen is anticipated to remain largely the same however some aspects are anticipated to be deleted or simplified in an effort to replace the part of the well that is directly affected by a lowed water table rather than failure due to other reasons. Staff has intentionally left redlines and comments to illustrate the extent of changes that can occur from one meeting to the next. The Memorandum of Agreement Establishing a Domestic Well Mitigation Program For the Madera Subbasin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin included as an attachment to the DWMP (Agreement). The Agreement is between GSAs.

Based on this report, staff is asking Council to:
 Reaffirm Selection of Proportionate participation
 Consider the Proportionate value of 2% based on discussion herein and during the Council meeting and position as to how fast the value drops as projects are completed (i.e. 1 year, 5 years)
 Consider Workgroup’s position that administrative/operating costs are shared equally by all GSAs subject the DWMP; not based on Proportionate value Separate GSA Discussion
In the preceding week, the four GSAs associated with the joint GSP, City, County, MID, and MWD, met to discuss paths forward if the other GSAs do, in fact, prepare their own DWMPs. At present, this discussion should be considered very preliminary in nature. Highlights include:
 All four GSAs agree that a separate DWMP appears to be required.  With Root Creek expressing it’s desire to create its own DWMP, their calculated 7% as seen in Attachment 1 may become the responsibility of the City, County, MID, and MWD.  Some GSAs, including the City feel the calculated splits do not account for GSP projects completed in advance of that planned for in the joint GSP.  Taken separately, it appears the other GSAs either support or, at the very least, due not object to a lesser Proportionate Share being assigned to the City.  A proposal was presented that the DWMP only addresses the first year and that Attachment 1 only be used as guidance for a fixed amount being applied to each agency.

Proposed/offered amounts were:
o MID - $1,000,000
o MWD - $200,000
o City - $80,000
o County - $5,000,000
It is important to note that the County representative has expressed deep concerns over this method. The amount shown was suggested by another agency and not supported by the County per staff recollection.
 The Total Cost provided in Attachment 1 makes a number of assumptions regarding current backlog (estimated as 220) of possible well-owners seeking mitigation along with the possible number of future dry wells. Staff tends to believe the requests will not justify the Total Cost of $7,827,171 in FYE 2026 assumed nor for that matter the remaining years. This is tethered to the belief that not all well owners can immediately finance the cost of a new well even with the $35,000 mitigation amount included. It is also believed that the number of current dry well reports may have gone down recently though it is not known if this is an aberration that will continue.
 With regard to the $80,000 amount (approximately 1%), staff is cognizant of the number of backlogged wells which precedes the City’s efforts to complete GSP projects.  Under the current proposal, the fixed amount would need to be revisited within a year for FYE 2027.
 All GSA representatives agree that time is of the essence. It is our understanding that a program needs to be in place by the end of the year.

As stated, this meeting is preliminary and the first to address other GSA rejecting a unified approach for all seven GSAs. Staff will also be seeking input of this latest approach.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

It is not anticipated there would be any immediate impacts to the General Fund so long as cost of mitigation is built into the Water Fund as part of the next rate study.

ALTERNATIVES:

Alternatives include:
 Not participate in DWMP – As stated in previous Council meeting, it was staff’s belief that this would likely be in violation of the SGMA and may result in litigation with one or more GSAs. The current statement of one or two of the GSAs not to participate and a statement from DWR staff that they may be conceding to the use of multiple GSA DWMPs within the subbasin may test this supposition.

A decision by the City to adopt its own DWMP comes with responsibility for managing a program and mitigating cost of all dry wells that occur in the City limits. Staff does not at present have a working theory on the cost of such a program beyond that presented in the April 16, 2025 Council update wherein it was noted that four dry wells occurred within the City limits during a 6 and ½ month time frame. At $35,000 per well combined with unknown managements costs of a single agency, the budgetary cost found in Attachment 1 would be easily exceeded. There may also be additional inherent risk that the program may last longer regardless of whether the City is balanced or not as lack of progress by other GSAs may affect the City’s GSA.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Draft Domestic Well Mitigation Program Cost Distribution

2. Draft Domestic Well Mitigation Program (DWMP)
Attachment 1
Draft Domestic Well Mitigation Program Cost Distribution

Attachment 2
Draft Domestic Well Mitigation Program (DWMP)

DOMESTIC WELL MITIGATION PROGRAM PLAN

FOR THE MADERA SUBBASIN OF THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY GROUNDWATER BASIN

1. Program IntroducƟon
This Plan (Plan) describes the rules and regulaƟons for the Madera Subbasin (Subbasin) DomesƟc Well MiƟgaƟon Program (DWMP or Program). The purpose of the Program is to miƟgate impacts experienced by domesƟc and State Small Water System water users whose wells have gone dry as a result of , due to groundwater levels dropping as a result oīrom past or current extracƟons being addressed by Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) ImplementaƟon in the Subbasin (in compliance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act [SGMA] of 2014 [amended in 2015]) . The Program includes two (2) sequenƟal and relatedopƟons for various types of DomesƟc Well MiƟgaƟon Measures miƟgaƟon (as described further in SecƟon 6 and Appendices A and B respecƟvely).
 Short Term Emergency Water Supply (STEWS) MiƟgaƟon Measures  DomesƟc Well MiƟgaƟon Measures

2. Background informaƟon

2.1 Subbasin CondiƟons and Background
 This secƟon will include general subbasin informaƟon excerpted from mulƟple GSPs, describing physical and governance condiƟons.

2.2 Monitoring Network
 This secƟon will include a descripƟon of the monitoring network that will be relied on to provide advance consideraƟon of potenƟal groundwater elevaƟon impacts and triggers to iniƟate STEWS MiƟgaƟon Measures (see below) and DomesƟc Well MiƟgaƟon Measures (see below)

2.3 Program Area
The geographic area to be supported by the Program is the exact footprint of the Madera Subbasin of the San Joaquin Valley Basin (5-022.06 Madera), as defined by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR).(Figure 1)

3. Program Eligibility
This Program applies to well owners using groundwater for domesƟc health and safety supply purposes, through domesƟc wells and/or State Small Water System wells as of _____________, 2025, the date the Program was mutually raƟfied by all parƟcipaƟng Subbasin GSAs.

As an iniƟal miƟgaƟon eligibility requirement, well owners must parƟcipate or agree to parƟcipate in a respecƟve GSA’s Well RegistraƟon Policy/Program.
Commented [DC1]: We need to confirm there is either
exisƟng, suĸcient descripƟons in one or more GSP to
address this, or we need to have DE (or others) prepare this text.

Owners of domesƟc wells and/or State Small Water System wells are eligible to file applicaƟons for miƟgaƟon under the Program however, relief is not guaranteed and is subject to review and approval/denial by the Program Manager (see SecƟon 6 and Appendices A and B ) and further intervenƟon as needed, by the Madera Subbasin CoordinaƟon Workgroup (Workgroup) (see SecƟon 4). While not addressed in this Plan, short-term emergency water supply miƟgaƟon may be provided by the ParƟcipaƟng GSAs on an as needed basis. Table 1 presents General Program Eligibility Requirements.

Table 1 – General Program Eligibility Requirements
Category Eligible Not Eligible
Type of Wells DomesƟc
State Small Water System
Agricultural
CombinaƟon agricultural-domesƟc
Commercial
Industrial
Livestock
Municipal (except State Small Water
System)
Monitoring Wells
Cause of Well Failure Declining regional groundwater
levels due to groundwater pumping
Plugged well screen
Collapsed well casing
Pump or electrical failures
Tree roots/ foreign objects in well
Biofouling / biofilm
SedimentaƟon in well
Water quality problems
Well construcƟon defects
Water level decline caused by other onsite wells
Any other reason not related to
groundwater level declines
Well Permit Legally permiƩed wells UnpermiƩed wells constructed in the previous ten years (i.e. clear evidence
of no well permit)
Landownership Landowner Renter or lessee
Bank-owned homes
Other Wells that are part of a trust or living
trust
Private wells used for business or
commercial purposes
New home construcƟon
New water system construcƟon
New wells not constructed to Well
MiƟgaƟon Program standards
ProperƟes verified to be causing
groundwater overdraŌ

4. Program Governance

4.1 ParƟes
Commented [DC2]: We MAY need a new descripƟon/Ɵtle
of the subset of GSAs that will implement this Program.The CoordinaƟon Workgroup maynot be applicable OR, ot may be applicable with appropriate new descriptors recognizing that the Program will be implemented by various
partnerships, or subsets of the Subbasin GSAs
Commented [DC3]: Need to discuss if this is a suĸcient
iniƟal reference to the intent to provide short term
emergency support.

ParƟes to the Program (ParƟcipaƟng GSAs) are all GSAs signatory to the documentƟtled “Madera Subbasin DomesƟc Well MiƟgaƟon Program Memorandum of Agreement” (Agreement), mutually raƟfied on _______, 2025 (See Appendix C).

4.2 Program Oversight and Management
Oversight: The Madera Subbasin CoordinaƟon Workgroup (Workgroup), as described in the Madera Subbasin CoordinaƟon Agreement (CoordinaƟon Agreement)(raƟfied on January 22, 2020, and amended/recerƟfied on March 27, 2025) will oversee the Program and will provide direcƟon to a Program Manager (Program Manager) contracted by the Program (see below).

ComposiƟon, mMeeƟng frequency and decision makingof the Workgroupabout the Program will be as isare defined below. in the CoordinaƟon Agreement.The Workgroup will receive updates from the Program Manager (see below).The ParƟcipaƟng GSAs and will provide guidance and binding direcƟon (as warranted and publicly noƟced) for Program implementaƟon. Program meeƟngs will include at least one technical staī representaƟve from each of the PparƟcipaƟng GSAs (as warranted).

Management: A Program Manager will be selected and contracted by the WorkgroupParƟcipaƟng GSAs, and compensated through the Program funding structure (as described in the Agreement). The Program Manager willmanage all Program implementaƟon steps and responsibiliƟes described in this Plan. As part of the contract between the PparƟcipaƟng GSAs and the Program Manager, the Program Manager will be vested with applicaƟon review (see Appendices A and B) and approval authority by the Workgroup ParƟcipaƟng GSAsunless miƟgaƟng factors emerge on an applicaƟon, such that the Program Manager seeks guidance and intervenƟon by the WorkgroupParƟcipaƟng GSAs.

Governance: Beyond what is addressed above, Ggovernance of the Program will provided by the ParƟcipaƟng GSAs signatory to the Agreement. Dispute resoluƟon (as needed) will be guided by sƟpulaƟons in the CoordinaƟon Agreement. Any input provided by a GSA signatory to the CoordinaƟon Agreement that is not also a signatory to the Agreement will be treated as public input. .

5. Public Outreach Commitments and Requirements
IniƟal stakeholder outreach was conducted during the development of the Program. The Program and Plan were discussed in public meeƟngs of the various ParƟcipaƟng GSAs , and at a public meeƟng of the Workgroup. A draŌof the Plan was posted to the PparƟcipaƟng GSAs’ websites. The public was able to submit wriƩen comments on the Program and Plan through the respecƟve ParƟcipaƟngGSA websites and the public meeƟngs.and Tthe Workgroup ParƟcipaƟng GSAsconsidered that input in the development of this final Plan. The Plan is posted on the websites of each PparƟcipaƟng GSA.

Commented [DC4]: Need to discuss if this is realisƟc and appropriate and if not, confirm exactly how ParƟcipaƟng GSA representaƟon will be defined for Program discussions.

Commented [DC5]: Need to confirm this will be feasible
on the respecƟve GSAs website plaƞorms and if not,
whether we will delete this and defer to other input
methods
Discussion of Program status and implementaƟon will be placed on the Workgroup’s meeƟng agendas as needed.The Annual MeeƟng of the Workgroup (as described in the CoordinaƟon Agreement) will include a review of the prior year’s Program outcomes, and public educaƟon about the Program.
The Program will be placed as a standing item on the agendas of each regularly scheduled (i.e. not Special MeeƟngs) Subbasin ParƟcipaƟng GSAs’ meeƟng. While discussion about the Program may not occur in any given GSA meeƟng, providing the opportunity as a standing item will minimize confusion as to when the Program can/will be discussed.

Program informaƟon will be included at least once a year in other outreach communicaƟons prepared and sent by each PparƟcipaƟng GSA to their respecƟve consƟtuencies. Program informaƟon will be available on a standalone webpage located on the websites of each PparƟcipaƟng GSA.This informaƟon will include but not be limited to.  The Agreement
 The Plan
 InstrucƟons for hardcopy and electronic filing of applicaƟons for STEWS MiƟgaƟon Measures and DomesƟc Well MiƟgaƟon Measures (See Appendices A and B)  Annual status and progress reports by the Program Manager

6. MiƟgaƟon Process
As described in the IntroducƟon, the Program includes DomesƟc Well MiƟgaƟon Measures 2 sequenƟal and related types of miƟgaƟon:
 STEWS MiƟgaƟon Measures, and
 DomesƟc Well MiƟgaƟon Measures,
The following provides a brief descripƟon of these Measures.Appendix A presents decision criteria and guidance for implementaƟon of STEWS.Appendix AB presents Program procedures and checklists that guide the review, approval, selecƟon andimplementaƟon of miƟgaƟon measures for domesƟc wells and State Small Water System wells.

STEWS MiƟgaƟon Measures: STEWS consists of delivery of boƩled water and/or water tanks (at the Project Manager’s discreƟon). STEWS Measures are to be employed once one or more dewatered wells associated with declining groundwater levels is iniƟally determined and while permanent measures are being invesƟgated and/or implemented (See Appendix A).

Formatted: Normal, No bullets or numbering
DomesƟc Well MiƟgaƟon Measures: DomesƟc well miƟgaƟon will be determined through steps described in Appendix B as managed by the Program Manager and overseen by the Workgroup

7. AcquisiƟon of Abandoned Wells for Monitoring Purposes In the event a new well is installed as miƟgaƟon for a failed well (see Appendix B), the respecƟve GSA in which the well is located, may choose to convert the abandoned well into a monitoring well. Such provision(s) may be included in the MiƟgaƟon and IndemnificaƟon Agreement (MI Agreement) and agreed to by the GSA Board and the applicant. The MI Agreement shall grant access by the respecƟve GSA to the monitoring well for data gathering and compliance acƟviƟes, and ownership of the abandoned and converted monitoring well will revert to the GSA. Terms and condiƟons for access to the monitoring well may be negoƟated between the GSA and the well’s former owner.

8. Environmental Review
The parƟcipaƟng GSAs agree to cooperaƟvely complete any environmental review as may be determined necessary for Program implementaƟon. Any costs associated with environmental review shall be per the proporƟonate share as set-forth in the Agreement and as determined through implementaƟon of the MiƟgaƟon Review process described in SecƟon 6.

8. DefiniƟons (TBD)
Applicant
CoordinaƟon Workgroup
DomesƟc Well
Landowner
ParƟcipaƟng Groundwater Sustainability Agency
Program Manager
State Small Water System Well
Water User
Well Owner

9. Exhibits
 Madera Subbasin Map
 Agreement
 ParƟcipaƟng GSAs
 Well RegistraƟon Requirements
 Standard MiƟgaƟon ApplicaƟon
 MiƟgaƟon and IndemnificaƟon (MI) Agreement
Commented [DC6]: Need to discuss and refine the
meaning/use of landowner, well owner, and applicant
Commented [DC7]: Need to decide if we will keep these
as exhibits to the plan or just have them available online eventually so as to not require any future modificaƟons to the plan is said documents need revisions.

APPENDIX A
Madera Subbasin
DomesƟc Well MiƟgaƟon Measures
Well miƟgaƟon for individual domesƟc wells and/or State Small Water System wells will be determined and potenƟally provided through steps described below.

A. MiƟgaƟon Eligibility: Table 1 of the Plan presents General Progra Eligibility requirements.

B. MiƟgaƟon ApplicaƟon Process:The following steps will be followed to apply for the Program.

1. A well owner must submit a miƟgaƟon applicaƟon online (URL TBD), or by hard copy turned in to the (Program Oĸce Address TBD).

2. The applicaƟon must be accompanied with the mandatory fee* of no more than $XX (as set at the start of the Program).

3. The starƟng fee as of XX, 2025fee willbe subject to a maximum 3% increase annually as determined by the Workgroup, to pay for the processing and evaluaƟon of any applicaƟon. The applicaƟon fee may be reimbursed or applied to any costs that may be deemed the responsibility of the well-owner.

4. The Program Manager will conduct a preliminary completeness review of the applicaƟon within ten (10) business days of receipt by the Program. The applicant will be noƟfied within the 10-day review period if the applicaƟon is complete or if there is any further informaƟon needed to evaluate the applicaƟon

5. If deemed necessary, the Program Manager may request of the applicant, a professional well assessment report that may include but may not be limited to:  Age of the well,
 Well construcƟon informaƟon (including pump depth, screening intervals, and pipe type [material]) and thickness,
 Well maintenance informaƟon,
 IndicaƟon of past well performance and any recent performance changes,  Any recent changes in well use or related land use, and  Other addiƟonal informaƟon as necessary to determine if the failure is caused by declining water levels and/or GSA groundwater management acƟons.

C. Preliminary Technical Review: The following steps will be taken following determinaƟon of a complete applicaƟon.

Commented [DC8]: Retain?
Commented [DC9]: Retain?
Commented [DC10]: Retain?

1. The Program Manager (or third-party contractor) will conduct a preliminary, bench-scale technical review of the applied for well which may consist of some or all of the following.  A review of well construcƟon informaƟon,
 A review of well and pump maintenance records,
 A review of historic water level data for nearby representaƟve monitoring network wells*,
 A review of nearby known producƟon well informaƟon,
 A review of nearby land use and any recent land use changes, and  An analysis of nearby conjuncƟve use acƟvity (if known). *If the nearest representaƟve monitoring network well does not represent the applicant’s well and land use, the Program Manager may review supplemental data from DWR and local agencies to support preliminary review analysis.

2. If, aŌer compleƟon of the preliminary review, the Program Manager determines a well may be eligible for miƟgaƟon, the Program Manager will authorize a field inspecƟon. D. Field InspecƟon: The following steps will be taken following compleƟon of the bench-scale preliminary technical review.

1. The applicant must complete and submit the Program release form (online URL or physical address) confirming their agreement to a field inspecƟon and allowing Program staīand or contractors on their property.

2. On receipt of the release and agreement from the applicant, the Program will iniƟate The field inspecƟonwhich may include but may not be limited to:
 Removing a pump to measure intake depth, well boƩom, and staƟc water level,  ConducƟng a video log,
 Modifying the wellhead to measure staƟc and pumping level,  InvesƟgaƟng the site for consolidaƟon feasibility, and/or  InvesƟgaƟng nearby land and water use.

The field inspecƟonmay show the well as ineligible for miƟgaƟon. Such criteria indicaƟng ineligibility may include but may not be limited to:
 Pump failure,
 Clogged screens,
 Well pipe and/or casing failure or collapse which are unrelated to lowering groundwater levels or other potenƟal GSA acƟons,
 Other maintenance-related well or pump issues which are unrelated to lowering of groundwater levels or other potenƟal GSA acƟons, or
 Normal wear and tear based on the age of the well.

3. If the well is ineligible for miƟgaƟon, the well owner shall reimburse the Program for reasonable field invesƟgaƟon expenses over and above the applicaƟon fee amount. E. MiƟgaƟon DeterminaƟon, Dispute ResoluƟon, and ImplementaƟon: The following miƟgaƟon steps will be taken following compleƟon of the field inspecƟon and determinaƟon that well miƟgaƟon is an appropriate course of acƟon.

1. The Program Manager will work with the well owner/landowner on a soluƟon appropriate for the site. Such miƟgaƟon measures may include but may not be limited to the following:
 Lowering the well pump or otherwise modifying pump equipment,  Installing a new well,
 AssisƟng the well owner/landowner with facilitaƟng a connecƟon to an exisƟng municipal or community water system or other water supply if feasible, or  Other appropriate miƟgaƟon as may be agreed to by various ParƟes.

2. If the applicant disagrees with the proposed miƟgaƟon measure(s), they may request an appeal by a technically qualified third-party mutually agreed to by the Workgroup and applicant.
 The third party consultant will provide a review of the data compiled in the steps abovewill further provide an independent recommendaƟon of a miƟgaƟon measure.
 The applicant and Program must agree beforehand that the third-party determinaƟonill be binding and is not subject to further appeal and recommend a mutually agreeable miƟgaƟon measure(s).
 If the third-party concludes and recommends that the original miƟgaƟon measure(s) proposed by the Program Manager is singularly appropriate, or appropriate as part of a range of opƟons, the applicantwill reimburse the Program for the total cost of said third-party services.

3. Based on all applied steps above, the Program Manager will approve the applicaƟon if deemed appropriate. No well miƟgaƟon (other than provision of STEWS) will begin unƟl suchƟme as the Program Manager has aĸrmed in wriƟng, that miƟgaƟon implementaƟon can start.

4. In advance of implementaƟon starƟng, the applicant must submit the Program MiƟgaƟon and IndemnificaƟon (MI) Agreement (online URL or physical address). The MI Agreement may sƟpulate one or more of the following:

Commented [DC11]: Retain?
Commented [DC12]: Retain?
 The miƟgaƟon measure is a complete miƟgaƟon soluƟon for the property and the Program is not liable for further miƟgaƟons.
 Use of an abandoned well for monitoring purposes.
 Minimum criteria in addiƟon to State and County requirements for new wells as they apply to Program review and opinion, granted under ExecuƟve Order (EO) N-3-24.
o Criteria may include well construcƟon materials, minimum depth beyond January 2015 (the enactment date SGMA) of seasonal low groundwater level measurements, and/or screening interval levels, among other potenƟal criteria.

APPENDIX C

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

ESTABLISHING A DOMESTIC WELL MITIGATION PROGRAM

FOR THE MADERA SUBBASIN OF THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY GROUNDWATER BASIN FIGURE 1

MADERA SUBBASIN

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

ESTABLISHING A DOMESTIC WELL MITIGATION PROGRAM

FOR THE MADERA SUBBASIN OF THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY GROUNDWATER BASIN This Memorandum of Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into ____________ day of 2025 (the ͞EīĞĐƟǀĞĂƚĞ͟Ϳ͕ďǇĂŶĚďĞƚǁĞĞŶƚŚĞ'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌ^ƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďŝůŝƚǇŐĞŶĐŝĞƐŽĨƚŚĞKhEdz K& DEZ;͞KhEdz͟Ϳ͕ƚŚĞ/dzK&DEZ;͞/dz͟Ϳ͕ƚŚĞDEZ/ZZ/'d/KE/^dZ/d ;͞D/͟Ϳ͕ƚŚĞDEZtdEZ/^dZ/d;͞Dt͟Ϳ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞ'ZsE>>z&KZtdEZ/^dZ/d ;͞'&t͟Ϳ͕ĐŽůůĞĐƟǀĞůǇŚĞƌĞŝŶĂŌĞƌƌĞĨĞƌƌĞĚƚŽĂƐƚŚĞ͞WĂƌƟĞƐ͕͟ŽƌŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂůůǇĂƐƚŚĞ͞WĂƌƚǇ͟. dŚŝƐŐƌĞĞŵĞŶƚŝƐĞǆĞĐƵƚĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĞǆƉƌĞƐƐƉƵƌƉŽƐĞŽĨĐŽŶĮƌŵŝŶŐƚŚĞƐƟƉƵůĂƟŽŶƐŽĨ͕ĂŶĚ ĂŐƌĞĞŵĞŶƚƐƚŽ͕ŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚƚŚĞDĂĚĞƌĂ^ƵďďĂƐŝŶŽŵĞƐƟĐtĞůůDŝƟŐĂƟŽŶWƌŽŐƌĂŵ;WƌŽŐƌĂŵͿ ĂƐĚĞƐĐƌŝďĞĚĨƵƌƚŚĞƌďĞůŽǁ͕ĂŶĚŝŶĚĞƚĂŝůŝŶƚŚĞWƌŽŐƌĂŵWůĂŶ;ƉƉĞŶĚŝǆͿ͘

RECITALS
t,EZE^͕ŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌĂŶĚƐƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞDĂĚĞƌĂ^ƵďďĂƐŝŶŽĨƚŚĞ^ĂŶ :ŽĂƋƵŝŶsĂůůĞǇ'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌĂƐŝŶ;tZƵůůĞƟŶ11ϴEŽ͘ϱ-ϮϮ͘ϬϲͿ;^ƵďďĂƐŝŶͿĂƌĞǀŝƚĂůůǇ ŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ͕ŝŶƚŚĂƚƚŚĞǇƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƚŚĞĨŽƵŶĚĂƟŽŶƚŽŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĂŶĚĨƵůĮůůĐƵƌƌĞŶƚĂnd ĨƵƚƵƌĞĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂů͕ĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĂů͕ĚŽŵĞƐƟĐ͕ŵƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů͕ĂŶĚŝŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůŶĞĞĚƐ͕ĂŶĚƚŽŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶ ƚŚĞĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǀŝĂďŝůŝƚǇ͕ƉƌŽƐƉĞƌŝƚǇ͕ĂŶĚƐƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďůĞŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚŽĨƚŚĞ^ƵďďĂƐŝŶ͖ĂŶĚ t,EZE^͕ĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞŚĂƐďĞĞŶƉƌŽŵŝŶĞŶƚŝŶŵĂŬŝŶŐDĂĚĞƌĂŽƵŶƚǇŽŶĞŽĨƚŚĞǁŽƌůĚ͛Ɛ ĨŽƌĞŵŽƐƚĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĂůĂƌĞĂƐĂŶĚƉůĂǇƐĂŵĂũŽƌƌŽůĞŝŶƚŚĞĞĐŽŶŽŵǇŽĨDĂĚĞƌĂŽƵŶƚǇ͖ĂŶĚ

t,EZE^͕ŝŶϮϬ1ϰƚŚĞĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂ>ĞŐŝƐůĂƚƵƌĞƉĂƐƐĞĚĂƐƚĂƚĞǁŝĚĞĨƌĂŵĞǁŽƌŬĨŽƌƐƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďůĞ ŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ͕ŬŶŽǁŶĂƐƚŚĞ^ƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďůĞ'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚĐƚ͕ ĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂtĂƚĞƌŽĚĞΑ1ϬϳϮϬ-1Ϭϳϯϳ͘ϴ;^'DͿ͕ƉƵƌƐƵĂŶƚƚŽ^ĞŶĂƚĞŝůů11ϲϴ͕^ĞŶĂƚĞŝůů1ϯ1ϵ͕ and ƐƐĞŵďůǇŝůů1ϳϯϵ͕ǁŚŝĐŚǁĂƐĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚďǇƚŚĞ'ŽǀĞƌŶŽƌŽŶ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌ1ϲ͕ϮϬ1ϰ͘ĂŶĚ ǁĞŶƚŝŶƚŽĞīĞĐƚŽŶ:ĂŶƵĂƌǇ1͕ϮϬ1ϱ͖ĂŶĚ
t,EZE^͕ƚŚĞ^ƵďďĂƐŝŶŚĂƐďĞĞŶĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƚĞĚďǇƚŚĞĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨtĂƚĞƌZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ ;tZͿĂƐĂŚŝŐŚ-ƉƌŝŽƌŝƚǇƐƵďďĂƐŝŶŝŶĂĐŽŶĚŝƟŽŶŽĨĐƌŝƟĐĂůŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌŽǀĞƌĚƌĂŌĂŶĚŝƐƐƵďũĞĐƚ ƚŽƚŚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐŽĨ^'D͖ĂŶĚ
t,EZE^͕^'DƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƐƚŚĂƚĂůůŵĞĚŝƵŵĂŶĚŚŝŐŚƉƌŝŽƌŝƚǇŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌďĂƐŝŶƐŝŶĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂďĞ ŵĂŶĂŐĞĚďǇĂ'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌ^ƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďŝůŝƚǇŐĞŶĐǇ;'^Ϳ͕ŽƌŵƵůƟƉůĞ'^Ɛ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĂƚƐƵĐŚ ŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚďĞŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĞĚƉƵƌƐƵĂŶƚƚŽĂŶĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚ'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌ^ƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďŝůŝƚǇWůĂŶ;'^WͿ͕ ŽƌŵƵůƟƉůĞ'^WƐ͖ĂŶĚ
t,EZE^͕ƚŚĞƌĞĂƌĞƐĞǀĞŶ'^ƐǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞ^ƵďďĂƐŝŶĂƐƐĞƚ-ĨŽƌƚŚŝŶEǆŚŝďŝƚ (ƉĞŶĚŝŶŐ)͖ĂŶĚ t,EZE^͕ŽƵŶƚǇ͕ŝƚǇ͕D/͕ĂŶĚDtŚĂǀĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚŽŶĞ'^W͖ZŽŽƚƌĞĞŬtĂƚĞƌŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ ŚĂƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚŽŶĞ'^W͖'&tŚĂƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚŽŶĞ'^W͖ĂŶĚEĞǁ^ƚŽŶĞtĂƚĞƌŝƐƚƌŝĐƚŚĂƐ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚŽŶĞ'^W͕ƐƵĐŚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞ^ƵďďĂƐŝŶŝƐŐŽǀĞƌŶĞĚďǇĨŽƵƌƐĞƉĂƌĂƚĞ'^WƐƵŶŝĮĞĚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ ƚŚĞ^ƵďďĂƐŝŶŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƟŽŶŐƌĞĞŵĞŶƚ (ƵƉĚĂƚĞĚĂŶĚĞǆĞĐƵƚĞĚDĂƌĐŚϮϳ͕ϮϬϮϱ) ͖ĂŶĚ t,EZE^͕ŝŶ:ĂŶƵĂƌǇϮϬϮϬ͕ƚŚĞWĂƌƟĞƐƐƵďŵŝƩĞĚĨŽƵƌ'^WƐƚŽtZ͖ĂŶĚ t,EZE^͕ƚŚĞWĂƌƟĞƐĂŐƌĞĞ͕ĂŶĚĂƐ^'DĂůůŽǁƐ͕ĂƚƌĂŶƐŝƟŽŶƚŽƐƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďŝůŝƚǇŽǀĞƌƚŚĞϮϬ-year '^W/ŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƟŽŶWĞƌŝŽĚŝƐŝŶƚŚĞďĞƐƚŽǀĞƌĂůůŝŶƚĞƌĞƐƚŽĨƚŚĞ^ƵďďĂƐŝŶ͕ĂůƚŚŽƵŐŚƚŚŝƐ ĂƉƉƌŽĂĐŚŝƐĞǆƉĞĐƚĞĚƚŽƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶƐŽŵĞĐŽŶƟŶƵĞĚŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌůĞǀĞůĚĞĐůŝŶĞƐĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞ'^W /ŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƟŽŶWĞƌŝŽĚ͖ĂŶĚ
t,EZE^͕ƚŚĞWĂƌƟĞƐĂŐƌĞĞƚŚĂƚĂƐĂƌĞƐƵůƚŽĨƚŚĞĐŽŶƟŶƵĞĚĚĞĐůŝŶĞŝŶŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌůĞǀĞůƐ ĂŶƟĐŝƉĂƚĞĚƚŽŽĐĐƵƌŽǀĞƌƚŚĞ'^W/ŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƟŽŶWĞƌŝŽĚ͕ƚŚĞƌĞŵĂǇďĞĂĚǀĞƌƐĞŝŵƉĂĐƚƐƚŽ ƐŽŵĞĚŽŵĞƐƟĐĂŶĚ^ƚĂƚĞ^ŵĂůůtĂƚĞƌ^ǇƐƚĞŵǁĞůůƐŝŶƚŚĞ^ƵďďĂƐŝŶ͖ĂŶĚ t,EZE^͕ƚŚĞWĂƌƟĞƐĂĐŬŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞƚŚĂƚƚŚĞŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨĚŽŵĞƐƟĐ ǁĞůůƐ and ^ƚĂƚĞ^ŵĂůůtĂƚĞƌ ^ǇƐƚĞŵǁĞůůƐĚĞǁĂƚĞƌĞĚĚƵƌŝŶŐŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƟŽŶŽĨƚŚĞ'^W;ƉƌŝŽƌƚŽϮϬϰϬͿŝƐŚĞĂǀŝůǇĚĞƉĞŶĚĞŶƚ ŽŶƉƌĞĐŝƉŝƚĂƟŽŶĂŶĚƐŶŽǁƉĂĐŬĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĂƚƟŵĞƉĞƌŝŽĚ͖ĂŶĚ t,EZE^͕ƚŚĞWĂƌƟĞƐĂĐŬŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞƚŚĂƚǁĞƚĐŽŶĚŝƟŽŶƐŵĂǇƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶĨĞǁ ĚĞǁĂƚĞƌĞĚǁĞůůƐ͖ĂŶĚ t,EZE^͕ƚŚĞWĂƌƟĞƐĂĐŬŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞƚŚĂƚƐƵďƐƚĂŶƟĂůŶƵŵďĞƌƐŽĨĚŽŵĞƐƟĐĂŶĚŵƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůǁĞůůƐ ŵĂǇďĞĚĞǁĂƚĞƌĞĚŝĨƉƌŽůŽŶŐĞĚĚƌŽƵŐŚƚŽĐĐƵƌƐĚƵƌŝŶŐŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƟŽŶŽĨƚŚĞ'^W͕ǁŚŝůĞ ƉƌŽũĞĐƚĂŶĚŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚĂĐƟŽŶƐĂƌĞƐƟůůďĞŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚĂŶĚŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĞĚ͖ĂŶĚ t,EZE^͕ƚŚĞWĂƌƟĞƐĂĐŬŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞƚŚĂƚƚŚĞǇĐĂŶŶŽƚĐŽŶƚƌŽůŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌĐŽŶĚŝƟŽŶƐŶŽƚ ĐĂƵƐĞĚďǇƌĞŐŝŽŶĂůŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌĐŽŶĚŝƟŽŶƐ͖ĂŶĚ
t,EZE^͕ƚŚĞWĂƌƟĞƐĚŽŶŽƚŝŶƚĞŶĚƚŽƌĞƐŽůǀĞŽƌŽƚŚĞƌǁŝƐĞŵŝƟŐĂƚĞĨŽƌŝƐƐƵĞƐ ƌĞůĂƚĞĚƚŽ ŶŽƌŵĂůǁĞĂƌĂŶĚƚĞĂƌ͖ĂŶĚ
t,EZE^͕ƚŚĞWĂƌƟĞƐĂƐƉĂƌƚŽĨƚŚĞŝƌĨƵƚƵƌĞĂŶĂůǇƐŝƐĂŐƌĞĞƚŽƌĞǀŝĞǁƉŽƚĞŶƟĂů ŝŵƉĂĐƚƐƚŽďŽƚŚ ĚŽŵĞƐƟĐĂŶĚŵƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůǁĞůůƐŝŶƚŚĞ^ƵďďĂƐŝŶ͖ĂŶĚ
t,EZE^͕ƚŚĞWĂƌƟĞƐŚĂǀĞƌĞǀŝĞǁĞĚĂŶĚĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚƚŚĞĐŽŶƚĞŶƚĂŶĚƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶƐƐĞƚĨŽƌƚŚďǇ^ĞůĨ-,ĞůƉEŶƚĞƌƉƌŝƐĞƐ͕>ĞĂĚĞƌƐŚŝƉŽƵŶƐĞůĨŽƌ:ƵƐƟĐĞĂŶĚĐĐŽƵŶƚĂďŝůŝƚǇ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇtĂƚĞƌĞŶƚĞƌŝŶƚŚĞŝƌƉƵďůŝĐĂƟŽŶƟƚůĞĚ͕͞&ƌĂŵĞǁŽƌŬĨŽƌĂƌŝŶŬŝŶŐtĂƚĞƌtĞůů /ŵƉĂĐƚDŝƟŐĂƟŽŶWƌŽŐƌĂŵ͘͟
EKt͕d,EZE&KZE͕ŝŶĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƟŽŶŽĨƚŚĞŵƵƚƵĂůƉƌŽŵŝƐĞƐ͕ĐŽǀĞŶĂŶƚƐĂŶĚ ĐŽŶĚŝƟŽŶƐ ĐŽŶƚĂŝŶĞĚŚĞƌĞŝŶĂŶĚƚŚĞƐĞZĞĐŝƚĂůƐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞŚĞƌĞďǇŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞĚ ŚĞƌĞŝŶďǇƚŚŝƐƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞ͕ ƚŚĞWĂƌƟĞƐĂŐƌĞĞƚŽƌĞǀŝĞǁĂŶĚĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌŵŝƟŐĂƟŽŶĨŽƌ ĚŽŵĞƐƟĐĂŶĚ^ƚĂƚĞ^ŵĂůůtĂƚĞƌ^ǇƐƚĞŵ ǁĞůůŝŵƉĂĐƚƐƌĞƐƵůƟŶŐĨƌŽŵĚĞĐůŝŶŝŶŐŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌůĞǀĞůƐ ƚŚĂƚŽĐĐƵƌĨƌŽŵŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌ ŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚĂĐƟǀŝƟĞƐŽƵƚůŝŶĞĚŝŶƚŚĞĨŽƵƌ'^WƐ ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŽĨĂŽŵĞƐƟĐtĞůů DŝƟŐĂƟŽŶWƌŽŐƌĂŵ;WƌŽŐƌĂŵͿĂƐĨŽůůŽǁƐ͗
A. WƌŽŐƌĂŵĞƐĐƌŝƉƟŽŶ
 A brief description of the intended Program, and Program purpose (including but not limited to geographic location, signatories, etc.) as abbreviated from a similar description that will be provided in the Plan
dŚĞWƌŽŐƌĂŵĞŵƉůŽǇƐƚǁŽŵĞƚŚŽĚƐŽĨŵŝƟŐĂƟŽŶ͗
^hort Term EŵĞƌŐĞŶĐǇtater ^ƵƉƉůǇ DŝƟŐĂƟŽŶDĞĂƐƵƌĞƐ͗^dEt^ ĐŽŶƐŝƐƚs ŽĨĚĞůŝǀĞƌǇŽĨ ďŽƩůĞĚǁĂƚĞƌĂŶĚͬŽƌǁĂƚĞƌƚĂŶŬƐ͘DĞĂƐƵƌĞƐĂƌĞƚŽďĞĞŵƉůŽǇĞĚŽŶĐĞŽŶĞŽƌŵŽƌĞ ĚĞǁĂƚĞƌĞĚǁĞůůƐĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚĚĞĐůŝŶŝŶŐŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌůĞǀĞůƐŝƐŝŶŝƟĂůůǇĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚ͘ ŽŵĞƐƟĐtĞůůDŝƟŐĂƟŽŶDĞĂƐƵƌĞƐ͗ŽŵĞƐƟĐǁĞůůŵŝƟŐĂƟŽŶǁŝůůďĞĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚ ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƐƚĞƉƐĚĞƐĐƌŝďĞĚŝŶƚŚĞWůĂŶĂŶĚŵĂǇŝŶĐůƵĚĞďƵƚŵĂǇŶŽƚďĞůŝŵŝƚĞĚƚŽ͗  >ŽǁĞƌŝŶŐĂǁĞůůƉƵŵƉŽƌŽƚŚĞƌǁŝƐĞŵŽĚŝĨǇŝŶŐƉƵŵƉĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚ͕  /ŶƐƚĂůůŝŶŐĂŶĞǁǁĞůů͕
 ƐƐŝƐƟŶŐĂǁĞůůŽǁŶĞƌͬůĂŶĚŽǁŶĞƌǁŝƚŚĨĂĐŝůŝƚĂƟŶŐĂĐŽŶŶĞĐƟŽŶƚŽĂŶĞǆŝƐƟŶŐ ŵƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŽƌĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇǁĂƚĞƌƐǇƐƚĞŵŽƌŽƚŚĞƌǁĂƚĞƌƐƵƉƉůǇŝĨĨĞĂƐŝďůĞ͕Žƌ  KƚŚĞƌĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞŵŝƟŐĂƟŽŶĂƐŵĂǇďĞĂŐƌĞĞĚƚŽďǇǀĂƌŝŽƵƐWĂƌƟĞƐ͘ ͘ WƌŽƉŽƌƟŽŶĂƚĞZĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďŝůŝƚǇ
WƌŽƉŽƌƟŽŶate ƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďŝůŝƚǇĨŽƌĮŶĂŶĐŝĂůĐŽŶƚƌŝďƵƟŽŶƐƚŽƚŚĞWƌŽŐƌĂŵďǇƉĂƌƟĐŝƉĂƟŶŐ '^ƐǁŝůůďĞĚĞĮŶĞĚŽŶĂĮǀĞ;5)-ǇĞĂƌƟŵĞƉĞƌŝŽĚ͕ĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚŚǇĚƌŽŐĞŽůŽŐŝĐ ĐŝƌĐƵŵƐƚĂŶĐĞƐ ĂŶĚƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƌƟŽŶĂƚĞƐƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďŝůŝƚǇĐŽŶĚŝƟŽŶƐĂƐĐƌŝďĞĚƚŽĞĂĐŚ'^as ĚĞƐĐƌŝďĞĚŝŶƚŚĞWĞƌŝŽĚŝĐEǀĂůƵĂƟŽŶĨŽƌƚŚĞ^ƵďďĂƐŝŶ(as required ŝŶƚŚĞ^ƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďůĞ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚĐƚ;^'DͿ.
ƐĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƌĂƟĮĐĂƟŽŶĚĂƚĞŽĨƚŚŝƐŐƌĞĞŵĞŶƚ͕ƚŚĞϮϬϮϱDĂĚĞƌĂ^ƵďďĂƐŝŶ WĞƌŝŽĚŝĐEǀĂůƵĂƟŽŶǁŝůůďĞƵƐĞĚĂƐƚŚĞŝŶŝƟĂůŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƚŽĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞ the ƉƌŽƉŽƌƟŽŶĂƚĞƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďŝůŝƚǇŽĨĞĂĐŚ ƉĂƌƟĐŝƉĂƟŶŐ'^ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚϮϬϯϬ͘^ƵďƐĞƋƵĞŶƚ ƉƌŽƉŽƌƟŽŶĂƚĞƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďŝůŝƚǇǁŝůůďĞĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚŽŶĂŶĞǀĞƌǇϱ-ǇĞĂƌďĂƐŝƐĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚ ǁŝƚŚ ĨƵƚƵƌĞWĞƌŝŽĚŝĐEǀĂůƵĂƟŽŶƐ͘
WƌŽƉŽƌƟŽŶĂƚĞĚũƵƐƚŵĞŶƚƐ͗ZĞĐŽŐŶŝǌŝŶŐƚŚĂƚŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌĐŽŶĚŝƟŽŶƐŵĂǇĐŚĂŶŐĞ ǁŝƚŚŝŶĞĂĐŚϱ-ǇĞĂƌƉĞƌŝŽĚĂƐĂƌĞƐƵůƚŽĨŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƟŽŶŽĨWƌŽũĞĐƚƐĂŶĚDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ ĐƟŽŶƐĚĞĮŶĞĚŝŶƌĞƐƉĞĐƟǀĞ'^WƐ;ƐĞĞ^ĞĐƟŽŶyͿ͕ĂĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůWƌĞ-DŝƟŐĂƟŽŶĐƟŽŶƐ ĞŵƉůŽǇĞĚďǇĂ'^͕ andͬŽƌĂƐĂƌĞƐƵůƚŽĨ ĐůŝŵĂƚĞĐŽŶĚŝƟŽŶƐthat ŵĂǇŽĐĐƵƌďĞǇŽŶĚƚŚĞ ĐŽŶƚƌŽůŽĨƚŚĞƉĂƌƟĐŝƉĂƟŶŐ'^Ɛ͕ƉƌŽƉŽƌƟŽŶĂůƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďŝůŝƚǇŵĂǇďĞƚŚĞƐƵďũĞĐƚŽĨ ƉĞƌŝŽĚŝĐƌĞǀŝƐŝŽŶŽŶĂĨƌĞƋƵĞŶĐǇƐŚŽƌƚĞƌƚŚĂŶƚŚĞϱ-ǇĞĂƌƟŵĞůŝŶĞ͘^ƵĐŚŝƚĞƌĂƟǀĞ ĞǀĂůƵĂƟŽŶĂŶĚƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůƌĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƟŽŶǁŝůůďĞĂƚƚŚĞĚŝƐĐƌĞƟŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƉĂƌƟĐŝƉĂƟŶŐ '^Ɛ͕ƵƐŝŶŐĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶ-ŵĂŬŝŶŐŵĞƚŚŽĚƐĚĞĮŶĞĚŝŶƚŚĞŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƟŽŶŐƌĞĞŵĞŶƚ͘ ZĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐWƌĞ-DŝƟŐĂƟŽŶĐƟŽŶƐ͕ĂŶǇƉĂƌƟĐŝƉĂƟŶŐ'^ŵĂǇĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĂŶĚŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚ ĂĐƟŽŶƐĨŽƌĂŐŝǀĞŶůŽĐĂƟŽŶĂƚǁŚŝĐŚƚŚĞ'^ ďĞůŝĞǀĞƐƐƵĐŚĂĐƟŽŶƐǁŝůů ďĞƐƵĐĐĞƐƐĨƵůƚŽ ŵŝƟŐĂƚĞƚŚĞƌŝƐŬŽĨĨƵƚƵƌĞ ĚŽŵĞƐƟĐǁĞůůĚĞǁĂƚĞƌŝŶŐ͘^ƵĐŚŝŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚƐĂƌĞĂƚƚŚĞƐŽůĞ ĚŝƐĐƌĞƟŽŶ ĂŶĚŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂůĨƵŶĚŝŶŐ ŽĨĂŐŝǀĞŶ'^ĂŶĚƚŚĞtŽƌŬŐƌŽƵƉŵĂǇĚĞĐŝĚĞƚŽ ĂĐĐŽƵŶƚĨŽƌƐƵĐŚWƌĞ-DŝƟŐĂƟŽŶǁŝƚŚĨƵƌƚŚĞƌĂĚũƵƐƚŵĞŶƚƐto ƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƌƟŽŶĂƚĞ ƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďŝůŝƚǇŽĨƚŚĞƌĞƐƉĞĐƟǀĞ͕ŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƟŶŐ'^͘,ŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ƐŚŽƵůĚWƌĞ-DŝƟŐĂƟŽŶ ĐƟŽŶƐƉƌŽǀĞƚŽďĞƵŶƐƵĐĐĞƐƐĨƵůto ƉƌŽŚŝďŝƚƚŚĞĚĞǁĂƚĞƌŝŶŐŽĨĚŽŵĞƐƟĐǁĞůůƐ͕ƚŚĞ ŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƟŶŐ'^ǁŝůůŝŶĐƵƌĂůůĨƵƚƵƌĞŵŝƟŐĂƟŽŶĐŽƐƚ ƐŚŽƵůĚƚŚĞǇŽĐĐƵƌ͘EŽƐƵďƐĞƋƵĞŶƚ ŵŝƟŐĂƟŽŶĐŽƐƚƐ ĨŽƌǁĞůůƐůŽĐĂƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞĂƌĞĂĂĚĚƌĞƐƐďǇƚŚĞWƌĞ-DŝƟŐĂƟŽŶĐƟŽŶƐ ǁŝůů ďĞĂƐĐƌŝďĞĚƚŽƚŚĞŽƚŚĞƌƉĂƌƟĐŝƉĂƟŶŐ'^Ɛ͘
͘ /Ŷ-<ŝŶĚ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐĂŶĚŽŶƚƌŝďƵƟŽŶƐ
 Consistent with Section C above, this will be a statement of how in-kind services will be provided by respective GSAs.
͘ &ƵŶĚŝŶŐ
 A statement of GSA commitment to contribute funds (including a likely reference to an exhibit describing the specific starting amount and duration of a multi-GSA funding structure, including but not limited to: fixed administrative costs, and a potential ramp-down of funding commitments as the Plan/Program is implemented and the GSAs achieve and maintain sustainable conditions in the Subbasin). Funds are expected to be collected from each participating GSA on a TBD date each fiscal or calendar year, and consistent with the proportionate responsibility / water budget methodology described in Article C.

E. &ĂŝůƵƌĞƚŽWĂǇ
 A statement describing penalties and restrictions to be imposed on any GSA that does not fulfill its annual proportionate funding obligation. &͘ ĐĐŽƵŶƚDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ
 A statement describing the manner in which the annual cumulative funding will be managed including the managed account format said funds will be in and the responsible party to oversee said account
'͘ ƵĚŐĞƚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂŶĚZĞǀŝĞǁ
 A statement describing an annual process through which prior year funding will be assessed on a metrics-based approach, and how current year funding will be allocated based on anticipated subbasin needs.
,͘ WƌŽŐƌĂŵDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ
ƐĂůƐŽĚĞƐĐƌŝďĞĚŝŶƚŚĞWůĂŶ͕ŽǀĞƌƐŝŐŚƚŽĨƚŚĞWƌŽŐƌĂŵǁŝůůďĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚďǇƚThe Madera ^ƵďďĂƐŝŶŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƟŽŶtŽƌŬŐƌŽƵƉ;tŽƌŬŐƌŽƵƉͿ͕ĂƐĚĞƐĐƌŝďĞĚŝŶƚŚĞŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƟŽŶ Agreement͘dŚĞtŽƌŬŐƌŽƵƉǁŝůůƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚŝƌĞĐƟŽŶƚŽĂWƌŽŐƌĂŵDĂŶĂŐĞƌ;WƌŽŐƌĂŵ DĂŶĂŐĞƌͿĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚĞĚďǇƚŚĞWƌŽŐƌĂŵ;ƐĞĞďĞůŽǁͿ. The WƌŽŐƌĂŵDĂŶĂŐĞƌǁŝůůďĞ ƐĞůĞĐƚĞĚĂŶĚĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚĞĚďǇƚŚĞtŽƌŬŐƌŽƵƉ͕ĂŶĚĐŽŵƉĞŶƐĂƚĞĚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƚŚĞWƌŽŐƌĂŵ ĨƵŶĚŝŶŐƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ;ĂƐĚĞƐĐƌŝďĞĚŝŶthis ŐƌĞĞŵĞŶƚͿ͘dŚĞWƌŽŐƌĂŵDĂŶĂŐĞƌǁŝůůŵĂŶĂŐĞ ĂůůWƌŽŐƌĂŵŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƟŽŶ ƐƚĞƉƐĂŶĚƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďŝůŝƟĞƐĚĞƐĐƌŝďĞĚŝŶƚŚŝƐWůĂŶ͘ƐƉĂƌƚŽĨ ƚŚĞĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚďĞƚǁĞĞŶƚŚĞƉĂƌƟĐŝƉĂƟŶŐ'^ƐĂŶĚƚŚĞWƌŽŐƌĂŵDĂŶĂŐĞƌ͕ƚŚĞWƌŽŐƌĂŵ DĂŶĂŐĞƌǁŝůůďĞǀĞƐƚĞĚǁŝƚŚŵŝƟŐĂƟŽŶŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶƌĞǀŝĞǁ;ƐĞĞƚŚĞWƌŽŐƌĂŵ WůĂŶͿĂŶĚĂƉƉƌŽǀĂůĂƵƚŚŽƌŝƚǇďǇƚŚĞtŽƌŬŐƌŽƵƉƵŶůĞƐƐŵŝƟŐĂƟŶŐĨĂĐƚŽƌƐĞŵĞƌŐĞŽŶĂŶ ĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶ͕ƐƵĐŚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞWƌŽŐƌĂŵDĂŶĂŐĞƌƐĞĞŬƐŐƵŝĚĂŶĐĞĂŶĚŝŶƚĞƌǀĞŶƟŽŶďǇƚŚĞ tŽƌŬŐƌŽƵƉ͘
/͘ Term of Agreement
 A statement describing the duration of the Agreement, anticipated to be a start date defined as the date of the mutual execution by all participating GSAs, and extending through the implementation period of all GSPs or until such time as groundwater sustainability is achieved and maintained for a TBD period of time.

J. ŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚWƌŽĐĞĚƵƌĞƐ
 A statement describing how the Agreement can be amended, likely to be referenced to procedures documented in the current Subbasin Coordination Agreement
K. ŝƐƉƵƚĞZĞƐŽůƵƟŽŶWƌŽĐĞĚƵƌĞƐ
ZĞƐŽůƵƟŽŶŽĨĂŶǇĚŝƐƉƵƚĞƐǁŝůůďĞĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚĂƐĚĞĮŶĞĚŝŶƚŚĞŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƟŽŶŐƌĞĞŵĞŶƚ͘ >͘ ŽŶƚĂĐƚŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶ
 Formal point of contact for each GSA including address, phone, email, and website URL
M. ^ŝŐŶĂƚŽƌǇWĂŐĞƐ
 Page(s) for signatures by persons representing each GSA as the authorized party to obligate their respective GSA to this Agreement.

REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
Approved by: Council Meeting of: August 20, 2025
Agenda Number: ___________
________________________________
Joseph Hebert, Parks & Community Services Director
_________________________________
Arnoldo Rodriguez, City Manager
SUBJECT:

Appointments to the Golf Course Advisory Committee
RECOMMENDATION:

1. Consider the Recommendations for Appointments to the Golf Course Advisory Committee for the Service Organization Representative, Golfer/At-large Community Member, and the Non-Golfer/At-large Community Member

2. Adopt a Resolution Naming and Approving the Appointments to the Golf Course Advisory Committee for the Service Organization Representative, Golfer/At-large Community Member, and the Non-Golfer/At-large Community Member
SUMMARY:

The Golf Course Advisory Committee (GCAC) was established by the City Council on September 6, 2023, with the formal appointment of its members. The GCAC serves in an advisory role for the City on issues related to the Madera Municipal Golf Course. The committee is taking a proactive approach by focusing on prioritizing maintenance and implementing improvement initiatives.

The GCAC is made up of seven members, each representing a distinct role and serving varying terms of appointment.

Currently, the terms for the Service Organization Representative, Golfer/At-Large Community Member, and Non-Golfer/At-Large Community Member have expired. Therefore, City staff is seeking a resolution to approve new appointments for these specific roles. This will ensure a smooth transition to new members and help prevent vacancies within the GCAC.

E-2
DISCUSSION:

During the June 21, 2023, City 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. The Ninth Amendment extended the term of the lease agreement and made various economic modifications. One of the new terms included the formation of a Golf Course Advisory Committee (GCAC). The GCAC was to be comprised of a seven-member body with one member from City Council. Council provided guidance to staff on the final Committee composition as follows:

1. One City Council Member

2. Parks Director

3. SGM Representative

4. Service Organization Representative

5. Golfer/At-large Community Member

6. Food and Beverage Director/Representative

7. Non-Golfer/At-large Community Member
The final Committee appointments are to be mutually agreed upon by both parties; City Council and SGM Inc.

During the August 16, 2023, regular meeting of Council, staff sought direction to fill the Service Organization Representative, Non-Golfer/At-Large Community Member, and Golfer/At-Large Community Member. Council approved the following actions during this meeting:
 Appointment of Karla Gran (Madera Evening Lions Club) to the Service Organization Representative
 Appointment of Chito Romero to the Golfer/At-Large Community Member  Appointment of Edward McIntyre to the Non-Golfer/At-Large Community Member  Term of appointment of two years for these three positions  The Madera Evening Lions Club and the Morning Rotary Club currently meet regularly at the golf course, with the first two-year appointment for the Service Organization Representative to be from the Madera Evening Lions Club.  Should additional service organization(s) regularly meet at the golf course, the service organization(s) would be added to the rotational schedule for the Service Organization Representative.

Ultimately, the GCAC was composed of the members as listed in Table 1. The GCAC has held regular monthly meetings since its creation, convening on the third Monday of each month, and typically meets at the Madera Municipal Golf Course.

Table 1: Committee Members
Committee Member Representing Term of Appointment

1. Jose Rodriguez City Council Council Term

2. Joseph Hebert Parks Director Continual

3. Dan Bacci SGM Representative Continual

4. Karla Gran Service Organization Representative Two-years

5. Chito Romer Golfer/At-Large Community Member Two-years

6. Lisa Gill Food and Beverage Director/Rep. Continual

7. Edward McIntyre Non-Golfer/At-Large Community Member Two-years There are three positions that have reached their term of appointment, with their term ending in August 2025. These are the following:
 Service Organization Representative, currently held by Karla Gran  Non-Golfer/At-Large Community Member, currently held by Edward McIntyre  Golfer/At-Large Community Member, currently held by Chito Romero On July 21, 2025, staff sought direction on the appointments of these positions and/or nominations so as to ensure these positions are not left vacant for an extended period of time.

During the meeting, Council provided direction as follows:
 Councilmember Jose Rodriguez proposed continuity for the Golfer/At-large Community Member and Non-Golfer/At-large Community members, being offered another term since no written procedures prohibitthis option. The recommendation was made to reach out to the members to determine their interest in serving for another term.  Mayor Cece Gallegos proposed Andy Medellin for the Non-Golfer/At-large Community Member. Mr. Medellin has expressed an interest in joining the committee.  Mayor Cece Gallegos also has reached out to the Morning Rotary Club and is nominating Dan Riley. This upcoming term is assigned to the Morning Rotary Club, being that the Madera Evening Lions Club fulfilled the first term assignment with the appointment of Karla Gran.

In response to the recommendations made by the Council, staff reached out to the current committee members in the Golfer/At-large Community Member and Non-Golfer/At-large Community roles to determine their interest in serving another term. Staff sent individual email notifications to both Mr. Romero and Mr. McIntyre requesting confirmation of their interest in continuing for another term. Only Mr. Romero responded with interest in a second term. As of the writing of this report, Mr. McIntyre has not responded to the email sent by staff, nor was he present during the July 21, 2025, Golf Course Advisory Committee Meeting.

Based on the feedback from Council, and responses/nonresponses from members whose terms are up, the following is a synopsis of potential recommendations:

1. Andy Medellin for the Non-Golfer/At-large Community Member. The term would commence in September 2025 and go through August 2027.

2. Dan Riley for the Service Organization Representative. The term would commence in September 2025 and go through August 2027. Additionally, to be noted, is that the service organization being represented is the Morning Rotary Club, an active service club that meets regularly at the Madera Municipal Golf Course.

3. Chito Romero for the Golfer/At-Large Community Member. The term would commence in September 2025 and go through August 2027. This would be Mr. Romero’s second consecutive term, there being no current written procedures that prohibit this practice.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no anticipated financial impact associated with the presentation of this report, and Golf Course Advisory Committee members will not be compensated.

ALTERNATIVES:

Should nominations not be accepted and recommended for any one of these positions, the position(s) would be left vacant for the GCAC September 15, 2025, meeting, and thereafter until a formal appointment is made.

Council may also direct staff to seek additional applicants to serve on the Golf Course Advisory Committee.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution Naming and Approving the Appointments to the Golf Course Advisory Committee for the Service Organization Representative, Golfer/At-large Community Member, and the Non-Golfer/At-large Community Member
RESOLUTION NO. 25-______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MADERA NAMING

AND APPROVING THE APPOINTMENTS TO THE GOLF COURSE ADVISORY

COMMITTEE FOR THE SERVICE ORGANIZATION REPRESENTATIVE,
GOLFER/AT-LARGE COMMUNITY MEMBER, AND THE NON-GOLFER/ATLARGE COMMUNITY MEMBER WHEREAS, the Ninth Amendment to the Madera Municipal Golf Course Operation and Management Lease Agreement with SGM Inc. dba Sierra Golf Management and the City was approved on June 21, 2023; and
WHEREAS, one of the new terms included the formation of a Golf Course Advisory Committee (Committee); and
WHEREAS, the Committee is to be a seven-member body; and WHEREAS, three positions in the Committee have reached their two-year term ending August 2025; and
WHEREAS, this includes the Non-Golfer/At-large Community Member; and WHEREAS, the Service Organization Representative; and
WHEREAS, the Golfer/At-Large Community Member.

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 appointments of the following to fulfill the upcoming vacancies as follows, for a term ending August 2027, unless otherwise indicated:

Non-Golfer/At-large Community Member: __________________ Service Organization Representative: ______________________ Golfer/At-Large Community Member: ______________________

3. This Resolution is effective immediately upon adoption. *************

REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
Approved by: Council Meeting of: August 20, 2025
Agenda Number: E-3
Cole Scroggins, Facilities Manager
Arnoldo Rodriguez, City Manager
SUBJECT:

City Streetlighting update
RECOMMENDATION:

This report is submitted for informational purposes only. No action is requested from the City Council at this time.

SUMMARY:

This report is provided at the request of the City Council. More specifically, the Council requested a workshop on the City’s streetlight program. While no formal action is being requested, the Council may provide staff with direction regarding streetlight operations, maintenance, or future improvements.

BACKGROUND:

The City currently has a total of 4,436 streetlights, which include standard metal pole streetlights, decorative post-top lights, and solar-powered units. Of these, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) owns and maintains 892 under a Light Service (LS) 1 schedule. Under this schedule, the City pays PG&E a flat monthly rate to cover the cost of lighting. In the last fiscal year, these 892 cost the City approximately $86,000. The remaining lights are owned and maintained by the City, with costs based on a combination of PG&E’s LS2 and LS3 schedules. LS2 lights are billed at a flat rate, while LS3 lights are metered. The total electricity cost for these lights in the last fiscal year was approximately $340,000.

Of these 4,436 streetlights, 192 are solar-powered streetlights. Of these 192, 150 were installed several years ago as part of the ENGIE energy efficiency project, and the City’s former Redevelopment Agency installed the remaining 42. All non-PG&E lights are maintained by the City’s Electrical & Facilities Division.

Beginning in approximately 2012, the City started to require that new streetlights be LED; however, the City is responsible for upgrading existing, less efficient high-pressure sodium (HPS) fixtures to LED. Over the past several years, staff has been making these conversions. The LED conversion, which is ongoing, has resulted in improved illumination and reduced maintenance needs compared to the original fixtures.

City staff conducts a citywide nighttime survey twice per year, generally coinciding with daylight saving time changes. In addition, outages are reported regularly by community members and the Police Department. At any given time, it is estimated that 40–65 lights are out of service, or less than 1 percent of streetlights. On average, staff repairs approximately 12 lights per week.

Repairs include addressing:
▪ Wire theft
▪ Replacing failed fixtures
▪ repairing malfunctioning photocells, which control the automatic on/off operation.

Absent inclement damage or vehicle accidents (which can require pole replacement), many repairs are completed within two weeks.

Size and wattage
The size and wattage of City streetlights are determined by City Standard ST-20 (or equivalent, as specifications vary slightly by manufacturer and lens shape; see attached). This standard establishes installation requirements, wattage, mounting height, and spacing.

Table 1: Streetlight wattage per roadway designation
Street typology Wattage Pole Spacing (feet)
Residential areas 67 180-220
Mid or collector streets: 84 180-220
Major Road 163 180-220
Signal intersections 99 180-220
Challenges
One of the primary challenges in recent years has been an increase in dim lighting. While LED fixtures are rated to last 1000s of hours, the internal drivers, which convert power for the light, have a shorter lifespan of 7-9 years before degrading. This can result in fixtures that appear functional but produce reduced light output, requiring replacement. This issue is common and can cause community frustration.

Currently, staff has been unable to identify manufacturers that produce replacement drivers compatible with the affected fixtures, meaning the entire unit must be replaced when the driver fails. The number of replacements varies annually depending on fixture brand, wattage output, and age.

Since Fiscal Year 2023/24, staff has replaced approximately 150 lights per year due to driver failure.

In terms of the solar street lights, the ENGIE streetlights are covered under warranty thus staff’s role has been to contact their warranty department. For the original 42 solar streetlights, City staff is responsible for all the maintenance, including battery replacement, typically every 6 years or as needed. The cost today for the batteries is approximately $1,000 per pole at a replacement schedule of 5 poles per year.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

Annual maintenance costs for the City’s streetlight system are approximately $40k per fiscal year.

This covers the purchase of replacement parts and materials, including:
▪ Replacement fixtures (LEDs)
▪ Photocells
▪ Fuses
▪ Electrical wiring
▪ Other related hardware and consumables
This funding also supports general maintenance labor associated with routine repairs, fixture replacements, and field troubleshooting, but does not include:
▪ Electrical bills
▪ Staff labor costs (wages and benefits)
▪ The use, maintenance, or depreciation of equipment such as the boom truck ▪ Operational expenses such as vehicle fuel, traffic control equipment, or safety gear In practice, the actual cost of maintaining the City’s streetlight system, when factoring staff time, equipment use, and operational support, is significantly higher than the budgeted $40k.

Furthermore, the current maintenance budget is designed primarily to sustain the system in its present condition. Additional funding would allow for:
▪ Accelerating the conversion of remaining HPS fixtures to LED, reducing long-term energy and maintenance costs.
▪ Replacing more aging or dimming LED fixtures affected by driver failure. ▪ Expanding preventative maintenance efforts to extend fixture life and reduce outage rates.

For context, replacing a single standard LED streetlight fixture (including labor and equipment use) can range from $350 to $500, depending on fixture type and mounting conditions. At the current funding level, staff attempt to address the most urgent repairs and a modest number of upgrades each year.

ALTERNATIVES:

There are no alternatives as this is a workshop.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Exhibit 1: City of Madera LED Street Light Installation standard, ST-20 Exhibit 1: City of Madera LED Street Light Installation standard, ST-20

REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
Approved by: Council Meeting of: August 20, 2025
_________________________________ Agenda Number: ___________ Arnoldo Rodriguez, City Manager
SUBJECT:

Response to Madera County Grand Jury Final Report 2425-11; Published on Monday, June 30, 2025, titled “City “Bogeys” Grand Jury’s Report”
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 30, 2024. The Council has 90 days to submit a written response. Written responses must be prepared and submitted within the 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, the Planning Department, collectively referred to as “City”.

DISCUSSION:

The MCGJ issued a Report on June 30, 2024, requiring a response from the Mayor and from the City Council. The Mayor and Council have 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 Golf Course Advisory City Committee. These Departments, Divisions, and committee are all components of the City. As the City Council represents the City, 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.

E-4
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 third consecutive year that the Grand Jury has focused on the Golf Course. For background purposes, a copy of previous reports to the City Council is attached as Attachments 3 and 4.

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 3, 2025, when a response is required by the MCGJ, meeting the 90-day response requirement.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. City Response to Madera County Grand Jury Report 2425-11; Published on Monday, June 30, 2025, titled “City “Bogeys” Grand Jury’s Report

2. Madera County Grand Jury Report 2425-11

3. Report to the City Council from August 21, 2024, 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”

4. 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 Report 2425-11; Published on Monday, June 30, 2025, titled “City “Bogeys” Grand Jury’s Report ____________, 2025
The Honorable Michael Jurkovich, Presiding Judge
Madera County Superior Court
200 South G Street
Madera, CA 93637
Re: Madera County Grand Jury Final Report 2425-11; Published on Monday, June 30, 2025, titled “City “Bogeys” Grand Jury’s Report”
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 Planning Department, the City’s Police Chief, and City committee, collectively referred to as “City” in this Response.

On Wednesday, June 25, 2025, the City of Madera (“City”) received a copy from the Madera County Grand Jury, which attached a copy of the Grand Jury’s Report titled “City “Bogeys” Grand Jury’s Report” (hereafter “Report”). The Grand Jury’s cover letter indicated that the report would be released on Monday, June 30, 2025. As a result, the City’s views the release date as June 30, 2025.

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 that 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 a City Administrator instructed Smokehouse to contact a Financial Officer, regarding how to change the business license to reflect GROUP’s name
Response 1: The City partially disagrees with this Finding. It is presumed that the F2:
reference to “City Administrator” pertains to the City Manager. As evidenced in Exhibit A, the City Manager did not instruct the owner of Sugar Pine Smokehouse on how to change a business license. Rather, the City Manager was approached by the business owner regarding a prior Grand Jury report and the steps necessary to bring the business license into compliance.

This matter was previously addressed by the Grand Jury and the City’s actions were consistent with the recommendations made in that report. Furthermore, based on the email referenced in Exhibit A, it appears there may have been a misunderstanding on the part of the operator, who initially believed there was a single business entity. The owner of Sugar Pine Smokehouse has since confirmed that only one business entity exists, the business license has been updated accordingly, and appropriate taxes have been and continue to be paid.

The MCGJ finds The GROUP business license was initiated by a City Administrator. Email records from the city confirm that this was done without any application filed by GROUP.

Response 2: The City disagrees with this finding. An application for a business license under the name “Sugar Pine Smokehouse” was submitted on December 5, 2023. The application was approved and a business license was issued February 29, 2024. At the time of the business license renewal in July 2024, the City Manager advised the Sugar Pine Smokehouse that the business license should reflect the same legal entity name as shown on the State of California alcohol license. This discrepancy between names was noted by the Grand Jury in the #2324-06 report. Because the update was determined to be a technical correction to align the business license name, the City did not mandate that the applicant submit a new application.

F3: The MCGJ finds Lack of Documentation: There is a lack of proper documentation and transparency in the process of issuing and modifying business licenses.

Response 3: The City disagrees with this finding. Documentation regarding the process for issuing and modifying business licenses does exist and was provided to the Madera County Grand Jury as part of its investigation into this matter (see Exhibit B).

That said, the City acknowledges that processes benefit from regular review and refinement. As such, the City continues to improve the clarity and accessibility of documentation related to business license procedures and remains committed to enhancing transparency and public understanding of these processes.

F4: The MCGJ finds Non-compliance with Ordinances: The issuance of the business license to GROUP did not comply with the Madera Code of Ordinances (MCO) Title VI, Chapter 1.

Response 4: The City disagrees with this finding. MCO Title VI, Chapter 1 contains 62 sections, many of which do not apply to the business license issued to GROUP. The finding does not specify which section of the Code the City is alleged to have violated, making it difficult to respond with specificity. Should further clarification be provided, the City would be open to reviewing the matter in greater detail.

F5: The MCGJ finds Potential Conflict of Interest: A City Manager’s involvement in the business license issuance process raises concerns about conflicts of interest, especially in light of the Team Responses.

Response 5: The City disagrees with this finding. This finding lacks any factual or legal foundations. The City Manager often provides guidance to businesses within the City as to how to come into compliance with City ordinances by advising those businesses as to who at the City can assist them. This situation is not different from other ordinary circumstances. In this case, Sugar Pine Smokehouse had obtained a business license and paid the business license tax. However, it had placed the wrong legal name of its business on the business license application, which needed to be corrected. The City did not waive any fees or taxes related to the business license tax, but merely facilitated the correction of the legal business name of the business.

With regard to the finding of about the City Manager having a conflict of interest, the determination of financial conflicts of interest is governed by the Political Reform Act codified at Government Code, sections 81000– 91014 and its implementing regulations. The MCGJ report fails to provide any evidence or analysis remotely bearing on a potential financial conflict of interest. Furthermore, the MCGJ report does not present any facts that even remotely raises the potential for a conflict of interest under any other legal theory.

F6: The MCGJ finds Public Scrutiny: The actions taken by city officials in issuing and modifying business licenses should be documented and made available for public scrutiny.

Response 6: The City agrees with this finding. However, the finding is overly broad and is not supported by specific evidence, indicating a lack of public access to information by the City. The City maintains that actions related to the issuance and modification of business licenses are subject to public oversight through the California Public Records Act (PRA).

Members of the public may request and review business license records, procedures, and practices in accordance with the PRA. Such requests are processed in compliance with applicable laws, including any exemptions permitted under the Act.

Finding 7: The MCGJ finds impact on public trust: The irregularities in the business license issuance process harm public trust in city officials and the administration.

Response 7: The City disagrees with this Finding. Please refer to Response 6, above.

Finding 8: The MCGJ finds the Council does not read the findings, recommendations, and City responses to the MCGJ reports.

Response 8: The City disagrees with this finding. This conclusion is subjective and lacks supporting evidence. City Council agendas and supporting documents, including findings, recommendations, and City responses to Grand Jury reports, are published at least 72 hours in advance of public meetings, in full compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act. These materials are also made available on the City’s website and posted on two bulletin boards at City Hall. Additionally, the City prepares meeting minutes for each Council meeting, which are specifically approved by the City Council and also posted on the City’s website, and which document public discussion and Council action. These practices demonstrate the City’s commitment to transparency and informed decision-making.

Finding 9: The MCGJ finds the equipment inventory, Exhibit B, is outdated.

Response 9: The City agrees with this finding in part, to the extent that the equipment inventory list included in the original contract is outdated, as it documents the original list from 2009. However, it’s important to note that the City and the tenant, SGM, agreed on the inventory schedule when the contract was signed in 2009.

After the contract was executed, both parties participated in a salvage exercise during which the City retrieved usable property while SGM disposed of other items.

The City conducted a review in July 2025 and approximately 20 items remain at the golf course.

Finding 10: The MCGJ finds the cleaning of the solar panels has been paid by SGM from the Capital Improvement fund and not the maintenance costs.

Response 10: The City disagrees with this finding. Capital Improvement funds were utilized to enhance the restrooms and to install new doors and flooring at the Golf Course clubhouse, which are capital improvements and not maintenance. The installation of the doors and flooring was carried out by J’s Solar Panels, a private contractor that handles building repairs in addition to solar installation. It is important to clarify that no funds from the Golf Course capital were allocated for solar panel cleaning, as there are no solar panels at the Golf Course.

Finding 11: The MCGJ finds that the Advisory Committee monthly meeting reports are not made available to the Council.

Response 11: The City disagrees with this finding. Reports are accessible to all Finding 12:
community members, including City Council members. The City Council is also provided a copy of the Advisory Committee agenda’s and minutes.

Additionally, meetings are conducted via Zoom and are open to the public. Finally, it should be noted that a member of the Council sits on the Advisory Committee and provides regular updates to the Council during Councilmember reports.

The MCGJ finds insufficient training regarding business license applications and issuance requirements.

Response 12: The City partially disagrees with this finding. While there is training that is provided to staff on business license application and issuance requirements, the training could be improved to focus on interdepartmental coordination of application processing. The City will take steps to address this finding.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

R1: The MCGJ recommends Transparency and Accountability: The City should ensure transparency and accountability in the issuance and modification of business licenses. All actions taken by city officials should be documented and made available for public scrutiny within 60 days of this report being published.

Response 1: The recommendation will not be implemented as it is not warranted and not reasonable. The City will continue to comply with the standards set by State law and respond to any Public Records Act requests associated with business license activities, subject to any restrictions articulated in the Public Records Act.

R2: The MCGJ recommends the city administration hire an independent agency to conduct a thorough review and audit of the business license issuance process to identify any irregularities and ensure compliance with city ordinances within 90 days of receiving this report.

Response 2: This recommendation will not be implemented as the City does not have the resources for such a review. However, the City continues to refine and improve its business license processes and will continue to make several enhancements to those processes over the next 18 months.

R3: The MCGJ recommends improving communication between city departments and the City Council to ensure that all relevant information is shared, discussed and documented within 30 days. This recommendation should be implemented within 30 days of receiving this report.

Response 3: 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.

R4: The MCGJ recommends enforcement of ordinances: Enforce the Madera Code of Ordinances Title VI, Chapter 1, to ensure that all businesses operating in the city have the necessary licenses and comply with city regulations within 30 days of receiving this report.

Response 4: The City will not implement this recommendation to the extent it would require the City to engage in additional enforcement activities than it already does. Cities have broad discretion in the enforcement of their ordinances. Haggis v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 22 Cal.4th 490. Furthermore, because of the separation of powers doctrine, courts cannot compel cities to exercise their discretion in any particular way. AIDS Healthcare Foundation v. Los Angeles County Dept. of Public Health (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 693, 700-05. Generally, because of limited resources, the City’s code enforcement efforts are focused on responding to particular complaints of violations of the City’s municipal code focusing on violations that potentially threaten public health and safety. The City does not have the resources to proactively enforce particular sections of is municipal code. As such, the City will continue to follow its current practices related to the enforcement of its municipal code.

R5: The MCGJ recommends implementing a conflict of interest policy to ensure that city officials do not have any personal or financial interests in the businesses they regulate within 30 days of receiving this report.

Response 5: The City will not implement this recommendation as it is already in full compliance with the requirements of State law. The determination of financial conflicts of interests is governed by the Political Reform Act codified at Government Code, sections 81000–91014 and its implementing regulations. As noted above, the MCGJ report fails to provide any evidence or analysis remotely bearing on a potential financial conflict of interest. Furthermore, the MCGJ report does not present any facts that even remotely raises the potential for a conflict of interest under any other legal theory. The State legislature and learned courts of this State have already set the standards for conflict of interest requirements in California, and the City complies with those standards. Among others, this also includes annual disclosures of financial interests (Form 700s), regular ethics and conflicts training consistent with AB 1234, as well as going beyond mandated requirements by adopting a Code of Conduct for its City Council and members of its Boards, Commissions, and Committees.

R6: The MCGJ recommends launching a public awareness campaign to inform residents and business owners about the importance of compliance with city ordinances and the procedures for obtaining business licenses within 30 days of receiving this report.

Response 6: This recommendation will not be implemented, as there is no assurance that such a campaign will produce any measurable improvement in compliance with business license regulations, and the City’s limited public resources are needed elsewhere.

R7: The MCGJ recommends that the entire MCGJ report be read to the Council members in an open public meeting within 30 days of receiving this report.

Response 7: This recommendation will not be implemented because the City is already in compliance with State law, including the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code, section 54950 et seq.) and similar legal requirements discussed in Response 12, which establishes the applicable standards. As noted above, these reports are made available to the public in a manner consistent with State law.

R8: The MCGJ recommends hiring an outside expert to check the City's property and equipment records and also to do regular checks within the City. The list of items the City owns (Exhibit B) needs to be brought up-todate within 90 days.

Response 8: This recommendation has already been implemented as the City already maintains a list of relevant property. In addition, the City conducted a review in July 2025. Approximately 20 items remain at the golf course.

R9: The MCGJ recommends conducting regular audits of SGM's business expenses in regards to capital improvements vs maintenance obligations.

Within 90 days of receiving this report.

Response 9: This recommendation has already been implemented. The City conducts quarterly reviews of SGM business expenses, which include expenses related to capital improvements and revenue generated from rounds played. Moving forward, this information will be included in the parks and recreation reports presented to Council quarterly.

R10: The MCGJ recommends improving the documentation process for issuing and modifying business licenses to ensure that all actions are properly recorded and transparent. Within 90 days of receiving this report.

Response 10: This recommendation will be implemented. The City continues to refine its business license process documentation as new tools (software, online resources, etc.) become available. The City will continue that documentation improvement process over the next 18 months.

R11: The MCGJ recommends engaging with stakeholders, including business owners and residents, to gather feedback and improve the business license issuance process within 90 days of receiving this report.

Response 11: This recommendation will not be implemented as it is not reasonable. Most business owners and residents are not familiar with all aspects of the business license process, which would significantly impact the quality of responses that would be received during such outreach. Staff will continue to evaluate existing processes and make adjustments to them as necessary.

R12: The MCGJ recommends that the Advisory Committee reports be agendized monthly and read to the Council in an open meeting within 90 days of this report.

Response 12: The City will not implement this recommendation. The conduct of City Council meetings is governed by the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code, section 54950 et seq.), which sets the standards for meetings. The City complies with these open meeting requirements. Furthermore, courts cannot compel cities to conduct their meetings in any particular way so long as they comply with the Brown Act. The City has several advisory committees who regularly meet. It is impractical to require the reading of a written report during a meeting of the City Council when it is already made available to the members of the City Council and public, and unnecessarily and unreasonably inhibits the conduct of the public
business. Furthermore, a member of the City Council is a member of the Advisory Committee. Accordingly, if an important issue arises during one of these meetings of the Advisory Committee the Councilmember may report on this issue during City Council meetings either during Councilmember reports and comments or through placing an item on the City Council agenda. The City will continue to abide by these practices.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Attachment A: Email from Sugar Pine Smokehouse to City where City Manager “suggested” that they reach out to City staff

2. Attachment B: Documentation regarding the process for issuing and modifying business licenses
Exhibit A
Exhibit B

2. Madera County Grand Jury Report 2425-11

REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
Approved by: Council Meeting of: August 21, 2024
_________________________________ Agenda Number: ___________ 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:

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.

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;

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:

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.

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-Ϯ
▪ 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.

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:

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.

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;

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.

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.

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.

Page 3 of 8 ends

Madera City CouncilAugust 20, 2025

Madera City Council
August 20, 2025