City Council Meeting Agenda
Monday, August 03, 2026 at 6:00 PM
33 Church Street, Sutter Creek, CA 95685
The Agenda can be found on the City’s Website: www.cityofsuttercreek.org The City of Sutter Creek City Council Meeting will be available in person and LIVE on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/@CityofSutterCreek.
You can also watch the meeting on Zoom (please note Zoom participation is only available for viewing. https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81391466458?pwd=4jXmBm1AP5bEbiID3iDwuxk4GpreRY.1 Or Dial by phone: 301 715 8592 Webinar ID: 816 8589 0182 Passcode: 186036 Unless stated otherwise on the agenda, every item on the agenda is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c), 15061(b)(3), 15273, 15378, 15301, 15323 and/or Public Resources Code Section 21065. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Call to Order and Establish a Quorum for Regular Meeting
2. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
3. Public Forum
At this time, the public is permitted to address the City Council on items not appearing on the agenda.
Comments may not exceed 5 minutes. In accordance with State Law, however, no action or discussion may take place on any item not appearing on the posted agenda. The City Council may respond to statements made or questions asked or may request Staff to report back at a future meeting on the matter. The exceptions under which the City Council may discuss and/or take action on items not appearing on the agenda are contained in Government Code §54954.2. Public comment on any item listed below shall be limited to five minutes, unless additional time is permitted by the Mayor/Council.
4. City Manager’s Report
This section is an opportunity to provide Council members with a brief status update on staff activities. No action is expected to be taken by the Council.
5. Presentations
1 6. Approval of Minutes
A. City Council Minutes of July 20, 2026
Recommendation: By motion approve minutes as presented.
7. Consent Agenda
Items listed on the consent agenda are considered routine and shall be enacted in one motion. Any item may be removed for discussion at the request of Council or the Public.
A. Consideration of Support Letter Regarding Public Entity Tort Reform Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager and the Mayor to support legislative reforms related to public entity tort liability by supporting Cal Cities efforts and letters to legislators.
B. Consideration of Opposition Letter for AB 1383 (McKinnor) – Public Employees' Retirement Benefits Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager and the Mayor to support Cal Cities in opposition of AB1383 and submit letters to legislators.
8. Ordinances and Public Hearing
9. Administrative Agenda
A. Battery Storage System for Wastewater Treatment Plant Recommendation: Approve a Motion authorizing signing the construction agreement amendment by the September 4th deadline subject to defined authorization milestones B. Public Works FY26-27 Project Plan
Recommendation: Accept Information report and update
C. Updates to Minnie Provis Playground to Support Children with Disabilities Recommendation: Review this project, provide feedback and give approval to proceed.
D. Code Enforcement Contracting Agreement
Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with CSG Consultants to provide code enforcement services.
10. Mayor and Council Member Reports
This section is to provide Council members an opportunity to present updates on their activities and to request items be placed on future agendas.
11. City Attorney’s Report
This section provides an opportunity for the City Attorney to report on any activities or upcoming legislation of importance to the City. No action is expected to be taken by the Council.
12. Information and Correspondence
A. Republic Rate Increase 1/1/2027
13. Closed Session
2 A. Public Employee Appointment
(Government Code section 54957(b)(1))
Title: City Manager
14. Report from Closed Session
15. Adjournment
The next regularly scheduled meeting is August 17, 2026. 3 City Council Meeting Minutes
Monday, July 20, 2026 at 6:00 PM
33 Church Street, Sutter Creek, CA 95685
The Agenda can be found on the City’s Website: www.cityofsuttercreek.org
1. Call to Order and Establish a Quorum for Regular Meeting Roll Call
Present: Mayor Claire Gunselman, Vice Mayor Julia Sierk, Councilmember Susan Feist, Councilmember Dan Riordan, and Councilmember James Swift
Mayor Gunselman called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. A quorum was established.
2. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
Mayor Gunselman led the Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Presentations
A. Proclamation recognizing Ms. Lisa Klosowski and her work on behalf of the City of Sutter Creek and the Sutter Creek Visitor Center.
Vice Mayor Sierk presented a proclamation recognizing Lisa Klosowski for her service to the City of Sutter Creek and the Sutter Creek Visitor Center.
4. Public Forum
Mayor Gunselman opened the public comment period.
A representative of Green Gold, Ron Hauck, Suzanne Hauck, and Josh Lewis, representing Embarc, addressed the City Council regarding cannabis retail businesses in the City.
Mayor Gunselman closed the public comment period.
5. City Manager’s Report
4 Section 6, Item A.
City Manager DuBois provided updates regarding wastewater operations, code enforcement, capital projects, economic development activities, community events, and upcoming agenda items.
The City Council received the report. No action was taken.
6. Approval of Minutes
A. City Council Minutes of July 6, 2026
Recommendation: By motion approve minutes as presented.
Motion by Councilmember Riordan, seconded by Vice Mayor Sierk, to approve the City Council Meeting Minutes of July 6, 2026, with the modifications identified by the City Council.
AYES: Mayor Gunselman, Vice Mayor Sierk, Councilmembers Feist, Riordan, and Swift NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
7. Consent Agenda
A. Agreement for Mitigation Payments in Gold Rush Ranch Specific Plan Area Recommendation: Adopt a resolution approving a per-unit fee for the Prospect Drive Transportation Mitigation.
The City Council discussed the proposed agreement and the City’s mitigation and reimbursement responsibilities.
Councilmember Swift expressed concern that the proposed improvements primarily benefited the commercial property rather than the potential residential development within the Gold Rush Ranch Specific Plan Area. City Attorney Derek Cole explained that the agreement had been under development for approximately one year and that the Environmental Impact Report identified responsibility for reimbursement of the mitigation costs.
Motion by Councilmember Riordan, seconded by Vice Mayor Sierk, to approve the agreement and adopt the associated Resolution 26-27-02.
AYES: Mayor Gunselman, Vice Mayor Sierk, Councilmembers Feist and Riordan NOES: Councilmember Swift
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED 4-1.
8. Ordinances and Public Hearing
None.
9. Administrative Agenda
A. Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) Update
5 Section 6, Item A.
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution approving the updated City of Sutter Creek Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) dated July 20, 2026 and authorizing the Public Works Director, acting as the Legally Responsible Official (LRO) , to electronically certify and submit the final document to the State Water Resources Control Board’s CIWQS database.
The City Council reviewed the Sewer System Management Plan and requested the following corrections or clarifications:
● Update the grease-trap list on page 36, including information concerning Chocolatte, and clarify the applicable inspection frequency.
● Clarify the City’s process for maintaining grease-trap inspection records and the responsibilities assigned to staff.
● Add the word “million” to the $2.5 million amount identified on page 28. ● Clarify the information on page 152 concerning minimum pipeline sizes for schools, including the reference to pipelines measuring six inches or larger.
Motion by Councilmember Riordan, seconded by Councilmember Swift, to adopt Resolution 26-27-03 approving the Sewer System Management Plan, subject to the corrections and clarifications identified by the City Council.
AYES: Mayor Gunselman, Vice Mayor Sierk, Councilmembers Feist, Riordan, and Swift NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
B. Update on Wastewater Plant Design Build Project
The City Council received an update regarding the Wastewater Treatment Plant Design-Build Project. The discussion included the seriousness of the issues involving Rammco and the City’s plan for addressing those issues.
No action was taken.
C. City Manager Recruitment Process
The City Council discussed beginning the City Manager recruitment process internally by preparing recruitment materials and subsequently determining whether to retain an outside recruiter. The Council also discussed the proposed salary range, recruitment timeline, and the potential need for an interim City Manager.
Councilmember Swift recommended appointing the same ad hoc committee used during the prior recruitment process, consisting of Mayor Gunselman and Councilmember Riordan.
Motion by Councilmember Swift, seconded by Councilmember Feist, to appoint Mayor Gunselman and Councilmember Riordan to a City Manager Recruitment Ad Hoc Committee and direct the committee to 6 Section 6, Item A.
return to the City Council on August 3, 2026, with a proposed recruitment plan and timeline, including interim City Manager options if needed.
AYES: Mayor Gunselman, Vice Mayor Sierk, Councilmembers Feist, Riordan, and Swift NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
10. Mayor and Council Member Reports
Councilmembers provided reports regarding their respective activities.
11. City Attorney’s Report
No reports were noted.
12. Information and Correspondence
The City Council received and filed the following reports and correspondence:
A. City Clerk - June 2026 Monthly Report
B. Engineering - June 2026 Monthly Report
C. Marketing Monthly Report - June 2026
D. Public Works - June 2026 Monthly Report
E. Planning - June 2026 Monthly Report
F. Police Monthly Report - June 2026
G. City Treasurer - June 2026 Monthly Report
H. Finance Monthly Report - June 2026
I. Correspondence Received from the Public
13. Closed Session
None.
14. Report from Closed Session
None.
15. Adjournment
Mayor Gunselman adjourned the meeting at 8:27 p.m.
______________________________________________________
Alejandra Zambrano, Interim City Clerk
7 Section 6, Item A.
______________________________________________________________________________
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: AUGUST 3, 2026
FROM: ALEJANDRA ZAMBRANO, INTERIM CITY CLERK
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF SUPPORT FOR LEGISLATIVE REFORMS
RELATED TO PUBLIC ENTITY TORT LIABILITY
RECOMMENDATION
Approve a motion authorizing the City Manager and the Mayor to support legislative reforms related to public entity tort liability by supporting Cal Cities efforts and letters to legislators.
BACKGROUND
The League of California Cities (Cal Cities) has joined a statewide coalition of public agencies, local governments, school districts, and risk management organizations advocating for legislative reforms related to public entity tort liability. Member cities have been invited to join the coalition's efforts by notifying Cal Cities of their interest in supporting the coalition letter and providing their city logo for inclusion in the coalition materials.
The coalition letter urges the California State Legislature to enact meaningful tort reform legislation intended to address increasing public entity liability costs while preserving public resources and maintaining accountability and access to justice for injured parties. The coalition outlines several proposed legislative reforms, including caps on damages in civil actions against public entities, proportional liability standards for economic damages, and heightened evidentiary and procedural standards in certain claims. Additional information is provided in the attached coalition letter.
DISCUSSION
The core issue highlighted in the attached letter is that “under California’s current liability structure, a public entity found just one percent at fault can be ordered to pay the entirety of a plaintiff’s economic damages — even when the overwhelming majority of fault lies with a criminal actor who has no assets to satisfy a judgment. The result is morally indefensible: perpetrators escape financial accountability for their conduct, while taxpayers — through their cities, counties, transit agencies, and school districts — are forced to pay for the harm that resulted. It allows perpetrators to walk away while public services are gutted to satisfy awards for conduct the public entity did not commit. The Legislature must restore proportional (several) liability for economic damages in actions against public entities, so that they are responsible only for the share of harm attributable to the public agency’s own conduct.” 8 Section 7, Item A.
18 Main St., Sutter Creek, CA 95685 • Telephone: (209)267-5647 • Fax: (209)267-1655 • TTY: 711 The City of Sutter Creek is an equal opportunity service provider and employer Approve a motion establishing a City Position Supporting tort reform and authorize Staff to support Cal Cities efforts and send letters of support to state Legislators, signed by the Mayor when needed. By approving this motion, the City of Sutter Creek would join the statewide coalition supporting legislative reforms related to public entity tort liability.
BUDGET IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with authorizing the City's participation in the Tort Reform Coalition Letter.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Tort Reform Coalition Letter dated July 17, 2026.
9 Section 7, Item A.
10 Section 7, Item A.
11 Section 7, Item A.
California Insurance Pool Authority
12 Section 7, Item A.
Date: July 17, 2026
To: Members, California State Legislature
Urgent Need for Comprehensive Tort Reform to Protect California Taxpayers, Survivors, and Essential Public Services
On behalf of the undersigned organizations, we urge the Legislature to enact meaningful tort reform for civil actions against public entities. New data released by the California Association of Joint Powers Authorities (CAJPA) confirms what our members have been warning 13 Section 7, Item A.
lawmakers about for years: public-entity liability costs have tripled in the last seven years, now exceeding $7 billion in known exposure. Costs are on pace to grow another 70 percent by 2027–28. The fiscal trajectory is unsustainable, the structure of liability is fundamentally unfair to taxpayers, and the consequences are now measured in billions of dollars diverted away from classrooms, fire stations, roads, mental health services, and the essential programs Californians depend on every day.
Our organizations share a deep and unwavering commitment to ensuring that survivors of harm receive justice, support, and meaningful compensation. California’s public agencies are not asking for insulation from accountability. We do not seek to deny survivors their day in court. Instead, we seek to fix a system that, as currently structured, transfers enormous wealth to plaintiffs’ law firms and threatens the financial solvency of the very public agencies tasked with protecting and serving our vulnerable community members. The longer the Legislature waits, the more public services will be cut, the more agencies will face insolvency.
The Path Forward. We urge the Legislature to advance a comprehensive tort reform package for civil actions against public entities that, at minimum, includes the following:
• Defined benefits including caps on damages in civil actions against public entities, ensuring survivors and other injured parties are made whole while preserving the capacity to deliver essential public services. • Proportional (several) liability for economic damages in civil actions against public entities, so that taxpayers pay only for the share of harm actually attributable to the public agency. This way the perpetrators bear the cost of their own conduct and not taxpayers.
• Heightened evidentiary and procedural standards for claims where witnesses, records, and evidence archives are absent or insufficient to assign culpability.
Why are Billions of Taxpayer Dollars Being Diverted from Essential Services? AB 218 (Gonzalez, Chapter 861, Statutes of 2019) related to childhood sexual assault is one stark driver, but it is not the only one. Across the spectrum of civil litigation against public entities — from premises liability to dangerous conditions — plaintiffs’ firms are increasingly targeting governmental defendants precisely because they are perceived as having the deepest pockets. The result is an unreasonable transfer of public resources to private wealth that the Legislature has both the power and the responsibility to address
How Are Claims Against Public Entities Funded? Most cities, counties, special districts, and school districts in California do not purchase liability coverage from traditional commercial insurance carriers because it is either too expensive, does not provide sufficient coverage, or is simply not offered. Instead, they self-fund their liability coverage or they collectively pool risk through Joint Powers Authorities (JPAs), which are not insurance companies with large capital reserves. Every self-funded claim, including those paid out of a JPA, comes from taxpayer-funded member contributions 14 Section 7, Item A.
paid by cities, counties, schools, and other public agencies from the same general fund dollars that pay for police officers, firefighters, teachers, road crews, and homelessness response.
When a JPA pays out claims of magnitude, every member agency in that pool feels it through higher premiums, the potential need for special assessments, reduced coverage limits, and/or increasingly, the inability to obtain coverage at all. Public agencies that have never had a single AB 218 claim filed against them are facing double-digit premium increases. For schools, this means Proposition 98 education dollars intended to support today’s students are paying for decades-old liabilities. Even for cities and counties that have few claims filed against them it means delaying critical infrastructure maintenance and reducing local government’s ability to provide social-safety-net services to the most vulnerable Californians.
Plaintiffs’ Attorneys Are on Track to Profit Over Half a Billion Taxpayer Dollars Every Year. In civil actions against public entities, plaintiffs’ counsel commonly recover contingency fees of 40 percent or more of the gross judgment or settlement. Even using a conservative 30 percent contingency assumption, estimated plaintiff attorney fees in actions against California public entities have climbed to over $500 million annually. In many individual cases, attorney fees approach 50 percent of the taxpayer-funded settlement or award. That means that for every $10 million paid by a city, county, JPA, or school district, as much as $4 to $5 million is paid to a private law firm. It does not go to the survivor, nor does it go to mental health services, prevention or victim assistance, or back to the taxpayers who funded the payment. Plaintiffs’ firms are, in many cases, the single largest beneficiaries of the current system.
Caps on Damages Are Essential to Preserve Public Services and Solvency.
Support for meaningful tort reform must include caps on damages in actions against public entities. Without such caps, the cascading effects of recent legislation will only worsen, and the very real threat of insolvency among California’s public agencies, already materializing in some regions, will only accelerate. California already imposes reasonable limits in medical malpractice cases under MICRA, recognizing the public interest in such restrictions. The same principle should apply when taxpayer dollars are the source of the payment.
Public Entities Should Pay in Proportion to Their Actual Fault — Not for the Crimes of Others. Under California’s current liability structure, a public entity found just one percent at fault can be ordered to pay the entirety of a plaintiff’s economic damages — even when the overwhelming majority of fault lies with a criminal actor who has no assets to satisfy a judgment.
The result is morally indefensible: perpetrators escape financial accountability for their conduct, while taxpayers — through their cities, counties, transit agencies, and school districts — are forced to pay for the harm that resulted. It allows perpetrators to walk away while public services are gutted to satisfy awards for conduct the public entity did not commit. The Legislature must restore proportional (several) liability for economic damages in actions against public entities, so that they are responsible only for the share of harm attributable to the public agency’s own conduct.
15 Section 7, Item A.
Survivors Deserve Their Day in Court, and Public Entities Deserve a Meaningful Opportunity to Defend. Restoring balance to AB 218 claims involving decades-old conduct does not require closing the courthouse door to survivors. Rather, it requires recognizing that, after decades have passed, the records and witnesses needed to fairly adjudicate a claim are often incomplete or simply gone. For claims involving conduct that occurred decades ago, we urge the Legislature to restore balance by reinstating a prior-knowledge requirement, paired with a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard.
Prior to AB 218, California law permitted survivors to bring claims against public entities outside the statute of limitations, when a plaintiff could show the entity "knew or had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice, of any unlawful sexual conduct" by the perpetrator and failed to implement reasonable safeguards. That framework provided a meaningful path to justice for survivors with evidence of institutional culpability while also protecting taxpayers from liability for conduct the public entity had no realistic means to anticipate, prevent, or now defend against.
Our coalition stands ready to work with the Legislature, the Administration, and the survivor community to craft a balanced, durable solution so that necessary action can be taken now. Detailed findings and supporting data are available in CAJPA’s recent report, Protecting Public Funds: The Rising Cost of Claims Against California Public Entities. Please do not hesitate to contact us with questions or to discuss specific legislative vehicles.
Sincerely,
California Association of Joint Powers Authorities (CAJPA) California School Boards Association (CSBA)
California Association of School Business Officials (CASBO) Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD)
Association of California School Administrators (ACSA)
The Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC)
California Association of Recreation and Park Districts (CARPD) California Special Districts Association (CSDA)
League of California Cities
California Association of Suburban School Districts
California Latino School Boards Association
California LULAC (League of United Latin American Citizens) ABC Unified School District
Alameda County Schools Insurance Group
Anderson Valley Unified School District
Beta Healthcare Group
Bennett Valley Union School District
Brett Harte Union High School District
Buckeye Union School District
Butte Schools Self-Funded Programs
Cajon Valley Union School District
16 Section 7, Item A.
California Affiliated Risk Management Authorities (CARMA) California Insurance Pool Authority
California Intergovernmental Risk Authority (CIRA)
California Joint Powers Risk Management Authority (CJPRMA) Camino Union Elementary School District
Central Fire District, Santa Cruz County
Central Region School Insurance Group
Central San Joaquin Valley Risk Management Authority (CSJVRMA) City of Artesia
City of Bakersfield
City of Bellflower
City of Blythe
City of Calimesa
City of Canyon Lake
City of Carson
City of Chico
City of Citrus Heights
City of Cloverdale
City of Coalinga
City of Colton
City of Corona
City of Cotati
City of Dunsmuir
City of Eastvale
City of El Segundo
City of Elk Grove
City of Eureka
City of Fairfield
City of Folsom
City of Fort Bragg
City of Grass Valley
City of Hemet
City of Highland
City of Jurupa Valley
City of La Mesa
City of La Mirada
City of Lake Elsinore
City of Lake Port
City of Live Oak
City of Long Beach
City of Madera
City of Marysville
City of Menifee
City of Merced
City of Moreno Valley
City of Mt. Shasta
17 Section 7, Item A.
City of Murrieta
City of National City
City of Norco
City of Oakdale
City of Oroville
City of Paramount
City of Perris
City of Petaluma
City of Pico Rivera
City of Placerville
City of Rancho Cordova
City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Reedley
City of Ripon
City of Riverside
City of Roseville
City of Sacramento
City of Shasta Lake
City of South Gate
City of St. Helena
City of Stanton
City of Tehama
City of Tracy
City of Tustin
City of Upland
City of Vacaville
City of Vernon
City of Walnut Creek
City of Weed
City of Whittier
City of Willows
City of Yorba Linda
City of Yreka
Corona Norco Unified School District
County of Butte
County of Humboldt
County of Inyo
County of Kings
County of Merced
County of Riverside
County of San Bernardino
County of Siskiyou
County of Solano
County of Tehama
County of Trinity
County of Yuba
18 Section 7, Item A.
Desert Sands Unified School District
Dunham Elementary School
East Bay Schools Insurance Group (EBSIG)
East Side Union High School District
El Dorado County Office of Education (EDCOE)
Employment Risk Management Authority (ERMA)
Folsom Cordova Unified School District
Galt Joint Union Elementary School District
Garden Grove Unified School District
Golden State Risk Management Authority
Hermosa Beach City School District
Hope School District
Huntington Beach City School District
Indian Diggins School District
Irvine Unified School District
Jurupa Unified School District
Kelseyville Unified School District
Kern County Superintendent of Schools (KCSOS)
Kings County Office of Education
Konocti Unified School District
La Mesa Spring Valley Schools
Lemon Grove School District
Lindsay Unified School Districts
Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District
Livingston Union School District
Los Altos School District
Lynwood Unified School District
Moreno Valley Unified School District
Mt. Diablo Unified School District
New Haven Unified School District
Natomas Charter School
NorCal Cities Self-Insurance Fund
North Coast Schools Insurance Group
Northern California Regional Liability Excess Fund (NCR) Northern California Schools Insurance Group
Oroville City Elementary School District
Oroville Union High School District
Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA)
Palm Springs Unified School District
Poway Unified School Districts
Redondo Beach Unified School District
Redwood Empire Schools Insurance Group (RESIG)
Riverside Unified School District
Rowland Unified School District
San Marcos Unified School District
San Mateo Schools Insurance Group
19 Section 7, Item A.
Santa Clara Unified
Santa Rosa City Schools
School & College Legal Services of California
Schools Association For Excess Risk (SAFER)
Schools Excess Liability Fund (SELF)
Schools Insurance Authority (SIA)
Schools Insurance Group
Sebastopol Charter
Sebastopol Independent Charter School
Shasta-Trinity Schools Insurance Group
Sierra Sands Unified School District
Sonoma Charter School
Sonoma County Office of Education
Southern California Regional Liability Excess Fund (SCR) Special District Risk Management Authority
Torrance Unified School Districts
Town of Truckee
Trindel Risk Management for Rural Counties
Tulare Joint Union High School District
Tuolumne JPA
Upper Lake Unified School District
West Covina Unified School District
West Side Union Elementary School District
Westminster School District
Wheatland Union High School District
Wright Elementary School District
20 Section 7, Item A.
______________________________________________________________________________
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: AUGUST 3, 2026
FROM: ALEJANDRA ZAMBRANO, INTERIM CITY CLERK
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF POSITION OPPOSING AB 1383 (MCKINNOR) –
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT BENEFITS
RECOMMENDATION
Approve a motion opposing AB1383 and authorizing the City Manager and the Mayor to support Cal Cities in opposition and submit letters to legislators..
BACKGROUND
Assembly Bill 1383 (AB 1383), authored by Assembly Member Tina McKinnor, proposes amendments to California's Public Employees' Pension Reform Act (PEPRA). PEPRA was enacted in 2012 and established pension reforms applicable to new public employees hired on or after January 1, 2013, including retirement formulas, pensionable compensation limits, and employee contribution requirements.
As amended, AB 1383 proposes several changes to retirement benefits for public employees, including:
● Adjustments to pensionable compensation limits for employees subject to PEPRA; ● Reducing the retirement age for certain public safety retirement formulas from age 57 to age 55; ● Establishing additional retirement formula options for public safety employees; and ● Authorizing prospective changes to retirement benefit formulas through collective bargaining agreements, subject to applicable law.
The League of California Cities (Cal Cities) has adopted an opposition position on AB 1383 and has requested that member cities consider submitting letters of opposition to the Legislature. According to Cal Cities, the proposed changes would substantially increase pension-related costs for local governments and undermine the fiscal savings achieved through PEPRA reforms. Cal Cities estimates that PEPRA reforms have generated approximately $5.8 billion in savings to date and are projected to generate approximately $26.5 billion in savings over the next ten years. These figures are provided by Cal Cities in its legislative action alert distributed to member cities.
DISCUSSION
21 Section 7, Item B.
18 Main St., Sutter Creek, CA 95685 • Telephone: (209)267-5647 • Fax: (209)267-1655 • TTY: 711 The City of Sutter Creek is an equal opportunity service provider and employer Local governments participating in public retirement systems may be affected by legislative changes to pension benefit formulas and pensionable compensation limits. Cal Cities has expressed concerns that AB 1383 could result in increased pension-related costs and additional long-term fiscal obligations for local agencies, greatly increasing unfunded liabilities just as many cities are seeing the benefits of PEPRA.
Staff recommends that council approve a motion formally opposing AB 1383 and authorize the City Manager to support Cal Cities efforts and send in letters of opposition signed by the Mayor opposing the legislation on behalf of the City of Sutter Creek.
BUDGET IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with submitting a letter of opposition. The bill has not been enacted, and any potential fiscal impacts to local agencies would depend upon the final version of the legislation and its implementation.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Cal Cities Action Alert – Oppose AB 1383 (McKinnor)
2. Draft Opposition Letter
22 Section 7, Item B.
Cal Cities Action Alert
Oppose AB 1383 (McKinnor) Public employees’
retirement benefits.
Action Requested: Submit a letter of opposition to AB 1383 (McKinnor), a bill that would make several significant changes to Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act (PEPRA), resulting in substantial cost increases for cities and other public agencies. AB 1383 is in the Senate Labor Employee Relations & Retirement Committee.
What the Bill Does:
• Increases the pensionable compensation cap for PEPRA public employees. • Reduces the retirement age for public safety employees from 57 to 55, applied prospectively.
• Creates a new fourth safety tier, establishing a 3% @ 55 formula that is prospective and subject to collective bargaining.
• Allows local agencies to adjust their local pension formulas prospectively, providing them with the authority to modify benefit structures going forward.
Why AB 1383 is Important to Cal Cities Members:
• PEPRA reforms have generated an estimated $5.8 billion in savings to date and $26.5 billion projected over 10 years.
• Changing these reforms would increase employer and employee contribution rates, create new administrative and long-term solvency challenges for cities, and would undermine a decade of progress in stabilizing pension systems and managing long-term liabilities.
• Cities are already facing rising pension obligations, stagnant revenues, and new federal and state mandates that strain local budgets.
• Higher pension costs would threaten core city services, staffing levels, and overallfiscal stability.
• Increased mandated costs would limit cities’ ability to invest in workforce compensation, community programs, and essential public services.
Where to Send Letter: Please upload your letter to the Legislative portal, email the letter to [email protected], and to your regional public affairs manager, Charles Anderson at [email protected]. 23
Section 7, Item B.
August 3, 2026
The Honorable Tina McKinnor
Chair, Assembly Committee on Public Employment and Retirement 1020 N Street, Room 153
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 1383 (McKinnor) Public employees’ retirement benefits.
OPPOSE (As Amended May 13, 2026)
Dear Assembly Member McKinnor,
The City of Sutter Creek respectfully opposes AB 1383, which would make several significant changes to public employees’ retirement benefits and lead to increased pension liability for public agencies.
The Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act (PEPRA) was designed to address a wide range of issues involving public employee pensions and was a major step in helping local agencies better manage future pension costs and prevent the California Public Employees Retirement System from sliding into insolvency. AB 1383 would upend many of the reforms put in place in 2013 by PEPRA.
While we recognize and appreciate the intent of the bill to support recruitment and retention of essential public safety professionals, the bill would increase mandated costs without funding. The potential cost of this bill comes at a time of uncertainty. The fiscal volatility in the market compounded with the increased benefit costs from this bill could lead to serious cost increases for local government.
While our city supports competitive recruitment and retention for all public employees, AB 1383 represents an unfunded mandate that fails to balance sustainable retirement benefits with taxpayer fairness and long-term financial stability.
For these reasons, the City of Sutter Creek respectfully opposes AB 1383.
Sincerely,
Claire Gunselman
Mayor
City of Sutter Creek
Cc: Honorable Members, Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee
Senator Marie Alvarado-Gil
Assemblymember Heather Hadwick
Assemblymember Joe Patterson
24 Section 7, Item B.
Charles Anderson, Regional Public Affairs Manager, League of California Cities (via email: [email protected])
League of California Cities (via email: [email protected]) 25 Section 7, Item B.
18 Main St., Sutter Creek, CA 95685 • Telephone: (209)267-5647 • Fax: (209)267-1655 • TTY: 711 The City of Sutter Creek is an equal opportunity service provider and employer ______________________________________________________________________________
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: AUGUST 3, 2026
FROM: TOM DUBOIS, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION TO EXECUTE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT
FOR BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM WITH SCHNEIDER
ELECTRIC
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Council approve a motion authoring signing the construction agreement amendment by the September 4th deadline subject to advancing design, procurement, and construction through defined authorization milestones while PG&E service upgrades, WWTP design, project funding, and incentive eligibility are confirmed.
Staff recommends approving this now with Schneider Electric for Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) to preserve the City’s conditional SGIP reservation and maintain access to available incentives..
BACKGROUND:
The City of Sutter Creek can capture significant tax credits and incentive funding for the installation of Solar and Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) at the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). To preserve a conditionally approved PG&E Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) incentive, the City must execute a construction agreement amendment with Schneider Electric by September 4th. The federal tax incentive is a separate program with its own eligibility, construction, and filing requirements.
DISCUSSION:
City staff and Ridgeline Municipal Strategies have reviewed the financial models and costescalation scenarios provided by Schneider Electric. Executing the proposed BESS agreement now is intended to preserve the SGIP reservation, establish the current project and pricing framework, and accelerate over $1.8M in incentives. Today’s proposed approval is for the BESS only while subsequent solar construction approval will come at a later time, after completion of additional design and due diligence.
26 Section 9, Item A.
2 [Type text]
General
The financial estimates below are based on Schneider Electric’s July 2026 financial model and, where noted, assume the future new WWTP electrical load:
● Solar Cost: $2,550,000
● BESS Cost: $2,107,000
● Investment Tax Credit (ITC) estimate: $1,397,000 to 1,863,000 for both Solar and BESS, paid in full once the project is operational, subject to final eligibility and filing requirements and anticipated after the applicable systems are placed in service. ● SGIP incentive: $530,000 for BESS only, with 50 percent anticipated following installation and operation and the remaining 50 percent subject to applicable SGIP performance and payment requirements.
● Net Project Estimate (After Incentives): $2,794,170 to $3,259,865 ● Projected Annual Energy Savings after New WWTP is Operational: $164,390 ● Payback Period: 13 Years
● Cumulative 25-Year Cash Flow: $3,528,901
The Cost of Delay: Even with signing, Council should realize that construction costs increase over time. If the City delays the construction of both solar and BESS projects to 2028/2029 instead of 2028, Schneider Electric estimates that the City will face an estimated $363,120 in construction escalation costs ($240,720 for Solar and $122,400 for BESS). While construction costs increase with time, the amount of our incentives remains fixed.
RISKS, PG&E DEPENDENCIES, AND THE SGIP TIMELINE While the potential financial benefits of preserving the incentive opportunity are significant, this is a complex decision due to strict incentive timelines and external infrastructure dependencies:
● The September 4th Deadline: The SGIP conditional reservation requires the City to submit Proof of Project Milestone (PPM) documentation, which mandates a signed construction contract for the BESS equipment. This amendment must be signed by September 4th.
● Demonstrating Progress: Schneider Electric’s SGIP Risk Timeline identifies a potential pathway for maintaining the reservation through multiple extension periods while the WWTP design and funding strategy are completed. These extensions are not automatic and will require continued program eligibility, approval by the SGIP administrator, and evidence of meaningful project progress. Potential progress activities may include design completion, site and electrical preparation, equipment procurement, and delivery. ● PG&E Service Upgrades: The project schedule is highly dependent on PG&E providing a major service upgrade, including a new transformer and a higher-power panel. The estimated delivery for this PG&E equipment is 18 months to 3 years. ● Aligning Load with Incentives: The amount and timing of SGIP payments depend on the BESS configuration, site load, and compliance with applicable SGIP performance requirements. The projected financial return assumes the larger electrical load associated with the new WWTP. The SGIP grant pays out its final 50% incrementally based on the actual load drawn by the facility. Therefore, aligning the WWTP funding and construction schedule with the energy improvements is critical to maximizing the financial return.
27 Section 9, Item A.
18 Main St., Sutter Creek, CA 95685 • Telephone: (209)267-5647 • Fax: (209)267-1655 • TTY: 711 The City of Sutter Creek is an equal opportunity service provider and employer RECOMMENDATION: Given the various scenarios, Staff recommends Council approve a motion authoring signing the construction agreement amendment by the September 4th deadline subject to advancing design, procurement, and construction through defined authorization milestones while PG&E service upgrades, WWTP design, project funding, and incentive eligibility are confirmed.
● Worst-Case Scenario: If PG&E service upgrades face insurmountable delays, incentive eligibility cannot be maintained, or WWTP funding is not secured, the City retains contractual termination rights. The City would remain responsible for authorized work completed, reasonable termination costs, and any equipment or materials previously ordered or purchased. Staff intends to manage this exposure through staged authorization and procurement milestones.
● Best-Case Scenario: The City satisfies the SGIP and federal incentive requirements, receives the anticipated incentives, avoids over $360,000 in escalation costs, and successfully stretches taxpayer dollars.
BUDGET IMPACT:
BESS Construction costs will likely hit the budget in 2027 / 2028 with incentives being paid in 2029, 2031, 2032
Doing nothing now risks the loss of $530,000 in conditional SGIP incentives, and would expose the City to additional construction cost escalation if the project proceeds later.
Because we did not have details at the time, we conservatively budgeted the entire cost of solar and BESS in the current FY26-27 budget. However, we no longer expect to incur those costs this fiscal year, and will most likely finance it over a number of years. We are debt financing in order to preserve our Reserves for additional financing needed for the WWTP. You are not making a decision on the financing at this time.
ATTACHMENT
● Amendment No 1: Design Build Energy Services Contract ● SGP Risk Timeline
28 Section 9, Item A.
General
AMENDMENT NO. 1
DESIGN-BUILD ENERGY SERVICES CONTRACT FOR WASTEWATER
TREATMENT AND ENERGY RELATED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT This Amendment No. 1 to the Design-Build Energy Services Contract (the “Contract”) is made effective as of August 10, 2026 ("Amendment 1 Effective Date") by and between the City of Sutter Creek, a California municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City") and Schneider Electric Buildings Americas, Inc., with its principal place of business at 1660 Scenic Avenue, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (hereinafter referred to as “ESCO”) for the purpose of designing and constructing wastewater treatment and energy related capital improvements (the “Project”). City and ESCO are sometimes individually referred to as "Party" and collectively as "Parties”. The Contract, as amended by this Amendment, shall be referred to herein as the “Amended Contract”, and any capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the respective meanings ascribed to such terms in the Contract.
RECITALS
A. The Parties previously entered into the Contract on October 1, 2025. Per the terms of the Contract, ESCO is to prepare and submit a Price Proposal for construction of the Project.
B. Prior to submission of the Price Proposal for the Project, City has requested and ESCO has provided a proposal to procure and install certain equipment per the scope, schedule and price as set forth in Schedule A (Scope of Work), Schedule B (Project Implementation Schedule), and Schedule C (Project Financials.
C. City Council held a public hearing on August 3, 2026, and determined that all requirements of California Government Code section 4217.10 et seq. are met.
D. City has accepted the proposal submitted by ESCO for the performance of (BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT) and determined that ESCO has the technical and management capabilities and experience to implement said proposal.
Now, in consideration of the foregoing and of their respective rights and obligations pursuant to the amended Contract, the Parties hereby agree as follows:
I. AMENDMENT TERMS
The following provisions shall modify, supplement, and become part of the Contract, as applicable:
Section 1. Amended Contract. This Amendment No. 1 and all of the Schedules attached hereto are hereby made part of the Contract as if set forth in full therein. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of the Contract and the provisions of this Amendment No. 1, the provisions of this Amendment No. 1 shall prevail.
Section 2. Scope of Work. The Scope of Work to be performed by ESCO in connection with this Amendment No. 1 is set forth on Schedule A, attached hereto and incorporated in the Contract by this reference.
29 Section 9, Item A.
General
Section 3. Schedule. The schedule for performance of this Amendment No. 1 is set forth in Schedule B which is attached hereto and incorporated in the Contract by this reference. The parties agree that liquidated damages set forth in Section 3.c. of the Contract shall not apply to the Work set forth in Schedule A.
Section 4. Project Price. The Contract Price for this Amendment No. 1 is set forth in Schedule C, which is attached hereto and incorporated in the Contract by this reference.
Section 5. Notice to Proceed. The execution of this Amendment No. 1 serves as City’s Notice to Proceed with the Work set forth in Schedule A.
Section 6. No Performance Guarantee. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, ESCO is not providing any energy or efficiency savings guarantees in connection with the Project or the Contract.
II. GENERAL PROVISIONS
The following provisions shall govern the interpretation and enforcement of this Amendment:
1. No Other Modifications. The provisions of Article I of this Amendment shall be construed as the sole extent of the modifications being made to the Contract pursuant to this Amendment. Except as hereby modified, the Amended Contract shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with its provisions.
2. Governing Law. This Amendment shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with California law, regardless of any conflicts-of-law provisions applicable in California or any other jurisdiction.
3. Severability. If any provision of this Amendment is determined to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable as written, such provision shall be construed consistent with and to the fullest extent permitted under applicable law, and any such determination shall not affect or impair the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions.
4. Entire Contract. The Amended Contract constitutes the entire understanding and agreement between the Parties pertaining to the performance by ESCO of the services required by the Amended Contract.
5. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original and all of which, taken together, shall constitute one and the same instrument. Signature pages may be detached from counterpart originals and combined to physically form one or more copies of this Amendment having original signatures of both Parties.
6. Due Authority of Signatories. Each person signing this Amendment represents and warrants that he or she has been duly authorized by appropriate action of the Party he or she represents to execute, and thereby bind such Party to, this Amendment.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have entered into this Amendment No. 1 as of the Date first above written and hereby execute this Amendment No. 1 to the Design-Build 30 Section 9, Item A.
General
Energy Services Contract.
Schneider Electric Buildings Americas, Inc. City of Sutter Creek, California By:_________________________________ By:________________________________ Name:_______________________________ Name:______________________________ Title:________________________________ Title:_______________________________ 31 Section 9, Item A.
Internal General
SCHEDULE A
SCOPE OF WORK
Customer hereby acknowledges and agrees that the scope of work shall be limited to, and ESCO shall only perform, the following:
Scope of Work Description
Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Installations
Design/Builder shall design, engineer, obtain required AHJ permits where required, procure required devices and materials, construct, start-up, and commission a public utility interconnected Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) as defined below:
Project Site
City of Sutter Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
330 Mahoney Mill Rd, Sutter Creek, CA 95685
BESS Size 533 KWh/250kW
Design Basis
o Final electrical design of the BESS system and associated infrastructure will be completed prior to installation. See Conceptual Site Plan below noting location of proposed BESS system. Final configuration to be shown on 100% design drawings.
o BESS basis of design is Guardian E101-KA0614 or equal. o Iris Energy Management System is the basis of design or equal. o Iris Energy Management System, relying on Customer- cellular connection. o BESS connection will be a line side tap on the existing MSB. o 6’ tall chain link fencing to be provided on four sides of BESS with one personnel access gate. o Installation of BESS in locations designated on Schedule D o Installation of BESS and associated wiring connected to existing MSB. o Select conduits for future solar are being installed in the same trench as BESS under the BESS scope to avoid future costs.
Allowance Item 1
o An allowance has been made for rock drillings based on previous experience in the area. o The extent of rock will be identified in the upcoming Geotech Report and will be used to help locate conduits and BESS foundations in the final design.
o The Allowance Value is noted in Schedule C.
o The Allowance Value will need to be authorized prior to the start of construction.
Clarifications
o ESCO is responsible for completing the Interconnect Application Agreements and submitting on behalf of the Customer. Customer shall be required to sign interconnect agreement in conjunction with PG&E.
o Customer shall provide access to PG&E portal and allow Schneider to be an authorized user. o Customer is responsible for all PG&E fees and costs associated with installation of BESS. PG&E costs will not be known until final approval of Interconnect Agreement. o Final BESS, and energy management system are subject to change based on final design and at the discretion of the Contractor. 32
Section 9, Item A.
Internal General
o The connection of the BESS to the existing panel will be a line side tap. o Due to construction phasing, while BESS maybe installed, system will not be operable until all long lead Electrical equipment arrives and can be installed as well as permission to operate (PTO) by Utility. Partial shutdown will be required and will be coordinated with Customer. o Solar storage for 15 months thru December 2027 is included. o Approvals to be obtained from Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ). o ESCO to pay all fees associated with AHJ permitting.
o Customer is responsible for any cost associated with the inspector of record and the lab of record.
Inspector of Record to provide written letter approving the BESS installation. o PG&E requires approval letter or building permit to provide Permission to Operate (PTO). o ESCO receiving payment for mobilization and completed work is not contingent on loan, bond, or grant funding.
o Scope is based on first shift, normal working hours, Monday through Friday, 7 am to 5 pm, nonFederal Holidays. Some after-hours work may be required to accomplish the Scope of Work. This proposal assumes Customer will grant Design/Builder access to the facilities after hours if needed. o On-site staging areas will be made available by Customer for storage of equipment and materials in generally close area to project.
o Customer shall provide ESCO complete access to the site for installation activities and support of those activities with relocation of vehicles as required while providing suitable laydown area to support installation as shown on conceptual plans.
o The Customer is responsible to notify Design/Builder of any projects that may impact the project schedule or require coordination. Design Builder currently has not accounted for coordination with other Customer projects or contractors. Design/Builder is not responsible for delays caused by other projects occurring within the designated project areas. o Customer shall be responsible for any and all future landscaping maintenance specific to weed mitigation or trimming of foliage around the solar array following the installation of the project. o Customer understands the electrical interconnection will result in a power shutdown that will affect certain process. ESCO and Customer will coordinate with shutdown durations expecting to be in 3-hour increments.
o ESCO makes no representation, warranty, or guarantee that the Project or the performance thereof will entitle the City to receive any Incentive Funds. Procurement, or lack thereof, of the Incentive Funds will not alter the Project Price, unless stated otherwise herein, or the payment timeline associated with payment of the Project Price. Any and all rebate or incentive deposits paid by ESCO will be immediately returned to ESCO when received by City. o “Incentive Funds” means tax credits, energy efficiency rebates, incentives including the Self Generation Incentive Program (SGIP), and/or loan programs for which City may apply or otherwise be eligible in connection with the Project.
o City shall enter into a separate service contract with an approved Performance Data Provider for the duration of the Service Period. The Service Period is defined as the date installation is completed continuing for 10 years. Expected dates for this Service Period are July 1, 2028 through June 30, 2038. Service on the battery system and control system shall include preventative maintenance, diagnosis of problems, on-site repair of any issues associated with the systems, and customer support. It shall also include monitoring of battery health to ensure lasting performance over the Service Period. The cost of this service is not included in the Project Price.
General Exclusions for all work
o Changes to BESS locations initiated by Customer are excluded. o Upgrades to Utility company infrastructure or mitigation work discovered by the utility company during the interconnection review process is excluded.
o Expansion of Customer’s data network or coverage to serve monitoring system is excluded. 33 Section 9, Item A.
Internal General
o Design changes and or relocation of underground utility lines including but not limited to electrical, gas, water, sewer, irrigation, fiber optic, television, etc. is excluded. Hard rock drilling, underground obstructions, caving soils, casing, and water mitigation are excluded. o Lightning protection systems are excluded.
o Temporary power and lighting during scheduled utility shutdown is excluded. o Fire alarm, fire sprinkler, CCTV, security, and communication work beyond data monitoring is excluded.
o Additional labor cost resulting from the restriction of allowable work hours or days is excluded. o Night/Holiday/Overtime work not performed at Design/Builder’s discretion is excluded. o Costs incurred due to lack of access to required areas or due to access to storage areas to which materials are to be delivered are excluded.
o Costs of providing access, access control, or security escorts not specified in the Scope of Work is excluded.
o This project assumes all existing systems are currently code complaint. Bringing non-compliant systems up to current codes is excluded.
o Ground contamination and/or hazardous materials handling, testing, and/or removal are excluded. o Supplying, installing, and maintaining a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) is excluded.
o Asbestos or hazardous material abatement of any kind of any kind is excluded. o Any new tariffs enacted after the date of the Construction Amendment Effective Date and any increases in existing tariffs enacted after the date of the Construction Amendment Effective Date are excluded.
o Painting or any other "decorative work" on the BESS are excluded. o Repairs or upgrades to the property which are otherwise required or discovered during the project are excluded. This can include existing electrical equipment and structural improvements. o Any reporting that must be completed to government entities is excluded. o Unforeseen underground conditions are excluded.
o Suitable soil conditions are assumed at installation sites. Any added work due to differing soil conditions, seismic issues, liquefaction issues, land-use issues, or environmental concerns is excluded.
o Easements that affect proposed UG/AG conduit/equipment installation are excluded. o Site will be returned to previous condition other than repaving where trenching takes place. New paving, new landscaping and/or irrigation work not defined is excluded. 34 Section 9, Item A.
Internal General
PROJECT CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
Solar is not part of this contract and is shown for reference. 35 Section 9, Item A.
Internal General
SCHEDULE B
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
The schedule below is a preliminary construction schedule which reflects the estimated durations for design, equipment procurement lead times and the necessary construction activities which represent the tasks needed for planning, coordination, and construction of the BESS. While ESCO will strive to finish construction in advance of this schedule, actual implementation durations will be based on coordination with City of Sutter Creek and manufacturing lead-times. The Project Schedule updates will be periodically provided throughout the construction phase and shall always reflect the ESCO best estimates. ESCO’s Project Schedule will be a CPM progress schedule utilizing Microsoft Project software and will not be cost-loaded.
Task Name % Complete Duration Start Finish
City of Sutter Creek Construction Schedule 0% 648 days Tue 11/4/25 Thu 5/11/28 BESS Design Development 0% 648 days Tue 11/4/25 Thu 5/11/28 Conceptual Development Activities 1% 197 days Tue 11/4/25 Wed 8/12/26 Contract Amendment 0% 451 days Thu 8/13/26 Thu 5/11/28
Contract Amendment Approval 0% 7 days Thu 8/13/26 Fri 8/21/26 Public Agency to Issue NTP to Complete Design and
Procurement of Equipment 0% 7 days Mon 8/24/26 Tue 9/1/26 NTP Received 0% 2 days Wed 9/2/26 Thu 9/3/26
PGE Applications 0% 61 days Fri 9/4/26 Wed 12/2/26
BESS Interconnect Application 0% 61 days Fri 9/4/26 Wed 12/2/26 BESS Design 0% 91 days Fri 9/4/26 Fri 1/15/27
Permitting 0% 40 days Mon 1/18/27 Fri 3/12/27
Procure Equipment 0% 254 days Tue 12/29/26 Fri 12/17/27 Construction 0% 149 days Mon 10/18/27 Thu 5/11/28
Mobilize 0% 15 days Mon 10/18/27 Fri 11/5/27
BESS 0% 119 days Mon 11/8/27 Thu 4/20/28
Site Closeout 0% 57 days Tue 2/22/28 Thu 5/11/28
36 Section 9, Item A.
Internal General
SCHEDULE C
PROJECT FINANCIALS
PROJECT PRICE
The Contract Price shall be $2,106,951 which is inclusive of all BESS design fees and Allowance Items.
The Contract Price excludes all IGA fees except for the $44,278 IGA Phase 1 fee associated with the Non-Wastewater Treatment Facility - IGA Scope Of Work.
Schedule of Values
Scope of Work $
IGA Phase 1 Fee – Non-wastewater Scope $44,278
BESS Design $105,523
BESS Equipment $838,828
BESS Installation $455,511
BESS Startup & Commissioning $14,163
Project Development/Management & General Conditions $411,186 Solar Storage thru Dec 2027 $16,759
Allowance Item 1 – Rock Drilling $220,703
Contract Price $2,106,951
ALLOWANCE ITEMS AND ALLOWANCE VALUES
Any and all Allowance Items are set forth in Schedule A (Scope of Work) and their corresponding Allowance Values are as noted in the Schedule of Values table above.
No work shall be performed on any Allowance Item without ESCO first obtaining in writing advance authorization to proceed from City. For the avoidance of doubt, Allowance Item authorization can be issued by the City’s project manager and does not require City’s council approval beyond the original City council approval for the Project. City agrees that if ESCO is not provided written authorization to proceed by the date set forth in Schedule A (Scope of Work), due to no fault of ESCO, ESCO may be entitled to an adjustment of the Project Completion Date and Construction Price.
The Allowance Values include the direct cost of labor, materials, equipment, transportation, design fees, ESCO’s overall project management, general conditions costs, overhead, profit, taxes, bonds and insurance associated with the applicable Allowance Item.
Whenever the actual costs for an Allowance Item is more than or less than the stated Allowance Value, the Contract Price shall be adjusted accordingly by Change Order in accordance with General Conditions Article 10 of the Contract.
37 Section 9, Item A.
SGIP Program Funding Risk Timeline - Drafted KLugo 6/1/26 Start Date End Date Status Date info Deadline Info / Justification* Risk N/A 1/8/2026 Conditional Reservation Lasts 18 months Conditional reservation approved. 1/8/2026 4/8/2026 RFP Due date 90 days from
cond. app RFP Approved 2/4/26
1/8/2026 9/5/2026 PPM Due 240 Days from
cond. app Need signed contract for BESS
1/8/2026 7/8/2027 Reservation Expiration 18 months from cond. app
Original due date (PTO and ICF
(Final App) needs to be submitted by
this period).
7/8/2027 1/8/2028 Extension #1* 6 mo ext Equipment lead time. Low 1/8/2028 7/8/2028 Extension #2* 6 mo ext Equipment lead time. Low 7/8/2028 1/8/2029 Extension #3* 6 mo ext Equipment lead time. Low 1/8/2029 7/8/2029 Non-R EQ Bonus Ext #1 6 mo ext All equipment onsite, now finish construction. Medium
7/8/2029 1/8/2030 Non-R EQ Bonus Ext #2 6 mo ext Show progress - switchboards onsite Medium 1/8/2030 1/8/2031 Performance Ext 1 yr ext Substantially complete and PTO, but load not yet sufficient High
1/8/2030 7/8/2030 Non-R EQ Bonus Ext #3 6 mo ext Show progress - constructed Very High 7/8/2030 1/8/2031 Non-R EQ Bonus Ext #4 6 mo ext Show PTO but load not yet 100% Very High 1/8/2031 1/8/2032
Performance Ext (if all
construciton extensions
used)
1 yr ext Substantially complete and PTO, but
load not yet sufficient Very High
This is a theoretical timeline to complete the Sutter Creek BESS / WWTP project and secure SGIP funding. SE Actions are a hypothetical scenario base 5/29/26 internal team discussion.
Bonus extensions: Client must agree to participate in an SGIP-qualifying Demand Repsonse program for 10 years from ICF submission (final incentive request). *Extensions are not automatic. Reviewed case-by-case and should demonstrate that the extension is needed for 1) reasons outside control of customer, 2) made significant progress w a provided, 3) project will be complete by end of maximum extension period. 2025 Handbook 2.1.1.3 shows one year performance extension without need for program approval if site load is insufficient for full incenitve (or can proceed immediately at reduced ince after 1 year load is still insufficient, project will move forward at reduced incentive. # General
38 Section 9, Item A.
2025 Handbook 2.1.1.3 shows one year performance extension without need for program approval if site load is insufficient for full incenitve (or can proceed immediately at reduced ince after 1 year load is still insufficient, project will move forward at reduced incentive. # General
39 Section 9, Item A.
SE Action (Ext. requests >30 days before deadline)
Sign contract with BESS equipment identified but not purchased.
Purchase equipment before deadline (recommend by ~1/1/27) and show project 100% engineered by deadline to reduce funding risk. Show long switchboard lead time (assume 2 yrs).
Show progress (site prep?)
Show progress (electrical prep?)
Show progress: (battery installed?)
Show timeline: equipment on-site and substantial completion by end of extension.
Show progress: substantially complete but waiting on utility metering/PTO. Outside SE control
Per handbook, this extension is optional as a result of load failing to meet battery size; no mention of program approval
requirement. Performance period would start ~1/8/31 and incentive would be based on peak load up to this point.
Additional construction extension would be used before
Performance Extension.
Additional construction extension would be used before
Performance Extension.
Same as above, but after using all bonus construction extensions.
IP funding. SE Actions are a hypothetical scenario based on m ICF submission (final incentive request).
asons outside control of customer, 2) made significant progress w a timeline icient for full incenitve (or can proceed immediately at reduced incentive). If # General
40 Section 9, Item A.
icient for full incenitve (or can proceed immediately at reduced incentive). If # General
41 Section 9, Item A.
______________________________________________________________________________
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: AUGUST 3, 2026
FROM: DAN LAFONTAINE, PUBLIC WORK DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: CITY 2026/2027 PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT LIST
RECOMMENDATION: Council accept this information report and discuss / ask questions BACKGROUND:
This staff report provides information on the Public works projects currently budgeted for the 2026/2027 fiscal year. Staff have prepared a project list with relevant information and identifies any deficiencies in Budget tracking, project timeline and/or technical issues with the projects through a green, yellow and or red status. Currently there are 32 projects on the list with one already completed, 22 green, 7 yellow, and 2 red. As of this meeting, we are tracking approximately 70% of projects on time and budget ensuring that projects are completed on time and budget.
This project list does not include wastewater capital projects as those projects are essentially paused to build funds for the new WWTP. The only reasons for capital projects at the WWTP are if the project is vital to the proper operation of the WWTP, to further the design of the new WWTP, or to work on value engineering components for the new WWTP. As of this report only 3 projects have been identified::
● Rotostrainers number #2 and #4 must be repaired prior to winter (needed to handle I/I) ● Level sensor in chlorine tank (needed to switch vendors) ● New piping for Ferric Chlorine line (requested by chemical supplier) DISCUSSION:
The majority of public works projects are completed in the fall and spring time when weather is favorable and rain is limited or non-existent. This means that all prep work (scoping, engineering (if required), permitting, contractor bidding, and scheduling) needs to be done prior to those seasons. Typically the PW director and lead foreman complete the majority of that work in the previous season (up to the day before construction). By the time a job reaches construction 25% to 50% (for small jobs) has been completed.
Contractors can/are used by PW to accelerate projects but when contractors are used more oversight is needed to maintain a level acceptable by City standards.
A Gantt chart has been included to give an overall view of the project load for the public works in the 2026/2027 fiscal year. As you can see the majority of projects are scheduled for construction in September and October and then again in May. This was made by design to minimize weather delays. Significant early (October 2026) or late (May 2027) rain will disrupt the PW schedule. 42 Section 9, Item B.
2 A highlighted list of budgeted PW projects are included below to give a breath of the depth of projects PW scheduled to be completed during this fiscal year. When applicable, staff and or consultants have been identified for each category to act as the “project manager” to assist the PW director with getting the project across the finish line.
Wastewater - maintain water board compliance and maximize environmental protections Collection - I/I piping in creek replacement, needed to reduce influent design to the new WWTP thus saving the City substantial money (PW Director, Sanitary engineer, consultant) Treatment (WWTP) - Rotostrainers, tank level and piping (CPO all in house) Disposal (ARSA) - Freshwater Diversion repair, which is legally obligated per CDCR agreement (PW foreman and contractor); Preston Forebay outlet valve repair/replacement (PW foreman, engineering and contractor)
Streets goal - stretch every dollar to get more roads repaved and improve ADA accessibility Sutter Hill Road resurfacing- Major artery to the City in very bad shape low PCI (engineering, contractor)
David drive, Marre, Randolph and Boston Alley intersection - Cut and replace asphalt, partial labor inhouse, budgeted amount requires asphalt to be “extra” from another larger job to save on mob (PW Labor, contractor)
Moving ADA ramps and crosswalk on Gopher flat - Move crosswalk out so cars can see around blind corner prior to being in the intersection. As a result the ADA ramps will need to be moved (PW foreman and contractor and PW labor).
B&B sidewalk - Remove tripping hazards in front of B&B while preserving the historic limestone walkway.
Parks - Transform Bryson Park into a place that inspires active play for youth and expand inclusive play Pump track - Repurpose of grass area to increase youth outdoor play (PW Director and volunteers) Bryson play improvements - add chips to playground (PW labor) Minnie Provis Playground Resurfacing - Replace parts of the structure and install rubberized surface (PW director, engineering, PW labor, Contractor) Facilities - To improve the usefulness of all facilities while preserving our historic charm Auditorium - Install new swamp coolers and perform maintenance on the outside i.e. paint and siding (PW foreman and contractor)
Monteverde Store - Repair building including roof, gutter, and wall (PW director, PW foreman, volunteers, contractor?)
City Offices - New roof for City Manager office building (PW foreman and contractor) 43 Section 9, Item B.
3 18 Main St., Sutter Creek, CA 95685 • Telephone: (209)267-5647 • Fax: (209)267-1655 • TTY: 711 The City of Sutter Creek is an equal opportunity service provider and employer PROJECT STATUS: Public works has developed a “traffic light system” to judge the health of each project. The descriptions of each status are listed below:
Green status: equates to the project being on budget (at or below budget estimate), on time (within 2 weeks), and defined (no technical questions that would stop the project).
Yellow status: equates to the project showing minimal budget risk (within 15% of budget estimates), experiencing a slight delay (2 to 6 weeks behind schedule) and some technical questions that need to be worked on. Staff are currently working on the issues and no budget impacts are anticipated.
Red status: equates the project to a significant anticipated budget overrun, major delay in timing (contractor or permitting), and or major technical questions that need to be addressed.
Grees Status Projects: 32 projects are proceeding as planned. These projects Even when projects go as planned, some upcoming issues that are expected and will affect Sutter Creek residents are highlighted below:
Sutter Hill Rd construction: Road will be closed to public from Aug 3, 2026 to beginning of September
Minnie Provis Playground resurfacing: The first phase of the project (replacing pieces on the playground structure) will require the playground structure to be closed for a week or two. Public works anticipates this will occur after the start of the 2026/2027 school year to minimize disruption.
Yellow Status Projects: Seven projects are labeled as yellow and are in question: Details of each project are listed below:
Monteverde Gutter and wall/floor repair (2 projects)- This project continues to face both technical scoping questions and budget uncertainty. We received a quote to install a valley gutter 6 months ago but the contractor has continued to push the timeline. All other quotes were significantly over budget.
B&B sidewalk (1 project)- The existing sidewalk is limestone that has had patches of asphalt installed to remove tripping hazards. The plan to install overlay asphalt does not preserve the historical limestone walkway. Public works continues to seek experts to propose alternative construction methods to preserve the limestone and remove the ADA issues.
Gopher Street/Main Street crossing and Old 49 Pedestrian shoulder (2 projects)- This was a budgetary estimate and needs to be verified. The project is scheduled for Spring so time is available to tighten the estimate and timeline.
Vehicle replacement (1 project)- The budget of $20,000 for a utility truck will provide for a used (most likely 10-15 yrs old) that has mileage in the 100 to 150K range. Public works continues to search auctions and private party sales to “hit a home run”.
Preston Forebay Valve (1 project)- The current valve at the Preston forebay has become nonoperational. The budget is an estimated value and will need to be determined after engineering. The pier has been deemed unsafe and a solution provided by engineering. Technical questions are present that have not been addressed with regards to access and timing of the repair.
As most of the projects in yellow are scheduled in the second half of the 2026/2027 FY, staff will continue to work to flush out further details.
44 Section 9, Item B.
4 Red Status Projects: Two projects are labeled as red and will most likely need to be moved to the 2027/2028 fiscal year.
I/I projects and creek cleanup (2 projects)- Environmental permitting for replacing collection system pipes in the creek are estimated at 160K. Based on the consultants recommendation along with the LSA permit from Fish and Game, an army core of engineering (404) and a CVRWQCB Clean Water Act Section 401 water quality certification will be required. The 404 permit allows the City to introduce fill into the river below the high water mark and the 401 permit ensures that water quality is not being degraded by the project. Both permits work together with the LSA to allow replacement of sewer pipes in the creek.
The timeline for obtaining the permits is typically 12 to 18 months.
One alternative option available to the City is to have the council declare that the pipes in the creek constitute an emergency by falling into one of three scenarios (unacceptable hazard to life, significant loss of property or immediate unforeseen significant economic hardship). If this is declared, permit wait times can be reduced or eliminated and costs may be reduced. If the council wishes to explore this option, work would be needed to discuss this pathway with outside agencies and develop a plan of action and estimated costs.
Staff recommend that a semi-annual progress update be presented to council in January to provide the council with a status of completed projects in Fall and an estimate of Spring workload.
Attachments: Public Works Active Capital Project List
Gantt Chart - PW Capital Project Work Flow
45 Section 9, Item B.
Status Project Name Project description Est Cost Cost Certainty Funding
Certainty Need Eng? Start Date Num Bids Contract/Bid Contractor Billing Notes Project Notes Manager Open Questions Risks DONE
Crestview subdivision or Golden Hills
Sidewalks Can do lifts over 1/2" only for $11,000 $2,000.00 1,851 Y N 6/30/2026 Completed Precision Concrete Once bill is paid can
request $1,000 from Dan
Const Bryson Pump Track ACF Grant $10,000.00 Defined Y N 7/1/2026 1 Campbell,
Bradley Booker George
Ordered New 3-way valve for pool Must replace $2,500.00 Defined Y N 8/1/2026 2 Liquid FX,
Lincoln Aquatics GF George
Bid Awarded Auditorium HVAC $50,000 donation $100,000.00 N N 8/3/2026 0.5 Received quote for new swamp coolers
(20K) A/C install quote pending from two
Signed quote for Swamp coolers
waiting on timing Dan/Corey
Aug3-7 Ragtime. Chiller plus rent AC?, Chiller plus
installed AC? Start funding campaign in heat?
Bid Awarded Sutter Hill Road paving
Streets, ACTC $610,000 , Measure P
or Overages can be brought to ACTC $800,000.00 Defined Y Y 8/3/2026 9 Yes RFP process Campbell ACTC 610 plus half of
add-on George All set?
Scheduled
Gopher Flat restriping (must have for next
year)
Thermo (not paint) and reflectors
every 15 feet. $19,500.00 15,881 Y N 8/12/2026 2 Centerline Measure P Dan Smart Covers (purchase one for lift station) Purchase one unit after rental period $7,700.00 Quote Y N 9/1/2026 Once rental period is over we will
coordinate to purchase and move to lift Smart Cover WW Fund Dan Martell sampling timeline? Solar and Batter placement Solar and batter to get grants $3,600,000.00 $1.5M battery only N Y 9/1/2026 Sole source - design build Agreement by Sept 4 Dan/Tom TBD, likely battery only w slow burn Scheduled
Freshwater diversion (50K total, 25K
already paid) ARSA $25,000.00 Y Y N 9/15/2026 3
Had two contractors walk away and not
give bids only person that bid was Campbell ARSA Fund Corey Checklist item.
Monteverde gutter
Native Sons/Grant, high bid was
$25,000 $1,000.00 Y 9/26/2026 3
Contractor was supposed to install
(ghosted no contact in a month) Donation Corey Give Corey direction to manage Monteverde? Mini Provis playground resurfacing Project
Engineering costs, $125K for
equipment,wheelchair friendly $140,000.00 Defined N Y 9/26/2026 3/1/2027 Parts were ordered for the playground.
Once they arrive PW will install. Need Impact - OK Dan/Frank When do we get donation - dependent on those
funds in the bank. Need to talk about process with
Bike/Ped Path Signage to Amador City Crosswalk and signs $1,000.00 Y N 10/1/2026 Inhouse Measure P Corey/Eric David Drive (50 tons of asphalt)
Repave in front of driveways (4
homes) $10,000.00 Y N 10/1/2026
Campbell/Inhouse (piggyback on other
Randolph and Boston Alley intersection paving project if can to save money) Measure P Jeff Let's get "Paid by Measure P" signs (storm drain and repave intersection with $5,500.00 Y N 10/1/2026 Campbell/Inhouse (piggyback on other
paving project if can to save money) Measure P Jeff
Rosa dirt plus swale across street part of 2 above Y N 10/1/2026 Campbell/Inhouse (piggyback on other
paving project if can to save money) Measure P Jeff
Gopher Flat Speed tables? / Cushions
In touch with Traffic company getting
quote (2 cushions and installation) $12,000.00 Needs update Y N 10/1/2026 Received bid a year ago need update TraffixLogix Measure P Dan Location? Both lanes -2 spots or 1? Most
dangerous place for pedestrians
Beautification Projects - Gateway Park Irrigation, planting $5,000.00 Y N 10/26/2026 Impact-ok Matt Council wants better Xmas decorations - may need
Sutter Hill Road Beautification (wall of
funds for that. But also want this to look better
flowers)
Supports Main Street business,
volunteer opportunity $1,000.00 Y N 10/26/2026 Impact - ok Matt Council wants better Xmas decorations - may need
funds for that
Monteverde Wall/floor
Native Sons/Grant, high bid was
$25,000, volunteers do labor $3,000.00 Y N 10/26/2026 Donation Corey Monteverde Electrical issues Duck Race funds $10,000.00 Y N 10/26/2026 Donation George Admin Building - Roof Roof past expected life need new $20,000.00 Y N 11/1/2026 General Fund Corey In house or bid? Gopher street / main street crosswalk
Move two ADA crosswalk sidewalk
transition pieces reinstall crosswalk $12,500.00 unsure Y N 2/1/2027 Sole source, and in house Measure P Corey/Eric Old 49 Pedestrian Shoulder $75,000.00 Y Y 3/1/2027 Measure P Have Frank start now, don't
overengineer Frank Bike path / walkway - don't over engineer B&B sidewalk - limestone / asphalt Main
Asphalt overlay (job is difficult not
confident in estimate) $7,500.00 Y N 4/1/2027 Measure P Dan Talk to Larry - way to have smooth w Greenstone.
Propose just paving over?
Bryson Playground Chips
4 truck loads (can reduce in
increments of 2500 if tight) $10,000.00 Defined ? N 4/1/2027 Impact - wait Need to determine best timing to
install Corey Wait for impact fees
Vehicles - Truck for Parks and Rec Need to keep up with vehicle repairs $20,000.00 Undefined N N 5/1/2027 Searching but nothing looks good need to
hit a home run for this to be enough
money Impact - wait Dan
Budgetted w Impact fees - not in until Valley View
Commons completed.
Change inlet valve at Preston Forebay ARSA $30,000.00 Unsure Y Y 5/1/2027 Bid will be required most likely ARSA Fund Hydrosciences to mobilize to
site 7-16-26. Show as-builts.
Dan /
Corey
Monteverde HVAC Native Sons/Grant $15,000.00 N N 5/1/2027 Will have AC contractor bid Grant or impact Corey Either get grant or wait until we get impact fees.
Can we do gutter before roof?
Monteverde Roof $20,000.00 N N 5/1/2027 Grant or Imapct fee Corey Either get grant or wait until we get impact fees.
Can we do gutter before roof?
Auditorium (repair siding and repaint entire
building, last year received bid for 36K) $40,000.00 N 5/1/2027 1 Got bid one year ago will need update and
two more bids Impact fee - wait Need to wait for impact fees Pushed to next fiscal year 2027/2028
I/I Projects 5 of the most critical projects $500,000.00 Engineers Estimate Y 7/1/27 Grant working on Bid package, Permitting
needs to be started in Aug 2026 Will bid WW Fund
Permitting will need LSA, US
Army core 404 and CVRWQCB
401 Grant/Dan
Watch cost escalation - permitting is a year long
process unless we declare a state of emergency
Creek Cleanup - root ball project - flood/fire
mitigation
Biologists initial study surveys and
construction monitoring ($40-
60/hour) $15,000.00 Undefined N Y 7/2/2027 Most likely rolled into I/I projects Dan Tie this to I/I work? Ask other PW directors for
advice. Are you on Cal City mail list for PW?
46 Section 9, Item B.
Project Start Timeline
Project Name Start Date ###### ###### ###### ###### ###### ###### ###### ###### ###### ###### ###### ###### ###### ###### ###### ###### ###### ###### ###### ###### ###### ###### ###### ###### Crestview subdivision or Golden Hills Sidewalks
Bryson Pump Track
New 3-way valve for pool
Auditorium HVAC
Sutter Hill Road paving
Gopher Flat restriping (must have for next year)
Smart Covers (purchase one for lift station)
Solar and Batter placement
Freshwater diversion (50K total, 25K already paid)
Monteverde gutter
Mini Provis playground resurfacing Project 9/26/2026 3/1/2027 Bike/Ped Path Signage to Amador City
David Drive (50 tons of asphalt) Randolph and Boston Alley intersection (storm drain and repave intersection with 15 tons of asphalt)
Rosa dirt plus swale across street
Gopher Flat Speed tables? / Cushions
Beautification Projects - Gateway Park
Sutter Hill Road Beautification (wall of flowers)
Monteverde Wall/floor
Monteverde Electrical issues
Admin Building - Roof
Gopher street / main street crosswalk
Old 49 Pedestrian Shoulder
B&B sidewalk - limestone / asphalt Main
Bryson Playground Chips
Vehicles - Truck for Parks and Rec
Change inlet valve at Preston Forebay
Monteverde HVAC
Monteverde Roof
Auditorium (repair siding and repaint entire building,
last year received bid for 36K)
I/I Projects
Creek Cleanup - root ball project - flood/fire mitigation 47 Section 9, Item B.
______________________________________________________________________________
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: AUGUST 3, 2026
FROM: DAN LAFONTAINE, PUBLIC WORK DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: CITY MINNIE PROVIS PLAYGROUND PROJECT UPDATE
RECOMMENDATION: Feedback and approval by Council are requested.
BACKGROUND: The City of Sutter Creek has been working with Nicolette Clymer of the Eva Clymer Memorial fund to add support for children with disabilities at the Minnie Provis Playground. All donations to the Eva Clymer Memorial Fund go directly to creating a sensory playground that can be enjoyed by children that are excluded from safely experiencing traditional playground activities due to challenges with hearing, sight, mobility and other physical functions that require special assistance.
Current plans are to replace parts of the playground structure and install a rubberized surface to allow greater access to children with disabilities. The City has committed 15K from the general fund to pay for engineering (plans and specs). The City has also pledged for Public Works staff to perform installation of all new playground structure pieces and perform the subsurface preparation of the rubberized surface. All other costs will be borne by the Eva Clymer Memorial fund.
DISCUSSION: The project has been broken into two distinct phases; updating of the playground structure and installation of the rubberized surface. The updating of the playground structure will occur shortly after the 2026/2027 school year starts whereas the rubberized surface will occur in the spring of next year pending council approval.
PLAYGROUND STRUCTURE: During the initial walk through of the playground structure it was decided that parts of the structure were becoming worn and past their useful life. Most of the decks are beginning to wear through to the bare metal. The manufacturer was contacted and replacement parts were ordered in July. The replacement parts were ordered by the memorial fund and are scheduled to arrive in 4 to 6 weeks. To minimize costs and the disruption of play, the playground will be closed for installation by Public works staff after the 2026/2027 school year begins. Replacement of the playground structure pieces is anticipated to take one to two weeks.
RUBBERIZED SURFACE: The existing subsurface consists of wood chips that need to be purchased yearly. The chips will be removed and relocated to Bryson park by Public Works staff. After all the wood chips have been removed, Public works staff will prepare the surface per the rubberized surface manufacturers specifications. The project consists of two separate additive alternatives; #1 to install sensory boards has been included and #2 to extend the limits of the rubber surface to the cinderblock wall backing up to Church Street.
48 Section 9, Item C.
2 Rendering from one of the subcontractors' estimates of the project limits has been included. The red surface represents the base bid and the blue represents additive alternative to resurface all the way to the back wall as shown in the rendering.
RECOMMENDATION:Because this project is primarily being funded by donations, we are working to keep the scope tightly defined. We ask that the council review this project, provide feedback and give overall approval to proceed. This project would not be possible without the support of the donor. Staff suggesting some deference to the donor’s desires, within the framework of a public process.
BUDGET IMPACT: Due to the engineers estimate of 143K for the base bid and the property being owned by the City, the project must go to public bid. All engineering costs to prepare the bid documents have been budgeted in the general fund during the current fiscal year. Project cost (except budgeted costs, engineering) will be covered by donations prior to approving the contract.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Project Renderings - Minnie Provis Park Play Structure
2. Preliminary City of Sutter Creek Engineers Estimate
49 Section 9, Item C.
ITEM UNIT OF EST. UNIT ITEM
NO. ITEM MEASURE QTY. PRICE TOTAL
1 REMOVE BARK* LS 1 $0.00 $0.00
2 TEMPORARY FENCING* LS 1 $0.00 $0.00
3 MOBILIZATION LS 1 $10,100.00 $10,100.00
4 SUBBASE PREPARATION (8.5" AB) SF 3,330 $7.50 $24,975.00 5 POURED IN PLACE SURFACING (4") SF 3,330 $22.50 $74,925.00 $110,000.00
$11,000.00
PLAYGROUND REPLACEMENT PARTS* $22,000.00
$143,000.00
ITEM UNIT OF EST. UNIT ITEM
NO. ITEM MEASURE QTY. PRICE TOTAL
1 PLAYGROUND COMMUNICATION BOARD EA 1 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 2 CONCERTO VIBES EA 1 $8,000.00 $8,000.00
3 SENSORY ACTIVITY PANEL WALL EA 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $20,500.00
$2,050.00
$6,000.00
$28,550.00
ITEM UNIT OF EST. UNIT ITEM
NO. ITEM MEASURE QTY. PRICE TOTAL
1 EARTHWORK REMOVAL CY 35 $200.00 $7,000.00
2 CONCRETE CURB LF 50 $150.00 $7,500.00
3 BENCH SEATING AROUND TREES EA 3 $5,000.00 $15,000.00
4 SUBBASE PREPARATION (8.5" AB) SF 940 $7.50 $7,050.00
5 POURED IN PLACE SURFACING (4") SF 940 $22.50 $21,150.00 $57,700.00
$5,770.00
$63,470.00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $235,000.00
CITY OF SUTTER CREEK
PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
MINNIE PROVIS PARK IMPROVEMENTS
BASE BID
4/7/2026
ADDITIVE ALTERNATE #1
ADDITIVE ALTERNATE #1 CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY (10%)
TOTAL ADDITIVE ALTERNATE #1 COST
TOTAL BASE BID COST
* NOTE: BARK REMOVAL AND TEMPORARY FENCING WORK WILL BE PERFORMED BY CITY OR VOLUNTEERS. PLAYGROUND REPLACEMENT PARTS WILL BE INSTALLED BY THE CITY.
ADDITIVE ALTERNATE #1 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
TOTAL ADDITIVE ALTERNATE #2 COST
The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. WGA has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. WGA cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from the cost presented herein.
BASE BID CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
BASE BID CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY (10%)
ADDITIVE ALTERNATE #2
ADDITIVE ALTERNATE #2 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
ADDITIVE ALTERNATE #2 CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY (10%)
INSTALLATION COST
50 Section 9, Item C.
51 Section 9, Item C.
52 Section 9, Item C.
53 Section 9, Item C.
54 Section 9, Item C.
55 Section 9, Item C.
56 Section 9, Item C.
18 Main St., Sutter Creek, CA 95685 • Telephone: (209)267-5647 • Fax: (209)267-1655 • TTY: 711 The City of Sutter Creek is an equal opportunity service provider and employer ______________________________________________________________________________
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: AUGUST 3, 2026
FROM: TOM DUBOIS, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: CODE ENFORCEMENT STAFFING
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with CSG Consultants to provide code enforcement services.
BACKGROUND: The City of Sutter Creek is seeking professional code enforcement support to maintain community safety and well-being through the fair and efficient resolution of municipal code violations. This support may also include assistance with developing enforcement policies, procedures, and updates to the municipal code. This agreement will be similar to contracts we have for City Attorney and Planning services.
DISCUSSION:
CSG Consultants, Inc. (CSG) is an employee-owned California company founded in 1991 and headquartered in Foster City. For over 35 years, CSG has provided consulting services exclusively to public agencies, which eliminates potential conflicts of interest with private developers. CSG currently furnishes code enforcement, building and safety, and planning services to over 250 municipal clients throughout the western United States.
CSG Consultants submitted a formal proposal dated July 23, 2026, to provide comprehensive code enforcement services tailored to Sutter Creek's specific needs. The proposed team will be led by Lee Holt, Code Enforcement Manager, who brings over 20 years of public agency experience. All work under this contract will be executed solely by CSG staff without the use of subconsultants.
Priority Focus Areas
As noted during initial site visits, the consulting code enforcement officers will focus immediately on three specific problem areas in town[cite: 1, 2]:
● 500 State Highway 49, Sutter Creek - Gas Station and Businesses: Some of these businesses currently have excessive materials stored on their premises that require enforcement attention. ● 76 Main Street: The former site of the Palace / Sutter Greek restaurant is currently an eye-sore in the middle of the downtown tourist district with a large hole in the ground that accumulates water 57 Section 9, Item D.
2 [Type text]
● 300 Hanford, 290 Hanford, 13343 Amador Road, 110 Lincoln ave, 130 Lincoln Ave and surrounding areas: Enforcement efforts will affect the properties located around 300 Hanover.
All three of these properties have excessive stored materials and non-operating vehicles on site.
These conditions are visible to the public and are currently generating community complaints.
TEAM:
Lee Holt, CCEO – Code Enforcement Manager Lee Holt will serve as the primary project manager and Code Enforcement Manager for the Sutter Creek engagement. She brings over 20 years of public agency and special district experience across diverse code enforcement, health and safety, fire, and building services roles. Widely credentialed with CACEO, POST, and State Fire Marshal certifications, her extensive background includes serving as a Fire Fighter for the Vacaville Fire Protection District and a Vector Control Technician for the City of Berkeley. Ms. Holt is recognized for her strategic problemsolving, comprehensive reporting, and ability to foster effective collaboration between city departments, partner agencies, and the public.
Diana Garcia, CCEO – Senior Code Enforcement Officer Diana Garcia is a CACEO-certified Senior Code Enforcement Officer with extensive experience in municipal code enforcement, case management, and legal process coordination. Prior to joining CSG Consultants, she served for 5 years as a Code Enforcement Officer with the Oakdale Police Department and spent 13 years as a Family Services Specialist with Stanislaus County. At CSG, she manages complex enforcement matters, including receiverships for the Town of Woodside and program assessments for the City of Benicia, while delivering collaborative and effective code compliance solutions for local communities.
Thomas Mlady – Code Enforcement Officer II Thomas Mlady is a CACEO-certified Code Enforcement Officer II and a military veteran who brings years of specialized expertise in investigations, surveillance, and security management. Prior to joining CSG, he served as the Safety and Security Manager for the San Joaquin Regional Transit District and managed large overseas operations for the Department of Defense and the Army and Air Force Exchange Services. Holding a Bachelor of Science in Geosciences, Mr. Mlady is adept at handling complex field investigations and is highly regarded by municipal clients for his professionalism, leadership, and the high quality of his work.
CSG’s general approach emphasizes community education and interpersonal engagement to promote voluntary compliance among property owners. When necessary, their officers are fully equipped to conduct thorough site inspections, issue Notices of Violation and Administrative Citations, coordinate property clean-ups or demolitions, and prepare supportive documentation for legal counsel and court appearances.
Services will be billed on an hourly basis according to CSG's proposed fee schedule. The hourly rates are fully inclusive of overhead costs, including salaries, benefits, workers' compensation insurance, travel, mileage, and office expenses:
Personnel Classification Hourly Rate
58 Section 9, Item D.
18 Main St., Sutter Creek, CA 95685 • Telephone: (209)267-5647 • Fax: (209)267-1655 • TTY: 711 The City of Sutter Creek is an equal opportunity service provider and employer Code Enforcement Manager $200
Administrative Hearing Officer $180
Code Enforcement Supervisor $170
Senior Code Enforcement Officer $155
Code Enforcement Officer II $135
Code Enforcement Officer I $115
Overtime services (work performed in excess of 8 hours per day or outside normal business hours) will be billed at 1.5 times the regular hourly rate. Any "on-call" work performed outside of regular assignments carries a four-hour minimum billing requirement.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Contract not to exceed $20,000. These funds are in the budget ATTACHMENT:
● CSG Consultants Proposal for Code Enforcement Services, dated July 23, 2026. 59 Section 9, Item D.
550 Pilgrim Drive
Foster City, CA 94404
650.522.2500 phone
650.522.2599 fax
www.csgengr.com
PROPOSAL TO THE
City of Sutter Creek
FOR
CODE ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
J u l y 2 3 , 2 0 2 6
60 Section 9, Item D.
PROPOSAL FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
TO THE CITY OF SUTTER CREEK
Table of Contents
S E C T I O N 1 Cover Letter 1
S E C T I O N 2 Company Overview 2
S E C T I O N 3 Qualifications of Team 3
S E C T I O N 4 Scope of Work 4
S E C T I O N 5 Experience & References 9
S E C T I O N 6 Fee Schedule 12
S E C T I O N 7 Appendix (Resumes) 13
61 Section 9, Item D.
PROPOSAL FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
TO THE CITY OF SUTTER CREEK
550 Pilgrim Drive, Foster City, CA 94404
phone (650) 522-2500 | fax (650) 522-2509 | www.csgengr.com Cover Letter
July 23, 2026
Tom DuBois
City Manager
City of Sutter Creek
18 Main Street
Sutter Creek, CA 95685
Subject: Proposal for Code Enforcement Services
Dear Mr. DuBois
On behalf of CSG Consultants, Inc. (CSG), thank you for the opportunity to submit our proposal to the City of Sutter Creek (City) for Code Enforcement Services. We understand the City is seeking Code Enforcement support, possibly including assistance with the development of policies, procedures, and updates with of the City’s municipal code. We appreciated the site visits of the three (3) problematic properties, and while code enforcement takes time with due process, these are solvable situations. Having worked in concert with jurisdictions throughout Northern California in a similar capacity, we welcome the opportunity to build a partnership and contribute to the fabric of the Sutter Creek community.
CSG shares a common goal of maintaining community safety and well-being in the City, facilitated by the resolution of code violations in a fair and efficient manner. For more than 35 years (since 1991), CSG has been providing consulting services solely to public agencies throughout the state of California. We currently furnish code enforcement, building and safety, public works, plan check, planning, and fire prevention as well as additional services to over 250 clients throughout the west. Below is a select list of public agencies where CSG has provided code enforcement services:
City of Sonora
City of Angels Camp
City of Patterson
City of Larkspur
City of Hercules
City of San Rafael
City of Campbell
Town of Colma
Town of Loomis
Town of Los Altos Hills
Town of Portola Valley
Town of Woodside
Lee Holt, CCEO, will serve as the primary contact and project manager and will manage the code enforcement staff identified herein. Ms. Holt has over 25 years of public agency experience. Her contact information is as follows:
Lee Holt, CCEO | Code Enforcement Manager
(650) 522-2500 office | (650) 245-7122 cell | [email protected] email Please feel free to contact Ms. Holt with any questions or comments you may have regarding our proposal. Our staff excels at working alongside City staff and residents to promote code compliance that allows communities to remain safe, healthy, and vibrant. We look forward to partnering with the City in this capacity, and to serving the community of Sutter Creek together.
Sincerely,
Cyrus Kianpour, PE, PLS
President, CSG Consultants
SECTION 1
62 Section 9, Item D.
PROPOSAL FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
TO THE CITY OF SUTTER CREEK
2 Company Overview
CSG CONSULTANTS
CSG Consultants, Inc. (CSG) is an employee-owned California company with its headquarters in Foster City, CA. Additional support is available from our other offices in Sacramento, Newman, San Jose, Pleasanton, Paso Robles, and Irvine. Founded in 1991, CSG performs work solely for public agencies, eliminating the potential for conflicts of interest between developers and agencies. In this way, we can focus exclusively on the specific needs of our municipal clients. No subconsultants will be utilized for this work, solely CSG staff.
NAME OF FIRM: CSG Consultants, Inc.
PROJECT MANAGER: Lee Holt | Code Enforcement Manager
(650) 522-2500 phone • (650) 245-7122 mobile | [email protected] email HEADQUARTERS: 550 Pilgrim Drive, Foster City, CA
(650) 522-2500 phone • (650) 522-2599 fax | www.csgengr.com REGIONAL OFFICES: 930 Fresno Street, Newman, CA 95360
2150 River Plaza Drive, Suite #255, Sacramento, CA 95814 3150 Almaden Expressway, Suite #255, San Jose, CA 95118 3875 Hopyard Road, Suite #141, Pleasanton, CA 94588
806 9th Street, Suite 2A, Paso Robles, CA 93446
3240 El Camino Real, Suite #190, Irvine, CA 92602
YEARS IN BUSINESS: 35 • Founded in 1991
OWNERSHIP: Employee-Owned
EMPLOYEES: 350+
TYPE OF BUSINESS: California Corporation • Incorporated June 15, 2000 • Federal ID:
91-2053749
SECTION 2
63 Section 9, Item D.
PROPOSAL FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
TO THE CITY OF SUTTER CREEK
3 Qualifications of Team
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
CSG offers the following staff resources and organizational structure for the City. Lee Holt, CSG’s Code Enforcement Manager, will serve as the point of contact for the City and, in conjunction with the City’s Project Manager(s), will allocate appropriate levels of resources and will ensure that work is comprehensive, accurate, and meets the City’s needs. No subconsultants will be used for this contract.
Resumes with detailed qualifications of proposed key staff members are provided in the appendix.
SECTION 3
CODE ENFORCEMENT
Lee Holt, CCEO
Code Enforcement Manager
City of Sutter Creek
Diana Garcia, CCEO
Senior Code Enforcement Officer
Thomas Mlady
Code Enforcement Officer II
64 Section 9, Item D.
PROPOSAL FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
TO THE CITY OF SUTTER CREEK
4 Scope of Work
THE IMPORTANCE AND ROLE OF CODE ENFORCEMENT
Code enforcement activities are a crucial service to ensure not only public health and safety, but also to enhance economic development throughout a community. Blighted conditions such as graffiti on public and private properties, illegal dumping, vacant lots, overgrown vegetation, deteriorated building exteriors, missing or broken windows and screens, foreclosures, illegal signs, and inoperable vehicles all contribute negatively to a community’s image and promote deterioration. Municipal Code standards that are enforced will ensure that properties remain attractive, inviting, and safe.
Well-kept communities help to maintain or increase values, discourage crime, encourage quality development while preserving the overall quality of life in the community. Additionally,supportive education of community members plays an essential role in a jurisdiction’s ability to self-regulate and reduce program demand.
OUR SKILLS AND APPROACH TO WORK
CSG and its Code Enforcement Officers are driven to provide a high standard of performance and program delivery. In delivery of their services, CSG staff apply knowledge gained from extensive and varied experiences across multiple agencies, with cultural understanding and sensitivities, and technical proficiency gained from certifications including PC 832 (Arrest Search and Seizure), CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design), California Association of Code Enforcement Officers (CACEO), or equivalent. We also achieve efficiencies in service through maintaining computer literacy with software applications including Central Square (TrakIt), Accela, iWorQ, Tyler, Comcate, Microsoft Office Suite, and other code enforcement databases and supportive platforms. Our staff seamlessly integrate with an agency’s code enforcement team, demonstrating professionalism through clear communication, adaptability, motivation, efficiency, and approachability. As part of their normal duties, CSG officers enforce state/local laws; issue Administrative Citations; author reports, can testify at hearings, and perform other duties as may be required.
TAILORED SERVICE AND DELIVERY
CSG’s Code Enforcement team works to align our services with our client agency’s needs and within the legal framework of the jurisdiction and industry. Our focus is to identify and provide the best suited CSG officer(s) for each client’s needs. Our officers all bring flexibility and adaptability along with transferable knowledge from work in a variety of settings. We are known for our team-orientated approach and the ability to seamlessly integrate within a jurisdiction’s framework. We effectively coordinate with agency staff, including Building, Planning, Community Development, Police, Fire, Legal, Finance, as well as partner agencies.
INTERPERSONAL SKILLS AND APPROACH
A significant portion of our work stems from our interactions and education within communities and with individuals. We emphasize education and promote voluntary compliance with all responsible parties and assist in creating pathways and benchmarks for success. Our officers communicate, collaborate, and respectfully interact with staff and the community. We pride ourselves in our approach, by addressing people with respect, integrity, compassion, and from an ethical foundation. While each officer has their own background and style, to be successful in their duties, all team members are articulate, coachable, driven, relatable, and effective.
SECTION 4
65 Section 9, Item D.
PROPOSAL FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
TO THE CITY OF SUTTER CREEK
5 COMPREHENSIVE CODE SOLUTIONS
CSG provides tailored Code Enforcement services to a wide variety of jurisdictions throughout California. Our work includes - development, implementation, and staffing for general and specialized code enforcement programs based on each
community’s specific needs. We also offer program review and code enforcement management services. Our officers maintain accurate records, follow up with stakeholders, and provide effective enforcement to ensure public health and safety. General code enforcement activities include but are not limited to inspections, investigative work, responding to calls for service, preparing and processing all required notifications, and providing appropriate documentation. Our skilled and experienced staff interpret and enforce provisions of the Building, Zoning, Fire, Housing, Nuisance and Property Maintenance, and state and local codes. We also address special issues related to short term rentals, illicit massage, and other identified concerns within the community.
GENERAL CODE ENF ORCEMENT SERVICES
Code Enforcement Officers work to identify violations, engage stakeholders and responsible parties to correct code violations. Examples of violations we address and enforce include:
Building codes
State health & safety codes
Zoning provisions
Public nuisances
Fire codes
Housing codes
Property Maintenance concerns
Other applicable codes
Our skilled and experienced Code Enforcement Officers are adept at delivering multiple aspects of code enforcement. Although a majority of our results are gained by voluntary compliance, our services include a full range of code enforcement activities, including:
Bringing flexibility and transferable knowledge from various jurisdictions We are team oriented and collaborate with staff, partner agencies, and communities Educating the public and stakeholders regarding the regulations and due process Communicate with and encourage individuals to gain voluntary compliance Conducting respectful and thorough site inspections and follow up We complete all required documentation
Utilize administrative remedies including notices of violation and citations Coordination of activities with multiple departments, both internally and externally Preparing staff reports, as well as committee and City Council presentations Coordination with contractors for services such as demolitions, clean-ups, fencing, and emergency boarding.
Provide supportive documentation to legal counsel and make court appearances as necessary Prepare documentation for recovery costs
CSG can review existing code enforcement programs to identify inefficiencies and help update appropriate policies and procedures. This may include possible changes or updates to the code, process management, procedures manuals, or structural realignment to facilitate the mission of the code enforcement unit.
66 Section 9, Item D.
PROPOSAL FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
TO THE CITY OF SUTTER CREEK
6 FOCUSED OR CUSTOM CODE ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
CSG can tailor and provide a vast menu of customizable approaches and service for client agencies. Our team offers assistance in developing and implementing a wide variety of specialized programs aimed at addressing each community’s unique needs. These programs include responding to economic, technological, and environmental influences. We address specific topic related issues and concerns designed for community safety and conformance.
COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR ENHANCEMENT
CSG can support communities with a focus on commercial corridors through education, neighborhood preservation, and beautification. We address issues such as blight, signage, property maintenance, graffiti, and other visually detracting elements of a designated area. Our approach emphasizes building relationships in the community to achieve compliance. We work collaboratively with property and business owners to address violations and any required corrective measures. We can incorporate principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) to address concerns regarding lighting, visibility, and access.
CODE ENFORCEMENT SUPERVISION AND MANAGEMENT
CSG can provide interim staffing to oversee an agency’s code enforcement personnel and day-to-day activities ensuring, for example, that procedures are followed, caseloads are managed effectively and that code enforcement officers work fairly and consistently with property owners and reporting parties. Our personnel are adept at serving as liaisons for code enforcement units when interacting with members of other departments. CSG Code Enforcement Managers may be called upon to attend department meetings, committee meetings and County Council meetings as a code enforcement program progresses. They can also be available to assist code enforcement officers, law enforcement and other County staff as well as representatives of other agencies on field visits when needed.
HOUSING INSPECTIONS
Upon request, CSG will conduct inspections in response to complaints about substandard housing consistent with Health and Safety Code Section 17920. Services could include contacting property owners and tenants, conducting inspections, documenting violations, and monitoring repairs.
67 Section 9, Item D.
PROPOSAL FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
TO THE CITY OF SUTTER CREEK
7 DANGEROUS BUILDINGS AND PUBLIC NUISANCES
CSG will assist the City and support the Building department in administering the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings and Nuisance Chapter of the Municipal Code, including the following services:
Conduct preliminary investigations of conditions of property and make initial contact with tenants and property owners as appropriate;
Prepare courtesy notices and warning letters as appropriate; Conduct inspections and prepare documentation of violations; Prepare inspection warrants if necessary in order to gain access to conduct inspections; Prepare “Compliance Orders” and “Notice and Orders;”
Organize appeal hearings if needed;
Conduct follow-up inspections to monitor compliance with “Compliance Orders” and “Notice and Orders;”
Provide support to legal counsel including preparation of declarations and documentation suitable for submission to Court;
Make Court appearances as necessary; and
Prepare documentation for recovery of costs through administrative penalties and recordation of liens. Appearing as expert witnesses
HEARING OFFICER SERVICES
If requested, CSG will assist the City with an on-call or designated Administrative Hearing Officer providing the following services:
Conducting Administrative Hearings: CSG’s Hearing Officer will preside over administrative hearings and ensure proper conduct during proceedings. CSG’s Hearing Officer will hear all parties and review relevant evidence to determine an unbiased decision and/or recommendation based on the facts presented.
Management of Procedural Issues: This includes ruling on motions, written appeals, and other related evidence. CSG’s Hearing Officer also has the authority to administer oaths, receive testimony, and is committed to upholding due process while facilitating an impartial environment where all parties can fairly present their case.
Records Management: CSG’s Hearing Officer will maintain detailed records of all proceedings, compiling all pertinent documents and evidence. Additionally, a transcript of the proceedings can be provided upon request.
Issuing Decisions: After careful review of the evidence, information, and arguments presented during hearings, CSG’s Hearing Officer will issue a written decision detailing the findings and a subsequent order and/or remedy to be executed.
We have also provided council presentations and updates supporting the impactful work delivered within those communities.
68 Section 9, Item D.
PROPOSAL FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
TO THE CITY OF SUTTER CREEK
8 CODE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
CSG can provide a comprehensive Code Enforcement program assessment that encompasses a thorough evaluation of current practices vs. industry best practices, gathering input from stakeholders and staff, and recommending a service model for the future with optimal departmental placement for the City’s Code Enforcement Division to best serve the community of Sutter Creek.
BEST PRACTICES DESCRIPTION
CSG staff will research and draw from prior experience to deliver a description of best practices for municipal Code Enforcement divisions in comparable cities throughout the state. These best practices include functions that include:
Proactive vs. reactive enforcement methods
Citation and compliance processes and procedures
Community engagement and educational programs
Implementation of technology (case management software, reporting tools, etc.) Staffing models, classification structures, and workload distribution Organizational placement (Police Department, Community Development, standalone divisions, City Manager’s Office, etc.)
STAFF & STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS
Gathering feedback from stakeholders and staff is vital to understanding existing challenges and desired outcomes. This includes interfacing with Code Enforcement staff and supervisors, staff from related departments, members of City management, and any additional stakeholders identified by the City. The collective feedback from these parties will help CSG create an ideal model that suits the City and the greater community.
ORGANIZATIONAL ASSESSMENT & RECOMMENDATION
CSG’s staff have worked alongside and observed a variety of organizational structures for code enforcement divisions, as it’s not uncommon for this department to be housed by Community Development, the Police Department, City Manager’s Office, or even its own standalone division. We understand the City is in a similar situation with its Code Enforcement Division, and can provide guidance on ideal placement. This includes, but is not limited to:
Evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of existing workflows Identifying gaps, redundancies, and opportunities for improvement Examining alternative organizational structures for the Code Enforcement Division After evaluating the information from initial findings, CSG staff would provide at least two model options and one recommended structure for the optimal department placement for Code Enforcement.
Recommendations would be based off CSG’s evaluation of efficiency, effectiveness, inter-departmental collaboration, and community service goals.
DELIVERABLES
Final deliverables would include the following:
Best Practices Summary Report: Detailed, written report summarizing the research findings on industry best practices
Interview Summary & Analysis: Summary of interview findings and feedback, highlighting the common themes, obstacles, challenges, and opportunities (no attribution of individual comments) Final Report & Presentation: CSG will provide the City a comprehensive final report that synthesizes all findings and provides an actionable best practices model for the City. Additionally, an organizational options and organizational placement recommendation that considers implications of implementation, timelines, and resources.
69 Section 9, Item D.
PROPOSAL FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
TO THE CITY OF SUTTER CREEK
9 Experience & References
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
The following is a sampling code enforcement services provided by CSG to demonstrate our capabilities:
GENERAL CODE ENFORCEMENT & STAFF AUGMENTATION | TOWN OF WOODSIDE, CA This is one of many instances where CSG provides a Code Enforcement Officer to support and enforce local ordinances. This includes inspections and investigative work that ensures public health and safety, in addition to resolving other or nuanced complaints and violations. This includes responding to citizen calls for service, documentation, preparing all needed correspondence, maintaining accurate records and followed up with stakeholders. Our highly qualified staff also interpret and enforce provisions of the Municipal Code, including the Zoning, Housing, Building, Nuisance and Property Maintenance codes.
SPECIALTY PROGRAM – “AGED CASES” | CITY OF CAMPBELL, CA CSG has a long-standing relationship working with the City to focus on the management and closure of older cases. Many of these cases have complexities that include incomplete records, multiple changes in ownership, cross-platform violations, and other challenging characteristics. These cases have required the experience of a veteran officer due to the high level of finesse needed to manage non-compliant responsible parties. A significant number of cases required direct coordination with and approval of various departmental City staff. Our officer has coordinated with outside resources (e.g., County agencies), created a new collaborative model and unified partnership with Building and Planning Departments, and represents the Community Development Department as a seamless extension of the City. CSG’s code enforcement officers’ work for the City of Campbell has resulted in a substantial caseload reduction and has been able to successfully close “unsolvable” cases. Through this assignment, CSG has been able to showcase its diversity in problem solving, diplomacy, ability to work with a community, beneficial coordination, organizational approach, supportive documentation abilities, and a capacity to effectively tailor services for communities with distinct needs.
MASSAGE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AND MANAGEMENT, HOUSING INSPECTION, GENERAL CODE ENFORCEMENT | CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, CA
CSG’s Code Enforcement staff has assisted the city in the development and ongoing implementation of its highly successful Massage Inspection Program (MIP). The program provides full administrative services in managing and monitoring all permitted massage businesses in San Rafael, and addressing unpermitted activities. This is done in combination with specialized inspections: initial inspections, annual inspections, compliance inspections, sting operations, and after-hour & weekend inspections.
Additionally, the staff coordinates the following administrative duties on the City’s behalf: new-business intake and certifications, employee registrations (including credential verification), public education, permitting, and issuance of administrative citations. Additionally, we have also provided full-service support for City’s Housing Inspection Program (HIP), Residential Building Record (RBR) program which addresses current property status in resale situations (and addresses unpermitted construction), and general code enforcement support.
SECTION 5
70 Section 9, Item D.
PROPOSAL FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
TO THE CITY OF SUTTER CREEK
10 PROGRAM ASSESSMENT SERVICES | SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CA CSG performed a comprehensive program evaluation to examine processes to improve operational benchmarks and efficiency. This effort included a thorough review of services and interactions with collaborative departments. A formal report encapsulating the findings and recommendations was provided to the agency for reference.
SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROGRAM ENFORCEMENT | COUNTY OF VENTURA, CITIES OF MONTEREY
AND SAUSALITO, CA
CSG provided short-term rental enforcement for the
County of Ventura and City of Sausalito, and has a long and continuing partnership with the City of Monterey
since 2015. Our inspectors specialize in enforcing
short-term rental regulation, as well as proactively
identifying rental properties that are in violation. We have handled a large cases load that requires taking
the appropriate steps through the administrative
process and issuance of administrative citations.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT | CITIES OF LOS BANOS, LIVINGSTON, CA CSG provided Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) sponsored inspection services and assistance, including general code and vehicle abatement support services in the cities of Los Banos and Livingston. Our inspectors effectively specialized in resolving blight and nuisance complaints in these cities by concentrating inspection and nuisance abatement services within the low to moderate income census tracts in block grant cities.
CODE ENFORCEMENT TRAINING OFFICER | CITY OF GUSTINE, CA CSG staff served as a training officer for their code enforcement staff in the City of Gustine. Training of their new officers included municipal code interpretation, inspections, investigations, case management officer safety practices, business licensing, field checks, handling citizen complaints, and exercising safe and sound decision-making at all times.
ACTING CODE ENFORCEMENT SUPERVISOR | CITY OF MODESTO, CA CSG staff served as the interim Code Enforcement Supervisor for their Neighborhood Preservation Unit in the City of Modesto. Duties included assisting with case management, officer training, departmental coordination, officer and case management oversight, assessing and helping improve response times, staff morale, and overall improvement to program functions.
71 Section 9, Item D.
PROPOSAL FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
TO THE CITY OF SUTTER CREEK
11 REFERENCES
CSG has been providing Code Enforcement services since 1991 and currently provides municipal services to more than 250 public agency clients throughout California. Our track record of success with our clients is outstanding and we encourage you to contact our references for additional information about our qualifications. The following is a partial list of references for which CSG has provided similar code enforcement services. Additional references can be provided upon request.
City of Sonora
Tyler Summersett
Community Development Director
94 North Washington Street
Sonora, CA 95370
(209) 532-4541
[email protected]
Code Enforcement Services
City of Larkspur
Andrew J. Mogensen
Community Development Director
400 Magnolia Avenue
Larkspur, CA 94939
(415) 927-6713
[email protected]
Code Enforcement Services
City of Patterson
Alysia Gomez
Code Enforcement Officer
1 Plaza
Patterson, CA 95363
(916) 652-1840
[email protected]
Code Enforcement Services
City of Campbell
Rob Eastwood
Community Development Director
70 N. First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
(408) 866-2140
[email protected]
Code Enforcement Services
City of San Rafael
Hector Carlos
Code Enforcement Supervisor
1400 Fifth Avenue, Top Floor
San Rafael, CA 94901
(415) 458-5337
[email protected]
Code Enforcement Services
City of Hercules
Timothy Rood
Community Development Director
111 Civic Drive
Hercules, CA 94547
(510) 799-8251
[email protected]
Code Enforcement Services
72 Section 9, Item D.
PROPOSAL FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
TO THE CITY OF SUTTER CREEK
12 Fee Schedule
CODE ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
CSG’s fee schedule for its Code Enforcement services is provided in the table below. Our hourly rates cover general overhead expenses such as mileage and most other equipment necessary to execute the job requirements. Final fees are open to negotiation between the City and CSG.
PERSONNEL HOURLY RATE
Code Enforcement Manager $200
Administrative Hearing Officer $180
Code Enforcement Supervisor $170
Senior Code Enforcement Officer $155
Code Enforcement Officer II $135
Code Enforcement Officer I $115
Overtime Rate (in excess of 8 hours per day) 1.5 x Hourly Rate All hourly rates include overhead costs including, but not limited to, salaries, benefits, workers’ compensation insurance, travel and office expenses. Overtime services and services provided outside of normal business hours will be billed at 1.5x the applicable hourly rate. “On Call” work performed outside of any regular assignments, will be billed on a four-hour minimum basis. On the contract anniversary of each year following the contract start year, CSG will initiate a rate increase based on change in CPI for the applicable region. CSG will deliver an invoice every month for services rendered during the previous month.
SECTION 6
73 Section 9, Item D.
PROPOSAL FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
TO THE CITY OF SUTTER CREEK
13 Appendix: Resumes
Resumes for staff have been provided on the following pages for the City’s review.
SECTION 7
74 Section 9, Item D.
14 Lee
LICENSES & CERTIFICATIONS
California Association of Code
Enforcement Officers (CACEO)
Certified Code Enforcement Officer
(Basic, Intermediate, Advanced)
Police Officer Standards Training
(POST):
PC 832 Arrest, Search & Seizure
#2970-80102-15004
PC 832 Firearms Familiarization
#2970-80101-15014
Field Training Officer (FTO)
#2970-31725-18-001
Crime Through Environmental Design
(CPTED) | #2970-31310-17-001
Interview & Interrogation (I&I)
#2970-31445-14004
Drug & Alcohol #2970-20315-15003
Crime Scene & Forensic Photography
#2970-31684-16001
California Law Enforcement
Telecommunications System (CLETS)
California State Fire Marshal (CSFM):
Investigation 1A
Prevention 1A & 1B
Management 1A
Firefighter 1
Command 1A
ICS 200
HazMat FRO Awareness OR 194275
HazMat: Nuclear
Biological Chemical Terrorism
OR167282
HazMat Decontamination OR 167259
Emergency Medical Technician (EMT)
#E041012
Qualified Applicator License (QAL)
(C/F/J Categories) | #115185
EDUCATION
Bachelor of Arts, Liberal
Studies/Biology | CSU Hayward,
Hayward, CA
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
International Code Council (ICC)
American Association of Code
Enforcement (AACE)
California State Fire Association (CSFA)
Former CACEO Region 1 Director
Current CACEO Region 2 Director
Holt CCEO
Code En forcement Program Man ager
Ms. Holt is the Code Enforcement Manager for CSG Consultants and its public agency clients.
Officer Holt has over 20 years of agency and special district experience, serving in a variety of monitoring, code enforcement, health and safety, fire, and building services-related capacities.
Ms. Holt is widely credentialed; an effective team member and collaborator across departments, agencies and the public; developer of clear, concise and accurate reports, and brings a strategic mindset in delivering solutions for clients.
C S G E X P E R I E N C E
Code Enforcement Officer | Multiple CSG Client Agencies Ms. Holt performed comprehensive code enforcement services as well as assisted with targeted programs including vending enforcement, massage ordinance, program review, STR (short-term rental), ordinance enforcement, C4 Storm Water Inspections at commercial and industrial facilities, and often provides council updates and presentations. She has provided code enforcement services the following agencies:
City of Santa Cruz
City of San Rafael
City of Sausalito
City of Seaside
City of Livingston
City of Rocklin
City of Millbrae
City of Half Moon Bay
City of Hercules
City of San Carlos
City of Los Banos
City of Campbell
Town of Loomis
Town of Portola Valley
Town of Colma
County of Marin
County of Ventura
County San Joaquin
Code Enforcement Training Officer | City of Gustine
Ms. Holt served as the training officer for new staff in the City of Gustine.
A D D I T I O N A L R E L A T E D E X P E R I E N C E
Water Operator | Yolo County Flood Control
Ms. Holt served as Water Operator ensuring distribution to growers during irrigation season, including water usage and flow calculation. She was also responsible for maintaining the water system through construction and operating heavy equipment. Other responsibilities included setting up SOP’s for water quality testing and written protocols (e.g., calibration) for water quality sensors and collection.
Fire Fighter | Vacaville Fire Protection District
In addition to responding to fire calls, Ms. Holt assisted in district functions, outreach, recruit training, sponsored events, OES responses; equipment upkeep; and report writing.
Vector Control Technician | City of Berkeley
Ms. Holt’s work included maintaining health and safety conditions within the City as mandated by state/federal laws. This included providing response to calls for service about sewage, rodents, insects, raccoons (and other wildlife), abandoned/inoperable vehicles, vegetation, mold, and other health-related concerns.
Vector Biologist | Alameda County Mosquito Abatement
Ms. Holt increased awareness and coordination between local agencies and related businesses within her assigned zone, through outreach, presentations and education at selected community events, fairs, and schools.
75 Section 9, Item D.
15 Diana
LICENSES & CERTIFICATIONS
California Association of Code
Enforcement Officers (CACEO):
(Basic, Intermediate, Advanced)
CACEO Certified Code Enforcement
Officer | C#68796147
TRAINING
Vegetation & Weed Abatement
|CACEO
Mental Health, Communication, Crisis
Communication |CACEO
Illicit Discharge, Detection, and
Elimination |CACEO
Receiverships |CACEO
Housing Inspection Laws |CACEO
MEHKO’s and Bug Infestations |CACEO
Human Trafficking |CACEO
Building Inspections (parts 1 & 2) |ICC
Collaborative Code Enforcement
Strategies |ICC
Hoarding (A Simple Look, Different
Types, Dangers, and How to Make the
Most Progress) |ICC
ADU’s, Short Term Rentals, Group
Homes, and Sober Living |CIVICA Law
The Latest in Sidewalk Vending Laws
and Enforcement |CIVICA Law
Peace Officer Standards and Training
(POST):
PC 832 Arrest, Search & Seizure
(pending, August 2026)
California Law Enforcement
Telecommunications System (CLETS)
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
California Association of Code
Enforcement Officers
(CACEO)International Code Council (ICC)
Oakdale Sunrise Rotary, President (since
2022)
Oakdale Cycling Events, LLC, Secretary
Garcia CCEO
Senior Code Enforcement Officer
Ms. Garcia is a results-driven, CACEO-certified code enforcement officer with extensive experience in case management and evidence collection. In serving CSG’s client agencies, she also brings familiarity with public agency processes and procedures, well-honed skills in conducting inspections and collaborating with agency departments and is committed to maintaining accurate records and preparing comprehensive reports. Ms. Garcia is also actively in pursuit of her ICC Residential Building Inspector certificate.
CSG EXPERIENCE
Senior Code Enforcement Officer | City of Woodside, CA
Ms. Garcia is currently managing several cases that are going through the receivership process for the Town. She is coordinating with contractors, performing inspections, communicating with the attorneys and all interested parties, and assuring the process is timely and well-managed.
Senior Code Enforcement Officer | City of Pleasant Hill, CA Ms. Garcia recently completed providing As-Needed support to the City. As such, she handled the existing case load, responded to complaints, and coordinated with other city departments, issued notices and assisted property owners in gaining compliance.
Senior Code Enforcement Officer | City of Benicia, CA
Ms. Garcia is helping lead a program assessment and collaborates with city staff.
Additionally, Ms. Garcia has been cross-training in multiple jurisdictions as she expands her experience here at CSG. The following are a few of the CSG client agencies she has represented and trained in:
City of Sonora
Town of Colma
Town of Portola Valley
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
Code Enforcement Officer | City of Oakdale, CA, Public Works & Police Department Ms. Garcia served for 5 years as a Code Enforcement Officer with the Oakdale Police Department, where she enforced local codes and regulations across residential and commercial areas, conducting inspections to identify violations and ensure community safety and compliance, and collaborating with city departments to address community concerns and enhance code enforcement strategies. She prepared detailed reports on code violations and enforcement actions while maintaining accurate records of inspections and enforcement activities. Ms. Garcia also assisted in preparing legal documents supporting regulatory enforcement, including citations and notices of violation.
Family Services Specialist II | County of Stanislaus, CA Prior to her code enforcement career, Ms. Garcia served for 13 years as a Family Services Specialist with the County of Stanislaus, where she completed intake assessments to determine family service needs and evaluated eligibility for county programs while ensuring compliance with applicable laws and regulations. She connected families to essential services through targeted community referrals and educated clients on their rights under local and state child welfare laws. Ms. Garcia ensured compliance with agency regulations and facilitated effective service delivery by maintaining accurate case files. Her duties also included training new staff on family services policies and procedures.
76 Section 9, Item D.
16 Thomas
LICENSES & CERTIFICATIONS
California Association of Code
Enforcement Officers (CACEO):
(Basic, Intermediate, Advanced)
Certified Code Enforcement Officer |
C#74721401
TRAINING
Human Trafficking – Suspicious
Structures | California Association of
Code Enforcement Officers | CACEO
Housing Inspections 101 | GMS
Code Enforcement 101 | GMS
Using Drones in Code Enforcement |
GMS
2023 Legal Updates | GMS
Introduction to Legal Aspects for Code
Enforcement | GMS
Confrontation Management for Code
Enforcement Officers | GMS
Preparing Your Case: Report Writing
and Evidence | GMS
Sidewalk Vending | CIVICA Law
OSHA 30-Hour General Industry Safety
and Health | OSHA
Peace Officer Standards and Training
(POST):
PC 832 Arrest, Search & Seizure
#2970-80102-24-008
California Law Enforcement
Telecommunications System (CLETS)
EDUCATION
BS Degree, Geosciences
Southern New Hampshire University,
Manchester, NH
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
California Association of Code
Enforcement Officers (CACEO)
International Code Council (ICC)
Mlady
Code En forcement Officer II
Mr. Mlady serves as a Code Enforcement Officer II for CSG Consultants. In addition to being a military veteran, he brings years of expertise from his background in safety and security services with the San Joaquin Regional Transit District, Department of Defense, and both the Army and Air Force Exchange Services. Mr. Mlady is adept at various types of investigations, surveillance, and training/management of staff. He has received multiple accolades and is highly regarded by clients and their staff for the quality of his work.
CSG EXPERIENCE
Code Enforcement Officer I | Multiple CSG Client Agencies, CA Mr. Mlady is providing code or has provided enforcement services for the following CSG client agencies:
City of Larkspur
City of Angels Camp
City of Sonora
Town of Portola Valley
Town of Colma
City of Escalon
City of Pleasant Hill
City of Patterson
City of Hercules
Town of Colma
City of San Rafael
Town of Woodside
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
Safety and Security Manager | San Joaquin Regional Transit District, Stockton, CA As the Safety and Security Manager for the San Joaquin Regional Transit District (RTD), Mr.
Mlady’s duties and contributions included the following:
Direct oversight of one subordinate and 16 contracted subordinates across three shifts operating 24 hours per day, 365 days per year, including management of staffing, scheduling, discipline, and performance evaluations of employees and contractors. Managed or directed design and administration of safety and security management, and third-party contracts, programs and services.
Managed security policies and procedures to promote safety and security of personnel and assets.
Cultivated relationships with local law enforcement and external security vendors Investigated and resolved security breaches to protect organization and corporate assets. Investigated incidents and wrote reports.
Monitored and maintained CCTV and access control systems to protect personnel and assets.
Collaborated with senior management to develop and implement strategies to mitigate safety and security risks.
Proposed and managed administration of a broad program of safety and security topics. Delivered regular security awareness programs to educate personnel on security measures and protocols.
Safety and Security Manager | Army and Air Force Exchange Services, French Camp, CA As the overseas Safety and Security Manager for the Army and Air Force Exchange Services, Mr. Mlady’s duties included the following:
Oversaw staffing, scheduling, and overall management of multiple facilities across several countries, with teams of up to 200 personnel.
Provided direct oversight of 14 subordinates across three shifts operating 24 hours per day, 365 days per year.
Conducted OSHA, environmental, and security inspections/surveys. Conducted interviews, obtained written statements, and prepared case reports/files. Acted as a liaison between command, law enforcement, legal, and Exchange management on loss prevention activities.
77 Section 9, Item D.
78 Section 12, Item A.
79 Section 12, Item A.
80 Section 12, Item A.
81 Section 12, Item A.
82 Section 12, Item A.
83 Section 12, Item A.
84 Section 12, Item A.
85 Section 12, Item A.
86 Section 12, Item A.
87 Section 12, Item A.