Turlock City Council
March 25, 2025

6 CITY OF TURLOCK

ABANDONED VEHICLE ABATEMENT PROGRAM

NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL SCHEDULES
FOR THE YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 2023 AND 2022

NOTE 1 – SUMMARY SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)

D. Use of Estimates

The preparation of financial sched ules in conformity with accou nting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estima tes and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets an d liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial schedules and the reported amounts of rev enues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

.

7 INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER

FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS

BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL SCHEDULES PERFORMED IN

ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS

AND THE AVA PROGRAM HANDBOOK

To City Council of the
City of Turlock
Turlock, California

We have audited, in accordance with the auditing standards gene rally accepted in the United States of America; the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; and certain pr ovisions of the Abandoned Vehicle Abatement (AVA) Program Handbook, issued by the California High way Patrol, the accompanying Schedules of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balanc e (Schedules) of the City of Turlock, California, Abandoned Vehicle Abat ement Program (Program) for t he years ended June 30, 2023 and 2022, and the related notes to the financial schedules, which collectively comprise the Program’s financial schedules, and have issued our report thereon dated February 27, 2025.

Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

In planning and performing our audit of the financial schedules , we considered the City of Turlock’s internal control over financial reporting (internal control) re lating to the Program as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial schedules, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City of Turlock’s internal control relating to the Program. Accordin gly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City of Turlock’s internal control relating to the Program.

A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or oper ation of a control does not allo w management or employees, in the normal course of performing the ir assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that the re is a reasonable possi bility that a material misstatement of the Program’s financial schedules will not be p revented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combinati on of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a materi al weakness, yet important eno ugh to merit attention by those charged with governance.

Our consideration of internal c ontrol was for the limited purpo se described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to i dentify all deficiencies in in ternal control that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies. Given these limitations , during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be materia l weaknesses. However, material weaknesses or significant deficiencies may exist that were not identified.

8 Report on Compliance and Other Matters

As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the Pro gram’s financial schedules are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of the City of Turloc k’s compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncomplian ce with which could have a direct and material effect on the financial schedules. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit and, accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards or the AVA Program Handbook.

Purpose of this Report

The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance and results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on t he effectiveness of the City of Turlock’s internal control or on compliance relating to the Program. Thi s report is an integral part of an audit preformed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the City of Turlock’s internal control and compliance relating to the Program. Accordingly, th is report is not suitable for any other purpose.

BROWN ARMSTRONG

ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION

Bakersfield, California
February 27, 2025

To the Honorable Members of the City Council and
Isaac Moreno, Finance Director
City of Turlock
156 S. Broadway, Suite 270
Turlock, California 95380

We have audited the financial schedules of the City of Turlock (the City) Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Program (Program) for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2023 and 2022. Professional standards require that we provide you with information about our responsibilities under auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and Government Auditing Standards , as well as certain information related to the planned scope and timing of our audi t. We have communicated such information in our letter to you dated July 1, 2024. Profession al standards also require that we communicate to you the following information related to our audit.

Significant Audit Matters

Qualitative Aspects of Accounting Practices
Management is responsible for the selection and use of appropri ate accounting policies. The significant accounting policies used by the City are described in Note 1 to the financial statements. During the fiscal years ended June 30, 2023 and 2022, the Program adopted Governm ental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 87, Leases; GASB Statement No. 89, Accounting for Interest Cost Incurred Before the End of a Construction Period; GASB Statement No. 92, Omnibus 2020; GASB Statement No. 93, Replacement of Interbank Offered Rates; GASB Statement No. 97, Certain Component Units Criteria, and Accounting and Financial Reporting for Internal Revenue Code Section 457 Deferred Compensation Plans – an Amendment to GASB Statements No. 14 and No. 84 and a Supersession of GASB Statement No. 32; GASB Statement No. 98, The Annual Comprehensive Financial Report; GASB Statement No. 91, Conduit Debt Obligations; GASB Statement No. 94, Public-Private and Public-Public Partnerships and Availability Payment Arrangements; GASB Statement No. 96, Subscription-Based Information Technology Arrangements (SBITAs); and GASB Statement No. 99, Omnibus 2022. We noted no transactions entered into by the City during the year for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus. All significant transactions have been recognized in the basic financial statements in the proper period.

The financial statement disclosures are neutral, consistent, and clear.

Difficulties Encountered in Performing the Audit

We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with mana gement in performing and completing our audit.

Corrected and Uncorrected Misstatements

Professional standards require u s to accumulate all known and l ikely misstatements identified during the audit, other than those that are clearly trivial, and communica te them to the appropriate level of management. We identified no such misstatements during our audit.

Disagreements with Management
For purposes of this letter, a disagreement with management is a financial accounting, reporting, or auditing matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, t hat could be significant to the basic financial statements or the auditor’s report. We are pleased to report th at no such disagreements arose during the course of our audit.

Management Representations
We have requested certain representations from management that are included in the management representation letter dated February 27, 2025.

Management Consultations with Other Independent Accountants In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and accounting matters, similar to obtaining a “second opinion” on certain sit uations. If a consultation involves application of an accounting principle to the City’s basic financial statem ents or a determination of the type of auditor’s opinion that may be expr essed on those statements, ou r professional standards require the consulting accountant to check with us to determine that the co nsultant has all the relevant facts. To our knowledge, there were no such consultations with other accountants.

Other Audit Findings or Issues
We generally discuss a variety of matters, including the applic ation of accounting principles and auditing standards, with management each year prior to retention as the City’s auditors. However, these discussions occurred in the normal course of our professional r elationship and our responses were not a condition to our retention.

Restriction on Use

This information is intended solely for the information and use of the City Council and Management of the City and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties.

BROWN ARMSTRONG

ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION

Bakersfield, California
February 27, 2025

CITY OF TURLOCK

TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED
JUNE 30, 2023

WITH COMPARATIVE TOTALS

CITY OF TURLOCK

TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2023

WITH COMPARATIVE TOTALS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Independent Auditor’s Report ............................................................................................................ 1

Basic Financial Statements

Balance Sheet – Governmental Fund – Streets Special Revenue Fund ........................................... 4

Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance – Governmental Fund – Streets Special Revenue Fund .................................................................... 5

Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget and Actual – Governmental Fund – Streets Special Revenue Fund ................................... 6

Statement of Net Position – Transportation Enterprise Fund ............................................................ 8

Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Fund Net Position – Transportation Enterprise Fund ....................................................................................................... 9

Statement of Cash Flows – Transportation Enterprise Fund ............................................................. 10

Notes to Financial Statements ........................................................................................................... 11

Other Reports

Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and on Compliance with the Transportation Development Act and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance With Government Auditing Standards ...................................................................................................... 19

Independent Auditor’s Report on Compliance for TDA Program Funds and on Internal Control Over Compliance in Accordance With Sections 6666 and 6667 of the Rules and Regulations of the California Administrative Code in the Transportation Development Act Statutes and Administrative Code for 1987 and the Allocation Instructions and Resolutions of the Stanislaus Council of Governments .......... 21

Schedule of Current Year Findings and Responses .......................................................................... 24

Status of Prior Year Findings and Responses ................................................................................... 25

1 INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT

To the Honorable Members of the City Council
of the City of Turlock
Turlock, California

Report on the Audit of the Financial Statements

Opinions

We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the Tr ansportation Development Act Funds (TDA Funds) which are included in the Streets Special Revenue F und and the Transportation Enterprise Fund of the City of Turlock (City), California, as of and for t he fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively c omprise the TDA Funds’ basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above pres ent fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the TDA Funds as of June 30, 2 023, and the respective changes in financial position, and, where applicable, cash flows thereof, and the respective budgetary comparison for the Streets Special Revenue F und, for the fiscal year then ende d in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Basis for Opinions

We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards ge nerally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contai ned in Government Auditing Standards , issued by the Comptroller Genera l of the United States. Our res ponsibilities under those standards are further described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Aud it of the Financial Statements section of our report. We are required to be independent of the City and to me et our other ethical responsibilities, in accordance with the relevant ethical requirements relating to our audit. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinions.

Emphasis of a Matter

As discussed in Note 1, these fi nancial statements present only the TDA Funds and do not purport to, and do not, present fairly the financial position of the City as of June 30, 2023, the changes in its financial position, or, where applicable, its cash flows for the fiscal y ear then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Our opinion is not modified with respect to this matter.

Responsibilities of Management for the Financial Statements

Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presenta tion of the financial statements in accordance with accounting prin ciples generally accepted in the United States of America, and for the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control rel evant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statem ents that are free from materia l misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.

2 In preparing the financial statements, management is required to evaluate whether there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial dou bt about the TDA Funds’ ability to continue as a going concern for twelve months beyond the financial state ment date, including any currently known information that may raise substantial doubt shortly thereafter.

Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements

Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements as a whole are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, and to issue an auditor’s report that includes our opinions. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance but is not absolute assurance and therefore is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in acc ordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and Government Auditing Standards will always detect a material misstatement when it exists. The risk of not detecting a material misstatement resulting from fraud is higher than for one resulting from error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of internal cont rol. Misstatements are considered material if there is a substantial likelihood that, individually or in t he aggregate, they would influence the judgment made by a reasonable user based on the financial statements.

In performing an audit in accordance with auditing standards ge nerally accepted in the United States of America and Government Auditing Standards, we:

• Exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skept icism throughout the audit. • Identify and assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error, and design and perform audit procedures respons ive to those risks. Such procedures include examining, on a test basis, evidence regardi ng the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.
• Obtain an understanding of internal control relevant to the au dit in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not f or the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control rel ating to the TDA Funds. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed.
• Evaluate the appropriateness of accounting policies used and t he reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluate th e overall presentation of the financial statements.
• Conclude whether, in our judgment, there are conditions or eve nts, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the TDA Funds’ ability to co ntinue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time.

We are required to communicate with those charged with governan ce regarding, among other matters, the planned scope and timing of the audit, significant audit fi ndings, and certain internal control-related matters that we identified during the audit.

Required Supplementary Information

Management has omitted the Managem ent’s Discussion and Analysis , the Schedule of the City Transportation Enterprise Fund’s Proportionate Share of the Cit y’s Net Pension Liability, the Schedule of Pension Contributions, and Schedule of Changes in Total Other P ost-Employment Benefit (OPEB) Liability and Related Ratios that accounting principles general ly accepted in the United States of America require to be presented to supplement the basic financial state ments. Such missing information, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by th e Governmental Accounting Standards Board who considers it to be an essent ial part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. Ou r opinion on the basic financial statements is not affected by this missing information.

Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards

In accordance with Government Auditing Standards , we have also issued our report dated March 19, 2025, on our consideration of the City’s internal control over financial reporting relating to the TDA Funds and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of l aws, regulations, contracts, and grant

3 agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance relati ng to the TDA Funds and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control over financial reporting or on compliance relating to the TDA Funds. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the City’s internal control over financial reporting and compliance relating to the TDA Funds.

Report on Summarized Comparative Information

The financial statements of the TDA Funds as of and for the fis cal year ended June 30, 2022, were audited by other auditors. Those auditors expressed an unmodif ied opinion on those audited financial statements in their report dat ed December 20, 2023. In our opi nion, the summarized comparative information presented herein as of and for the fiscal year ende d June 30, 2022, is consistent in all material respects with the audited financial statements from which it has been derived.

BROWN ARMSTRONG

ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION

Bakersfield, California
March 19, 2025

See accompanying notes to the financial statements.
4 CITY OF TURLOCK

TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS

GOVERNMENTAL FUND

STREETS SPECIAL REVENUE FUND

BALANCE SHEET
JUNE 30, 2023

WITH COMPARATIVE TOTALS

2023 2022
ASSETS
Cash and investments (Note 2) 933,844 $ 667,464 $ Accounts receivable - 7,251
Interest receivable 3,354 -
TOTAL ASSETS 937,198 $ 674,715 $

LIABILITIES
Accounts and salaries payable 5,296 $ 21,417 $ Deposits payable 256 116
Unearned revenue (Note 4) - -
TOTAL LIABILITIES 5,552 21,533
FUND BALANCE (Note 5)
Restricted 931,646 653,182
TOTAL FUND BALANCE 931,646 653,182
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE 937,198$ 674,715 $

See accompanying notes to the financial statements.
5 CITY OF TURLOCK

TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS

GOVERNMENTAL FUND

STREETS SPECIAL REVENUE FUND

STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES,

AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2023

WITH COMPARATIVE TOTALS

2023 2022

REVENUES
Charges for services 40,380 $ 50,487 $
Intergovernmental - 104,791
Interest income and other 10,920 -
TOTAL REVENUES 51,300 155,278

EXPENDITURES
Public ways and facilities/transportation 542,836 643,465 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 542,836 643,465
Deficiency of Revenues under Expenditures (491,536) (488,187)

OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES)
Transfers in from other City funds 770,000 770,000 Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) 770,000 770,000 Net Change in Fund Balance 278,464 281,813
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 653,182 371,369 Fund Balance, End of Year 931,646 $ 653,182 $

See accompanying notes to the financial statements.
6 CITY OF TURLOCK

TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS

GOVERNMENTAL FUND

STREETS SPECIAL REVENUE FUND

STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES,
AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE – BUDGET AND ACTUAL
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2023

Original Final Actual
Variance with
Final Budget

REVENUES
Charges for services 41,200 $ 41,200 $ 40,380 $ (820) $ Intergovernmental 100,000 100,000 - (100,000) Interest income and other - - 10,920 10,920 TOTAL REVENUES 141,200 141,200 51,300 (89,900)

EXPENDITURES
Public ways and facilities/transportation 875,266 875,266 542,836 332,430 Capital outlay 250,000 250,000 - 250,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,125,266 1,125,266 542,836 582,430 Deficiency of revenue under expenditures (984,066) (984,066) (491,536) 492,530

OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES)
Transfers in from other City funds 770,000 770,000 770,000 - Total other financing sources (uses) 770,000 770,000 770,000 - Net change in fund balance (214,066) $ (214,066) $ 278,464 492,530 $ Fund balance, beginning of year 653,182
Fund balance, end of year 931,646 $
Budgeted Amounts

See accompanying notes to the financial statements.
7 CITY OF TURLOCK

TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS

GOVERNMENTAL FUND

STREETS SPECIAL REVENUE FUND

STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES,
AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE – BUDGET AND ACTUAL
COMPARATIVE TOTALS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2022

Original Final Actual
Variance with
Final Budget

REVENUES
Charges for services 37,600 $ 37,600 $ 50,487 $ 12,887 $ Intergovernmental 50,000 50,000 104,791 54,791 Interest income and other 5,000 5,000 - (5,000) TOTAL REVENUES 92,600 92,600 155,278 62,678

EXPENDITURES
Public ways and facilities/transportation 850,550 923,893 643,465 280,428 Capital outlay 60,000 60,000 - 60,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 910,550 983,893 643,465 340,428 Deficiency of revenue under expenditures (817,950) (891,293) (488,187) 403,106

OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES)
Transfers in from other City funds 770,000 770,000 770,000 - Total other financing sources (uses) 770,000 770,000 770,000 - Net change in fund balance (47,950) $ (121,293) $ 281,813 403,106 $ Fund balance, beginning of year 371,369
Fund balance, end of year 653,182 $
Budgeted Amounts

See accompanying notes to the financial statements.
8 CITY OF TURLOCK

TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS

TRANSPORTATION ENTERPRISE FUND

STATEMENT OF NET POSITION
JUNE 30, 2023

WITH COMPARATIVE TOTALS

2023 2022
ASSETS
Current assets:

Cash and investments (Note 2) 915,733 $ 904,933 $ Accounts receivable, grants 5,790,531 4,649,064 Accounts receivable, other 2,945 866
Interest receivable 4,622 1,528
Total Current Assets 6,713,831 5,556,391
Noncurrent assets
Capital assets (Note 3):

Nondepreciable 4,052,289 4,235,782
Depreciable 14,837,149 15,994,593
Total Noncurrent Assets 18,889,438 20,230,375
Total Assets 25,603,269 25,786,766

DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES
Deferred outflows related to pensions (Note 8) 464,865 204,218 Deferred outflows related to OPEB (Note 9) 32,221 36,656 Total Deferred Outflows of Resources 497,086 240,874

LIABILITIES
Current liabilities
Accounts payable and accruals 271,317 943,158 Salaries payable 17,030 17,199
Unearned revenue (Note 4) 5,593,234 3,775,193
Compensated absences - due in one year 16,468 - Total Current Liabilities 5,898,049 4,735,550
Long-term liabilities
Compensated absences 65,874 70,918
Net pension liability (Note 8) 1,504,232 1,025,156 Total OPEB liability (Note 9) 148,313 136,032 Total Long-Term Liabilities 1,718,419 1,232,106 Total Liabilities 7,616,468 5,967,656

DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES
Deferred inflows related to pensions (Note 8) 75,737 406,370 Deferred inflows related to OPEB (Note 9) 212,188 239,028 Total Deferred Inflows of Resources 287,925 645,398 NET POSITION (Note 5)
Net investment in capital assets 18,889,438 20,230,375 Unrestricted (693,476) (815,789)
Total Net Position 18,195,962 $ 19,414,586 $

See accompanying notes to the financial statements.
9 CITY OF TURLOCK

TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS

TRANSPORTATION ENTERPRISE FUND

STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES,

AND CHANGES IN FUND NET POSITION
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2023

WITH COMPARATIVE TOTALS

2023 2022

OPERATING REVENUES
Charges for services 160,951 $ 152,962 $
Other income 22,213 20,353
Total Operating Revenues 183,164 173,315

OPERATING EXPENSES
Salaries, benefits, and insurance 864,502 871,034 Contractual 2,547,519 2,043,599
Supplies and maintenance 404,374 335,847
Utilities 38,090 254,232
Fleet expense 300,694 7,103
Depreciation (Note 3) 1,172,688 1,126,841
Other expenses 158,976 178,985
Total Operating Expenses 5,486,843 4,817,641
Operating Loss (5,303,679) (4,644,326)

NONOPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES)
Operating grants 3,922,939 4,124,939
Loss from retirement of capital assets (223,888) (11,407) Investment income 14,565 6,609
Total Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses) 3,713,616 4,120,141 LOSS BEFORE CAPITAL GRANTS AND TRANSFERS (1,590,063) (524,185) Capital grants 58,217 244,928
Transfers in from other City funds 388,382 88,693 Transfers out to other City funds (75,160) (80,805) Net Capital Grants and Transfers 371,439 252,816 Change in Net Position (1,218,624) (271,369)
Net Position - Beginning 19,414,586 19,685,955
Net Position - Ending 18,195,962 $ 19,414,586 $

See accompanying notes to the financial statements.
10 CITY OF TURLOCK

TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS

TRANSPORTATION ENTERPRISE FUND

STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2023

WITH COMPARATIVE TOTALS

2023 2022

CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES
Receipts from customers 181,085 $ 175,665 $
Payments to suppliers (4,121,494) (2,159,157)
Payments to employees (975,575) (806,225)
Cash Flows from Operating Activities (4,915,984) (2,789,717)

CASH FLOWS FROM NONCAPITAL

FINANCING ACTIVITIES
Transfers in 388,382 88,693
Transfers out (75,160) (80,805)
Intergovernmental receipts - operations 3,922,939 1,122,395 Cash Flows from Noncapital Financing Activities 4,236,161 1,130,283

CASH FLOWS FROM CAPITAL AND RELATED

FINANCING ACTIVITIES
Intergovernmental receipts - capital program 734,791 1,236,978 Purchases of capital assets (55,639) (944,640) Proceeds from sale of capital assets - 45,932 Cash Flows from Capital and Related Financing Activities 679,152 338,270

CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES
Investment income 11,471 7,791
Cash Flows from Investing Activities 11,471 7,791 Net Cash Flows 10,800 (1,313,373)

CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS
Beginning of Year 904,933 2,218,306
End of Year 915,733 $ 904,933 $

RECONCILIATION OF OPERATING LOSS TO CASH FLOWS
FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES:

Operating loss (5,303,679) $ (4,644,326) $
Adjustments to reconcile operating loss to cash flows
from operating activities:

Depreciation 1,172,688 1,126,841
Changes in assets and liabilities:

Accounts receivable (2,079) 2,350
Accountants payable (671,841) 660,609
Salaries payable (169) 7,532
Compensated absences 11,424 25,453
Deferred outflows/inflows and total OPEB liability (112,204) 33,283 Deferred outflows/inflows and net pension liability (10,124) (1,459) Cash Flows from Operating Activities (4,915,984) $ (2,789,717) $

NONCASH TRANSACTIONS
Retirement of capital assets (223,888) $ (57,399) $

11 CITY OF TURLOCK

TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS

NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2023

WITH COMPARATIVE TOTALS

NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

A. The Reporting Entity

The financial statements of the Transportation Development Act (TDA) Funds are intended to present the financial position and changes in financial position and ca sh flows for only those transactions attributable to the Streets Special Revenue Fund and the Transp ortation Enterprise Fund (TDA Funds) administered and disbursed by the City of Turlock, California (City).

The accounting policies of the TDA Funds of the City are in con formity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP) appli cable to governmental units. The Governmental Accounting Standards B oard (GASB) is the accepted standard-setting body for establishing accounting principles. The following is a summary of the more significant accounting policies.

B. Fund Accounting

The operations of the TDA Funds are accounted for in separate s ets of self-balancing accounts that comprise their assets, deferred outflows of resources, liabilit ies, deferred inflows of resources, fund balance or net position, revenues and expenditures or expenses. Governmental resources are allocated to and for individual funds based upon the purpose fo r which they are to be spent and the means by which spending activities are controlled. The TDA Fund s are presented in the accompanying financial statements as follows

Governmental Fund Type

Streets Special Revenue Fund – The Streets Special Revenue Fund is used to account for the City’s share of the TDA allocations that are legally restricted for st reet maintenance and capital improvements.

Proprietary Fund Type

Transportation Enterprise Fund – The Transportation Enterprise Fund is used to account for the operation and management of the City’s transit operations. TDA and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) allocations for transit operations are accounted for in this fund

C. Basis of Accounting and Measurement Focus

Streets Special Revenue Fund

The Streets Special Revenue Fund’s financial statements include a Balance Sheet and a Statement of Revenue, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance. The Spec ial Revenue Fund is accounted for on a spending or current financial resources measurement focus and the modified accrual basis of accounting. Accordingly, only current assets and deferred outflows of resources, and current liabilities and deferred inflows of resource s, are included on the Balance Sheet. The Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance presents increases (r evenues and other financing sources) and decreases (expenditures and other financing uses) in fund balance. Under the modified accrual basis of accounting, rev enues are recognized in the acc ounting period in which they become both measurable and available to finance expenditures of the cu rrent period. Available means collectible within the current period or soon enough thereafter to be used to pay liabilities of the current period. The City’s accrual period is generally 90 days after the fiscal year end. Expenditures are generally recognized under the modified accrual basis of ac counting when the related fund liability is incurred.

12 NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)

C. Basis of Accounting and M easurement Focus (Continued)

Streets Special Revenue Fund (Continued)

The Streets Special Revenue Fund is used to account for the Cit y’s share of the TDA allocations that are legally restricted for street maintenance and projects supp orting bicycle and pedestrian activity adjacent to and on City streets/roads (non-motorized). In addit ion, this fund accounts for user fees collected related to permitted trenching activity and transport ation permits within the City streets/roads and related right-of-way.

Transportation Enterprise Fund

The Transportation Enterprise Fund financial statements include a Statement of Net Position; a Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Fund Net Positi on; and a Statement of Cash Flows.

The Transportation Enterprise Fund is accounted for using the e conomic resources measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting. Accordingly, all ass ets, deferred outflows of resources, liabilities, and deferred inflow s of resources ( whether current or noncurrent) are included on the Statement of Net Position. The Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Change in Fund Net Position presents increases (revenues) and decreases (expenses) in total net position. Under the accrual basis of accounting, revenues are recognized in the period in w hich they are earned while expenses are recognized in the period in which the liability is incurred.

The Transportation Enterprise Fund is used to account for the o peration and management of the City’s transit operations. TDA and FTA allocations for transit operations and capital projects are accounted for in this fund.

Operating revenues in the Transportation Enterprise Fund includ e fare, Measure L Transit, and other revenues generated from the pr imary operations of the fund, exc luding grants. All other revenues, including operating grants, are reported as nonoperating revenu es. Operating expenses are those expenses that are essential to the primary operations of the fu nd. All other expenses are reported as nonoperating expenses

D. Deferred Inflows and De ferred Outflows of Resources

In addition to assets, the statem ent of net position or balance sheet reports a separate section for deferred outflows of resources. This separate financial stateme nt element, deferred outflows of resources, represents a consum ption of net assets or fund balan ce that applies to a future period(s) and so will not be recognized as an outflow of resources (expense/expenditure) until then.

In addition to liabilities, the statement of net position or ba lance sheet reports a separate section for deferred inflows of resources. Th is separate financial statemen t element, deferred inflows of resources, represents an acquisition of net assets or fund bala nce that applies to a future period(s) and so will not be recognized as an inflow of resources (revenue) until that time.

E. Fair Value Measurements

Fair value is defined as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. The City categorizes its fair value measurements within the fair value hierarchy established by GAAP. The fair value hierarchy categorizes the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value into three levels based on the extent to which inputs used in measuring fair value are observable in the market.

13 NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)

E. Fair Value Measurements (Continued)

Level 1 inputs are quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities.

Level 2 inputs are inputs – other than quoted prices included w ithin Level 1 – that are observable for an asset or liability, either directly or indirectly.

Level 3 inputs are unobservable inputs for an asset or liability.

If the fair value of an asset or liability is measured using in puts from more than one level of the fair value hierarchy, the measurement is considered to be based on t he lowest priority level input that is significant to the entire measurement.

F. Cash Equivalents

For purposes of the Statement of Cash Flows, cash equivalents a re defined as investments with original maturities of 90 days or less, which are readily conve rtible to known amounts of cash. The City considers all pooled cash and investments (consisting of c ash and investments and restricted cash and investments) held by the City as cash and cash equival ents because the pool is used essentially as a demand deposit account from the standpoint of the funds. The City also considers all non-pooled cash and investments (c onsisting of funds with fisca l agents) as cash and cash equivalents, because investments meet the criteria for cash equivalents defined above.

G. Use of Estimates

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

NOTE 2 – CASH AND INVESTMENTS

The TDA Funds participate in the City’s cash and investment poo l. The City pools surplus cash from all sources and all funds, except cash with fiscal agents, so that it can be invested at the maximum yield, consistent with safety and liquidity. Investment income is allo cated among funds on the basis of the average month-end cash and investment balances in these funds. As of June 30, 2023 and 2022, the TDA Funds had cash and investment balances of $1,849,577 and $1,572,397, respectively.

Investments Authorized by the California Government Code and the City’s Investment Policy

The City’s Investment Policy and the California Government Code permit the following investments, provided the credit ratings of the issuers are acceptable and approved percentages and maturities are not exceeded. The table below also id entifies certain provisions of the California Government Code, or the Investment Policy if more restrictive, that address interest rate risk, credit risk, and concentration of credit risk.

14 NOTE 2 – CASH AND INVESTMENTS (Continued)

The City’s investment policy authorizes the following investments:

Investments Authorized by the California Government Code and the City’s Investment Policy (Continued)

Minimum Maximum Maximum
Maximum Credit Percentage Investment
Authorized Investment Type Maturity Quality of Portfolio In One Is suer U.S. Treasury Notes, Bonds, and/or Bills 5 years A Unlimited N/A U.S. Government Agency Securities 5 years A Unlimited 25% Negotiable Certificates of Deposit 5 years N/A 30% N/A
Certificates of Deposit 5 years A Unlimited N/A
Bankers' Acceptances 180 days A 40% 30%
Commercial Paper 270 days A-1 or Higher 25% 10%
State of California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) N/A N/A Equal to maximum
limit set by LAIF N/A
Repurchase Agreement 1 year N/A Unlimited N/A
Money Market and Mutual Funds N/A A 20% N/A
Corporate Notes 5 years AA 30% N/A

Fair Value Hierarchy

The TDA Funds categorizes its fair value measurements within th e fair value hierarchy established by GAAP. The hierarchy is based on the valuation inputs used to me asure fair value of the assets. Level 1 inputs are quoted prices in an active market for identical asse ts; Level 2 inputs are significant other observable inputs; and Level 3 inputs are significant unobservable inputs.

The TDA Funds’ investment in the City’s investment pool is not subject to the fair value hierarchy.

NOTE 3 – CAPITAL ASSETS

Capital assets acquired by the Streets Special Revenue Fund are recorded as expenditures in the special revenue fund and capitalized at cost and recorded as part of th e City’s Statement of Net Position in the government-wide financial statements. The costs of infrastructu re (roads, curbs, gutters, streets, bridges, sidewalks, drainage systems, right-of-ways, and land related to such assets) are recorded as expenditures in the special revenue fund and are also capitaliz ed and recorded in the City’s Statement of Net Position in the government-wide financial statements. These infrastructure assets become the property of the City and are maintained by the City.

Capital assets acquired by the Transportation Enterprise Fund a re recorded at cost in the Transportation Enterprise Fund and are depreciated using the straight-line method over estimated useful lives. Operating expenses include depreciation on all depreciable capital assets. Repairs and maintenance are charged to expense when the services are rendered.

City policy has set the capitalization thresholds for reporting capital assets at the following:

General Capital Assets $10,000
Infrastructure Capital Assets 50,000

Depreciation has been provided on a straight-line basis over the following useful lives:

Years
Land Improvements and Infrastructure 25-60
Buildings 30-50
Furniture and Equipment 5-10
Vehicles 5-10

15 NOTE 3 – CAPITAL ASSETS (Continued)

Transportation Enterprise Fund

The following is a summary of capital assets for the Transportation Enterprise Fund at June 30, 2023 and 2022:

June 30, 2022 Additions
Retirements/
Adjustments Transfers June 30, 2023
Capital assets not being depreciated:

Land 3,382,459 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,382,459$ Construction in progress 853,323 40,396 (223,889) - 669,830 Total capital assets not being depreciated: 4,235,782 40,396 (223,889) - 4,052,289 Capital assets being depreciated:

Land Improvements 2,559,491 - - - 2,559,491 Buildings 9,207,507 - - - 9,207,507 Furniture and equipment 1,533,789 - - - 1,533,789 Vehicles 8,204,459 15,244 - - 8,219,703 Infrastructure 231,051 - - - 231,051 Total capital assets being depreciated: 21,736,297 15,244 - - 21,751,541 Less accumulated depreciation for:

Land Improvements (675,169) (86,539) - - (761,708) Buildings (1,458,982) (304,693) - - (1,763,675) Furniture and equipment (812,624) (95,919) - - (908,543) Vehicles (2,768,293) (681,687) - - (3,449,980) Infrastructure (26,636) (3,850) - - (30,486) Total accumulated depreciation (5,741,704) (1,172,688) - - (6,914,392) Net capital assets being depreciated 15,994,593 (1,157,444) - - 14,837,149 Capital assets, net 20,230,375 $ (1,117,048) $ (223,889) $ - $ 18,889,438$

June 30, 2021 Additions
Retirements/
Adjustments Transfers June 30, 2022
Capital assets not being depreciated:

Land 3,382,459 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,382,459$ Construction in progress 565,910 356,485 (32,906) (36,166) 853,323 Total capital assets not being depreciated: 3,948,369 356,485 (32,906) (36,166) 4,235,782 Capital assets being depreciated:

Land Improvements 2,559,491 - - - 2,559,491 Buildings 9,207,507 - - - 9,207,507 Furniture and equipment 1,515,676 - (18,053) 36,166 1,533,789 Vehicles 8,049,042 588,155 (432,738) - 8,204,459 Infrastructure 231,051 - - - 231,051 Total capital assets being depreciated: 21,562,767 588,155 (450,791) 36,166 21,736,297 Less accumulated depreciation for:

Land Improvements (588,631) (86,538) - - (675,169) Buildings (1,152,065) (306,917) - - (1,458,982) Furniture and equipment (735,984) (94,392) 17,752 - (812,624) Vehicles (2,541,756) (635,143) 408,606 - (2,768,293) Infrastructure (22,785) (3,851) - - (26,636) Total accumulated depreciation (5,041,221) (1,126,841) 426,358 - (5,741,704) Net capital assets being depreciated 16,521,546 (538,686) (24,433) 36,166 15,994,593 Capital assets, net 20,469,915 $ (182,201) $ (57,339) $ - $ 20,230,375$

16 NOTE 4 – UNEARNED REVENUE – CAPITAL PROGRAMS

The TDA Funds received grants from the Local Transportation Fund and State Transit Assistance Fund in advance of costs being incurred. As of June 30, 2023 and 2022, unearned revenue related to those programs is as follows:

2023 2022
Transportation Enterprise Fund:

State Transit Assistance and Local Transportation Fund 5,593,234 $ 3,775,193 $

Included in the Transportation Enterprise Fund’s unearned reven ue balance is State of Good Repair (SGR) funding in the amount o f $5,903 and $3,012 for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2023 and 2022, respectively.

NOTE 5 – NET POSITION AND FUND BALANCES

A. Net Position

Net position is the excess of all assets and deferred outflows of resources over all liabilities and deferred inflows of resources. Net position for the TDA Funds i s divided into two captions. These captions apply only to net position, which is determined only f or proprietary funds and at the government-wide level, and are described below:

Net Investment in Capital Assets describes the portion of net position which is represented by the current netbook value of the capital assets, less the outstanding balance of any debt issued to finance these assets.

Restricted describes the portion of net position which is restricted as to use by the terms and conditions of agreements with outside parties, governmental reg ulations, laws, or other restrictions which the City cannot unilaterally alter.

B. Fund Balances

Governmental fund balance represe nts the net current assets of each fund. Net current assets generally represent a fund’s cash, receivables, and deferred ou tflows of resources, less its liabilities and deferred inflows of resources.

The Streets Special Revenue Fund ’s fund balance is classified b ased on spending constraints imposed on the use of resources. The use of the funds accounted for in these statements is restricted by law; therefore, these funds will never have committed or ass igned balances. Each category in the following hierarchy is ranked according to the degree of spending constraint:

Nonspendable represents balances set aside to indicate items do not represe nt available, spendable resources even though they are a component of assets. Assets not expected to be converted to cash, such as prepaids, notes receivable, and property held for resal e are included. However, if proceeds realized from the sale or collection of nonspendable assets are restricted, committed, or assigned, then nonspendable amounts are required to be presented as a component of the applicable category.

Restricted fund balances have external restrictions imposed by creditors, grantors, contributors, laws, regulations, or enabling legislation which requires the resourc es to be used only for a specific purpose. Encumbrances and nonspendable amounts subject to restr ictions are included along with spendable resources.

Committed fund balances have constraints imposed by resolution of the Ci ty Council which may be altered only by formal action of the City Council. Encumbrances and nonspendable amounts subject to council commitments are included along with spendable resources

17 NOTE 5 – NET POSITION AND FUND BALANCES (Continued)

B. Fund Balances Continued)

Assigned fund balances are amounts constrained by the City’s intent to be used for a specific purpose but are neither restricted nor committed. Intent is exp r e s s e d b y t h e C i t y C o u n c i l o r i t s designee and may be changed at the discretion of the City Counc il or its designee, the City Manager.

This category includes encumbrances; nonspendables, when it is the City’s intent to use proceeds or collections for a specific purpose; and residual fund balances, if any, of Special Revenue and Capital Projects which have not been restricted or committed.

Unassigned fund balance represents residual amounts that have not been re stricted, committed, or assigned. This includes the residual General Fund balance and r esidual fund deficits, if any, of other governmental funds.

NOTE 6 – TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT

The State of California established the TDA to provide funds fo r public transportation. The funds are administered by the Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG) . The TDA created a Local Transportation Fund in each county for the transportation purpo ses specified in the Transportation Development Act Statutes and Administrative Code. Revenues of t he Local Transportation Fund are derived from a 1/4 of one percent sales tax rate levied in each county.

NOTE 7 – RISK MANAGEMENT

The TDA Funds are exposed to various risks of loss related to t orts; theft of, damage to, and destruction of assets; and natural disaster. The TDA Funds participate in t he Central San Joaquin Valley Risk Management Authority (CSJVRMA), as a part of the City. The purp ose of CSJVRMA is to spread the adverse effect of losses among the members and to purchase exce ss insurance as a group, thereby reducing its expense. The funds, through cost allocation from t he City, contribute their pro rata share of anticipated losses to pools administered by CSJVRMA. More infor mation regarding the City’s risk management program can be found in the basic financial statements of the City of Turlock.

NOTE 8 – PENSION PLAN

Personnel costs accounted for under TDA and FTA funding include costs associated with the City’s pension benefit plan. The costs attributed to TDA and FTA fundi ng are part of the City’s Miscellaneous Plan, an Agent-Multiple Employer Plan administered by the Calif ornia Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS), and are allocated to the TDA Funds in the sam e manner as they are allocated to other City funds which have personnel expenditures. More information regarding the plan can be found in the basic financial statements for the City of Turlock.

NOTE 9 – OTHER EMPLOYEE BENEFITS

Personnel costs accounted for under TDA and FTA funding include costs associated with the City’s compensated absences and retiree healthcare benefit plans. The costs attributed to TDA and FTA funding are part of the City-wide plans and are allocated to th e TDA Funds in the same manner as they are allocated to other City funds which have personnel expendit ures. More information regarding these plans can be found in the basic financial statements for the City of Turlock.

18 NOTE 10 – MAJOR CONTRACTOR

On November 25, 2017, the City entered into a contract agreemen t with Storer Transit Systems to operate and maintain the DART and BLAST programs. The term is f rom November 25, 2017, to June 30, 2021, with an option to extend fo r an additional two years. In March 2021, the City elected to extend the term of the agreement to June 30, 2023. In May 2023, the City e lected to extend the term of the agreement to June 30, 2025. Storer Transit Systems is paid mont hly based on a fixed fee plus a fee calculated at a fixed rate per vehicle multiplied by the number of service hours. Expenses incurred under this contract amounted to $2,149,275 and $1,607,837 for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2023 and 2022, respectively.

NOTE 11 – CONTINGENT LIABILITIES

The City receives FTA monies for the purchase of buses, constru ction of related main tenance facilities, and for partial funding of its t ransit operations. State and fe deral grants received by the City for specific purposes are subject to review and audit by the grantor agencie s. Such audits could lead to request for reimbursement for expenditures disallowed under the terms of th e grants. The amount, if any, of expenditures that may be disallowed by the granting agencies ca nnot be determined at this time, although the City expects such amounts, if any, to be immaterial.

NOTE 12 – SUBSEQUENT EVENTS

The TDA Funds’ management has evaluated all events and transact ions that occurred after June 30, 2023, and through March 19, 2025, t he date the basic financial statements and accompanying notes to the basic financial statements were available to be issued. Du ring this period, no events or transactions occurred that would require adjustment of the basic financial s tatements or disclosure in the accompanying notes.

19 INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER

FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE

TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT AND OTHER MATTERS BASED

ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED

IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS

To the Honorable Members of the City Council
of the City of Turlock
Turlock, California

We have audited, in accordance with the auditing standards gene rally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contai ned in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the fin ancial statements of the Transportation Development Act Funds (TDA Funds) which are included in the Str eets Special Revenue Fund and the Transportation Enterprise Fund of the City of Turlock (City), C alifornia, as of and for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, and the related notes to the financial statement s, which collectively comprise the TDA Funds’ basic financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated March 19, 2025.

Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statement s, we considered the City’s internal control over financial reporting (internal control) relating to the TDA Funds as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the pu rpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control relating to the TDA Funds. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control relating to the TDA Funds.

A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allo w management or employees, in the normal course of performing the ir assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that the re is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be p revented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combinati on of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important eno ugh to merit attention by those charged with governance.

Our consideration of internal c ontrol was for the limited purpo se described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to i dentify all deficiencies in in ternal control that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies. Given these limitations , during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be materia l weaknesses. However, material weaknesses or significant deficiencies may exist that were not identified.

20 Report on Compliance and Other Matters

As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the TDA Funds’ financial statements are free from material misstatement, we p erformed tests of the City’s co mpliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the financial statements. Our audit was further made to determine that TDA funds allocated to and received by the City were expended in conformance with appl icable statutes, rules, and regulations of the Transportation Development Act and the allocation instru ctions and resolutions of the Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG) as required by Sections 6666 a nd 6667 of Title 21 of the California Code of Regulations. However, providing an opinion on complianc e with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards and which are described in the accompanying Schedule of Finding s and Responses as item TDA2023-01.

City’s Response to Findings

Government Auditing Standards require the auditor to perform limited procedures on the City’s response to the findings identified in our audit and described in the ac companying Schedule of Findings and Responses. The City’s response was not subjected to the other a uditing procedures applied in the audit of the financial statements and, accordingly, we express no opinion on the response.

Purpose of this Report

The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control or on compliance relating to the TDA Funds. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the City’s internal control and compliance relating to the TDA Funds. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purpose.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of S tanCOG, management, City Council, others within the City, and federal awarding agencies and pass-through entities and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified partie s; however, this restriction is not intended to limit the distribution of this report, which is a matter of public record.

BROWN ARMSTRONG

ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION

Bakersfield, California
March 19, 2025

21 INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT ON COMPLIANCE FOR TDA PROGRAM

FUNDS AND ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER COMPLIANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTIONS 6666 AND 6667 OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE

CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE IN THE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT STATUTES AND ADMINISTRATIVE CODE FOR 1987 AND THE ALLOCATION

INSTRUCTIONS AND RESOLUTIONS OF THE STANISLAUS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

To the Honorable Members of the City Council
of the City of Turlock
Turlock, California

Report on Compliance for Transportation Development Act (TDA) Funds

Opinion on Compliance for TDA Funds

We have audited the City of Turlock, California’s (City) Street s Special Revenue Fund and the Transportation Enterprise Fund (TDA Funds) compliance with the types of compliance requirements described in Sections 6666 and 6667 of the Rules and Regulation s of the California Administrative Code in the Transportation Development Act Statutes and Administrati ve Code for 1987 (the Act) and the allocation instructions and resolutions of the Stanislaus Counc il of Governments (StanCOG) that could have a direct and material effect on the TDA Funds for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023.

In our opinion, the TDA Funds complied, in all material respect s, with the types of compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and mat erial effect on the TDA Funds for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023.

Basis for Opinion on the TDA Funds

We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance with auditin g standards generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAS) ; the standards applicable to fi nancial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States ( Government Auditing Standards); the Act; and the allocation instructions and resolutions of StanCOG. Our responsibilities under those standards are further described in the Auditor’s Re sponsibilities for the Audit of Compliance section of our report.

We are required to be independent of the City and to meet our o ther ethical responsibilities, in accordance with relevant ethical requirements relating to our audit. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our opinion on compliance for the TDA Funds. Our audit does not provide a legal determination of the TDA Funds’ compliance with the compliance requirements referred to above.

22 Responsibilities of Management for Compliance

Management is responsible for compliance with the requirements referred to above and for the design, implementation, and maintenance of effective internal control o ver compliance with the requirements of laws, statutes, regulations, rule s, and provisions of contracts or grant agreements applicable to the TDA Funds.

Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance

Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether material noncompliance with the compliance requirements referred to above occurred, whether due to fraud or error, and express an opinion on the TDA Funds’ compliance based on our audit. Reason able assurance is a high level of assurance but is not absolute assurance and therefore is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with GAAS, Government Auditing Standards, requirements of the Act, and the allocation instructions and reso lutions of StanCOG will always detect mate rial noncompliance when it exists. The risk of not detecting material noncompliance resulting from fra ud is higher than for that resulting from error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of internal control. Noncompliance with the compliance requirement s referred to above is considered material if there is a substantial likelihood that, individuall y or in the aggregate, it would influence the judgment made by a reasonable user of the report on compliance about the TDA Funds’ compliance with the requirements of the TDA Funds as a whole.

In performing an audit in accordance with GAAS, Government Auditing Standards, the Act, and the allocation instructions and resolutions of StanCOG, we:

• Exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skept icism throughout the audit. • Identify and assess the risks of material noncompliance, wheth er due to fraud or error, and design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks. Such procedures include examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the TDA Funds’ c ompliance with the compliance requirements referred to above and performing such other proced ures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.
• Obtain an understanding of the Ci ty’s internal control over co mpliance relevant to the audit in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the ci rcumstances and to test and report on internal control over compliance in accordance with the requ irements referred to above, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectivene ss of the City’s internal control over compliance relating to the TDA Funds. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed.

We are required to communicate with those charged with governan ce regarding, among other matters, the planned scope and timing of the audit and any significant d eficiencies and material weaknesses in internal control over compliance that we identified during the audit.

Other Matters

The results of our auditing procedures disclosed instances of n oncompliance which are required to be reported in accordance with the compliance requirements referre d to above and which are described in the accompanying Schedule of Cur rent Year Findings and Response s as item TDA2023-01. Our opinion on the TDA Funds is not modified with respect to these matters.

Government Auditing Standards requires the auditor to perform limited procedures on the City’s response to the noncompliance findings identified in our compliance audi t and described in the accompanying Schedule of Current Year Findings and Responses. The City’s res ponse was not subjected to the auditing
procedures applied in the audit of compliance and, accordingly, we express no opinion on the response.

23 Report on Internal Control Over Compliance

A deficiency in internal control over compliance exists when th e design or operation of a control over compliance does not allow management or employees, in the norma l course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, noncompliance wit h a type of compliance requirement of the TDA Funds on a timely basis. A m aterial weakness in internal co ntrol over compliance is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over complia nce, such that there is a reasonable possibility that material noncompliance with a type of complian ce requirement of the TDA Funds will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. A significant deficiency in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, i n internal control over compliance with a type of compliance requirement of the TDA Funds that is less severe than a material weakness in internal control over compliance, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.

Our consideration of internal cont rol over compliance was for t he limited purpose described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for t he Audit of Compliance section above and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over compliance that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in internal control over compliance. Given these l imitations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over compliance t hat we consider to be material weaknesses, as defined above. However, material weaknesses or significant d eficiencies in internal control over compliance may exist that were not identified.

Our audit was not designed for the purpose of expressing an opi nion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed.

Purpose of this Report

The purpose of this report on internal control over compliance is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over compliance and the results of that testing based on the requirements of the Act and the allocation instructions and resolutions of StanCOG. Accordingly, this report is not suitable for any other purpose.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of S tanCOG, management, City Council, others within the City, and federal awarding agencies and pass-through entities and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties ; however, this restriction is not intended to limit the distribution of this report, which is a matter of public record.

BROWN ARMSTRONG

ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION

Bakersfield, California
March 19, 2025

24 CITY OF TURLOCK

TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS

SCHEDULE OF CURRENT YEAR FINDINGS AND RESPONSES
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2023

TDA2023-01 – Late Filing of Required Financial Reports

Criteria: The Transportation Development Act (TDA) Funds are subject to a nnual reporting requirements as follows:

• California Code of Regulations (CCR) § 6663, Entities Responsible for Fiscal and Performance Audits of Claimants, requires that a copy of the annual audit report to the State Controller.

• CCR § 6664, Fiscal and Compliance Audits of All Claimants, requ ires that in accordance with Public Utilities Code Section 99245, the annual audit report be submitted within 180 days after the end of the fiscal year, except that the Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG) may grant an extension of up to 90 days as it deems necessary.

• CCR § 6665, State Controller Re ports, requires that the annual Streets Report be filed with the State Controller on or before October 1 or within 90 days after the close of the fiscal year.

Condition: Although the City of Turlock (the City) received an extension f rom StanCOG moving the reporting deadline to March 31, 2024, the annual audit report w as not filed with StanCOG until 2025. City staff cannot find documentation of when the report was filed with the State Controller’s Office. In addition, the 2023 annual Streets Report was not filed with the State Controller’s Office before its due date.

Cause: We understand that staff turnover led to delays in the general ledger closing process, which impacted the timely filing of the reports.

Effect: The City is not in compliance with the annual reporting require ments of the California Code of Regulations for the TDA Funds.

Recommendation: The City should develop procedures to ensure the annual audit r eport and annual Streets Report are filed with S tanCOG and the State Controller’ s Office prior to the annual reporting deadlines.

Management’s Response: Management acknowledges the auditor’s finding and in order to address the issue, management has developed an estimated timeline to get th e City of Turlock’s Financial Reporting completed and up to date for remaining outstanding reporting cycles of the TDA:

• The Fiscal Year 2022-2023 report is estimated to be completed b y the end of March 2025, per the auditor’s stated current availability and estimated date of com pletion. However, the City of Turlock is prepared to start sooner on the audit should the auditor become available sooner.

• The Fiscal Year 2023-2024 report is estimated to be completed b y the end of November 2025, pending the auditor’s availability.

The City is expected to submit its Fiscal Year 2024-2025 report prior to the required submission deadline.

25 CITY OF TURLOCK

TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS

STATUS OF PRIOR YEAR FINDINGS AND RESPONSES
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2023

TDA2022-01 – Late Filing of Required Financial Reports

Criteria: The Transportation Development Act (TDA) Funds are subject to a nnual reporting requirements as follows:

• California Code of Regulations (CCR) § 6663, Entities Responsible for Fiscal and Performance Audits of Claimants, requires that a copy of the annual audit report to the State Controller.

• CCR § 6664, Fiscal and Compliance Audits of All Claimants, requ ires that in accordance with Public Utilities Code Section 99245, the annual audit report be submitted within 180 days after the end of the fiscal year, except that the Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG) may grant an extension of up to 90 days as it deems necessary.

• CCR § 6665, State Controller Re ports, requires that the annual Streets Report be filed with the State Controller on or before October 1 or within 90 days after the close of the fiscal year.

Condition: Although the City of Turlock (the City) received an extension f rom StanCOG moving the reporting deadline to March 31, 2022, the annual audit report w as not filed with StanCOG until May 26, 2022. City staff cannot find documentation of when the report w as filed with the State Controller’s Office.

In addition, the annual Streets Report was not filed with the S tate Controller’s Office until December 1, 2022.

Cause: We understand that staff turnover led to delays in the general ledger closing process, which impacted the timely filing of the reports.

Effect: The City is not in compliance with the annual reporting require ments of the California Code of Regulations for the TDA Funds.

Recommendation: The City should develop procedures to ensure the annual audit r eport and annual Streets Report are filed with S tanCOG and the State Controller’ s Office prior to the annual reporting deadlines.

Management’s Response: Management acknowledges the auditor’s finding and in order to address the issue, management has developed an estimated timeline to get th e City of Turlock’s Financial Reporting completed and up to date for remaining outstanding reporting cycles of the TDA:

• The Fiscal Year 2022-2023 report is estimated to be completed b y the end of May 2024, per the auditor’s stated current availability and estimated date of com pletion. However, the City of Turlock is prepared to start sooner on the audit should the auditor become available sooner.

• The Fiscal Year 2023-2024 report is estimated to be completed b y the end of November 2024, pending the auditor’s availability.

This will have the City of Turlock submitting their Fiscal Year 2023-2024 report prior to the required submission deadline.

Current Year Status: See finding TDA2023-01.

To the Honorable Members of the City Council
of the City of Turlock
Turlock, California

We have audited the basic financial statements of the Transport ation Development Act (TDA) Funds which are included in the Street Special Revenue Fund and the T ransportation Enterprise Fund of the City of Turlock, California (the City), for the fiscal year end ed June 30, 2023. Professional standards require that we provide you with information about our responsi bilities under auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and Government Auditing Standards , as well as certain information related to the planned scope and timing of our audi t. We have communicated such information in our letter to you dated July 1, 2024. Profession al standards also require that we communicate to you the following information related to our audit.

Significant Audit Matters

Qualitative Aspects of Accounting Practices

Management is responsible for the selection and use of appropri ate accounting policies. The significant accounting policies used by the City are described in Note 1 to the financial statements. The City adopted Governmental Accounting Standards B oard (GASB) Statement No. 91 , Conduit Debt Obligations; GASB Statement No. 94, Public-Private and Public-Public Partnerships and Availability Payment Arrangements; GASB Statement No. 96, Subscription-Based Information Technology Arrangements (SBITAs); and GASB Statement No. 99, Omnibus 2022, during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted no transactions entered into by the City during the fiscal year fo r which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus. All signifi cant transactions have been r ecognized in the basic financial statements in the proper period.

Accounting estimates are an integral part of the basic financia l statements prepared by management and are based on management’s knowledge and experience about past a nd current events and assumptions about future events. Certain acc ounting estimates are particula rly sensitive because of their significance to the basic financial statement s and because of the possibilit y that future events affecting them may differ significantly from those expected. The most sensitive es timates affecting the TDA Funds’ basic financial statements were:

Management’s estimates used in establishing the fair value for investments, the useful lives of capital assets, the accrued compensated absences, the self-insu rance liability, the net pension liability and related deferred outflows and inflows of resource s, the net other post-employment benefit liabilities and related deferred outflows and inflows of resources, and discount rate for the purpose of calculating the right -to-use lease and SBITA assets and the related liabilities. We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop these estimates in determining that they are reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole.

The financial statement disclosures are neutral, consistent, and clear.

Difficulties Encountered in Performing the Audit
We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with mana gement in performing and completing our audit.

Corrected and Uncorrected Misstatements
Professional standards require u s to accumulate all known and l ikely misstatements identified during the audit, other than those that are clearly trivial, and communica te them to the appropriate level of management. No such misstatements were identified.

Disagreements with Management
For purposes of this letter, a disagreement with management is a financial accounting, reporting, or auditing matter, whether or not res olved to our satisfaction, t hat could be significant to the basic financial statements or the auditor’s report. We are pleased to report th at no such disagreements arose during the course of our audit.

Management Representations
We have requested certain representations from management that are included in the management representation letter dated March 19, 2025.

Management Consultations with Other Independent Accountants

In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and accounting matters, similar to obtaining a “second opinion” on certain sit uations. If a consultation involves application of an accounting principle to the TDA Funds’ basic financial st atements or a determination of the type of auditor’s opinion that may be expr essed on those statements, ou r professional standards require the consulting accountant to check with us to determine that the co nsultant has all the relevant facts. To our knowledge, there were no such consultations with other accountants.

Other Audit Findings or Issues

We generally discuss a variety of matters, including the applic ation of accounting principles and auditing standards, with management each year prior to retention as the City’s auditors. However, these discussions occurred in the normal course of our professional r elationship and our responses were not a condition to our retention.

Restriction on Use

This information is intended solely for the information and use of the City Council and management of the City and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties.

BROWN ARMSTRONG

ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION

Bakersfield, California
March 19, 2025

City Council Staff Report
March 25, 2025

From: Christopher Fisher, Municipal Services Director
Prepared by: Fred Pezeshk, P.E., Roads Program Manager
Agendized by: Reagan M. Wilson, City Manager

1. ACTION RECOMMENDED:

Resolution: Approving Amendment No. 8 for Task Order No. 5 under the terms of the Master Agreement (City Contract No. 2023-109) with Mark Thomas & Company, Inc. (Sacramento, California office) for Engineering Design Services for the City of Turlock’s Roads Initiative Program in the amount of $997,195.00 to be funded by Fund 115 “Measure A – Roads” under City Project No. 25-023 “Mark Thomas Task Order No. 5 for Roads Program CIP Projects,” and authorizing staff to proceed with advertising for construction of said City Project upon completion of bid documents

Resolution: Approving Amendment No. 3 for Task Order No. 3 under the terms of the Master Agreement (City Contract No. 2023-110) with Provost & Pritchard Engineering Group, Inc. dba Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group (Clovis, California office) for Engineering Design Services for the City of Turlock’s Roads Initiative Program in the amount of $1,105,475.40 to be funded by Fund 115 “Measure A – Roads” under City Project No. 25-024 “Provost & Pritchard Task Order No. 3 for Roads Program CIP Projects,” and authorizing staff to proceed with advertising for construction of said City Project upon completion of bid documents

Resolution: Approving Amendment No. 4 for Task Order No. 4 under the terms of the Master Agreement (City Contract No. 2023-110) with Provost & Pritchard Engineering Group, Inc. dba Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group (Clovis, California office) for Engineering Design Services for the City of Turlock’s Roads Initiative Program in the amount of $647,779.27 to be funded by Fund 115 “Measure A – Roads” under City Project No. 25-025 “Provost & Pritchard Task Order No. 4 for Roads Program CIP Projects,” and authorizing staff to proceed with advertising for construction of said City Project upon completion of bid documents

Resolution: Approving Amendment No. 3 for Task Order No. 3 under the terms of the Master Agreement (City Contract No. 2023-111) with Siegfried Engineering, Inc. (Stockton, California office) for Engineering Design Services for the City of Turlock’s Roads Initiative Program in the amount of $993,397.92 to be funded by Fund 115 “Measure A – Roads” under City Project No. 25-026 “Siegfried Task Order No. 3 for Roads Program CIP Projects,” and authorizing staff to proceed with advertising for construction of said City Project upon completion of bid documents

Resolution: Appropriating $1,300,000 from unallocated reserves to account number 115- 10-115.43366_001 “Design Roads” to provide sufficient funding through the remainder of fiscal year for the Roads Program projects

2. DISCUSSION OF ISSUE:

Agenda Staff Report
3/25/2025

The Master Agreements between the City of Turlock and each of the three professional consultants — Mark Thomas & Company, Inc. (City Contract No. 2023-109), Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group (City Contract No. 2023-110), and Siegfried Engineering, Inc. (City Contract No. 2023-111) — stipulate that the scope of services and fees associated with specific projects will be agreed upon through task orders approved under the terms of each Master Agreement.

Staff has identified the following street sections as logical groupings for design, identified by their respective task orders.

City Project No. 25-023
"Mark Thomas Task Order No. 5 for Roads Program CIP Projects" Street
Name
From To PCI Length
(ft)
District
Dels Ln. N. Golden State
Blvd.

W. Hawkeye
Ave.
17 581.00 4
W. Hawkeye
Ave.

Pedras Rd. 3 1,305.00 4
Pedras Rd. W. Tuolumne
Rd.
0 1,340.00 4
W. Tuolumne
Rd.

Georgetown
Ave.
0 1,329.00 4
Georgetown
Ave.

Seaborg St. 0 679.00 4
Seaborg St. Waves End Wy. 91 187.00 4
Waves End Wy. W. Monte Vista
Ave.
82 443.00 4
Fenn Ct. East End Dels Ln. 45 194.00 4
Pomona Ct. East End Dels Ln. 29 184.00 4
Humbolt Ct. East End Dels Ln. 56 174.00 4
Berea Ct. East End Dels Ln. 41 171.00 4
Seaborg St. Dels Ln. Waves End Wy. 72 144.00 4
Waves End Wy. Andre Ln. 8 888.00 4
Total Length 7,619.00

City Project No. 25-024
"Provost & Pritchard Task Order No. 3 for Roads Program CIP Projects" Street Name From To PCI

Length
(ft)
District
N. Olive Ave. E. Minnesota
Ave.

Tornell Ave. 23 436.00 3
Tornell Ave. E. Monte Vista
Ave.
13 1,581.00 3

Agenda Staff Report
3/25/2025

E. Monte Vista
Ave.

Hartwick Ave. 0 1,014.00 3
Hartwick Ave. Bennigton Ave. 46 1,112.00 3
Bennigton
Ave.

Christoffersen
Pkwy.
81 584.00 3
Bennington
Ave.

Fosberg Rd. N. Olive Ave. 79 1,344.00 3
Salem Wy. Fullerton Dr. Bennington Ave. 47 361.00 3
Fullerton Dr. Fosberg Rd. N. Olive Ave. 80 1,311.00 3
Hood Ct. Fullerton Dr. North End 5 164.00 3
Cornell Dr. Fosberg Rd. Menlo Dr. 32 1,036.00 3
Avery Ct. South End Cornell Dr. 86 154.00 3
Santos St. Hillsdale Dr. Cornell Dr. 44 305.00 3
Menlo Dr. Fullerton Dr. South End 39 430.00 3
Hillsdale Dr. Fosberg Rd. N. Olive Ave. 35 1,270.00 3
Santos Ct. South End Hillsdale Dr. 88 374.00 3
Vanderbilt
Ave.

Newcomb
Ave.

Hillsdale Dr. 44 909.00 3
Stanley Ave. Newcomb
Ave.

Hillsdale Dr. 52 918.00 3
Newcomb
Ave.

Vanderbilt
Ave.

N. Olive Ave. 41 483.00 3
Tulane Wy. Fosberg Rd. Radcliffe Wy. 86 502.00 3
Radcliffe Wy. E. Monte Vista
Ave.

Tulane Wy. 46 548.00 3
Potomac
Ave.

N. Olive Ave. Colorado Ave. 67 1,333.00 3
Gary St. N. Olive Ave. Richard St. 78 512.00 3
Richard St. Gary St. Potomac Ave. 70 269.00 3
Colorado
Ave.

Hartwick Ave. 3371 Colorado
Ave.
43 243.00 3
N. Berkeley
Ave.

E. Monte Vista
Ave.

Chandler Dr. 78 1,673.00 3
Ashland Ct. N. Olive Ave. East End 68 617.00 3
Villanova Dr. Roanoke Ct. Fosberg Rd. 43 482.00 3
Roanoke Ct. South End Villanova Dr. 65 243.00 3
Villanova Dr. North End 56 239.00 3
Glenville Ct. Villanova Dr. North End 23 233.00 3
Rochester Ct. South End Villanova Dr. 26 246.00 3
Total Length 20,926.00

Agenda Staff Report
3/25/2025

City Project No. 25-025
"Provost & Pritchard Task Order No. 4 for Roads Program CIP Projects" Street Name From To PCI Length
(ft)
District
E. Linwood
Ave.

Lander Ave. Baywood Ln. 32 1,221.00 2
Baywood Ln. Wagner Dr. 6 939.00 2
Wagner Dr. Amberwood
Ave.
0 407.00 2
Amberwood
Ave.
5th St. 43 1,207.00 2
5th St. Crusher Ave. 23 564.00 2
Crusher Ave. County Line 0 330.00 2
Rosewood
Dr.

Lander Ave. Baywood Ln. 57 1,151.00 2
Baywood Ln. E. Linwood
Ave.
1785 Baywood
Ln.
47 614.00 2
5th St. E. Linwood
Ave.

Donegal Ct. 7 449.00 2
Donegal Ct. Lacy Wy. 8 1,178.00 2
Lacy Wy. Sylva St. 14 849.00 2
Sylva St. W. F St. 5 1,117.00 2
Rockwood
Ave.
5th St. 9th St. 23 1,492.00 2
Total Length 11,518.00

City Project No. 25-026
"Siegfried Task Order No. 3 for Roads Program CIP Projects" Street Name From To PCI

Length
(ft)
District
N. Broadway
Ave.

W. Olive Ave. W. Main St. 62 380.00 2
W. Olive Ave. Florence St. 83 554.00 2
Florence St. Orchard St. 33 1,118.00 2
Orchard St. W. Canal Dr. 37 1,407.00 2
Orchard St. N. 1st St. SW End 13 544.00 2
Race St. S. Thor St. Minaret Ave. 37 321.00 1
Mill St. S. Center St. S. Thor St. 0 338.00 1
S. Thor St. S. Palm St. 24 374.00 1
S. Palm St. Minaret Ave. 41 269.00 1
Bel Air Ct. N. Palm St. East End 0 518.00 1
West End N. Palm St. 19 194.00 1
Alpha Rd. East Ave. E. F St. 28 613.00 1

Agenda Staff Report
3/25/2025

E. F St. Cottonwood St. 63 859.00 1
Cottonwood St. S. Berkeley
Ave.
79 1,418.00 1
S. Rose St. Alfreda St. S. Berkeley
Ave.
10 941.00 1
Cottonwood St. Alfreda St. 29 800.00 1
E. F St. Cottonwood St. 27 859.00 1
Rose St. E. F St. 37 823.00 1
S. Minaret
Ave.

Minerva St. E. F St. 21 1,115.00 1
E. F St. Cottonwood St. 9 856.00 1
Cottonwood St. Alfreda St. 19 804.00 1
Alfreda St. Little St. 0 1,164.00 1
Cottonwood
St.

S. Minaret Ave. Alpha Rd. 23 558.00 1
Alfreda St. S. Minaret Ave. Alpha Rd. 10 587.00 1
Little St. S. Minaret Ave. S. Berkeley
Ave.
49 157.00 1
Minerva St. S. Golden
State Blvd.

S. Center St. 0 325.00 1
S. Center St. Minaret Ave. 0 459.00 1
Chestnut St.

N. Soderquist
Rd.

Grant Ave. 62 1,968.00 2

Grant Ave. N. Broadway
Ave.
53 266.00 2

N. Broadway
Ave. N. 1st St.
8 384.00 2
Total Length 20,973.00

The proposed amendments provide the scope of services, associated fees, and schedule for each specific project.

In general, each consultant’s proposed scope of services includes pavement cores and soil sampling; pavement design; supplemental surveys; utility coordination; preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) package; assistance during the bidding phase; and design assistance during construction.

Given the number of street sections, it is anticipated that the design of the bid packages will be completed in 2025 and 2026. Bid packages will then be advertised as they are completed, with due consideration given to the funding levels and availability of contractors, for construction through 2028.

The total construction cost for each grouping of street sections is roughly estimated to range as follows:

1. City Project No. 25-023 “Mark Thomas Task Order No. 5 for Roads Program CIP

Agenda Staff Report
3/25/2025

Projects”: between $9 million and $10 million

2. City Project No. 25-024 “Provost & Pritchard Task Order No. 3 for Roads Program CIP Projects”: between $7.4 million and $9.4 million

3. City Project No. 25-025 “Provost & Pritchard Task Order No. 4 for Roads Program CIP Projects”: between $3.6 million and $5.6 million

4. City Project No. 25-026 “Siegfried Task Order No. 3 for Roads Program CIP Projects”: between $13 million and $15 million

Per Resolution 2009-247, authorization from City Council is required prior to proceeding with bid advertising for “all capital improvement projects with a construction and project management estimate of greater than $1,000,000.” If staff waits for design to be completed before asking Council for authorization to bid, the project schedule will be delayed by 4-6 weeks and will significantly delay the start of construction. Therefore, staff requests that the Council authorize staff to proceed with advertising these projects for construction upon completion of the bid documents.

3. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:

A. The proposed Amendments are essential to ensuring that adequate resources are available for advancing the design and future construction of Roads Program CIP projects
B. Per Municipal Code Section 2-7-10, cumulative contract amendments that exceed 10% of the contract price require approval by the City Council.

C. Authorizing staff to proceed with advertising for construction, upon completion of bid documents, will avoid significant delays to the start of construction.

D. This action is consistent with Council’s stated goal of utilizing Measure A revenues to expedite road repair projects.

4. FISCAL IMPACT / BUDGET AMENDMENT:

The fiscal impact of the proposed actions to the City’s budget (Fund 115 “Measure A – Roads,” account number 115-10-115.43366_001 “Design Roads”) is as follows:

1. Mark Thomas & Company, Inc. – Amendment No. 8 for Task Order No. 5 for City Contract 2023-109: $997,195.00

2. Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group – Amendment No. 3 for Task Order No. 3 for City Contract 2023-110: $1,105,475.40

3. Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group – Amendment No. 4 for Task Order No. 4 for City Contract 2023-110: $647,779.27

4. Siegfried Engineering, Inc. – Amendment No. 3 for Task Order No. 3 for City Contract 2023-111: $993,397.92

An appropriation from Fund 115 “Measure A – Roads Program” in the amount of $1,300,000 from unallocated reserves to account number 115-10-115.43366_001 “Design Roads” is needed to provide sufficient funding through the remainder of this fiscal year for

Agenda Staff Report
3/25/2025

the Roads Program projects.

5. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Recommend approval.

6. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:

Recommend approval.

7. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Approving the amendments to the task orders described above will not have a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Therefore, the proposed action is not subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Section 15378 (Project) because it consists of “organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment” and therefore is not considered a project.

8. ALTERNATIVES:

A. Council could choose not to approve Amendment No. 8 to the Master Agreement with Mark Thomas & Company, Inc. Staff does not recommend this alternative as it will delay the process of design and construction of Roads Program CIP projects.

B. Council could choose not to approve Amendment No. 3 to the Master Agreement with Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group. Staff does not recommend this alternative as it will delay the process of design and construction of Roads Program CIP projects.

C. Council could choose not to approve Amendment No. 4 to the Master Agreement with Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group. Staff does not recommend this alternative as it will delay the process of design and construction of Roads Program CIP projects.

D. Council could choose not to approve Amendment No. 3 to the Master Agreement with Siegfried Engineering, Inc. Staff does not recommend this alternative as it will delay the process of design and construction of Roads Program CIP projects.

E. Council could choose not to approve authorizing staff to proceed with advertising these projects for construction upon completion of bid documents. Staff does not recommend this alternative as it will extend each project schedule by several weeks, delaying the start of construction and the eventual completion of the project.

F. Provide staff with direction on how to proceed.

9. ATTACHMENTS:

1. Draft Resolution - Amendment No. 8 for Task Order No. 5 (City Contract No. 2023- 109) with Mark Thomas & Company

2. Draft Resolution - Amendment No. 3 for Task Order No. 3 (City Contract No. 2023- 110) with Provost & Pritchard

3. Draft Resolution - Amendment No. 4 for Task Order No. 4 (City Contract No. 2023- 110) with Provost & Pritchard

4. Draft Resolution - Amendment No. 3 for Task Order No. 3 (City Contract No. 2023- 111) with Siegfried Engineering

Agenda Staff Report
3/25/2025

5. Draft Resolution - Appropriating $1,300,000 from unallocated reserves to account number 115-10-115.43366_001 “Design Roads”

6. Amendment No. 8 for Task Order No. 5 under the terms of the Master Agreement (City Contract No. 2023-109) with Mark Thomas & Company, Inc.

7. Amendment No. 3 for Task Order No. 3 under the terms of the Master Agreement (City Contract No. 2023-110) with Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group

8. Amendment No. 4 for Task Order No. 4 under the terms of the Master Agreement (City Contract No. 2023-110) with Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group

9. Amendment No. 3 for Task Order No. 3 under the terms of the Master Agreement (City Contract No. 2023-111) with Siegfried Engineering, Inc.

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TURLOCK
IN THE MATTER OF APPROVING AMENDMENT } RESOLUTION NO. 2025- NO. 8 FOR TASK ORDER NO. 5 UNDER THE }
TERMS OF THE MASTER AGREEMENT (CITY }
CONTRACT NO. 2023-109) WITH MARK }
THOMAS & COMPANY, INC. (SACRAMENTO, }
CALIFORNIA OFFICE), FOR ENGINEERING }
DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF }
TURLOCK’S ROADS INITIATIVE PROGRAM IN }
THE AMOUNT OF $997,195.00 TO BE FUNDED }
BY FUND 115 “MEASURE A – ROADS” UNDER }
CITY PROJECT NO. 25-023 “MARK THOMAS }
TASK ORDER NO. 5 FOR ROADS PROGRAM }
CIP PROJECTS,” AND AUTHORIZING STAFF }
TO PROCEED WITH ADVERTISING FOR }
CONSTRUCTION OF SAID CITY PROJECT }
UPON COMPLETION OF BID DOCUMENTS }
}
WHEREAS, on April 25, 2023, the City Council approved a Master Agreement between the City of Turlock (“City”) and Mark Thomas & Company, Inc. (“Professional”) for engineering design services (City Contract No. 2023-109) to assist City with Design Services for Roads Program CIP Projects; and
WHEREAS, the Agreement stipulates that the scope of services and fees associated with specific projects will be agreed upon through task orders approved under the terms of Agreement; and
WHEREAS, Amendment No. 8 for Task Order No. 5 provides the scope of services, associated fees, and schedule for specific projects under City Project No. 25- 023 “Mark Thomas Task Order No. 5 for Roads Program CIP Projects”; and WHEREAS, the cost of engineering design services for said City Project is estimated to be $997,195.00; and
WHEREAS, funding is available from Fund 115 “Measure A – Roads”, account number 115-10-115.43366_001 “Design Roads” for costs associated with said City Project; and
WHEREAS, this action is not subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Section 15378 (Project) of the CEQA guidelines because it consists of “organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.” NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Turlock does hereby approve Amendment No. 8 for Task Order No. 5 under the terms of the Master Agreement (City Contract No. 2023-109) with Mark Thomas & Company, Inc.

Resolution No. 2025-

(Sacramento, California office) for Engineering Design Services for the City of Turlock’s Roads Initiative Program in the amount of $997,195.00 to be funded by Fund 115 “Measure A – Roads” under City Project No. 25-023 “Mark Thomas Task Order No. 5 for Roads Program CIP Projects,” and authorize staff to proceed with advertising for construction of said City Project upon completion of bid documents.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Turlock this 25th day of March, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

NOT PARTICIPATING:

ABSENT:

ATTEST:
__________________________
Nichole Fiez, City Clerk,
City of Turlock, County of Stanislaus,
State of California

Resolution No. 2025-

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TURLOCK
IN THE MATTER OF APPROVING AMENDMENT } RESOLUTION NO. 2025- NO. 3 FOR TASK ORDER NO. 3 UNDER THE }
TERMS OF THE MASTER AGREEMENT (CITY }
CONTRACT NO. 2023-110) WITH PROVOST & }
PRITCHARD ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. DBA }
PROVOST & PRITCHARD CONSULTING GROUP}
(CLOVIS, CALIFORNIA OFFICE), FOR }
ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE }
THE CITY OF TURLOCK’S ROADS INITIATIVE }
PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,105,475.40 }
TO BE FUNDED BY FUND 115 “MEASURE A – }
ROADS,” UNDER CITY PROJECT NO. 25-024 }
“PROVOST & PRITCHARD TASK ORDER NO. 3 }
FOR ROADS PROGRAM CIP PROJECTS,” AND }
AUTHORIZING STAFF TO PROCEED WITH }
ADVERTISING FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SAID }
CITY PROJECT UPON COMPLETION OF BID }
DOCUMENTS }
}
WHEREAS, on April 25, 2023, the City Council approved a Master Agreement between the City of Turlock (“City”) and Provost & Pritchard Engineering Group, Inc. dba Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group (“Professional”) for engineering design services (City Contract No. 2023-110) to assist City with Design Services for Roads Program CIP Projects; and
WHEREAS, the Agreement stipulates that the scope of services and fees associated with specific projects will be agreed upon through task orders approved under the terms of Agreement; and
WHEREAS, Amendment No. 3 for Task Order No. 3 provides the scope of services, associated fees, and schedule for specific projects under City Project No. 25- 024 “Provost & Pritchard Task Order No. 3 for Roads Program CIP Projects”; and WHEREAS, the cost of engineering design services for said City Project is estimated to be $1,105,475.40; and
WHEREAS, funding is available from Fund 115 “Measure A – Roads”, account number 115-10-115.43366_001 “Design Roads” for costs associated with said City Project; and
WHEREAS, this action is not subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Section 15378 (Project) of the CEQA guidelines because it consists of “organizational or administrative activities of

Resolution No. 2025-

governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.” NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Turlock does hereby approve Amendment No. 3 for Task Order No. 3 under the terms of the Master Agreement (City Contract No. 2023-110) with Provost & Pritchard Engineering Group, Inc. dba Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group (Clovis, California office) for Engineering Design Services for the City of Turlock’s Roads Initiative Program in the amount of $1,105,475.40 to be funded by Fund 115 “Measure A – Roads” under City Project No. 25-024 “Provost & Pritchard Task Order No. 3 for Roads Program CIP Projects,” and authorize staff to proceed with advertising for construction of said City Project upon completion of bid documents.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Turlock this 25th day of March, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

NOT PARTICIPATING:

ABSENT:

ATTEST:
__________________________
Nichole Fiez, City Clerk,
City of Turlock, County of Stanislaus,
State of California

Resolution No. 2025-

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TURLOCK
IN THE MATTER OF APPROVING AMENDMENT } RESOLUTION NO. 2025- NO. 4 FOR TASK ORDER NO. 4 UNDER THE }
TERMS OF THE MASTER AGREEMENT (CITY }
CONTRACT NO. 2023-110) WITH PROVOST & }
PRITCHARD ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. DBA }
PROVOST & PRITCHARD CONSULTING GROUP}
(CLOVIS, CALIFORNIA OFFICE), FOR }
ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE }
THE CITY OF TURLOCK’S ROADS INITIATIVE }
PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF $647,779.27 }
TO BE FUNDED BY FUND 115 “MEASURE A – }
ROADS,” UNDER CITY PROJECT NO. 25-025 }
“PROVOST & PRITCHARD TASK ORDER NO. 4 }
FOR ROADS PROGRAM CIP PROJECTS,” AND }
AUTHORIZING STAFF TO PROCEED WITH }
ADVERTISING FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SAID }
CITY PROJECT UPON COMPLETION OF BID }
DOCUMENTS }
}
WHEREAS, on April 25, 2023, the City Council approved a Master Agreement between the City of Turlock (“City”) and Provost & Pritchard Engineering Group, Inc. dba Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group (“Professional”) for engineering design services (City Contract No. 2023-110) to assist City with Design Services for Roads Program CIP Projects; and
WHEREAS, the Agreement stipulates that the scope of services and fees associated with specific projects will be agreed upon through task orders approved under the terms of Agreement; and
WHEREAS, Amendment No. 4 for Task Order No. 4 provides the scope of services, associated fees, and schedule for specific projects under City Project No. 25- 025 “Provost & Pritchard Task Order No. 4 for Roads Program CIP Projects”; and WHEREAS, the cost of engineering design services for said City Project is estimated to be $647,779.27; and
WHEREAS, funding is available from Fund 115 “Measure A – Roads”, account number 115-10-115.43366_001 “Design Roads” for costs associated with said City Project; and
WHEREAS, this action is not subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Section 15378 (Project) of the CEQA guidelines because it consists of “organizational or administrative activities of

Resolution No. 2025-

governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.” NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Turlock does hereby approve Amendment No. 4 for Task Order No. 4 under the terms of the Master Agreement (City Contract No. 2023-110) with Provost & Pritchard Engineering Group, Inc. dba Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group (Clovis, California office) for Engineering Design Services for the City of Turlock’s Roads Initiative Program in the amount of $647,779.27 to be funded by Fund 115 “Measure A – Roads” under City Project No. 25-025 “Provost & Pritchard Task Order No. 4 for Roads Program CIP Projects,” and authorize staff to proceed with advertising for construction of said City Project upon completion of bid documents.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Turlock this 25th day of March, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

NOT PARTICIPATING:

ABSENT:

ATTEST:
__________________________
Nichole Fiez, City Clerk,
City of Turlock, County of Stanislaus,
State of California

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TURLOCK
IN THE MATTER OF APPROVING AMENDMENT } RESOLUTION NO. 2025- NO. 3 FOR TASK ORDER NO. 3 UNDER THE }
TERMS OF THE MASTER AGREEMENT (CITY }
CONTRACT NO. 2023-111) WITH SIEGFRIED }
ENGINEERING, INC. (STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA }
OFFICE), FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN }
SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF TURLOCK’S }
ROADS INITIATIVE PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT }
OF $993,397.92 TO BE FUNDED BY FUND 115 }
“MEASURE A – ROADS” UNDER CITY }
PROJECT NO. 25-026 “SIEGFRIED TASK }
ORDER NO. 3 FOR ROADS PROGRAM CIP }
PROJECTS,” AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO }
PROCEED WITH ADVERTISING FOR }
CONSTRUCTION OF SAID CITY PROJECT }
UPON COMPLETION OF BID DOCUMENTS }
}
WHEREAS, on April 25, 2023, the City Council approved a Master Agreement between the City of Turlock (“City”) and Siegfried Engineering, Inc. (“Professional”) for engineering design services (City Contract No. 2023-111) to assist City with Design Services for Roads Program CIP Projects; and
WHEREAS, the Agreement stipulates that the scope of services and fees associated with specific projects will be agreed upon through task orders approved under the terms of Agreement; and
WHEREAS, Amendment No. 3 for Task Order No. 3 provides the scope of services, associated fees, and schedule for specific projects under City Project No. 25- 026 “Siegfried Task Order No. 3 for Roads Program CIP Projects”; and WHEREAS, the cost of engineering design services for said City Project is estimated to be $993,397.92; and
WHEREAS, funding is available from Fund 115 “Measure A – Roads”, account number 115-10-115.43366_001 “Design Roads” for costs associated with said City Project; and
WHEREAS, this action is not subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Section 15378 (Project) of the CEQA guidelines because it consists of “organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.” NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Turlock does hereby approve Amendment No. 3 for Task Order No. 3 under the terms of the Master Agreement (City Contract No. 2023-111) with Siegfried Engineering, Inc.

Resolution No. 2025-

(Stockton, California office) for Engineering Design Services for the City of Turlock’s Roads Initiative Program in the amount of $993,397.92 to be funded by Fund 115 “Measure A – Roads” under City Project No. 25-026 “Siegfried Task Order No. 3 for Roads Program CIP Projects,” and authorize staff to proceed with advertising for construction of said City Project upon completion of bid documents.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Turlock this 25th day of March, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

NOT PARTICIPATING:

ABSENT:

ATTEST:
__________________________
Nichole Fiez, City Clerk,
City of Turlock, County of Stanislaus,
State of California

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TURLOCK

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-

WHEREAS, the City of Turlock is committed to maintaining and improving its road infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, an appropriation is necessary to provide sufficient funding through the remainder of this fiscal year for the Roads Program projects; and WHEREAS, funding is available in unallocated reserves and is suitable for this purpose; and
WHEREAS, this action is not subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Section 15378(b)(5) of the CEQA guidelines, as it consists of organizational or administrative activities that do not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Turlock does hereby appropriate $1,300,000 from unallocated reserves to account number 115- 10-115.43366_001 “Design Roads” to provide sufficient funding through the remainder of fiscal year for the Roads Program projects.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Turlock this 25th day of March, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

NOT PARTICIPATING:

ABSENT:

ATTEST:
___________________________
Nichole Fiez, City Clerk,
City of Turlock, County of Stanislaus,
State of California
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}

IN THE MATTER OF APPROPRIATING
$1,300,000 FROM UNALLOCATED
RESERVES TO ACCOUNT NUMBER 115-
10-115.43366_001 “DESIGN ROADS” TO

PROVIDE SUFFICIENT FUNDING

THROUGH THE REMAINDER OF FISCAL

YEAR FOR THE ROADS PROGRAM

PROJECTS

CITY CONTRACT NO. 2023-109, Amendment No. 8 for Task Order No. 5

AMENDMENT NO. 8 FOR TASK ORDER NO. 5
Under the Terms of the

MASTER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TURLOCK
and
MARK THOMAS & COMPANY, INC.
for
ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES (City Contract No. 2023-109)

City Project No. 25-023

THIS AMENDMENT NO. 8 for Task Order No. 5 under the terms of City Contract No. 2023-109 is entered into by and between the CITY OF TURLOCK, a California municipal corporation (“City”), and MARK THOMAS & COMPANY, IN C., a California corporation (“Professional”), on this _____ day of ______ 2025 (the “Effective Date of Task Ord er No. 5”).

City and Professional may be collectively referred to herein as the “Parties” or individually as “Party.” There are no other parties to this Amendment No. 8.

WHEREAS, the Parties hereto previously entered into a Master Agreement (City Contract No. 2023-109) dated April 25, 2023, for engineering design services to assist City with Design Services for Roads Program Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Projects (“Agreement”); and

WHEREAS, the Agreement stipulates that the scope of services and fees associated with specific projects will be agreed upon through task orders approved under the terms of Agreement by a written amendment to the Agreement; and

WHEREAS , City desires that Professional provide engineerin g design services for City Project No. 25-023 “Mark Thomas Task Order No. 5 for Roads Program CIP Projects;” and

WHEREAS, Amendment No. 8 for Task Order No. 5 provides the scope of services, associated fees, and schedule for said City Project.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereto mutually agree to amend the Agr eement as follows:

1. Exhibit I, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby added to the Agreement.

2. Recital B of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:

B. Professional has made a proposal to City to provi de such professional

CITY CONTRACT NO. 2023-109, Amendment No. 8 for Task Order No. 5

services. A description of the services Professiona l proposes to provide is included in the Scope of Services in Exhibits A through I attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (“Services”). City desires to r etain Professional to perform the Services, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.

3. Recital C of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:

C. The Parties anticipate that one or more projects fo r Services shall be determined through creation of a Task Order as a Ci ty-requested modification of services under Section 5.2 of this Agreement which shall be approved by written amendment to this Agreement. The Parties shall outline the schedule or timeline for providing the Services agreed upon under each Task Order (“Completion Schedule”), which shall be included in one or more written amendments to this Agreement. Such Completion Schedule is included in Exhibit I.

4. Recital D of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:

D. The Parties shall outline the rates and method of payment to Professional for its performance of the Services under this Agre ement as determined under each Task Order (“Compensation Schedule”), which shall b e included in one or more written amendments to this Agreement. Such Compensation Schedule is included in Exhibit I.

5. Section 5 of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:

5.1. Services . Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, Professional shall provide City the Services descri bed in Exhibits A through I. Any request for Services not included in Exhibits A through I will be considered a request for additional or modified Services (“Modification” or “Modifications”). Professional shall not receive additional compensation for any Modification of the Services unless the Parties agree otherwise in a writing executed by both Parties.

5.2. City Requested Modification of Services. City may, by written order, authorize Modifications to the Services described i n Exhibits A through I . If such Modifications cause an increase in the cost or time required for performance of Professional’s Services, the Parties shall enter in to a written amendment to this Agreement to adjust the Services and the compensati on to be paid to Professional and, if necessary, amend the Completion Schedule or Compensation Schedule. The Services, Completion Schedule, or Compensation Sche dule shall not be revised unless City and Professional mutually agree to a wr itten amendment to this Agreement reflecting such revisions, additional com pensation, time for performance or such other terms or conditions mutually agreed upon by the Parties.

6. Section 6 of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:

6.1. Amount, Time and Manner of Payment for Profess ional Services. City shall pay Professional according to the rates and timing set forth in the Compensation Schedule for each Task Order within each Amendment to the Agreement. Each Compensation Schedule shall include an exhibit based on Exhibit 10-H1 of Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual (LAPM). Professional will be allowed to include an amount for the anticipated salary increases as calculated per Exhibit 10-H1. City’s

CITY CONTRACT NO. 2023-109, Amendment No. 8 for Task Order No. 5

total compensation to Professional shall not exceed the cumulative amount resulting from each Task Order with each approved Amendment t o the Agreement. The compensation for Amendment No. 8 shall not exceed N ine-Hundred-Ninety-Seven Thousand One-Hundred-Ninety-Five Dollars and Zero C ents ($997,195.00) for City Project No. 25-023 (“Maximum Payment”), unless the Parties mutually agree in writing otherwise.

7. Execution and Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed simultaneously, and in several counterparts, each o f which shall be deemed an original, but which together shall constitute one a nd the same instrument. The Parties agree that this Amendment and any other doc uments to be delivered in connection herewith may be electronically signed ut ilizing services such as DocuSign and Nitro Sign, or by transmitting signatures in pdf or similar format, and that any electronic signatures appearing on this Ag reement or such other documents are the same as handwritten signatures fo r the purposes of validity, enforceability, and admissibility

8. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect for the Term of the Agreement.

[Signatures on Following Page ]

CITY CONTRACT NO. 2023-109, Amendment No. 8 for Task Order No. 5

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Amendment No. 8 to be executed by and through their respective officers thereunto duly authorized.

PROFESSIONAL

MARK THOMAS & COMPANY, INC., a
California corporation

By:

Ed Noriega, Associate Principal

Date
CITY

City of Turlock, a California
municipal corporation

By:

Reagan M. Wilson, City Manager

Date:

APPROVED AS TO SUFFICIENCY:

By:

Christopher Fisher,
Municipal Services Director

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

George A. Petrulakis, City Attorney

ATTEST:

By:

Nichole Fiez, City Clerk

03/14/2025

CITY OF TURLOCK
MT Task Order #5

MT Task Order #5
CITY OF TURLOCK 1

PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
Through the City of Turlock’s (City) Road Capital Improvement Program (CIP), the City plans to evaluate Dels Lane (from N. Golden State Blvd to W. Monte Vista Ave) for pavement rehabilitation.

The following are the main items that the City would like to consider:
• Over the length of Dels Lane, several pavement rehabilitation methods may be needed based on the conditions of the specific roadway conditions. The project would also include updating curb ramps to comply with current the American Disability Act (ADA) standards. • In addition to pavement rehabilitation, it is intended to fill in missing sidewalks; restripe the corridor; manage access for driveways; and evaluate the corridor cross section to be consistent with the City’s Active Transportation Plan (ATP) and General Plan (GP) requirements; and if not feasible, propose alternatives and solutions to consider. The existing right of way will be retraced to check if acquisitions are needed to accommodate the proposed construction.

Mark Thomas has been assigned to prepare project base mapping for the project utilizing the City’s high-definition LiDAR scan. Mark Thomas will extract surface and planimetric information from the LiDAR scan. The extracted data will be used to develop construction documents for the assigned streets. To ensure ADA compliance is achieved, supplemental topographic surveys will be needed to obtain information for locations that are missing from the LiDAR scan.

Based on the City’s preliminary assessment of their roadway network PCI, Crawford and Associates (Crawford) will evaluate the corridor to determine the relative levels of pavement rehabilitation required to improve the pavement condition of Dels Lane. Coring samples will be obtained and laboratory testing conducted to determine the appropriate pavement sections to adequately repair the streets.

Crawford will also evaluate and identify opportunities to utilize more cost-effective methods for pavement rehabilitation such as Full Depth Reclamation (FDR). FDR will reduce the amount of excavation required to reconstruct these roads and typically will see an improvement in overall product and even reduced cost compared to traditional construction methods. Where FDR may not be as beneficial is if there is a large presence of shallow underground utilities within the project.

This will be part of evaluating the appropriate pavement rehabilitation method for the street.

The project is roughly 7,619 linear feet and has a construction cost of approximately $9-10 million.

Mark Thomas recommends submitting a grant application for Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG), and State Local Partnership Program (LPP) for construction implementation. Call- for-projects from the California Transportation Commission (CTC) are expected in Q2 of 2025 for STBG, and Q3 of 2026 for LPP; selected projects are expected to be announced in June 2025 for STBG, and December 2026 for LPP. Funds would be programmed for FY 26/27 for STBG, and FY

CITY OF TURLOCK
MT Task Order #5

MT Task Order #5
CITY OF TURLOCK 2

27/28 for LPP; so bidding for construction would need to occur between October 1, 2026 to September 30, 2027. The local match for each funding source is 11.83% (STBG) and 50% (LPP).

These pavement rehabilitation projects are considered ministerial in nature and would be Categorically Exempt under CEQA. The City will prepare the CEQA CE for the project. If the City is successful in securing Federal Funds, NEPA compliance would be needed. Additional scope will be needed to assist the City coordinate NEPA compliance with Caltrans.

PROJECT LOCATION
Dels Lane (N. Golden State Blvd to W. Monte Vista Ave)

Street Name From To PCI Length
Dels Lane N. Golden State Blvd W. Monte Vista Ave 27 (ave) 5,864 Fenn Court East End Dels Lane 46 194
Pomona Court East End Dels Lane 29 184
Humbolt Court East End Dels Lane 56 174
Berea Court East End Dels Lane 41 171
Seaborg Dels Lane Andre Lane 40 (ave) 1,032
Total Length 7,619

CITY OF TURLOCK
MT Task Order #5

MT Task Order #5
CITY OF TURLOCK 3

ORGANIZATION CHART
We have selected a team of highly qualified firms and individuals that have experience working on similar projects. Mark Thomas understands the importance of assembling a team who will be available to support the City through the duration of this program. When assigning the members of this team, we took a close look at our staff’s current commitments to ensure that each team member is dedicated and available to meet the City’s project needs

CITY OF TURLOCK
MT Task Order #5

MT Task Order #5
CITY OF TURLOCK 4

SCOPE OF WORK
TASK 1. PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION
Task 1.1. Project Management
Mark Thomas’ Project Manager will plan, organize, direct and monitor project work activities and resources, in accordance with the contracted scope, schedule and bud get. This task includes performing ongoing general project management with the client, subconsultants and stakeholders, including preparing contract paperwork, memos, letters and e-mail, making phone call s and maintaining project files. This activity commences with receiving the Notice to Proceed, con tinues through submittal of the final key project deliverables, and concludes when the project is advertised for construction.

Task 1.2. Schedule and Monthly Status Reports
This task will include developing a master Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule and maintaining it throughout the design process. Input will be collected from Project Development Team (PDT) meetings and incorporated for the duration of the project. The CPM schedule will be updated monthly and at major project milestones and will be prepared using Microsoft Project software.

This task will also include preparing monthly status r eports, which will be submitted with invoices. The status report will outline all activities for which charges have been made by the Consultant or sub-Consultants. Mark Thomas will prepare a draft status report and submit it for approval prior to submitting the first invoice.

Task 1.3. Project Development Team Meetings
The Project Development Team (PDT) will include the design team, City staff and consultants, and key stakeholders. We will begin with a project kickoff meet ing to ensure mutual understanding of the intended purposes, objectives, milestones, and deliverables of the project. At the project kickoff meeting, Mark Thomas will distribute a master Critical Path Method (CPM) sc hedule as a draft for review by the PDT. The draft CPM schedule will then be updated using comments received from the PDT. In addition, the CPM schedule will be updated at major project milestones and will be prepare d using Microsoft Project software. Thereafter, PDT meetings will generally be held centered on or near key project milestones.

This scope assumes a total of 10 PDT meetings.

Task 1.4. Quality Assurance/Quality Control
The Mark Thomas Quality Control (QC) plan consists of e stablished procedures for performing the work, including methods for design calculations, establishin g appropriate levels of design development for intermediate submittals, identification of regularly scheduled plan reviews, design checklists, and methods of project documentation.

CITY OF TURLOCK
MT Task Order #5

MT Task Order #5
CITY OF TURLOCK 5

• The Mark Thomas Quality Assurance (QA) Manager will perform an independent review of the project plans and specifications at each submittal for conforman ce with the Mark Thomas QC Plan and the City’s standards of excellence.
• Designers will use a “review stamp” for each round of ch anges which will track who commented on the plans, who checked the drafting, and when the final product was reviewed again by the design engineer.

Task 1.5. Constructability Review
The goal of the constructability review is to reduce the costly risks associated with construction conflicts/delays and, in many cases, reducing contract costs and/or time. The Mark Thomas Construction Management Division will conduct an independent constructability review of the final PS&E documents before the project goes out to bid.

Task 1.6. Funding Assistance/Grant Applications
Mark Thomas will prepare up to five (5) grant funding ap plications for the City. It is anticipated at this time that the grant applications will include Local Partnershi p Program (LPP), Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG), Active Transportation Program (ATP), an d Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ).

Mark Thomas will work closely with the City to identi fy projects, in addition to Dels Lane, that align with t he purpose of the grants. Mark Thomas will prepare grant narrative responses and supporting graphics and maps.

We will develop letter of support templates and coordinate with stakeholders to obtain signed letters. We will prepare a California Benefit/Cost Analysis model using the Caltrans-developed MS Excel tool for the LPP grant application.

TASK 1 DELIVERABLES
• Meeting Agenda and Minutes (10 meetings)
• CPM Schedule
• Monthly Status Report with Invoices
• Constructability Review with Markups
• Up to Five (5) Grant Applications
TASK 2. PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
Task 2.1. Project Data Gathering/Site Visit
Mark Thomas will obtain available as-built and record infor mation from the City, including maintenance records, roadway as-builts, right-of-way records, and o ther pertinent information. Any available survey data and site mapping will also be acquired and reviewed. This information will be the basis for initial mapping.

A preliminary field review will be conducted to revi ew the project site. The project team will review and document existing conditions, geometrics, alignment, and any noticeable utility concerns (overhead utili ty lines, water and gas lines).

CITY OF TURLOCK
MT Task Order #5

MT Task Order #5
CITY OF TURLOCK 6

Included in this task is the review and reporting back to the City of existing street light locations agains t the City’s standard plan.

Task 2.2. LiDAR Translation/Extraction/Base Mapping
Mark Thomas will translate the assigned street from the City’s LiDAR point cloud. Translation is the process of placing the LiDAR points for the streets into the City’s established horizontal and vertical datum. These points will be used to extract and create topographic surface and planimetric base maps that will be used for final design. These planimetric base maps will include roadw ay, sidewalks, curb & gutter, striping, and above ground surface visible utilities for the following seg ments. Mark Thomas will deliver a Civil 3D CAD drawing (2022 or newer).

Task 2.2.1. LiDAR Translation:

Using BAAM.Tech software, Mark Thomas will translate the streets defined in this scope of work from the City’s point cloud to known horizontal and vertical datum. This task includes field and office work that ties up to 50 landmark points between LiDAR point cloud and field. T ranslated points will include at a minimum one (1) base control point (horizontal and vertical) for each group of streets.

Task 2.2.2. LiDAR Extraction:

Mark Thomas will extract point cloud information for the project which is approximately 7,619 linear feet. A topographic surface and planimetric base map will be produced for final design.

Task 2.3. Supplemental Topographic Survey
Task 2.3.1. Control Surveys
NorthStar Engineering Group, Inc. (NSE) will perform Topographic and Right-of-Way Surveys to provide design control and Right-of-Way Mapping for the projec t. We will set horizontal and vertical control point s for project mapping in accordance with City horizontal and vertical control requirements. The horizontal and vertical will be based on the previously established points utilized for the LiDAR Surveys. NSE will estab lish additional control as necessary to collect the topographic features.

All surveying and mapping shall be in compliance with the provisions of the Professional Land Surveyors Act, Sections 8700 to 8805 Business and Professions Code; the provisions of the California Coordinate System, Sections 8801 to 8819 of the Public Resources Code; and any other applicable code in the State of California.

Task 2.3.2. Supplemental Topographic Surveys
NSE will perform supplemental detailed field surveys of the existing roadway corridor, physical improvements, visible utilities, and drainage features obscured from th e LiDAR surveys as necessary for the project design.

Conventional surveys will be performed to supplement and to survey tie-in points to ensure an accurate design and smooth transitions for the surface improvements and conforms. All work and files will be based on project coordinate control in accordance with City requirements for the preparation of documents and maps.

The supplemental design surveys include:
• Existing pavement and utilities located within the project limits.

CITY OF TURLOCK
MT Task Order #5

MT Task Order #5
CITY OF TURLOCK 7

• Existing pavement profile
• Existing ground elevations.
• Drainage features, as necessary, within the project limits. • Physical improvements located within the project limits • Visible utilities located within the project limits. • Wet utility inverts where accessible.
• Existing road crossings and intersections.
• Lines of occupation including fences, structures, and apparent encroachments. • Utility paint marks painted by USA.
• Geotechnical boring locations.

The survey data will be downloaded, and points provided for the Topographic Surveys and provided to Client for updating into the existing Lidar topographic survey drawing.

Task 2.3.3. Record Data Search
NSE will perform research of relevant land and survey records at the County to locate all necessary survey and land ownership records including Parcel Maps, Subdivis ion Maps, Records of Survey, Corner Records, and County Surveys required for analysis, determination, and delineation of the existing land net along the corridor to verify existing right-of-way. Research will be limited to public information. Based on the record information, prepare calculations for the existing roads along the project corridor and prepare a land net base map. Land net map will be tied to the control network established for the project.

Task 2.3.4. Monument Preservation
NSE will perform Monument Preservation for the projec t. This will include Pre-Construction Monumentation Preservation and Post-Construction Monumentation Preservation.

Pre-Construction Monumentation Preservation
Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Sec tion 8771, prior to construction NSE will conduct records research to identify the horizontal and vertical control for monuments within the area to be impacted by construction activities.

Prior to construction, NSE will perform a Field Survey to search and locate the existing record monuments and set reference ties to be shown on a Record of Survey based on the City of Turlock GPS Control Network. NSE will process and file a Record of Survey with the Count y Surveyor based on the survey of the existing monuments.

Post-Construction Monumentation Preservation
At the completion of construction, NSE will set surfac e ties for monument well placement by contractor for monuments within the street pavement areas. After installation of the wells, NSE will set monuments in wells based on the swing ties.

NSE will reset all other monuments outside the paved street area impacted by the construction activities.

NSE will prepare and process the Post Construction Re cord of Survey with the County Surveyor for all the monuments reset.

CITY OF TURLOCK
MT Task Order #5

MT Task Order #5
CITY OF TURLOCK 8

Task 2.4. Geotechnical
Crawford & Associates (Crawford) will perform the followin g scope of services to support the City and the Design Team with the development of rehabilitation strategies taking into consideration the current thickness of the existing pavement section, desired traffic index and design life, presence of utilities and driveways, cost and schedule.

City of Turlock plans to rehabilitate multiple streets in addition to the Dels Lane rehabilitation. The City plans to rehabilitate the following streets:
• Dels Lane between Golden State Boulevard and W Monte Vista Avenue. • Fenn Court from East end to Dels Lane (approx. 194 ft) • Pomona Court from East end to Dels Lane (approx. 184 ft) • Humbolt Court from East end to Dels Lane (approx. 174 ft) • Berea Court from East End to Dels Lane (approx. 171 ft) • Seaborg Street from Dels Lane to Andre Lane (approx. 1032 ft) Dels Lane primarily consists of a single lane in each di rection with bike lanes along its entire alignment. Th e primary project alignment is surrounded by residential neighborhoods on both the east and west boundaries and intersects W Monte Vista Avenue to access the college. The southern limits of Dels Lane is surrounded by industrial buildings.

Crawford performed a virtual site visit using Google Eart h, Streetview1 to review the pavement surface condition. In general, the Dels Lane appears to be in poor to very poor condition. We separate Dels Lane into two sections: Section 1 is between Pedras Road and Golden State Boulevard and Section 2 is between Pedras Road and W Monte Vista Avenue. Section 1 is in poor condition. Alligator cracking is present within the wheel paths of the roadway in the northbound lane and medium to high severity longitudinal cracks with sections of spalling was observed along the southbound lane. Sect ion 2 is in very poor condition. The condition of th e pavement appears to be worn beyond its life cycle. We o bserved high severity alligator cracks, raveling, and discoloration, and low to medium severity potholes.

The courts are generally in poor condition. We observed moderate to high severity block cracking. Vegetation appears to be growing in the cracks. The distress within the courts are likely due to age, weathering, and lack of maintenance.

Crawford will perform the following scope of services to support the City and the Design Team with the development of rehabilitation strategies taking into con sideration the current thickness of the existing pavement section, desired traffic index and design life, presence of utilities and driveways, cost and schedule.

Task 2.4.1. Preliminary Review and Coordination
Meet with the design team to review the preliminary ap proach and discuss the project needs, goals and schedule. Crawford will review City provided maintenanc e and improvement documents for the road segments, if available. A Crawford representative will det ermine exploration locations, determine site access, and will visit the site prior to field work to mark ou r exploration location(s) for Underground Service Aler t

1 https://earth.google.com/web

CITY OF TURLOCK
MT Task Order #5

MT Task Order #5
CITY OF TURLOCK 9

(USA). We will obtain a City of Turlock encroachment permit for our fieldwork within the public right-of-way core locations, and schedule traffic control as needed.

Task 2.4.2. Pavement Condition Assessment
Crawford will walk the alignment noting the condition o f the pavement, including general notes about transverse and longitudinal cracking, rutting, and fail ure areas (alligator cracking). Crawford will note (on a n aerial map or provided plan) the location and general size of the failure locations and provide this information to the design team for cost estimating purposes of dig out/repair locations.

Task 2.4.3. Pavement Coring & Laboratory Testing
To measure the existing structural pavement sections (HMA and AB), Crawford will perform pavement cores across all lanes of Dels Lane at intervals of about 500 l inear feet and atleast one core in each cul de sac. An Engineer/Geologist will direct the coring and sampli ng. At each core location, Crawford will use a diamond tipped core bit 4 to 6 inches in diameter to core through the existing pavement. The existing pavement sections (HMA and AB) will be measured, and subgrade samples will be retrieved for R-value testing.

Native sampling may fluctuate depending on soil conditi ons encounter at the time of work. Not all material may be suitable for testing (such as hard pan or backfill material). Crawford will provide appropriate testing for design purposes based on what it is encountered in the field.

Cores will be backfilled with sand and topped with d yed black quick setting concrete to math existing ro ad.

Hot mix asphalt patching is not included in our scope of services since the road will be rehabilitated soon. We will work with the City of Turlock encroachment perm it department on the traffic control requirements; however, we expect traffic control to consist of road wo rk ahead signs, lane shifts, and lane closures with flaggers.

Samples of the subgrade soil will be testing to determine the R Value for our pavement rehabilitation design.

Task 2.4.3.1. Engineering Analysis
Following the results of our fieldwork and R-value tes ting, Crawford will perform engineering analyses to determine the following:
• Current traffic index based on the results of the cores, assigned gravel factors for the in-place materials, and thickness of the existing pavement section.
• New pavement section thicknesses based on the desired traffic index (provided by Mark Thomas) for comparison purposes only.
• Various pavement rehabilitation options including mill and overlay, full depth reclamation, remove and replacement, and full depth HMA. These options will consider the design traffic index and a reduced traffic index for comparisons by the City and the Design Team (typically comparing 10 and 20 year design).

Task 2.4.3.2. Pavement Design Report
Crawford will prepare a Draft and Final Pavement Design Report containing:
• Project description and scope of services;

CITY OF TURLOCK
MT Task Order #5

MT Task Order #5
CITY OF TURLOCK 10

• Subgrade soil conditions;
• Existing pavement condition;
• Results of our pavement coring, presence of overlays and fabric, and current traffic index; • R-value test results;
• FDR mix design results (if selected);
• New pavement section recommendations for traditional AB and HMA and full depth /hma based on the traffic index provided by the Design Team;
• Rehabilitation options considering mill and overlay with dig outs and FDR for both the desired traffic index and a reduced design life. The rehabilitation op tions will likely be broken out along similar segments of road.
• Vicinity map, site plan, dig out map(s), core logs, and core photos.

Task 2.5. Environmental
City of Turlock will prepare a Categorical Exemption for the project. Mark Thomas will support the City by providing a project description for the project.

Task 2.6. Utility Coordination and Investigation
Task 2.6.1. Utility Coordination
Mark Thomas will provide utility coordination services which will be conducted in general conformance with Caltrans' Local Assistance and Utility Relocation Manuals. It is assumed that this project will not have any utility relocations but if it is necessary the Mark Thomas team will follow the Utility A-B-C process:
• Utility "A" Letter - A USA list is generated that shows all possible uti lity companies located within the project limits. A letter is sent to the respective utility company informing them about the project and asking them for as-built mapping and liability claims within the project area. • Utility Kick -Off Meeting - Once 30% design is complete, a utility kick-off meeting is held with the utility companies to discuss project impacts. At the meeting , a preferred approach is recommended to the utility companies and a consensus is reached regardin g various items including clear recovery zone requirements, overhang easements and vertical clearance requirements over underground utilities. • Utility "B" Letter - Letter is issued to the utility companies with 60% plans that show utility impacts. The utility companies are instructed to begin relocation plans at this time. Frequent follow ups with utility companies are required from this point forward.
• Utility "C" Letter (Notice to Owner) - Once utility relocation plans are received and approved from the utility companies, the notice to owner letter authorizes the company to relocate their utilities. Right of way acquisition must be cleared for this letter to be issued.

Task 2.6.2. Subsurface Utility Engineering and Locating (SUE) Mark Thomas will complete a utility search to locate public and private utilities within the roadway (from curb to curb only) along project streets for a total linear fo otage of about 7,619 feet. This includes Quality Level B (QL-B) subsurface utility engineering (SUE) services , focusing on accurately identifying and mapping public and private utilities, based on available facility maps and visible surface facilities, as derived from electromagnetic (EM) induction and GPR readings within the specified project area. Depths will be added

CITY OF TURLOCK
MT Task Order #5

MT Task Order #5
CITY OF TURLOCK 11

wherever possible, depending on signal received by the EM locator or GPR. Any issues will be reported to the City and documented in a report.

Potholes will be required of the City’s construction contractor and are excluded from this scope of work.

Topographic Surveys:

Mark Thomas will survey all SUE marks and depths for the areas listed above. This will include dipping up to 136 Sewer manholes and storm drain manholes or inlets and locating the nut inside up to 70 water valves. This topographic scope is limited to five (10) days of fieldwork for a 2-person field crew.

Deliverables:

Findings will be documented in the field using water- based paint, flags, and/or whiskers. Utility lines and depths will be marked on the ground in pink, identifying them as survey marking and dotted in APWA uniform color code. It is assumed paint markings will not need to be removed. All marks and dips will be surveyed and added to the topographic survey and utility drawings.

Survey Assumptions:
• All access will be provided.
• Project schedule is dependent on the weather and any site access. • If needed, Mark Thomas will obtain an encroachment permits from the City at no additional cost • The following points highlight key considerations and limitations of SUE:
o Detection Limitations: Detecting all utilities cannot be guaranteed due to v arious factors such as material composition, depth, signal interference, in complete or inaccurate record information, and environmental conditions.
o Nonmetallic Utilities : Nonmetallic utilities cannot be traced using elect romagnetic instrumentation. Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) will be employed in an attempt to identify these nonmetallic utilities. However, GPR results can be influenced by factors including pipe size, depth, soil conditions, rebar presence, and subsurface groundwater. o 811 Dig Alert: It is essential for all parties involved in excavation to follow appropriate notification and safety procedures to prevent damage to underground utilities.

TASK 2 DELIVERABLES
• Civil 3D CAD Surface (2018 or newer)
• Civil 3D CAD Planimetrics Base Map Drawing (2018 or newer) • Draft Pavement Design Report
• Final Pavement Design Report
• Utility A-B-C Letters
• Subsurface Utility Mapping with Depths
TASK 3. PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND ESTIMATE (PS&E)
Mark Thomas will complete the design tasks for final plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for the project.

Final PS&E represents a complete PS&E package with checked details and independent calculations. Following each design submittal, City comments will be reviewed and addressed using a comment matrix.

CITY OF TURLOCK
MT Task Order #5

MT Task Order #5
CITY OF TURLOCK 12

Task 3.1. 30% Concept Plans
Mark Thomas will prepare a strip map exhibit which shows the proposed work for review and comment by the City. The exhibit will show the proposed pavement strategy, limits of curb and gutter reconstruction, locations of curb ramp reconstructions, and signage and striping. In order to maintain an expediated project schedule, the 30% concept plans will be produced based on aerial imagery and not on the LiDAR survey data. Designs will be in accordance with Caltrans design standards, CA MUTCD guidelines, and the City's current design standards. Plan will be at a (1”=80’) scale. This subm ittal will also include a preliminary construction cos t estimate for the work proposed along the whole corrido r. Mark Thomas will prepare concept exhibit and preliminary construction cost estimate for Dels Lane (from N. Golden State Blvd to W. Monte Vista Ave). No other submittals or exhibits are anticipated for the roadway design.

Task 3.2. Plans Specifications & Estimate (PS&E)
Task 3.2.1. 60% Plans
Mark Thomas will prepare draft engineering plans for the s egment based upon the approved 30% concept plans. The plans will include layouts, project control, construction details, traffic control plans, and signing and striping plans. The project control sheet will indicate pre/post construction monument preservation.

JLB will prepare the electrical design plans to include the traffic signal modifications. The plans will provide the layout of the intersection geometrics, traffic signal equ ipment, including locations of poles, and type of vehicular signals. Within the 60% submittal, a conduct or schedule would be included as a placeholder, but i t would be unfilled. The signal modifications shall be p er the City’s current design standards, and Caltrans Standard Plans
Traffic Signal Modifications include:

1. Dels Lane at Golden State Boulevard
• Add video detection to the Dels Lane approach only.
• Replace the pedestrian push buttons at the northwest and northeast returns with Accessible Pedestrian Signal (APS) buttons.
• Impacts to pull boxes and conduits at the northwest return and thus require rewiring of the traffic signal.
• Add high visibility reflective strips to all signal head backplates.

2. Dels Lane at Hawkeye Avenue
• Add video detection to all four approaches.
• Replace the pedestrian push buttons at all four returns with APS buttons. • Impacts to pull boxes and conduits at the northeast return and thus require rewiring of the traffic signal.
• Add high visibility reflective strips to all signal head backplates. • Replace the bike push buttons with APS buttons.

3. Dels Lane at Monte Vista Avenue
• Add video detection to the southern Dels Lane approach only. • Replace the pedestrian push buttons at the southwest and southeast returns with APS buttons.

CITY OF TURLOCK
MT Task Order #5

MT Task Order #5
CITY OF TURLOCK 13

• Impacts to pull boxes and conduits at the southeast return and thus require rewiring of the traffic signal.
• Add high visibility reflective strips to all signal head backplates. • Replace the bike push buttons with APS buttons.

It is anticipated that the following sheets will need to be prepared:

ROADWAY PLANS ESTIMATED NUMBER OF SHEETS
Title Sheet 1
General Notes 2
Project Control 1
Key Map 1
Typical Cross Sections 2
Layouts 16
Construction Detail Sheets 2
Curb Ramp Sheets 24
Grading Plans 14
Utility Plan 15
Traffic Handling Sheets 15
Construction Area Sign Sheet 1
Signing and Striping Plans 12
Signal Modification Sheets 9
Total Estimated Sheet Count 115
Task 3.2.2. 90% Plans
This submittal represents a completed Bid Set, ready for bidding. Major design features have been reviewed at least once at this stage.

Task 3.2.3. 100% Plans
This submittal is the 100% Plans ready for Bid. Comment s from the 90% plans were discussed and revised as necessary.

Task 3.2.4. Specifications
Mark Thomas will develop project special provisions u sing City standards. The special provisions will be prepared using Microsoft Word. Special Provisions will be submitted at the 90% and 100% submittal.

Task 3.2.5. Estimates
To verify programmed funding matches the anticipated con struction costs, Mark Thomas will prepare preliminary construction cost estimates at the 60%, 90% and 100% submittals. The estimates will be comprised of unit prices placed on detailed quantity and check quantity calculations. Unit prices will be developed using current bid results from similar projects, Caltrans dat abase information and Caltrans latest Construction Cost Manual.

CITY OF TURLOCK
MT Task Order #5

MT Task Order #5
CITY OF TURLOCK 14

Task 3.2.6. Miscellaneous Exhibits
Mark Thomas will prepare up to two (2) project exhibits as requested by the City. Exhibits are intended to be easy-to-read, non-technical documents. They may include the use of an aerial background with text callouts, colored hatching, and photographs that would convey non-technical information that can be used in a public presentation or City’s website.

TASK DELIVERABLES
• 30% Concept Plan Exhibit & Estimate
• Plans (60%, 90% and/or 100%)
• Special Provisions (60%, 90% and/or 100%)
• Estimate (60%, 90%, and/or 100%)
• Miscellaneous Exhibits (up to 2 exhibits)
TASK 4. CONSTRUCTION & BID SUPPORT
Task 4.1. Bid Support
Mark Thomas will assist the City during bidding of the project. The work may include answering bid inquiries of prospective bidders and preparing addenda to the PS& E during bidding. Mark Thomas has budgeted the effort for Bid Support to have a total of 10 inquiries and the preparation of 1 addendum.

Task 4.2. Construction Support
Mark Thomas will assist the City’s Construction Manager during construction. The work may include responding to Requests for Information (RFI) by the co ntractor, providing consultation and interpreting the construction documents, preparing contract change orders, attending construction meetings (as needed), and visiting the project locations during construction. Mark Thomas will collaborate with the City’s constructi on manager in review and approval of shop drawings and submittals.

Mark Thomas has budgeted for the construction support effort as follows:
• 1 preconstruction meeting
• No more than 4 additional construction meetings
• 2 on-site visits
• 8 construction RFI

ASSUMPTIONS
This scope of work has been prepared using the following assumptions:
• Per DIB 82-06 and Title 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), maintenance activities, such as slurry seal treatments, are not considered alterations. Therefore, maintenance work is not subject to the accessibility requirements of these documents.
• Utility relocations will be limited to adjustments to grade. If relocations of underground facilities are required, additional budget will be required to complete this coordination. • PDT Meetings will be held virtually.

CITY OF TURLOCK
MT Task Order #5

MT Task Order #5
CITY OF TURLOCK 15

• Contract plans will be provided on 22 X 34-inch sheets. • AutoCAD Civil 3D 2022 will be used to produce the contract plans for this project. • City of Turlock will accommodate no cost encroachment permits. • The project will be advertised, awarded and administered by the City and the City will coordination reproductions of the bid package.
• The City will provide any maintenance and improvement documents for the various streets, if available.

This should include any as-built information for utilities (i.e. storm drain, sewer, water, etc.). • All construction submittals by the contractor will be reviewed and approved by the City’s Construction Manager.
• The preconstruction meetings will be held virtually.

Survey Assumptions:
• Boundary Survey/right of way survey is not included in this scope of work • Grading and Utility staking are not included in this scope of work • Traffic control for survey activities are not included in this scope

Electrical Assumptions:
• ISO illumination studies are not included in the scope of work. • The existing traffic signal controller cabinets and electrical service cabinets will remain in place and will not need to be modified in any way.
• The modification to the signal cabinet will be limited to the removal of the inductive loop detection equipment and the installation of the video detection e quipment and accessible pedestrian signal (APS) equipment.
• This scope of work assumes that there is adequate space within the existing signal cabinet(s) to add the necessary signal equipment needed to modify the s ignal to utilize video detection and the APS equipment.
• Preparation of as-built plans is not included in the scope of work. • Signal interconnect is not included in the scope of work. • Signal timing plans are not included in the scope of work.

Sr. Engineering
Manager
Sr. Project Manager
Technical Lead
Civil Engineering
Designer
Design Engineer II
Survey Manager I
Asst Surveyor II
Survey Specialist II
Survey Technician III
2-Person Crew (OE3)
Funding Manager
Funding Specialist
Project Accountant
Sr. Project
Coordinator
Crawford &
Associates
Northstar
JLB
$365 $281 $221 $178 $145 $230 $134 $153 $141 $331 $314 $157 $131 $150

1.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION

1.1 Project management 24 40 50 114 $28,920 - - $28,920

1.2 Schedule and Monthly Status Reports 8 12 36 24 80 $12,710 - - - $12,710

1.3 Project Development Team Meetings 8 8 12 28 $7,309 - - - $7,309

1.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 40 10 50 $10,605 2,663 - - $13,268

1.5 Constructability Review 0 $0 - - - $0

1.6 Funding Assistance/Grant Applications 80 200 260 540 $115,350 - - - $115,350 OTHER DIRECT COSTS $33,193 - - - $33,193 Subtotal Phase 1 32 56 40 84 80 0 0 0 0 0 200 260 36 24 812 $208,088 $2,663 $0 $0 $210,751

2.0 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING

2.1 Project Data Gathering/Site Visit 4 16 16 36 $6,973 - - - $6,973

2.2 LiDAR Translation/Extraction/Base Mapping 0 $0 - - - $0

2.2.1 LiDAR Translation 8 4 24 32 1 2 71 $17,075 - - - $17,075

2.2.2 LiDAR Extraction 8 8 20 100 136 $20,041 - - - $20,041

2.3 Supplemental Topograhic Survey 4 4 16 16 1 2 43 $9,512 - - - $9,512

2.3.1 Control Surveys 0 $0 - 7,208 - $7,208

2.3.2 Supplemental Topograhic Survey 0 $0 - 34,505 - $34,505

2.3.3 Record Data Search 0 $0 - 12,744 - $12,744

2.3.4 Monument Preservation 0 $0 - 22,056 - $22,056

2.4 Geotechnical 0 $0 - - - $0

2.4.1 Preliminary Review and Coordination 0 $0 9,376 - - $9,376

2.4.2 Pavement Condition Assessment 0 $0 8,223 - - $8,223

2.4.3 Pavement Coring & Laboratory Testing 0 $0 10,736 - - $10,736

2.4.3.1 Engineering Analysis 0 $0 9,560 - - $9,560

2.4.3.2 Pavement Design Report 0 $0 13,965 - - $13,965

2.5 Environmental 0 $0 - - - $0

2.6 Utility Coordination and Investigation 0 $0 - - - $0

2.6.1 Utility Coordination 8 40 40 88 $18,193 - - - $18,193

2.6.2 Subsurface Utility Engineering and Locating 40 4 8 16 40 56 1 4 169 $36,452 - - - $36,452 Subtotal Phase 2 0 12 56 80 16 24 20 64 156 104 0 0 3 8 543 $108,246 $51,861 $76,514 $0 $236,621

3.0 PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND ESTIMATE

3.1 30% Concept Plans 4 8 60 90 90 252 $45,997 - - - $45,997

3.2 Plans, Specifications, and Estimate 0 $0 - - - $0

3.2.1 60% Plans 4 40 220 230 270 764 $141,278 - - 29,859 $171,136

3.2.2 90% Plans 4 40 160 230 250 684 $125,142 - - 14,929 $140,071

3.2.3 100% Plans 4 20 90 120 140 374 $68,570 - - 4,977 $73,547

3.2.4 Specifications 4 12 40 56 $13,664 - - - $13,664

3.2.5 Estimates 4 4 40 40 60 148 $27,218 - - - $27,218

3.2.6 Miscellaneous Exhibits 4 4 24 36 68 $13,096 - - - $13,096 Subtotal Phase 3 28 128 634 710 846 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2346 $434,965 $0 $0 $49,765 $484,730

4.0 CONSTRUCTION AND BID SUPPORT

4.1 Bid Support 12 24 36 $8,672 - - - $8,672

4.2 Construction Support 16 60 60 136 $26,430 - - - $26,430 Subtotal Phase 4 0 28 84 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 172 $35,101 $0 $0 $0 $35,101 TOTAL HOURS 60 224 814 874 1002 24 20 64 156 104 200 260 39 32 3873 0 0 0 Anticipated Salary Increases $7,532 $0 $0 $1,087 $8,619 OTHER DIRECT COSTS $33,193 $20,903 $0 $469 $54,565
TOTAL COST $21,928 $63,020 $179,617 $155,491 $145,098 $5,528 $2,676 $9,797 $21,945 $34,423 $62,888 $40,877 $5,110 $4,810 $793,933 $75,427 $76,514 $51,321 $997,195

TOTAL COST
COST PROPOSAL FOR PROJECT SCOPE - Turlock: Dels Lane (N. GSB to W. Monte Vista Ave) Total MT
Cost
Mark Thomas
Total
Hours
Subconsultants
MT Fee (Cost Estimate Rates)
3/5/2025

Cost Proposal 1
Cost Plus Fixed Fee or Lump Sum
Note: Mark-ups are Not Allowed
Consultant: Mark Thomas & Company, Inc.

Project No. Contract No. Date 3/5/2025

DIRECT LABOR
Range Hours
Actual or
Average
Hourly Rate
Total
$168 - $205 0.0 186.50 $ - $
$115 - $150 60.0 132.50 $ 7,950.00 $
$111 - $130 0.0 120.50 $ - $
$111 - $130 0.0 120.50 $ - $
$84 - $120 224.0 102.00 $ 22,848.00 $
$81 - $110 0.0 95.50 $ - $
$72 - $100 0.0 86.00 $ - $
$70 - $90 814.0 80.00 $ 65,120.00 $
$60 - $90 0.0 75.00 $ - $
$62 - $75 0.0 68.50 $ - $
$49 - $75 0.0 62.00 $ - $
$49 - $80 874.0 64.50 $ 56,373.00 $
$50 - $70 0.0 60.00 $ - $
$40 - $65 1002.0 52.50 $ 52,605.00 $
$33 - $50 0.0 41.50 $ - $
$30 - $45 0.0 37.50 $ - $
$17 - $30 0.0 23.50 $ - $
$96 - $165 0.0 130.50 $ - $
$84 - $100 0.0 92.00 $ - $
$72 - $95 24.0 83.50 $ 2,004.00 $
$67 - $95 0.0 81.00 $ - $
$58 - $80 0.0 69.00 $ - $
$57 - $75 0.0 66.00 $ - $
$51 - $60 0.0 55.50 $ - $
$42 - $55 20.0 48.50 $ 970.00 $
$39 - $50 0.0 44.50 $ - $
$48 - $90 0.0 69.00 $ - $
$41 - $70 64.0 55.50 $ 3,552.00 $
$39 - $60 0.0 49.50 $ - $
$43 - $50 0.0 46.50 $ - $
$42 - $60 156.0 51.00 $ 7,956.00 $
$35 - $55 0.0 45.00 $ - $
$19 - $40 0.0 29.50 $ - $
$84 - $100 0.0 92.00 $ - $
$58 - $70 0.0 64.00 $ - $
$53 - $65 0.0 59.00 $ - $
$51 - $60 0.0 55.50 $ - $
$38 - $55 0.0 46.50 $ - $
$110 - $130 104.0 120.00 $ 12,480.00 $
$168 - $195 0.0 181.50 $ - $
$55 - $65 0.0 60.00 $ - $
$63 - $75 0.0 69.00 $ - $
$58 - $70 0.0 64.00 $ - $
$55 - $65 0.0 60.00 $ - $
$47 - $55 0.0 51.00 $ - $
$117 - $135 0.0 126.00 $ - $
Name
Todd Lewis
Ed Noriega
Engineering Manager
Design Manager
Sr. Project Manager
Sr. Technical Lead
Project Manager
Technical Lead
Principal
Classification/Title
Dels Lane (N. GSB to W. Monte Vista Ave)
Sr. Engineering Manager
Design Engineer I
Technician
Intern
Sr. Project Engineer
Sr. Technical Engineer
Project Engineer
Civil Engineering Designer
Sr. Technician
Design Engineer II
Survey Manager II
Survey Manager I
Project Surveyor III
Project Surveyor II
Project Surveyor I
Asst Surveyor III
Survey Division Manager
Survey Technician III
Survey Technician II
Survey Technician I
SUE Program Manager
Chief of Party (OE3)
Instrumentperson (OE3)
Asst Surveyor II
Asst Surveyor I
Survey Specialist III
Survey Specialist II
Survey Specialist I
Lead Survey Technician
Instrumentperson (OE12)
Chainperson (OE12)
Apprentice (OE12)
2-Person Crew (OE12)
Chainperson (OE3)
Apprentice (OE3)
2-Person Crew (OE3)
3-Person Crew (OE3)
Utility Locator (North)
Chief of Party (OE12)
Prime Consultant Subconsultant 2nd Tier Subconsultant

$175 - $205 0.0 190.00 $ - $
$64 - $75 0.0 69.50 $ - $
$103 - $125 200.0 114.00 $ 22,800.00 $
$70 - $85 0.0 77.50 $ - $
$39 - $75 260.0 57.00 $ 14,820.00 $
$65 - $75 0.0 70.00 $ - $
$35 - $60 39.0 47.50 $ 1,852.50 $
$44 - $65 32.0 54.50 $ 1,744.00 $
$37 - $55 0.0 46.00 $ - $
$40 - $55 0.0 47.50 $ - $
$28 - $40 0.0 34.00 $ - $
$37 - $55 0.0 46.00 $ - $
$36 - $45 0.0 40.50 $ - $
$57 - $80 0.0 68.50 $ - $
$43 - $65 0.0 54.00 $ - $
$34 - $45 0.0 39.50 $ - $

LABOR COSTS
a) Subtotal Direct Labor Costs 273,074.50 $
b) Anticipated Salary Increases (see page 2 for calculation) 2,730.75 $ c) TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS [(a) + (b)] 275,805.25 $

INDIRECT COSTS
d) Fringe Benefits (Rate: 92.57%) e) Total Fringe Be nefits [(c) x (d)] 255,312.92 $ f) Overhead (Rate: 58.18%) g) Overhead [(c) x (f)] 16 0,463.49 $ h) General and Administrative (Rate: 0.00%) i) Gen & Admin [(c) x (h)] -$ j) TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS [(e) + (g) + (i)] 415,776.41 $ FIXED FEE k) TOTAL FIXED FEE [[(c) + (j)] x fixed fe e 10.00 %] 69,158.17 $ l) CONSULTANT'S OTHER DIRECT COSTS (ODC) - ITEMIZE (Add additional pages if necessary Quantity Unit Unit Cost
2400 miles $0.67 1,608.00 $
0 miles $0.67 - $
0 EA $0.05 - $
0 sheets $1.00 - $
0 sheets $0.35 - $
0 sheets $0.05 - $
0 LS $500.00 - $
0 EA $15.00 - $
1 EA $31,585.00 31,585.00 $
0 LS $1,000.00 - $
0 LS $1,000.00 - $
0 LS $3,000.00 - $
0 Day $260.00 - $
0 Day $8,000.00 - $
0 HR $30.00 - $
l) TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS 33,193.00 $
m) SUBCONSULTANTS' COSTS (add additional pages if necessary) Subconsultant 1: Crawford & Associates 75,427 $
Subconsultant 2: Northstar 76,514 $
Subconsultant 3: JLB 51,321 $
Subconsultant 4: SUBCONSULTANT 4 -$
Subconsultant 5: SUBCONSULTANT 5 -$
Subconsultant 6: SUBCONSULTANT 6 -$
m) TOTAL SUBCONSULTANTS' COSTS 203,262 $
n) TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS INCLUDING SUBCONSULTANTS [(l) + (m)] 236,455 $ TOTAL COST [(c) + (j) + (k) + (n)] 997,195 $
NOTES:

Mileage - Survey
Reproductions - full size
Reproductions - half size
Structure/Quantity Calculations
Misc. Costs
Overnight Mail/Mail
Subsurface Utility Investigation

1. Key personnel must be marked with an asterisk (*) and employees that are subject to prevailing wage requirements must be marked with two asterisks (**). All costs must comply with the Federal cost principles. Subconsultants will provide their own cost proposals

2. The cost proposal format shall not be amended. Indirect cost rates shall be updated on an annual basis in accordance with the consultant’s annual accounting period and established by a cognizant agency or accepted by Caltrans.

3. Anticipated salary increases calculation (page 2) must accompany.

Per Diem
MTLS Mobile Scanner
Survey Equipment
Misc. Surveys (Maps, PTR's etc.)
Safety Plan
Traffic Control
Description of Item
Mileage
Copies
3-Person Crew (OE12)
Utility Locator (South)
Funding Manager
Sr. Project Assistant
Project Assistant
Sr. Technical Writer
Technical Writer
Sr. Graphic Manager
Sr. Graphic Designer
Sr. Funding Specialist
Funding Specialist
Project Accountant Manager
Project Accountant
Sr. Project Coordinator
Project Coordinator
Graphic Designer

Cost Proposal 1
Cost Plus Fixed Fee or Lump Sum

1. Calculate Average Hourly Rate for 1st year of the contract (Direct Labor Subtotal divided by total hours) Direct Labor Subtotal
per Cost Proposal
Total Hours per
Cost Proposal Avg Hourly Rate 2 Year Contract Duration
$273,074.50 / 3873.0 = $70.51 Year 1 Avg Hourly Rates

2. Calculate hourly rate for all years (Increase the Average Hourly Rate for a year by proposed escalation %) Average Hourly Rate
Proposed
Escalation
Year 1 $70.51 + 5.00% = $74.03 Year 2 Avg Hourly Rate
Year 2 $74.03 + 5.00% = $77.73 Year 3 Avg Hourly Rate
Year 3 $77.73 + 5.00% = $81.62 Year 4 Avg Hourly Rate
Year 4 $81.62 + 5.00% = $85.70 Year 5 Avg Hourly Rate
Year 5 $85.70 + 5.00% = $89.99 Year 6 Avg Hourly Rate
Year 6 $89.99 + 5.00% = $94.49 Year 7 Avg Hourly Rate

3. Calculate estimated hours per year (Multiply estimate % each year by total hours) Estimated %
Completed Each Year
Total hours per
Cost Proposal
Total Hours per
Year
Year 1 80% x 3873.0 = 3098.4 Estimated Hours Year 1
Year 2 20% x 3873.0 = 774.6 Estimated Hours Year 2
Year 3 0% x 3873.0 = 0.0 Estimated Hours Year 3
Year 4 0% x 3873.0 = 0.0 Estimated Hours Year 4
Year 5 0% x 3873.0 = 0.0 Estimated Hours Year 5
Year 6 0% x 3873.0 = 0.0 Estimated Hours Year 6
Total 100% Total 3873.0

4. Calculate Total Costs including Escalation (Multiply Average Hourly Rate by the number of hours) Avg Hourly Rate
(calculated above)
Estimated hours
(calculated above) Cost per Year
Year 1 $70.51 x 3098.4 = $218,459.60 Estimated Cost Year 1 Year 2 $74.03 x 774.6 = $57,345.65 Estimated Cost Year 2 Year 3 $77.73 x 0.0 = $0.00 Estimated Cost Year 3
Year 4 $81.62 x 0.0 = $0.00 Estimated Cost Year 4
Year 5 $85.70 x 0.0 = $0.00 Estimated Cost Year 5
Year 6 $89.99 x 0.0 = $0.00 Estimated Cost Year 6
Total Direct Labor Cost with Escalation $275,805.25
Direct Labor Subtotal before Escalation $273,074.50
Estimated total of Direct Labor Salary Increase $2,730.75 Transfer to Page 1 NOTES:

4. Calculations for anticipated salary escalation must be provided.

CALCULATIONS FOR ANTICIPATED SALARY INCREASES

1. This is not the only way to estimate salary increases. Other methods will be accepted if they clearly indicate the % increase, the # of years of the contract, and a breakdown of the labor to be performed each year.

2. An estimation that is based on direct labor multiplied by salary increase % multiplied by the # of years is not acceptable. (i.e. $250,000 x 2% x 5 yrs = $25,000 is not an acceptable methodology)

3. This assumes that one year will be worked at the rate on the cost proposal before salary increases are granted.

Cost Proposal 1
Cost Plus Fixed Fee or Lump Sum
Certification of Direct Costs:

Prime Consultant or Subconsultant Certifying:

Name: Matt Brogan Title*: Principal + Vice President
Signature: Date of Certification (03/5/25)
Email: [email protected] Phone Number: (916) 605- 6761 List services the consultant is providing under the proposed contract:

Address: 701 University Ave #200, Sacramento, CA 95825
*An individual executive or financial officer of the consultant’s or subconsultant’s organization at a level no lower than a Vice President or a Chief Financial Officer, or equivalent, who has authority to represent the financial information utilized to establish the cost proposal for the contract.

All costs must be applied consistently and fairly to all contracts. All documentation of compliance must be retained in the project files and be in compliance with applicable federal and state requirements.

Costs that are noncompliant with the federal and state requirements are not eligible for reimbursement.

Local governments are responsible for applying only cognizant agency approved or Caltrans accepted Indirect Cost Rate(s).

I, the undersigned, certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that all direct costs identified on the cost proposal(s) in this contract are actual, reasonable, allowable, and allocable to the contract in accordance with the contract terms and the following requirements:

1. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)

2. Terms and conditions of the contract

3. Title 23 United States Code Section 112 - Letting of Contracts

4. 48 Code of Federal Regulations Part 31 - Contract Cost Principles and Procedures

5. 23 Code of Federal Regulations Part 172 - Procurement, Management, and Administration of Engineering and Design Related Service

6. 48 Code of Federal Regulations Part 9904 - Cost Accounting Standards Board (when applicable)

Dels Lane RehabiliationCrawford & Associates, Inc.

Principal *
Senior Project Manager *
Senior Project Manager *
Project Manager II
Project Manager I
Senior Geologist
Senior Engineer
Project Engineer II
Project Engineer I
Staff Engineer
Administrative Assistant
Field Technician (Prevailing Wage) **
Concrete Testing Technician (Prevailing Wage) **
Laborer Technician (Prevailing Wage) **
Anticipated Salary IncreaseCrawford & Associates Staff (*Key) B. CrawfordTBDTBDS. LeyvaTBDTBDTBDTBDTBDTBDTBDTBDTBDTBDInitial Hourly Rate 74.52$ 77.60$ 62.63$ 60.47$ 58.30$ 51.19$ 51.19$ 46.31$ 41.34$ 36.25$ 32.80$ 44.79$ 41.49$ 36.04$ $0.00Fringe Benefits 88.29%65.79$ 68.52$ 55.30$ 53.39$ 51.47$ 45.19$ 45.19$ 40.88$ 36.50$ 32.01$ 28.96$ 39.55$ 36.63$ 31.82$ $0.00Overhead 116.79%87.03$ 90.63$ 73.15$ 70.63$ 68.09$ 59.78$ 59.78$ 54.08$ 48.29$ 42.34$ 38.31$ 52.32$ 48.45$ 42.09$ $0.00General & Administrative 20.00%14.90$ 15.52$ 12.53$ 12.09$ 11.66$ 10.24$ 10.24$ 9.26$ 8.27$ 7.25$ 6.56$ 8.96$ 8.30$ 7.21$ $0.00Fixed Fee 10%24.22$ 25.23$ 20.36$ 19.66$ 18.95$ 16.64$ 16.64$ 15.05$ 13.44$ 11.78$ 10.66$ 14.56$ 13.49$ 11.72$ $0.00Hourly Rate266.47$ 277.51$ 223.97$ 216.24$ 208.47$ 183.05$ 183.05$ 165.58$ 147.84$ 129.63$ 117.29$ 160.18$ 148.35$ 128.88$ $0.00TASK NO. 1Coordination, Field Preparation, Permitting2.0 12.0 10.018.012.04.0 9,376.23$ 9,376.23$ -$ -$ TASK NO. 2 -$ -$ Pavement Conditions Assessment 6.0 20.020.0 8,223.39$ 8,223.39$ -$ -$ TASK NO. 3 -$ -$ Pavement Coring 4.0 4.030.0 8.0 30.0 10,736.04$ 10,736.04$ -$ -$ TASK NO. 4 -$ -$ Engineering Analysis 6.0 18.016.016.0 9,560.42$ 9,560.42$ -$ -$ TASK NO. 5 -$ -$ Draft and Final Reports2.0 8.0 18.018.016.020.04.0 13,965.27$ 13,965.27$ -$ -$ TASK NO. 6 -$ -$ Plan Review and Comments4.0 4.0 4.0 2,663.02$ 2,663.02$ -$ -$ OTHER DIRECT COSTSMileage (IRS Rate) 294.75$ 294.75$ Per Diem (GSA Rate) 220.00$ 220.00$ Permit Fees -$ -$ Traffic Control Equipment -$ -$ Traffic Control (Minor) -$ -$ Traffic Control (Major) 8,400.00$ 8,400.00$ Drilling -$ -$ Steel Liners (MCAL) -$ -$ Hand Auger 400.00$ 400.00$ Wildcat DCP Equipment -$ -$ Wildcat DCP Tips -$ -$ Core Machine with Generator 7,800.00$ 7,800.00$ Core Machine Bit 144.00$ 144.00$ Core Boxes -$ -$ Backfill 144.00$ 144.00$ Laboratory Testing (Crawford 2023 Rates, Attached) 3,500.00$ 3,500.00$ 0 -$ -$ 0 -$ -$ 0 -$ -$ 0 -$ -$ 0 -$ -$ Subtotal- Hours/Tasks8.00.00.012.028.00.060.068.080.032.016.00.00.030.0 54,524.37$ 20,902.75$ TOTAL LABOR HOURS: 334.0 ANTICIPATED SALARY INCREASE: $0.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED FEE: 75,427.12$
2/12/2025

LABOR COST PER TASK

OTHER DIRECT COSTS

TOTAL COST

Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 10-H1
Cost Proposal
ConsultantCrawford & Associates, Inc.

Project No.23-931.5P Contract No. Date 2/12/2025
Project NameDels Lane Rehabiliation

DIRECT LABOR
HoursActual Hourly RateTotal

8.0 $74.52 596.14$

0.0 $77.60 -$

0.0 $62.63 -$

12.0 $60.47 725.67$

28.0 $58.30 1,632.41$

0.0 $51.19 -$

60.0 $51.19 3,071.34$

68.0 $46.31 3,148.74$

80.0 $41.34 3,307.50$

32.0 $36.25 1,160.01$

16.0 $32.80 524.79$

0.0 $44.79 -$

0.0 $41.49 -$

30.0 $36.04 1,081.22$
334

LABOR COSTS
a) Subtotal Direct Labor Costs 15,247.82$
b) Anticipated Salary Increases (see page 2 for calculation) $0.00 c) TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS [(a) + (b)]15,247.82$

INDIRECT COSTS
d) Fringe Benefits Rate:88.29% e) Total Fringe Benefits [(c) x (d)]13,462.30$ f) Overhead Rate:116.79% g) Overhead [(c) x (f)]17,807.93$ h) General & AdministrativeRate:20.00% i) Gen & Admin [(c) x (h)]3,049.56$ 225.08%
j) TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS [(e) + (g) + (i)]34,319.79$
FIXED FEE k) TOTAL FIXED FEE [(c) + (j)] x fixed fee10%] 4,956.76$ l) CONSULTANT'S OTHER DIRECT COSTS (ODC) - ITEMIZE (Add additional pages if necessary) QuantityUnit Unit Cost Total
Mileage (IRS Rate) 450 Mile 0.655$ 294.75$ Per Diem (GSA Rate) 1 Day 220.00$ 220.00$
Permit Fees At Cost 500.00$ -$
Traffic Control Equipment Day 150.00$ -$
Traffic Control (Minor) Day 700.00$ -$
Traffic Control (Major) 3 Day 2,800.00$ 8,400.00$ Drilling At Cost -$
Steel Liners (MCAL) Each 10.00$ -$
Hand Auger 2 Day 200.00$ 400.00$
Wildcat DCP Equipment Day 750.00$ -$
Wildcat DCP Tips Each 15.00$ -$
Core Machine with Generator 3 Day 2,600.00$ 7,800.00$ Core Machine Bit 48 Inch 3.00$ 144.00$
Core Boxes Each 17.25$ -$
Backfill 18 Bag 8.00$ 144.00$
Laboratory Testing (Crawford 2023 Rates, Attached)1 Lump Sum 3,500.00$ 3,500.00$ -$
-$
-$
-$
-$
20,902.75$
m) SUBCONSULTANT'S COSTS (Add additional pages if necessary) Subconsultant 1: -$
Subconsultant 2: -$
m) TOTAL SUBCONSULTANT'S COSTS-$
n) TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS INCLUDING SUBCONSULTANTS [(l) + (m)]20,902.75$ TOTAL COST [(c) + (j) + (k) + (n)]75,427.12$
NOTES:

1. Key personnel must be marked with an asterisk (*) and employees that are subject to prevailing wage requirements must be marked with two asterisks (**). All costs must comply with the Federal cost principles. Subconsultants will provide their own cost proposals.2. The cost proposal format shall not be amended. Indirect cost rates shall be updated on an annual basis in accordance with the consultant's annual accounting period and established by a cognizant agency or accepted by Caltrans.3. Anticipated salary calculation (page 2) must accompany.

Note: Mark-ups are Not Allowed
EXHIBIT 10-H1 COST PROPOSAL Page 1 of 3
Benjamin Crawford
TBD
Principal *

COST-PLUS-FIXED FEE OR LUMP SUM OR FIRM FIXED PRICE CONTRACTS Name
(DESIGN, ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES)
Classification/Title
Senior Project Manager * TBD
Senior Project Manager *
Senior Engineer
TBD
Combined ICR %:

Description of Item
Laborer Technician (PW) ** TBD
TBD
TBD
Concrete Technician (PW) ** TBD
Field Technician (PW) **
Project Manager II S. Leyva
TBD
Staff Engineer
Administrative Assistant
Project Manager I TBD
Project Engineer I
TBD
TBD
TBD
Senior Geologist
Project Engineer II
Prime ConsultantSubconsultant2nd Tier Subconsultant

Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 10-H1
Cost Proposal

1. Calculate Average Hourly Rate for 1st year of the contract (Direct Labor Subtotal divided by total hours) Avg Hourly 5 Year Contract
Rate Duration
$15,247.82 = 45.65

2. Calculate hourly rate for all years (Increase the Average Hourly Rate for a year by proposed escalation %)Avg Hourly Rate
Year 1 $45.65 + = $47.93 Year 2 Avg Hourly Rate
Year 2 $47.93 + = $50.33 Year 3 Avg Hourly Rate
Year 3 $50.33 + = $52.85 Year 4 Avg Hourly Rate
Year 4 $52.85 + = $55.49 Year 5 Avg Hourly Rate

3. Calculate estimated hours per year (Multiply estimate % each year by total hours) Total Hours
per Year
Year 1 100% * = 334.00 Estimated Hours Year 1
Year 2 0% * = 0.00 Estimated Hours Year 2
Year 3 0% * = 0.00 Estimated Hours Year 3
Year 4 0% * = 0.00 Estimated Hours Year 4
Year 5 0% * = 0.00 Estimated Hours Year 5
Total 100% = 334.00
Year 1 $45.65 * = 15247.81755Estimated Hours Year 1
Year 2 $47.93 * = $0.00 Estimated Hours Year 2
Year 3 $50.33 * = $0.00 Estimated Hours Year 3
Year 4 $52.85 * = $0.00 Estimated Hours Year 4
Year 5 $55.49 * = $0.00 Estimated Hours Year 5
Total Direct Labor Cost with Escalation = $15,247.82
Direct Labor Subtotal before Escalation = $15,247.82
Estimated total of Direct Labor Salary Increase = $0.00 Transfer to Page 1 NOTES:

1. This is not the only way to estimate salary increases. Other methods will be accepted if they clearly indicate the % increase, the # of years of the contract, and a breakdown of the labor to be performed each year.

2. An estimation that is based on direct labor multiplied by salary increase % multiplied by the # of years is not acceptable. (i.e. $250,000 x 2% x 5 years = $25,000 is not an acceptable methodology)

3. This assumes that one year will be worked at the rate on the cost proposal before salary increases are granted.

4. Calculations for anticipated salary escalation must be provided.

Year 1 Avg Hourly
Rate
EXHIBIT 10-H1 COST PROPOSAL Page 2 of 3

ACTUAL COST-PLUS-FIXED FEE OR LUMP SUM (FIRM FIXED PRICE) CONTRACTS (CALCULATIONS FOR ANTICIPATED SALARY INCREASES)
334

5.0%

5.0%

5.0%

5.0%
0 Cost per Year

4. Calculate Total Costs including Escalation (Multiply Average Hourly Rate by the number of hours) Estimated % Total Hours
Completed Each Year
(calculated above)
per Cost Proposal
334
334
334
334
334
0 Direct Labor Subtotal Total Hours
Total
per Cost Proposal per Cost Proposal
334
Proposed
Escalation
0 0
Avg Hourly Rate Estimated hours
(calculated above)

Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 10-H1
Cost Proposal

1.Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)

2.Terms and conditions of the contract

3.Title 23 United States Code Section 112 - Letting of Contracts

4.48 Code of Federal Regulations Part 31 - Contract Cost Principles and Procedures

5.23 Code of Federal Regulations Part 172 - Procurement, Management, and Administration of Engineering and Design Related

6.48 Code of Federal Regulations Part 9904 - Cost Accounting Standards Board (when applicable) Prime Consultant or Subconsultant Certifying:

Name: Title *:

Signature : Date of Certification: 2/12/2025
Email: Phone Number:

Address:

List services the consultant is providing under the proposed contract:

EXHIBIT 10-H1 COST PROPOSAL Page 3 of 3
All costs must be applied consistently and fairly to all contracts. All documentation of compliance must be retained in the project files and be in compliance with applicable federal and state requirements. Costs that are noncompliant with the federal and state requirements are not eligible for reimbursement.

Local governments are responsible for applying only cognizant agency approved or Caltrans accepted In direct Cost Rate(s).

Geotechnical Engineering Services
*An individual executive or financial officer of the consultant’s or subconsultant’s organization at a level no lower than a Vice President or a Chief Financial Officer, or equivalent, who has authority to represent the financial information utilized to establish the cost proposal for the contract.

Certification of Direct Costs:

I, the undersigned, certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that all direct costs identified on the cost proposal(s) in this contract are actual, reasonable, allowable, and allocable to the contract in accordance with the contract terms and the following requirements:

Crawford & Associates, Inc., 4701 Freeport Blvd., Sacramento, CA 95822 [email protected] (916) 455-4225
Benjamin D. Crawford President

Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 10-H1
Cost Proposal
Note: Mark-ups are Not Allowed
Prime Consultant X Subconsultant 2nd Tier Subconsultant Consultant:

Project No. Golden State Blvd. to Monte Vista Ave. Contract No.: Date: 3/4/2025

DIRECT LABOR
Actual Hourly Rate

62.05 $ 147.01 $

52.58 $ 124.57 $

86.54 $ 205.03 $

72.11 $ 170.84 $

72.11 $ 170.84 $
-$
-$
-$
-$

LABOR COSTS
a) Subtotal Direct Labor Costs
b) Anticipated Salary Increases (see page 2 for calculation) 32,295.44 $

INDIRECT COSTS
d) Fringe Benefits Rate: 39.20% $12,659.81
f) Overhead Rate: 41.18% $13,299.26
h) General and Administrative Rate: 35.00% $11,303.40
37,262.48 $

FIXED FEE
k) TOTAL FIXED FEE [(c ) + (j)] x fixed fee 10% 6,955.79 $ l) CONSULTANTS OTHER DIRECT COSTS (ODC) - ITEMIZE (Add additional pages if necessary) Unit Cost

0.58 $
-$
-$
-$
-$
m) SUBCONSULTANTS' COSTS (Add additional pages if necessary) Subconsultant 1: Title Reports
Subconsultant 2:

Subconsultant 3:

Subconsultant 4:

Subconsultant 5:

TOTAL COST [(c ) + (j) + (k) + (n)]
NOTES:

1. 2.

3. $76,513.71
l) TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS -$
m) TOTAL SUBCONSULTANTS' COSTS -$
n) TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS INCLUDING SUBCONSULTANTS' [(l) +(m)] -$ -$
-$
-$
-$
-$
Test
g) Overhead [(c ) x (f)]
i) Gen & Admin [(c ) x (h)]
Description of Item Quantity Unit Total
c) TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS [(a) + (b)]
e) TOTAL FRINGE BENEFITS [(c ) x (d)]
j) TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS [(e ) + (g) + (i)]
-$
-$
-$
-$
miles
Chainmen-Apprentice
Principal / Project Manager
-$
-$
-$
5,191.92 $ Nicole Cannella Land Surveyor Assistant Anticipated salary increases calculation (page 2) must accompany.

The cost proposal format shall not be amended. Indirect cost rates shall be updated on an annual basis in accordance with theconsultant’s annual accounting period and established by a cognizant agency or accepted by Caltrans.

Key personnel must be marked with an asterisk (*) and employees that are subject to prevailing wage requirements must be markedwith two asterisks (**). All costs must comply with the Federal cost principles. Subconsultants will provide their own cost proposals.

NorthStar Engineering Group, Inc.

Hours
168.00

14.00 72.00
Classification/Title
Party Chief
EXHIBIT 10-H1 COST PROPOSAL
Mileage Costs
Equipment Rental and Supplies
Permit Fees
Plan Sheets
Name
Various
32,295.44 $
-$
-$

ACTUAL COST-PLUS-FIXED-FEE OR LUMP SUM (FIRM FIXED PRICE) CONTRACTS (DESIGN, ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES)
Total
10,424.40 $
1,211.56 $
Various 168.00 8,833.44 $
Rien Groenwould 92.00 6,634.12 $
Kent Hysell
Land Surveyor

Cost Proposal
Cost Plus Fixed Fee or Lump Sum
Prime Consultant Subconsultant 2nd Tier Subconsultant Consultant: JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc
Project No. Contract No. Date 11/26/2024
Range Hours Actual Hourly
Rate Total
Principal 75.00 74.00 $ 5,550.00 $
Engineer I/II 105.00 42.00 $ 4,410.00 $
Engineer I/II 72.00 38.00 $ 2,736.00 $
Engineer I/II 201.00 34.50 $ 6,934.50 $
Engineer I/II 34.00 to 44.00 0.00 - $
Engineering Aide 18.00 to 24.00 0.00 - $
Amintrative Support 17.00 to 29.00 0.00 - $

LABOR COSTS
19,630.50 $
1,087.04 $
c) TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS [(a) + (b)] 20,717.54 $

INDIRECT COSTS

43.397% ) e) Total Fringe Benefits [(c) x (d)] 8,990.7 9 $

40.085% ) g) Overhead [(c) x (f)] 8,304.63 $

39.657% ) i) Gen & Admin [(c) x (h)] 8,215.95 $
j) TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS [(e) + (g) + (i)] 25,511.37 $
FIXED FEE k) TOTAL FIXED FEE [(c) + (j)] x fixed fee: 10% 4,622.89 $ l) CONSULTANT'S OTHER DIRECT COSTS (ODC) - ITEMIZE (Add additional pages if necessary) Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total
700 miles 0.67 $ 469.00 $
l) TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS 469.00 $
m) SUBCONSULTANTS' COSTS (Add additional pages if necessary) m) TOTAL SUBCONSULTANTS' COSTS -$
n) TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS INCLUDING SUBCONSULTANTS [(l) + (m)] 469.00 $ TOTAL COST [(c) + (j) + (k) + (n)] 51,321 $
NOTES:

1. 2.

3. Note: Mark-ups are Not Allowed
Jose Luis Benavides
Jove Alcazar
Dels from GSB to Monte Vista

DIRECT LABOR
Classification/Title Name
Javier Rios Jr.

Christian Sanchez
Range
Range
Description of Item
mileage (at IRS rate)
The cost proposal format shall not be amended. Indirect co st rates shall be updated on an annual basis in accordance with the consultant's annual accounting period and established by a cognizant agency or accepted by Caltrans.

Anticipated salary increases calculation (page 2) must accompany. a) Subtotal Direct Labor Costs
b) Anticipated Salary Increases (see page 2 for calculation) d) Fringe Benefits (Rate:
f) Overhead & G&A (Rate:
h) General & Admin (Rate:

Subconsultant 1:

Subconsultant 2:

Subconsultant 3:

Key personnel must be marked with an asterisk (*) and employees that are subject to prevailing wage requirements must be marked with two asterisks (**). All costs must comply with the Federal cost p rinciples. Subconsultants will provide their own cost proposals.

Subconsultant 4:

Consultant
Project No. Contract No. Date

1. Calculate Average Hourly Rate for 1st year of the contract (Direct Labor Subtotal divided by total hours) Avg Hourly 5 Year Contract
Rate Duration
$ 19,630.50 = $ 43.33 Year 1 Avg Hourly Rate Avg Hourly Rate
Year 1 $ 43.33 + = $ 45.50 Year 2 Avg Hourly Rate Year 2 $ 45.50 + = $ 47.78 Year 3 Avg Hourly Rate Year 3 $ 47.78 + = $ 50.17 Year 4 Avg Hourly Rate Year 4 $ 50.17 + = $ 52.67 Year 5 Avg Hourly Rate Total Hours
per Year
Year 1 5.00% * = 22.7 Estimated Hours Year 1
Year 2 80.00% * = 362.4 Estimated Hours Year 2
Year 3 15.00% * = 68.0 Estimated Hours Year 3
Year 4 0.00% * = 0.0 Estimated Hours Year 4
Year 5 0.00% * = 0.0 Estimated Hours Year 5
Total 100% = 453.0
Year 1 $ 43.33 * = $ 981.53 Estimated Hours Year 1 Year 2 $ 45.50 * = $ 16,489.62 Estimated Hours Year 2 Year 3 $ 47.78 * = $ 3,246.39 Estimated Hours Year 3 Year 4 $ 50.17 * = $ - Estimated Hours Year 4 Year 5 $ - * = $ - Estimated Hours Year 5 = $ 20,717.54
= $ 19,630.50
= $ 1,087.04 Transfer to Page 1
NOTES:

1. 2.

3. 4.

Direct Labor Subtotal before Escalation
Estimated total of Direct Labor Salary Increase
23 362
68 0
0 Total Direct Labor Cost with Escalation
Avg Hourly Rate Estimated hours
(calculated above) (calculated above)
453.0
Total

4. Calculate Total Costs including Escalation (Multiply Average Hourly Rate by the number of hours) 5%
453.0
5%
5%
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc

CALCULATIONS FOR ANTICIPATED SALARY INCREASES
453.0
Direct Labor Subtotal Total Hours
per Cost Proposal per Cost Proposal
453

2. Calculate hourly rate for all years (Increase the Average Hourly Rate for a year by proposed escalation %) Proposed Escalation
5%

3. Calculate estimated hours per year (Multiply estimate % each year by total hours) Estimated % Total Hours
Completed Each Year per Cost Proposal
453.0
453.0
Cost per Year
Calculations for anticipated salary escalation must be provided.

This is not the only way to estimate salary increases. Other methods will be accepted if they clearly indicate the % increase, the # of years of the contract, and a breakdown of the labor to be performed each year.

An estimation that is based on direct labor multiplied by salary increase % multiplied by the # of years is not acceptable. (i.e. $250,000 x 2% x 5 yrs = $25,000 is not an acceptable methodology).

This assumes that one year will be worked at the rate on the cost proposal before salary increases are granted.

I, the undersigned, certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that all direct costs identified on the cost proposal(s) in this contract are actual, reasonable, allowable, and allocable to the contract in accordance with the contract terms and the following requirements:

1. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)

2. Terms and conditions of the contract

3. Title 23 United States Code Section 112 - Letting of Contracts

4. 48 Code of Federal Regulations Part 31 - Contract Cost Principles and Proceedures

5. 23 Code of Federal Regulations Part 172 - Procurement, Management and Administration of Engineering and Design Related Service

6. 48 Ccode of Federal Regulations Part 9904 - Cost Accounting Standards Board (when applicable) All costs must be applied consistently and fairly to all contracts. All documentation of compliance must be retained in the project files and be in compliance with applicable federal and state requirements. Costs that are noncompliant with the federal and state requirements are not eligible for reimbursement.

Local governments are responsible for applying only cognizant agency or Caltrans accepted Indirect Cost Rate(s).

Name: Jose Luis Benavides Title *: President
Signature: Date of Certification: 11/26/2024
Email:
[email protected] Phone number: 559-570-8991
Address: 516 W Shaw Avenue, Ste 103, Fresno, CA 93 704 List services the consultant is providing under the proposed contract:

Electrical Designs for the preparation of plans and estimates (PS&E) for the modification of the existing traffic signals.

Prime Consultant or Subconsultant Certifying:
* An individual executive or financial officer of the consultant's or subconsultant's organization at a level no lower than a Vice President or a Chief Financial Officer, or equivalent, who has authority to represent the financial information utilized to establish the cost proposal for the contract.

Certification of Direct Costs:

CITY CONTRACT NO. 2023-110, Amendment No. 3 for Task Order No. 3

AMENDMENT NO. 3 FOR TASK ORDER NO. 3
Under the Terms of the

MASTER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TURLOCK
and
PROVOST & PRITCHARD ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.

DBA PROVOST & PRITCHARD CONSULTING GROUP
for
ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES (City Contract No. 2023-110)

City Project No. 25-024

THIS AMENDMENT NO. 3 for Task Order No. 3 under the terms of City Contract No. 2023-110 is entered into by and between the CITY OF TURLOCK, a California municipal corporation (“City”), and PROVOST & PRITCHARD ENGIN EERING GROUP, INC. DBA PROVOST & PRITCHARD CONSULTING GROUP, a California corporation (“Professional”), on this ______ day of ___________ 2025 (the “Effective Date of Tas k Order No. 3”). City and Professional may be collectively referred to herein as the “Parties” or individually as “Party.” There are no other parties to this Amendment No. 3.

WHEREAS, the Parties hereto previously entered into a Master Agreement (City Contract No. 2023-110) dated April 25, 2023, for engineering design services to assist City with Design Services for Roads Program Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Projects (“Agreement”); and

WHEREAS, the Agreement stipulates that the scope of services and fees associated with specific projects will be agreed upon through task orders approved under the terms of Agreement by a written amendment to the Agreement; and

WHEREAS, City desires that Professional provide engineering design services for City Project No. 25-024 “Provost & Pritchard Task Order No. 3 for Roads Program CIP Projects;” and

WHEREAS, Amendment No. 3 for Task Order No. 3 provides the scope of services, associated fees, and schedule for said City Project.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereto mutually agree to amend the Agr eement as follows:

1. Exhibit D, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby added to the Agreement.

2. Recital B of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:

CITY CONTRACT NO. 2023-110, Amendment No. 3 for Task Order No. 3

B. Professional has made a proposal to City to provi de such professional services. A description of the services Professiona l proposes to provide is included in the Scope of Services in Exhibits A through D attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (“Services”). City desires to r etain Professional to perform the Services, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.

3. Recital C of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:

C. The Parties anticipate that one or more projects fo r Services shall be determined through creation of a Task Order as a Ci ty-requested modification of services under Section 5.2 of this Agreement which shall be approved by written amendment to this Agreement. The Parties shall outline the schedule or timeline for providing the Services agreed upon under each Task Order (“Completion Schedule”), which shall be included in one or more written amendments to this Agreement. Such Completion Schedule is included in Exhibit D.

4. Recital D of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:

D. The Parties shall outline the rates and method of payment to Professional for its performance of the Services under this Agre ement as determined under each Task Order (“Compensation Schedule”), which shall b e included in one or more written amendments to this Agreement. Such Compensation Schedule is included in Exhibit D.

5. Section 5 of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:

5.1. Services . Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, Professional shall provide City the Services described in Exhibits A through D . Any request for Services not included in Exhibits A through D will be considered a request for additional or modified Services (“Modif ication” or “Modifications”).

Professional shall not receive additional compensat ion for any Modification of the Services unless the Parties agree otherwise in a writing executed by both Parties.

5.2. City Requested Modification of Services. City may, by written order, authorize Modifications to the Services described i n Exhibits A through D . If such Modifications cause an increase in the cost or time required for performance of Professional’s Services, the Parties shall enter in to a written amendment to this Agreement to adjust the Services and the compensati on to be paid to Professional and, if necessary, amend the Completion Schedule or Compensation Schedule. The Services, Completion Schedule, or Compensation Sche dule shall not be revised unless City and Professional mutually agree to a wr itten amendment to this Agreement reflecting such revisions, additional com pensation, time for performance or such other terms or conditions mutually agreed upon by the Parties.

6. Section 6 of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:

6.1. Amount, Time and Manner of Payment for Profess ional Services. City shall pay Professional according to the rates and timing set forth in the Compensation Schedule for each Task Order within each Amendment to the Agreement. Each Compensation Schedule shall include an exhibit based on Exhibit 10-H1 of Caltrans

CITY CONTRACT NO. 2023-110, Amendment No. 3 for Task Order No. 3

Local Assistance Procedures Manual (LAPM). Professional will be allowed to include an amount for the anticipated salary increases as calculated per Exhibit 10-H1. City’s total compensation to Professional shall not exceed the cumulative amount resulting from each Task Order with each approved Amendment t o the Agreement. The compensation for Amendment No. 3 shall not exceed One Million One-Hundred-Five Thousand Four-Hundred-Seventy-Five Dollars and Fort y Cents ($1,105,475.40) for City Project No. 25-024 (“Maximum Payment”), unless the Parties mutually agree in writing otherwise.

7. Execution and Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed simultaneously, and in several counterparts, each o f which shall be deemed an original, but which together shall constitute one a nd the same instrument. The Parties agree that this Amendment and any other doc uments to be delivered in connection herewith may be electronically signed ut ilizing services such as DocuSign and Nitro Sign, or by transmitting signatures in pdf or similar format, and that any electronic signatures appearing on this Ag reement or such other documents are the same as handwritten signatures fo r the purposes of validity, enforceability, and admissibility

8. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect for the Term of the Agreement.

[Signatures on Following Page ]

CITY CONTRACT NO. 2023-110, Amendment No. 3 for Task Order No. 3

IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the Parties have caused this Amendment No. 3 to be executed by and through their respective officers thereunto duly authorized.

PROFESSIONAL

PROVOST & PRITCHARD ENGINEERING
GROUP, INC. DBA PROVOST & PRITCHARD
CONSULTING GROUP, a California
corporation

By:

Jeffrey Dorn, Director of Operations

Date
CITY

City of Turlock, a California
municipal corporation

By:

Reagan M. Wilson, City Manager

Date:

APPROVED AS TO SUFFICIENCY:

By:

Christopher Fisher,
Municipal Services Director

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

George A. Petrulakis, City Attorney

ATTEST:

By:

Nichole Fiez, City Clerk

3/14/2025

455 W Fir Ave  Clovis, CA 93611  (559) 449-2700
www.provostandpritchard.com
Engineering  Structural  Geostructural  Surveying  Planning  Environmental  GIS  Construction Services  Hydrogeology  Consulting Clovis  Visalia  Bakersfield  Modesto  Los Banos  Chico  Sacramento  Sonora  San Luis Obispo  Boise, ID March 6, 2025
Fred Pezeshk
City of Turlock
156 South Broadway, Suite 150
Turlock, CA 95380
Subject: Design Services for City of Turlock Roads Program Task Order No. 3
Dear Fred Pezeshk:

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal to provide design services for the City of Turlock’s Roads Program Task Order No. 3. This proposal discusses our understanding of the project, recommends a scope of services together with associated fees, deliverables, approximate schedules, sets forth our assumptions and discusses other services that may be of interest as the project proceeds.

PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
We understand the City of Turlock would like to design the full reconstruction and grind and overlay of multiple streets in the City of Turlock as listed in the tables below.

1. Potential Rehabilitation Plans Package 1
a. Full reconstruction of Olive Avenue from Minnesota Avenue to Bennington Avenue plus grind and overlays east of Olive Avenue pending results of geotechnical investigation

2. Potential Rehabilitation Plans Package 2
a. Grind and Overlay for all the remaining streets pending results of geotechnical investigation
TASK ORDER No. 3 STREETS
Street Name From To Length
(ft.)
N. Olive Ave1 Christoffersen Pkwy Monte Vista Ave 2017
Monte Vista Ave Minnesota Ave 2710
Ashland Ct Olive Ave East End 617
Bennington Ave Fosberg Rd N. Olive Ave 1344
Salem Way Bennington Ave Fullerton Dr 361
Fullerton Drive Fosberg Ave N. Olive Ave 1311
Hood Ct North End Fullerton Dr 164
Cornell Dr Fosberg Ave Menlo Dr 1036
Avery Ct Cornell Dr South End 154

City of Turlock March 6, 2025
City of Turlock’s Roads Program Task Order No. 3 Page 2 of 9 Job No.: 20-557
TASK ORDER No. 3 STREETS
Street Name From To Length
(ft.)
Santos St Cornell Dr Hillsdale Dr 305
Hillsdale Dr2 Fosberg Ave N. Olive Ave 1270
Santos Ct Hillsdale Dr South End 374
Menlo Dr. Fullerton Dr. South End 430
Vanderbilt Ave3 Hillsdale Dr Newcomb Ave 909
Stanely Ave4 Hillsdale Dr Newcomb Ave 918
Newcomb Ave5 Vanderbilt Ave N. Olive Ave 483
Tulane Way Fosberg Rd Radcliff Way 502
Radcliff Way Tulane Way E. Monte Visa Ave 548
Potomac Ave N. Olive Ave Colorado Ave 1333
Gary St N. Olive Ave Richard St 512
Richard St Gary St Potomac Ave 269
Colorado Ave 3371 Colorado Ave Hartwick Ave 243
N. Berkeley Ave 3600 N. Berkeley E. Monte Vista 1673
Villanova Dr Roanoke Ct Fosberg Rd 482
Roanoke Ct North End South End 243
Glenville Ct Villanova Dr North End 233
Rochester Ct North End Villanova Dr 246
Total Length 20,926
Utility trench work has already reconstructed the following street segments:
1 southbound N. Olive Ave between Hillsdale and Monte Vista 2 eastbound Hillsdale Dr between Vanderbilt Ave and N. Olive Ave 3 northbound Vanderbilt Ave between Hillsdale Dr and Newcomb Ave 4 southbound Stanley Ave between Hillsdale Dr and Newcomb Ave 5 westbound Newcomb Ave between N. Olive Ave and Vanderbilt Ave The total length of these street improvements is 20,926 linear feet and the construction is roughly expected to cost between approximately $7,400,000 and $9,400,000.

The street improvements for the rehabilitation plans will include pavement reconstruction (using FDR-C or a conventional pavement section) and grind and overlay, removal and replacement of existing curb, gutter, and valley gutter as needed for drainage, and removal and replacement and/or construction of new sidewalk, curb ramps, drive approaches and alley approaches as required to provide ADA compliance.

Existing utilities will either be potholed in select locations to determine general approximate depths or located using ground penetrating radar (GPR).

We will review the City’s Active Transportation Plan (ATP) and General Plan for improvements to be included with this project. For Olive Avenue, we will prepare a presentation to City Council with up to three (3) potential layouts displaying how the City’s ATP and General Plan can be applied to Olive Avenue. We will

City of Turlock March 6, 2025
City of Turlock’s Roads Program Task Order No. 3 Page 3 of 9 Job No.: 20-557
also work closely with the City and the City’s other consultants to provide information for potential grant applications prepared by other consultants under separate contract.

Our design will also provide recommendations for pavement treatment of Olive Avenue from Bennington Avenue to Christoffersen Parkway for the City’s consideration which resides in an Assessment District.

Provost and Pritchard will review approximately 92 locations within the project area to determine if there is a need for the removal and replacement of the existing curb ramp or construction of a new curb ramp to meet ADA requirements. Our team will also review the existing storm water drainage facilities (inlets, pipes, and manholes) to determine recommendations for replacements required to improve storm water drainage.

SCOPE OF SERVICES
Our proposed scope of work for this proposal is segregated into several phases, described below.

PHASE SUR: TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY

TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
Upon approval of the task order we will complete a field topographic survey and right of way verification for the segments of roadway described above.
 Capturing sufficient horizontal and vertical locations for top of curbs, gutter flow lines, pavement crowns, manhole covers, valve covers, utility covers, striping, and USA markings needed to design and prepare the proposed improvement plans.
 A utility base drawing will also be prepared in AutoCAD Civil 3D format for use throughout the design process.
 Verify existing right-of-way limits with record maps and physical street monuments  Dip manholes and drain inlets to determine the depth of cover over existing gravity lines.  From the survey data and utility information collected, we will prepare a base drawing in AutoCAD Civil 3D format for use throughout the design process.

Up to 35 days of survey crew time will be required to complete the topographic survey for the entire project and prepare existing basemaps.

DELIVERABLES
Electronic basemap will be submitted to the City.

PHASE MON: PRE/POST CONSTRUCTION RECORD OF SURVEY & MONUMENT

PRESERVATION
The City has requested Provost & Pritchard include pre/post Construction record of survey and monument preservation for the project area. Provost & Pritchard will perform the following as part of this task:
 Research record monuments within project area.
 Field Survey to locate existing monuments.
 Set ties to allow for re-establishing any monument destroyed during construction

City of Turlock March 6, 2025
City of Turlock’s Roads Program Task Order No. 3 Page 4 of 9 Job No.: 20-557
 Post-construction field survey to locate all monuments that were existing pre-construction, replace any destroyed monuments
 File a post-construction corner record for all monuments that were reset It is assumed that the Contractor will be responsible for setting the centerline monuments in wells based on ties provided by us. Our budget includes replacing approximately 60 monuments.

DELIVERABLES
Signed PDF copies of City’s Acknowledgment of Monument Responsibility “Pre-Construction” and Acknowledgment of Monument Responsibility “Post-Construction” and copies of pre-construction and post- construction corner records survey documents filed.

PHASE GEO: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Provost & Pritchard will work with our subconsultant, BSK, to provide needed geotechnical information.  BSK’s work will include up to thirty (30) shallow borings to five (5) feet beneath ground surface (bgs) or until auger refusal in the roadway pavement. Pavement cores will be taken at each boring. We will measure the existing pavement section and obtain bulk soil samples at each location to analyze for new pavement design. We will backfill each boring hole with soil cutting and cap with asphalt cold patch or quick set concrete tinted black. Testing is expected to include the following:
o Minus 200 Wash
o Corrosion Potential
o In-Situ Moisture and dry density
o R-Value tests
o FDR-C Soil Cement Mix Design
 Geotechnical analysis and a report will be prepared based on the results of the field exploration and laboratory testing. The report will include the following:
o Vicinity Map and Site Plan with boring locations
o Subsurface Conditions, Soils Boring Logs, Depth to Groundwater (if encountered) o Summary of Laboratory Testing
o Corrosion and expansion characteristics of on-site soils o Recommendation for site preparation and earthwork
o Requirements for imported fill materials
o Recommendations for site drainage
o Recommendations for construction observation and testing and excavation suitability
o Recommendations for conventional pavement section with asphalt concrete and Class 2 AB with geogrid.
o Core information: AC and AB section thickness and thickness of other pavement materials encountered.
o Recommendations for alternative pavement sections including recommendations for full-depth reclamation with cement (FDR-C) and full depth HMA.  The geotechnical report will be prepared under the supervision of, and signed by, a California Licensed Geotechnical Engineer.

City of Turlock March 6, 2025
City of Turlock’s Roads Program Task Order No. 3 Page 5 of 9 Job No.: 20-557
 A City of Turlock encroachment permit will be secured prior to drilling and is anticipated to be provided without a fee. No other permits will be required.  Borings will require a lane closure and traffic control will be limited to flagging operations.

DELIVERABLES
Geotechnical report will be submitted to the City in PDF format.

PHASE DR: DRAINAGE STUDY

CONDUCT DRAINAGE STUDY
Provost and Pritchard will review available storm water plats and record drawings provided by the City to develop an understanding of the existing drainage patterns and facilities. After mapping the existing facilities, we will analyze the drainage patterns based on existing conditions and identify any drainage or ponding issues. Provost and Pritchard will make recommendations to the City as to how to improve drainage within the project area. We will then meet with the City to review the existing facilities, identified drainage problems, and potential solutions. The selected solutions will be incorporated into the improvement plans.

DELIVERABLES
Plan view only storm water exhibits will be submitted to the City in PDF format.

PHASE SD: SCHEMATIC DESIGN
35% PLANS AND ESTIMATE
 Upon approval of the task order, we will conduct utility research and identify potential conflicts with record utilities. The City has provide plats and record drawings for their utilities. The utility information collected will be shown on an existing basemap prepared for the project.  We will prepare a schematic design set of plans for the project. We anticipate that our 35% plan set will include the following sheets:
o Cover Sheet
o General Notes and Legend Sheet
o Storm Drain Plan Sheets (1”=20’ Plan and Profile).
o Street Plan Sheets (1”=20’ plan and profile view)
o Curb Ramp Detail Sheets (1”=5’)
o Driveway Detail Sheets (1”=5’)
o Signing and Striping (1”=40’ double plan view)
 Prepare Preliminary Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Cost (EOPCC)  Improvements will be entirely within existing right-of-way and no additional right-of-way (ROW) acquisition will be required. If improvements are required to extend outside of existing ROW, we will prepare a ROW acquisition exhibit and the City will acquire any required ROW and/or Temporary Construction Easements (TCEs).
 Prepare Utility Relocation notification letters and Utility Relocation Exhibits. Any required utility relocation design will be provided by the utility companies.  A review of existing streetlighting will be conducted within project limits to determine if existing streetlighting meets City Standards and identify if any additional lighting is needed. Street lighting

City of Turlock March 6, 2025
City of Turlock’s Roads Program Task Order No. 3 Page 6 of 9 Job No.: 20-557
design/plans are not included as part of this scope. The City will be provided a list of locations where deficiencies are found.

Once the documents above are complete, we will attend an in person design review meeting with the City to discuss our 35% design. This will ensure that we are proceeding in accordance with the City’s direction before we begin preparing the construction documents.

DELIVERABLES
The plans, EOPCC and Utility Relocation Exhibits and list of additional streetlighting required listed above will be submitted to the City in PDF format only.

PHASE DD: DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
PREPARE 65% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS
Based on input received from City staff through the Schematic Design Phase, the design team will commence with engineering design and preparation of the construction documents to the 65% level.

Our 65% submittal will include:
 65% Front End and Technical Specifications
o City of Turlock to provide front end template.
 65% Construction Plans, expected to include:
o Cover sheet
o Legend / Abbreviation sheet
o General Notes sheet
o Storm Drain Plan Sheets (1”=20’ Plan and Profile).
o Street Plan sheets (1”=20’ plan and profile)
o Curb Ramp, Alley and Drive Approach Detail sheets
o Typical Cross Section sheets
o Miscellaneous Detail sheets
o City Standard Detail sheets
o Traffic Control Plan Sheets (1”=40”)
o Signing, Striping, and Pavement Marking sheets (1”=40’ double plan view)  Revised Preliminary Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Costs.  Revised Utility Relocation Exhibits per Utility Company’s comments.

We will attend an in person design review meeting with City staff to discuss our 65% construction documents.

DELIVERABLES
The 65% plans, specifications and EOPCC listed above will be submitted to the City in PDF format only.

City of Turlock March 6, 2025
City of Turlock’s Roads Program Task Order No. 3 Page 7 of 9 Job No.: 20-557
PHASE CD: CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS
PREPARE 95% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS
We will incorporate comments from the 95% plan review and feedback from City staff as we prepare our Final construction documents.

Our 95% submittal will include:
 95% Construction Plans (expected plan set as noted above)  95% Specifications
 Engineer’s opinion of probable construction costs

PREPARE FINAL CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS
We will incorporate comments from the 95% plan review and feedback from City staff as we prepare our Final construction documents.

Our Final submittal will include:
 Final Construction Plans (expected plan set as noted above)  Final Specifications
 Engineer’s opinion of probable construction costs

DELIVERABLES
The plans, specifications and EOPCC listed above will be submitted to the City in PDF format only.

PHASE BID: BIDDING ASSISTANCE
P&P will perform the following services to assist the City during the bidding phase of the project:
 Assist City in responding to requests for information and preparing addenda, if necessary.  City will conduct bid process. Our attendance at pre-bid meeting and bid opening will not be required.

PHASE CON: ENGINEERING SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION
P&P will perform the following services to assist the City during the construction phase of the project:
 Attend pre-construction conference
 Assist City with review shop drawings and submittals
 Provide interpretation and/or clarification of construction documents during construction in response to requests for information from the contractor  Assist City with review and provide technical information for construction contract change order requests if necessary
 Conduct up to six site visits at intervals appropriate to the state of construction  Prepare record drawings based on contractor’s as-built drawings.

ASSUMPTIONS

1. Existing underground utilities do not exceed 10’ of burial depth below the finished surface.

2. All scribed paint marking associated with requesting Underground Service Alert would not be required to be removed.

3. The City has prepared or will prepare all necessary environmental documents and will provide all identified mitigation measures.

City of Turlock March 6, 2025
City of Turlock’s Roads Program Task Order No. 3 Page 8 of 9 Job No.: 20-557

4. The City will pay all permit fees, if required.

5. Construction staking, materials testing, labor compliance, construction management and construction administration will be provided by others under separate contract. Engineering Assistance during Construction will be provided according to the scope of work above.

6. Provost & Pritchard CAD standards and title block will be used for the design of this project. Provost & Pritchard’s current CAD version will be used.

PROFESSIONAL FEES
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group will perform the services on a time and materials basis for the fees shown in the table below and on the attached cost proposal. These fees will be invoiced monthly as they are accrued. Reimbursable expenses will be invoiced in addition to professional fees and are included in the estimated fees below. We will not continue to work beyond the authorized budget without additional authorization. Below is a summary of proposed fees, a detailed breakdown is provided in attached exhibit 10-H.

PROPOSED FEE

PHASE ESTIMATED FEE

PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
Phase SUR – Topographic Survey $129,494
Phase MON – Monument
Preservation $60,462
Phase GEO – Geotechnical
Investigation $48,110
Phase DR – Drainage Report $35,507
Phase UTL - Potholing/GPR $95,100
Phase SD – 35% PS&E $211,520
SUBTOTAL = $580,193

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
Phase DD – 65% PS&E $230,345
SUBTOTAL = $230,345

CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS
Phase CD – 95% PS&E $156,130
Phase FD – 100% PS&E $46,058
SUBTOTAL = $202,188

BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION
Phase BID – Bid Support $12,472
Phase CON – Construction Support $80,290
SUBTOTAL= $92,762
TOTAL ESTIMATED FEE = $1,105,475.40

City of Turlock March 6, 2025
City of Turlock’s Roads Program Task Order No. 3 Page 9 of 9 Job No.: 20-557
The line items shown in the table are estimates and are not intended to limit billings for any given Task.

Required task effort may vary up or down from the line-item estimates shown, however total billings will not exceed the Total shown without additional authorization.

We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal and we look forward to working with the City of Turlock on Task Order No. 3.

SCHEDULE
Once we receive a signed contract and are authorized to proceed, we will plan to proceed with the project in accordance with the attached schedule. Agency review time is outside of our control and any review time beyond the review times shown will delay the tasks that follow.

Sincerely Yours,
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
Jeff S Dorn
RCE 76749, TE 2945
Director of Operations

CASTILE LNQUEENSLAND AVEBURGENLAND AVE

BLUEFIELD AVEBENNINGTON AVEFULLERTON DR

CORNELL DR

HILLSDALE DR

TULANE WAY

NEWCOMB AVEGARY ST

POTOMAC AVE

HARTWICK AVEKIMBERLY SHEA DR

EBES CTBUMAN DR

FULLERTON DR

SANTA YNEZ AVE

VERONA AVE

LA MANCHA PLTUSCANY PL

SALEM WAYSANTOS CTGERALD CT

ROCHESTER CT

ROANOKE CTVILLANOVA DR

VANDERBILT AVESTANLEY AVE

OLIVE AVEELON CT

FISK CT

COLORADO AVE

SARAHLOU DR

SCOTTLEE DR
E. MONTE VISTA AVE

OLIVE AVE

MINNESOTA AVE

RICHARD ST

BERKELEY AVE

BRADLEY AVE

FREITAS CT

GEER RD
E. CHRISTOFFERSEN PKWY

TORNELL AVE

ASHLAND CTPENN AVEHERSTROM RD

HOOD CT

MENLO DRAVERY CTCEDAR RIDGE DR

HARTWICK AVE

RADCLIFF WAY

WHISPERING PINES DRBENNINGTON AVELA PALOMA ST

APPLE BLOSSOM LN

MILANO WAY

PINEVALLEY CTVITRINA CT

ESCENACTDE LAMOTTE DR

HARVEST DRBETHPAGE STVIOLET WAY

ROSEGARDEN WAYFIELD DR

CHANDLER DR

LILY LNMULBERRYDR

BURMAN DR

FOSBERG RD
DATE:OFDESIGN ENGINEER:JOB NO:
2/26/2025 5:17 PM I:\Marketing\Proposals\2024\City of Turlock - Linwood Road Rehab 24-284\Working Drafts\CAD\POTOMIC Project Map.dwg -Abby Roque GEER-CHRISTOFFERSEN-BERKELEY-MONTE VISTA REHABCITY OF TURLOCKSTANISLAUS COUNTYPROJECT MAPJSD02/21/202524-28411 0175350700SCALE IN FEET
www.provostandpritchard.com
LEGEND GRIND AND OVERLAYFULL RECONSTRUCTIONRECONSTRUCTED UNDERCITY PROJECT 22-001NEW CURB RAMPPROSPECTIVE CURB RAMPEXISTING NEWLY CONSTRUCTEDCURB RAMPNEW CURB AND GUTTER HILLSDALE DR, VANDERBILT AVE, STANLEY AVE,NEWCOMB AVE & OLIVE AVE:ONE SIDE OF STREET WAS OVERLAYED AFTERUTILITY TRENCHING. OPPOSITE SIDE OF STREETWILL BE GRIND AND OVERLAY. THIS WILL BECONFIRMED AFTER CORES ARE ANALYZED

PORTIONS OF OLIVE AVE BETWEEN E MONTE VISTA ANDE CHRISTOFFERSEN ARE IN VARYING CONDITIONS OF DISREPAIRAND THE OVERALL PAVEMENT STRATEGY WILL BE ANALYZED

ID Task Name Duration Start Finish
1 Preliminary Engineering 90 days Tue 3/25/25 Mon 7/28/25 2 Phase SUR - Topo Survey 6 wks Tue 3/25/25 Mon 5/5/25
3 Phase MON - Monument Preservation 6 wks Mon 3/31/25 Fri 5/9/25 4 Phase GEO - Preliminary Engineering - Geotechnical
Investigation
4 wks Tue 6/17/25 Mon 7/14/25
5 Phase SD - 35% PS&E 10 wks Tue 5/6/25 Mon 7/14/25
6 Phase DR - Drainage Report 10 wks Tue 5/6/25 Mon 7/14/25 7 City Review - 35% PS&E 2 wks Tue 7/15/25 Mon 7/28/25
8 Design Development 70 days Tue 7/29/25 Mon 11/3/25
9 Phase DD - 65% Design Development 12 wks Tue 7/29/25 Mon 10/20/25 10 City Review - 65% Design Development 2 wks Tue 10/21/25 Mon 11/3/25 11 Construction Documents 60 days Mon 11/10/25 Fri 1/30/26 12 Phase CD - 95% PS&E 6 wks Mon 11/10/25 Fri 12/19/25
13 City Review 95% - Construction Documents 3 wks Mon 12/22/25 Fri 1/9/26 14 Phase FD - 100% PS&E 3 wks Mon 1/12/26 Fri 1/30/26
SD Submittal (7/14)
City Review
DD Submittal (10/20)
City Review
CD Submittal (12/19)
City Review
FD Submittal (1/30)
Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter City of Turlock
Task Order No. 3
Project Schedule

JEFFREY DORN, PE, TE, QSD
Project Manager
MICHAEL OSBORN, PE, CASp, LEED-AP
QA/QC

JEFFREY DORN, PE, TE, QSD

PROJECT MANAGER
Jeffrey Dorn is a senior engineer at Provost & Pritchard with 15 years of civil engineering and project management experience. His experience has been focused on transportation infrastructure design and provid- ing ongoing consulting services for various public agencies. Mr . Dorn’s design experience includes geometric, pavement section, grading and drainage design of roads, design of ADA-accessible sidewalks and curb ramps, bike/pedestrian trail design, utility relocation, and water, sewer, and storm water system repair and replacement. Mr . Dorn has provid- ed a wide variety of funding assistance for various cities and counties, including grant application assistance, conceptual project layouts, en- gineer’s estimates, and completing various LAPM forms authorizing right of way and construction. His experience also includes engineering report writing, front end and technical specifications, cost estimating, project management, and coordination with railroads, Caltrans, other public agencies and utility companies.

MICHAEL OSBORN, PE, LEED-AP

QUALITY ASSURANCE / QUALITY CONTROL
Michael Osborn is a senior engineer at Provost & Pritchard. With over 20 years of engineering experience, Mr . Osborn has been involved in a variety of public works, residential and commercial development, and educational facility projects. His areas of expertise include site grading design, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) site accessibility design and assessment, stormwater management, storm drainage, sanitary sewer systems design, street design, and site development.

JASON STAICER, PE

LEAD ENGINEER
Jason Staicer is an Associate Engineer with Provost & Pritchard. With over eight years of professional experience, he has been primarily fo- cused on municipal engineering, with successful projects involving roadway design, pavement management, road widening, storm and wastewater collection, utility coordination, and accessibility considera- tions. He is also experienced with commercial land development, hy- drology and hydraulics studies, and subdivision design.

ABBY ROQUE, EIT

PROJECT DESIGNER
Abby Roque has more than nine years of professional experience, cur- rently serving as Assistant Engineer . Ms. Roque is heavily involved in the design and development of construction plans for the City of Turlock’s Roads Program Capital Improvement Program. Ms. Roque has been in- volved in various engineering projects including pavement design, road- way widening, road diet design, pedestrian and bike improvements, traffic signals, signal synchronization, and signing and striping.

BRYAN BOWERS, PLS

SURVEYOR
Bryan Bowers is a land surveyor at Provost & Pritchard with over 18 years of experience in the surveying field. He has been involved with the supervision, planning, and execution of geodetic and conventional control surveys, topographic surveys, subdivision mapping, boundary surveys, subsidence monitoring, UAV observation surveys, ALTA sur- veys, boundary analysis/legal descriptions and construction staking.

NEVA M. POPENOE, PE, GE

GEOTECHNICAL GROUP MANAGER
Ms. Popenoe has more than 16 years of geotechnical engineering and materials testing experience. She has worked on a variety of projects including highways, railroad and river bridges; flexible and rigid pave- ments; residential, commercial, and industrial developments; schools and hospitals; pipelines; power facilities; impoundments; landfills; and forensic studies. She is responsible for managing and conducting geo- technical investigations including developing the scope of work and budget, site reconnaissance, field classification of soils, sampling, de- sign, and report preparation and review. She has performed geotech- nical investigations for over 100 bridges in the State of California for Caltrans, local cities and counties. In addition to bridge foundations, her design experience on these projects includes retaining walls, sound walls, roadway embankments, and pavement structural sections. She also performs field inspection and testing, data analysis, laboratory test- ing, and construction special inspections.

JASON STAICER, PE
Lead Engineer

ABBY ROQUE, EIT
Project Designer

BRYAN BOWERS, PLS
Surveyor
NEVA M. POPENOE, PE, GE
Geotechnical (BSK)
Roads Program - Task Order No. 2

KEY STAFF
3

691 N Laverne Avenue, Suite 101
Fresno, CA 93727
P 559.497.2880
www.bskassociates.com
Environmental, Geotechnical, Construction Services, Analytical Testing - An Employee-Owned Company Sent via email: [email protected]
March 6, 2025 BSK Proposal G24001793
Mr. Jeffery Dorn, PE, TE, QSD
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
455 W. Fir Avenue
Clovis, California 93611
SUBJECT: Proposal for Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Street Rehabilitation - Task Order 3
Various Locations
Turlock, California
Dear Mr. Dorn:

At your request, BSK Associates is pleased to submit this proposal for the preparation of a Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report for proposed roadway improvements in Turlock, California. Our current understanding of the project, scope of services, schedules, fees and references for our services is provided below. We understand the project will be subject to prevailing wages as determined by California Director of Industrial Relations (DIR).

PROJECT UNDERSTANDING AND BACKGROUND
Based email correspondence from you on November 18, 2024, BSK understands that the project will encompass improvements along the following areas:

Street Location Cross Street 1 Cross Street 2
Bennington Avenue Fosberg Avenue Olive Avenue
Fullerton Drive Fosberg Avenue Olive Avenue
Villanova Drive Roanoke Court Fosberg Avenue
Roanoke Court North End South End
Rochester Court North End South End
Cornell Drive Fosberg Avenue Menlo Drive

Proposal for Geotechnical Engineering Investigation BSK Proposal G24001793 Street Rehabilitation – Task Order 3 March 6, 2025
Turlock, California Page 2
Santos Court Cornell Drive South End
Avery Court Cornell Drive South End
Menlo Drive Fullerton Drive South End
Hillsdale Drive Fosberg Avenue Vanderbilt Avenue
Hillsdale Drive (Eastbound only) Vanderbilt Avenue Olive Avenue Newcomb Avenue (Westbound only) Vanderbilt Avenue Olive Avenue Vanderbilt Avenue (Northbound only) Hillsdale Drive Newcomb Avenue Stanley Avenue (Southbound only) Hillsdale Drive Newcomb Avenue Tulane Way Fosberg Avenue Radcliff Way
Radcliff Way Tulane Way Monte Vista Avenue
Salem Way Bennington Avenue Fullerton Drive
Hood Court North End Fullerton Drive
Potomac Avenue Olive Avenue Colorado Avenue
Gary Street Olive Avenue Richard Street
Richard Street Gary Street Potomac Avenue
Colorado Avenue Burman Drive Hartwick Avenue
Berkeley Avenue Kimberley Shea Drive Monte Vista Avenue Olive Avenue Christoffersen Parkway Minnesota Avenue
The improvements are anticipated to include new pavement or grind and overlay, repair or remove/replace curb, gutter and sidewalk, ADA ramps, driveway, and drainage improvements.

SCOPE OF SERVICES
The objective of the geotechnical investigation is to assess soil conditions and to provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for the use by the project designers in preparation of the plans and specifications for the project. Based upon the above project understanding, BSK proposes the following

Proposal for Geotechnical Engineering Investigation BSK Proposal G24001793 Street Rehabilitation – Task Order 3 March 6, 2025
Turlock, California Page 3
scope of services, which will generally include a field exploration, laboratory testing program, engineering analyses, and report preparation.

Field Exploration
Our proposed drilling program will include a total of thirty (30) cores to 5 feet beneath the existing ground surface (bgs), or until auger refusal, in the roadway pavement. Pavement cores will be taken at each boring. We will measure the existing pavement section and obtain bulk soil samples at each location to analyze for new pavement design. We will backfill each boring hole with soil cuttings or base rock, and cap with asphalt cold patch or quick setting concrete tinted black.

Test borings will be drilled using a diamond bit core barrel, and manually operated auger equipment, or solid flight augers. The sampling of bulk and intact soil specimens for purposes of laboratory testing, and visually classifying soils exposed during the drilling process will be provided by a BSK Geologist or Engineer.

In order for BSK to complete the field investigation as described above, the project site must be readily accessible. Access limitations due to existing improvements may result in time delays and/or additional charges.

An arrangement to identify underground utilities is necessary prior to our field exploration. Prior to commencement of drilling operations, a BSK representative will visit the site to mark the test boring locations, evaluate site accessibility, and contact Underground Service Alert (USA) to determine if any of the test borings may conflict with underground utilities. BSK will not be responsible for damage to underground utilities or other installations unless they are accurately marked on the ground surface and on plans made available to us prior to beginning of field operations. If requested, BSK may subcontract a private utility locator for an additional fee.

An encroachment permit with the City of Turlock will be secured prior to drilling. The anticipated permit fees are included in our fee schedule below. It is understood no other permits will be required.

It is anticipated borings will require a lane closure, and traffic control will be limited to flagging operations.

Laboratory Testing
The laboratory testing program will incorporate physical and chemical tests to evaluate the minus 200 gradation, R-value, corrosion potential (pH, soluble sulfates, and soluble chlorides), in-situ moisture content and dry density, and soil cement mix design.

Proposal for Geotechnical Engineering Investigation BSK Proposal G24001793 Street Rehabilitation – Task Order 3 March 6, 2025
Turlock, California Page 4
To aid in design of full depth reclamation, we will obtain bulk samples of the near surface soil and mix the soil with cement, and then conduct a compression test on the samples after 7 days. Three cement contents will be tested, with three samples at each percentage.

Geotechnical Analysis and Report Preparation
Based on the results of the field exploration and laboratory testing program, engineering analyses will be performed to evaluate site conditions and develop recommendations for site preparation procedures and engineering parameters for the proposed construction. Specifically, the report will incorporate the following items:
 Vicinity Map and Site Plan with boring locations
 Subsurface Conditions, Soil Boring Logs, Depth to Groundwater (if encountered)  Summary of Laboratory Tests
 Corrosion characteristics of on-site soils
 Recommendations for site preparation, and earthwork
 Requirements for imported fill materials
 Recommendations for site drainage
 Recommendations for construction observations and testing and excavation suitability  Recommendations for conventional pavement section with asphalt concrete and Class II aggregate base
 Core information: AC and AB section thickness and thickness of other pavement materials encountered
 Recommendations for alternative pavement sections including recommendations for full-depth reclamation with cement (FDR-C), conventional pavement sections with the use of geogrid, and full-depth HMA.

The geotechnical report will be prepared under the supervision of, and signed by, a California Licensed Geotechnical Engineer.

SCHEDULE
Work on this project will begin immediately upon receipt of your authorization to proceed with submittal of permit applications (as applicable), preparation of a Work Plan and field marking of our borehole locations for USA. We anticipate mobilizing for our geotechnical investigation within two (2) weeks of receiving notice to proceed, pending site access, encroachment permits, weather conditions and drill rig availability. We anticipate that drilling will be completed within four (4) working days and our laboratory testing program to be completed within three (3) weeks following completion of our field work. Our written reports will be submitted within two (2) weeks following the completion of our laboratory testing program. Preliminary design recommendations may be provided prior to finalizing the report, as requested.

Proposal for Geotechnical Engineering Investigation BSK Proposal G24001793 Street Rehabilitation – Task Order 3 March 6, 2025
Turlock, California Page 5
FEES
Fees for our services will be charged on a Time and Materials basis. Our fee will be invoiced monthly.

For the scope of services outlined in this proposal, our fee, approximately broken down by task, will be as follows:Estim
ated Fee
Site Reconnaissance, Permit Application, Utility Marking $ 1,930.60 Field Exploration $30,227.29
Laboratory Testing
(Includes two (2) FDR and four (4) R-Values) $10,856.00 Engineering Analysis and Report Preparation $ 5,096.07
Estimated Fee $48,109.9 6
Our fee applies to work commenced within 60 days of this proposal. The fees presented in this proposal are based on prompt payment for services presented in our standard invoicing format. Additional charges will be applied for specializing invoicing if backup documentation is needed. These special services will be charged on a time and expenses basis. Late fees will be charged if payment is not received in accordance with terms contained in our contract.

PROPOSAL ASSUMPTIONS
A detailed cost estimate for performing the required testing and inspection services during construction will be provided after the project plans and specifications are completed. This proposal and cost estimate were prepared based on the following assumptions:
 Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group will provide to BSK Associates, prior to mobilization, legal right of entry to the site (and other areas if required) to conduct the scope of services  Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group will notify BSK Associates, prior to mobilization, of any restrictions, special site access requirements, or known potentially hazardous conditions at the site (e.g. hazardous materials or processes, specialized protective equipment requirements, unsound structural conditions, etc.).
 Work can be performed during normal business hours (Monday through Friday, 7:00am to 7:00pm).
 Excess soil cutting generated during our field exploration can be left onsite at an area selected by the Owner or one of its representatives.
 Prevailing wages apply. DIR Project ID will be provided prior to start of work.  Encroachment permits will be provided at no fee.

Proposal for Geotechnical Engineering Investigation BSK Proposal G24001793 Street Rehabilitation – Task Order 3 March 6, 2025
Turlock, California Page 6
 Project meetings/conference calls, plan reviews, response to Agency review comments and construction services are not included in our estimate, but can be provided on request on a “time and materials” basis.
 BSK will retain soil samples for a maximum of sixty (60) days.

Please contact us immediately if you are aware of any inaccuracies in these assumptions and conditions, so we may revise the proposal or fee.

GENERAL CONDITIONS AND AGREEMENT
We understand that if this proposal is acceptable to the Client, an agreement for Professional Services will be sent to BSK and this proposal will be incorporated as an exhibit. Please note, if changes occur in the design of this project, BSK must be notified in writing and given an opportunity to revise our scope of work, if necessary.

CLOSING
BSK appreciates the opportunity to submit this proposal to you and we look forward to working with you on this project. Please contact the undersigned at [email protected] or (559) 278-2880, extension 516 if you have questions.

Respectfully submitted,
BSK Associates
Tolleman Gorham, PE Neva M. Popenoe, PE, GE
Project Engineer I Fresno Branch Manager
CE 96089 GE 3024

PROPOSAL FOR CITY OF TURLOCK ROADS PROGRAM TASK ORDER 3 Estimated Staffing Plan and Cost Breakdown
Principal
Engineer
Senior
Engineer
Assistant
Engineer
Assistant
Engineer
Assistant
Engineer
Senior
Technician
Senior
Engineer
Senior
Technician
Senior
Project
Admin
Project
Admin
Licensed
Surveyor
1 man
survey
Senior
Technician
Assistant
Surveyor Intern
Dorn_J Staicer_J Roque_A 1 man
survey
Total
Hours Mileage Expenses Subtotal
Labor Total Fee
TASK $218.79 $175.55 $134.94 $115.29 $96.95 $131.01 $196.51 $148.70 $105.46 $87.78 $171.62 $221.07 $124.46 $100.88 $65.50 0.700 Phase SUR
1 Topo Survey 8 220 120 120 468 3600 2,520.00 $77,049 $79,569 2 Verify Right of Way 16 120 120 40 296 2400 1,680.00 $48,245 $49,925 Phase MON
1 Office Prep, Research 45 45 90 - $13,324 $13,324
2 Pre-Con Field Work 45 30 30 105 1800 1,260.00 $16,708 $17,968 3 Pre-Con Corner Record 45 45 - $5,601 $5,601
4 Post-Con Field Work 45 30 30 105 1800 1,260.00 $16,708 $17,968 5 Post-Con Corner Record 45 45 - $5,601 $5,601
Phase GEO
1 Geotechnical Investigation 0 48,109.96 $0 $48,110
Phase DR
1 Review Existing Documents 12 10 16 8 8 54 - $8,238 $8,238 2 Site Visit 8 8 16 180 126.00 $2,830 $2,956
3 Prepare Drainage Report 30 18 40 40 40 8 176 - $24,313 $24,313 Phase UTL
1 GPR Existing Utilities 0 95,100.00 $0 $95,100
Phase SD
1 Kickoff Meeting 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 14 - $1,780 $1,780
2 Drawing Set Up 4 32 8 44 - $5,922 $5,922
3 Utlity Research & Potholing 4 8 8 8 28 - $3,501 $3,501 4 Basemap Review, Coord, Set up 4 20 40 64 - $8,814 $8,814 5 Project Management 40 40 80 - $14,149 $14,149
6 35% Plans 100 200 300 200 200 40 20 80 1,140 - $154,330 $154,330 7 35% Design Review Meeting 8 8 16 180 126.00 $2,830 $2,956 8 Preliminary EOPCC 4 6 12 24 46 - $6,315 $6,315
9 Utility Relocation Letters & Exhibits 2 20 24 8 54 - $6,606 $6,606 10 Streetlight Review 8 40 48 - $7,148 $7,148
Phase DD
1 65% Front End & Technical Specs 60 12 12 12 96 - $17,066 $17,066 2 65% Plans 140 200 400 300 300 40 32 80 1,492 - $200,157 $200,157 3 65% Design Review Meeting 8 8 16 180 126.00 $2,830 $2,956 4 Preliminary EOPCC 4 6 12 24 46 - $6,315 $6,315
5 Utility Relocation Letters & Exhibits 2 24 2 28 - $3,852 $3,852 Phase CD
1 95% Front End & Technical Specs 24 12 12 12 60 - $9,189 $9,189 2 95% Plans 80 100 300 240 240 20 32 80 1,092 - $140,626 $140,626 3 Preliminary EOPCC 4 6 12 24 46 - $6,315 $6,315
Phase FD
1 Final Front End & Technical Specs 16 12 12 12 52 - $7,439 $7,439 2 Final Plans 12 8 80 80 80 260 500.00 $31,804 $32,304
3 Final EOPCC 4 6 12 24 46 - $6,315 $6,315
Phase BID
1 Bidding Assistance (x2) 20 60 80 - $12,472 $12,472
Phase CON
1 Construction Support 100 100 80 80 8 12 12 392 - $56,243 $56,243 2 Site Visits (x6) 36 36 72 1080 756.00 $12,734 $13,490 3 Record Drawings 6 48 24 78 - $10,557 $10,557
Total units 738 560 1646 1094 950 174 92 8 58 76 69 430 435 220 240 6,790 11220 $151,564 Total $ $161,467 $98,308 $222,111 $126,127 $92,103 $22,796 $18,079 $1,190 $6,117 $6,671 $11,842 $95,060 $54,140 $22,194 $15,720 $151,564 $953,924 $1,105,475.40

Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 10-H1
PAGE 1

COST PROPOSAL
Prime Consultant Subconsultant
Consultant:

Project No. Contract No. Date: 2/28/2025
Direct Labor
Hours Actual Hourly Rate Total
Principal Engineer II Jeff Dorn 738 83.50$ 61,623.00$
Senior Engineer III Jason Staicer 560 67.00$ 37,520.00$ Assistant Engineer V Abby Roque 1646 51.50$ 84,769.00$
Senior Engineer V 92 75.00$ 6,900.00$
Licensed Surveyor IV 69 65.50$ 4,519.50$
Senior Technician V 8 56.75$ 454.00$
Senior Technician IV 174 50.00$ 8,700.00$
Senior Technician I 435 47.50$ 20,662.50$
Assistant Surveyor II 220 38.50$ 8,470.00$
Intern IV 240 25.00$ 6,000.00$
Assistant Engineer IV 1094 44.00$ 48,136.00$
Project Administrator IV 76 33.50$ 2,546.00$
Senior Project Administrator II 58 40.25$ 2,334.50$
Assistant Engineer I 950 37.00$ 35,150.00$
1 Man Survey 430 84.37$ 36,279.10$
-$
6,790.0 364,063.60$

LABOR COSTS
a) Subtotal Direct Labor Costs 364,063.60$
b) Anticipated Salary Increases -$
c) TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS [(a)+(b)] 364,063.60$

INDIRECT COSTS
d) Fringe Benefits (Rate): 50.83% e) Total Fringe Benefits[(c) × (d)] 185,053.53$ f) Overhead (Rate): 61.31% g) Overhead [(c) × (f)] 223,200.11$ h) 26.06% i) Gen & Admin [(c) × (h)] 94,874.97$
j) TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS [(e) +(g) + (i)] 503,128.61$

FIXED FEE
p) (Rate): 10.0% k) 86,719.22$
l) CONSULTANT'S OTHER DIRECT COSTS (ODC) - ITEMIZE (Add additional pages if necessary) Quantity Unit(s) Unit Cost Total
11220 0.700 7,854.00$
95,100.00$
-$
500.00$
-$
l) TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS 103,454.00$
m) SUBCONSULTANTS' COSTS (Add additional pages if necessary) Subconsultant 1: 48,109.96$
Subconsultant 2: -$
Subconsultant 3: -$
Subconsultant 4: -$
m) TOTAL SUBCONSULTANT' COSTS 48,109.96$
n) TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS INCLUDING SUBCONSULTANTS [(l)+(m)] 151,563.96$ TOTAL COST [(c) + (j) + (k) + (n)] 1,105,475.40$
NOTES:

1. 2.

3. Total
General and Administrative (Rate):

TOTAL FIXED PROFIT [(c) + (j)] × (p)]
Classification/Title Name
Anticipated salary increases calculations (page 2) must accompany.

Key personnel must be marked with an asterick (*) and employees that are subject to prevailing wage requirements must be marked with two astericks (**). All costs must comply with Federal cost principles. Subconsultants will provide their own cost proposals.

The cost proposal format shall not be amended. Indirect cost rates shall be updated on an annual basis in accordance with the consultant's annual accounting period and established by a congnizant agency or accepted by Caltrans.

Test
BSK Associates
Description
Note: Mark-ups are Not Allowed
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
2nd Tier Subconsultant
COST PROPOSAL 1

COST-PLUS-FIXED FEE OR LUMP SUM OR FIRM FIXED PRICE CONTRACTS (DESIGN, ENGINEERING, AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES)
Permit Fees
Plan Sheets
Mileage Costs
Potholing/GPR
X
LPP 15-01 3/10/2025

Cost Proposal
Certification of Direct Costs:

Prime Consultant or Subconsultant Certifying:

Name: Title:

Signature: Date of Certification (mm/dd/yyyy):

Email: Phone Number:

Address:

List Services the consultant is providing under the proposed contract:

2. Terms and conditions of the contract

3. Title 23 United States Code Section 112 - Letting of Contracts

4. 48 Code of Federal Regulations Part 31 - Contract Cost Principles and Procedures

5. 23 Code of Federal Regulations Part 172 - Procurement, Management, and Administration of Engineering and Design Related Service

6. 48 Code of Federal Regulations Part 9904 - Cost Accounting Standards Board (when applicable) I, the undersigned, certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that all direct costs identified on the cost proposal(s) in this contract are actual, reasonable, allowable, and allocable to the contract in accordance with the contract terms and the following requirements:

1. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)
All costs must be applied consistently and fairly to all contracts. All documentation of compliance must be retained in the project files and be in compliance with applicable federal and state requirements. Costs that are noncompliant with the federal and state requirements are not eligible for reimbursement.

Local governments are responsible for applying only cognizant agency approved or Caltrans accepted Indirect Cost Rate(s). *An individual executive or financial officer of the consultant’s or subconsultant’s organization at a level no lower than a Vice President or a Chief Financial Officer, or equivalent, who has authority to represent the financial information utilized to establish the cost proposal for the contract.

Director of Operations
Jeffrey Dorn
03/10/2025
[email protected]
455 W. Fir Ave., Clovis, CA 93611
559-449-2700
Civil engineering design and land surveying services for the City of Turlock's Roads Program

Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 10-H1
Cost Proposal
Note: Mark-ups are Not Allowed  Subconsultant
Consultant
Project No. G24001793 Contract No. Date 3/3/2025

DIRECT LABOR
Hours Actual Hourly Rate Total

6.00 80.50 $483.00

62.36 $0.00

20.00 49.83 $996.60

40.67 $0.00

8.00 36.54 $292.32

32.00 51.56 $1,649.92

8.00 77.34 $618.72

5.00 32.46 $162.30
$0.00
$0.00

LABOR COSTS
a) Subtotal Direct Labor Costs $4,202.86
b) Anticipated Salary Increases (see page 2 for sample) $105.07 c) TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS [(a) + (b)] $4,307.93

INDIRECT COSTS

72.04% [(c) x (d)] $3,103.43
f) Overhead (Rate: 137.09%) g) Overhead [(c) x (f)] $5,905.87 h) General and Administrative (Rate: 0.00% ) i) Gen & Admin [(c) x (h)] $0.00 j) TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS [(e) + (g) + (i)] $9,009.31
FIXED FEE k) TOTAL FIXED PROFIT [(c) + (j)] x fixed fee %] $1,331.72 k) (Rate: 10.00% )
l) CONSULTANT'S OTHER DIRECT COSTS (ODC) - ITEMIZED (Add additional pages if necessary) Unit(s) Unit Cost Total
900 $1.00 $900.00
30 $20.00 $600.00
Base Rock Backfill 3 $100.00 $300.00
1 $105.00 $105.00
l) Total Other Direct Costs $12,761.00
m) SUBCONSULTANTS' COSTS (Add additional pages if necessary) $9,200.00
$11,500.00
$0.00
$20,700.00
n) TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS INCLUDING SUBCONSULTANTS [ (l) + (m)] $33,461.00 TOTAL COST [(c) + (j) + (k) + (n)] $48,109.96
NOTES:

TBD
Project Administrator TBD
m) TOTAL SUBCONSULTANTS' COSTS $
Subconsultant 3: GPRS (GPR Utility Clearance)

1. All costs must comply with the Federal cost principles. Subconsultants will provide their own cost proposals.

2. The cost proposal format shall not be amended. Indirect cost rates should be based on consultant's annual accounting period
and established by a cognizant agency or acccepted by Caltrans. 1 $10,856.00 $10,856.00
Subconsultant 1:

Group 3 Engineering Technician*
TBD
TBD
Drilling Supplies (tubes, caps, paint, stakes)
Laboratory testing (Mod. Proctor, Sieve Analysis,
Density/moisture content, Atterberg Limit, Direct Shear, R- Value, Expansion Index, Corrosion Potential)
d) Fringe Benefits Rate: ) e) Total Fringe Benefits Description of Item
Travel/Mileage Costs (supported by consultant actual costs) Asphalt Patch
EXHIBIT 10-H COST PROPOSAL PAGE 1 OF 3

ACTUAL COST-PLUS-FIXED FEE OR LUMP SUM (FIRM FIXED PRICE) CONTRACTS (DESIGN, ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES)
BSK Associates
Classification/Title Name
☐ Prime Consultant
American, Inc. (coring)
Principal TBD
Senior Professional TBD
Project Professional II TBD
Staff Professional II
Project Professional I TBD
Group 3 Engineering Technician OT*
Subconsultant 2: Traffic Control

January 2018

Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 10-H1
Cost Proposal

1. Calculate Average Hourly Rate for 1st year of the contract (Direct Labor Subtotal divided by total hours)45719 Avg Hourly 5 Year Contract
Rate Duration
$4,202.86 = $53.20 Year 1 Avg Hourly Rate
Avg Hourly Rate
Year 1 $53.20 + = $55.86 Year 2 Avg Hourly Rate
Year 2 $55.86 + = $58.65 Year 3 Avg Hourly Rate
Year 3 $58.65 + = $61.59 Year 4 Avg Hourly Rate
Year 4 $61.59 + = $64.67 Year 5 Avg Hourly Rate
Total Hours
per Year
Year 1 50.00% * = 39.5 Estimated Hours Year 1
Year 2 50.00% * = 39.5 Estimated Hours Year 2
Year 3 0.00% * = 0.0 Estimated Hours Year 3
Year 4 0.00% * = 0.0 Estimated Hours Year 4
Year 5 0.00% * = 0.0 Estimated Hours Year 5
Total 100% = 79.0
Year 1 $53.20 * = $2,101.43 Estimated Hours Year 1
Year 2 $55.86 * = $2,206.50 Estimated Hours Year 2
Year 3 $58.65 * = $0.00 Estimated Hours Year 3
Year 4 $61.59 * = $0.00 Estimated Hours Year 4
Year 5 $64.67 * = $0.00 Estimated Hours Year 5
= $4,307.93
= $4,202.86
= $105.07 Transfer to Page 1
NOTES:

2. Calculate hourly rate for all years (Increase the Average Hourly Rate for a year by proposed escalation %) 0 Avg Hourly Rate
(calculated above)
40 40

3. This assumes that one year will be worked at the rate on the cost proposal before salary increases are granted.

2. The cost proposal format shall not be amended. Indirect cost rates should be based on consultant's annual accounting period and established by a cognizant
agency or acccepted by Caltrans.

Estimated hours

4. Calculate Total Costs including Escalation (Multiply Average Hourly Rate by the number of hours) Total Hours per

79.00 Proposed Escalation

4. Calculations for anticipated salary escalation must be provided.

3. Anticipated salary increases calculation (page 2) must accompany.

1. This is not the only way to estimate salary increases. Other methods will be accepted if they clearly indicate the % increase, the # of years of the contract,
and the breakdown of the labor to be performed each year.

ACTUAL COST-PLUS-FIXED FEE OR LUMP SUM (FIRM FIXED PRICE) CONTRACTS (CALCULATIONS FOR ANTICIPATED SALARY INCREASES)

3. Calculate estimated hours per year (Multiply estimate % each year by total hours) 0 0
(calculated above) Cost per Year
Total Direct Labor Cost with Escalation
Direct Labor Subtotal before Escalation
Estimated total of Direct Labor Salary Increase
Direct Labor
Subtotal per Cost Proposal Cost Proposal
Total Hours
Completed Each Year
Estimated %
EXHIBIT 10-H1 COST PROPOSAL PAGE 2 OF 3

79.0 79.0

79.0 79.0
Total

79.0 5%
5%
5%
5%
per Cost Proposal

January 2018

Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 10-H1
Cost Proposal
Name: Title*:

Signature:

Email:

Address:

List services the consultant is providing under the proposed contract.

Geotechnical Engineering Services
EXHIBIT 10-H1 COST PROPOSAL PAGE 3 OF 3
Date of Certification:
[email protected] Phone Number: 209.914.7258 7/25/2024
All costs must be applied consistently and fairly to all contracts. All documentation of compliance must be retained in the project files and be in compliance with applicable federal and state requirements. Costs that are noncompliant with the federal and state requirements are not eligible for reimbursement.

Local governments are responsible for applying only cognizant agency approved or Caltrans accepted Indirect Cost Rate(s).

Prime Consutlant or Subconsultant Certifying:

Tim Rodriguez Chief Operating Officer

2. Terms and conditions of the contract

3. Ttile 23 United States Code Section 112 - Letting of Contracts

4. 48 Code of Federal Regulations Part 31 - Contract Cost Principles and Procedures 691 N. Laverne Ave, Suite 101, Fresno, CA 93727
* An individual executive or financial officer of the consultant's or subconsultant's organization at a level no lower than a Vice President or a Chief Financial Officer, or equivalent, who has authority to represent the financial information utilized to establish the cost proposal for the contract.

5. 23 Code of Federal Regulations Part 172 - Procurement, Management, and Administration of Engineering and Design Related Service

6. 48 Code of Federal Regulations Part 9904 - Cost Accounting Standards Board (when applicable) Certification of Direct Costs:

I, the undersigned, certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that all direct costs identifited on the cost proposal(s) in this contract are actual, reasonable, allowable, and allocable to the contract in accordance with the contract terms and the following requirements:

1. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)

January 2018

CITY CONTRACT NO. 2023-110, Amendment No. 4 for Task Order No. 4

AMENDMENT NO. 4 FOR TASK ORDER NO. 4
Under the Terms of the

MASTER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TURLOCK
and
PROVOST & PRITCHARD ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.

DBA PROVOST & PRITCHARD CONSULTING GROUP
for
ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES (City Contract No. 2023-110)

City Project No. 25-025

THIS AMENDMENT NO. 4 for Task Order No. 4 under the terms of City Contract No. 2023-110 is entered into by and between the CITY OF TURLOCK, a California municipal corporation (“City”), and PROVOST & PRITCHARD ENGIN EERING GROUP, INC. DBA PROVOST & PRITCHARD CONSULTING GROUP, a California corporation (“Professional”), on this ______ day of ___________ 2025 (the “Effective Date of Tas k Order No. 4”). City and Professional may be collectively referred to herein as the “Parties” or individually as “Party.” There are no other parties to this Amendment No. 4.

WHEREAS, the Parties hereto previously entered into a Master Agreement (City Contract No. 2023-110) dated April 25, 2023, for engineering design services to assist City with Design Services for Roads Program Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Projects (“Agreement”); and

WHEREAS, the Agreement stipulates that the scope of services and fees associated with specific projects will be agreed upon through task orders approved under the terms of Agreement by a written amendment to the Agreement; and

WHEREAS, City desires that Professional provide engineering design services for City Project No. 25-025 “Provost & Pritchard Task Order No. 4 for Roads Program CIP Projects;” and

WHEREAS, Amendment No. 4 for Task Order No. 4 provides the scope of services, associated fees, and schedule for said City Project.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereto mutually agree to amend the Agr eement as follows:

1. Exhibit E, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby added to the Agreement.

2. Recital B of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:

CITY CONTRACT NO. 2023-110, Amendment No. 4 for Task Order No. 4

B. Professional has made a proposal to City to provi de such professional services. A description of the services Professiona l proposes to provide is included in the Scope of Services in Exhibits A through E attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (“Services”). City desires to r etain Professional to perform the Services, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.

3. Recital C of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:

C. The Parties anticipate that one or more projects fo r Services shall be determined through creation of a Task Order as a Ci ty-requested modification of services under Section 5.2 of this Agreement which shall be approved by written amendment to this Agreement. The Parties shall outline the schedule or timeline for providing the Services agreed upon under each Task Order (“Completion Schedule”), which shall be included in one or more written amendments to this Agreement. Such Completion Schedule is included in Exhibit E.

4. Recital D of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:

D. The Parties shall outline the rates and method of payment to Professional for its performance of the Services under this Agre ement as determined under each Task Order (“Compensation Schedule”), which shall b e included in one or more written amendments to this Agreement. Such Compensation Schedule is included in Exhibit E.

5. Section 5 of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:

5.1. Services . Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, Professional shall provide City the Services described in Exhibits A through E. Any request for Services not included in Exhibits A through E will be considered a request for additional or modified Services (“Modif ication” or “Modifications”).

Professional shall not receive additional compensat ion for any Modification of the Services unless the Parties agree otherwise in a writing executed by both Parties.

5.2. City Requested Modification of Services. City may, by written order, authorize Modifications to the Services described i n Exhibits A through E . If such Modifications cause an increase in the cost or time required for performance of Professional’s Services, the Parties shall enter in to a written amendment to this Agreement to adjust the Services and the compensati on to be paid to Professional and, if necessary, amend the Completion Schedule or Compensation Schedule. The Services, Completion Schedule, or Compensation Sche dule shall not be revised unless City and Professional mutually agree to a wr itten amendment to this Agreement reflecting such revisions, additional com pensation, time for performance or such other terms or conditions mutually agreed upon by the Parties.

6. Section 6 of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:

6.1. Amount, Time and Manner of Payment for Profess ional Services. City shall pay Professional according to the rates and timing set forth in the Compensation Schedule for each Task Order within each Amendment to the Agreement. Each Compensation Schedule shall include an exhibit based on Exhibit 10-H1 of Caltrans

CITY CONTRACT NO. 2023-110, Amendment No. 4 for Task Order No. 4

Local Assistance Procedures Manual (LAPM). Professional will be allowed to include an amount for the anticipated salary increases as calculated per Exhibit 10-H1. City’s total compensation to Professional shall not exceed the cumulative amount resulting from each Task Order with each approved Amendment t o the Agreement. The compensation for Amendment No. 4 shall not exceed S ix-Hundred-Forty-Seven Thousand Seven-Hundred-Seventy-Nine Dollars and Twe nty-Seven Cents ($647,779.27) for City Project No. 25-025 (“Maximum Payment”), unless the Parties mutually agree in writing otherwise.

7. Execution and Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed simultaneously, and in several counterparts, each o f which shall be deemed an original, but which together shall constitute one a nd the same instrument. The Parties agree that this Amendment and any other doc uments to be delivered in connection herewith may be electronically signed ut ilizing services such as DocuSign and Nitro Sign, or by transmitting signatures in pdf or similar format, and that any electronic signatures appearing on this Ag reement or such other documents are the same as handwritten signatures fo r the purposes of validity, enforceability, and admissibility

8. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect for the Term of the Agreement.

[Signatures on Following Page ]

CITY CONTRACT NO. 2023-110, Amendment No. 4 for Task Order No. 4

IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the Parties have caused this Amendment No. 4 to be executed by and through their respective officers thereunto duly authorized.

PROFESSIONAL

PROVOST & PRITCHARD ENGINEERING
GROUP, INC. DBA PROVOST & PRITCHARD
CONSULTING GROUP, a California
corporation

By:

Jeffrey Dorn, Director of Operations

Date
CITY

City of Turlock, a California
municipal corporation

By:

Reagan M. Wilson, City Manager

Date:

APPROVED AS TO SUFFICIENCY:

By:

Christopher Fisher,
Municipal Services Director

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

George A. Petrulakis, City Attorney

ATTEST:

By:

Nichole Fiez, City Clerk

3/14/2025

455 W Fir Ave  Clovis, CA 93611  (559) 449-2700
www.provostandpritchard.com
Engineering  Structural  Geostructural  Surveying  Planning  Environmental  GIS  Construction Services  Hydrogeology  Consulting Clovis  Visalia  Bakersfield  Modesto  Los Banos  Chico  Sacramento  Sonora  San Luis Obispo  Boise, ID March 6, 2025
Fred Pezeshk
City of Turlock
156 South Broadway, Suite 150
Turlock, CA 95380
Subject: Design Services for City of Turlock Roads Program Task Order No. 4
Dear Fred Pezeshk:

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal to provide design services for the City of Turlock’s Roads Program Task Order No. 4. This proposal discusses our understanding of the project, recommends a scope of services together with associated fees, deliverables, approximate schedules, sets forth our assumptions and discusses other services that may be of interest as the project proceeds.

PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
We understand the City of Turlock would like to rehabilitate multiple streets in the City of Turlock as listed in the tables below. We understand the city would like to prepare the following 2 separate packages of plans and specifications to be advertised for bids separately.

1. Potential Rehabilitation Plans Package 1
a. Full reconstruction of Linwood Avenue from Lander Avenue to 600 feet west of Golf Road
b. Grind and Overlay Rockwood from 9th to 5th, Rosewood from Lander to Baywood and Baywood from Linwood to Glenwood pending results of geotechnical investigation

2. Potential Rehabilitation Plans Package 2
a. Full reconstruction of 5th Street from F Street to Linwood Avenue TASK ORDER No. 4 STREETS
Street Name From To Length
(ft.)
E. Linwood Ave Lander Ave County Line 4668
Rosewood Dr. Lander Ave Baywood Ln 1151
Baywood Ln. Linwood Ave 1785 Baywood Ln 614
5th St. E. Linwood Ave W. F St 3593
Rockwood Way 9th St 5th St 1492
Total Length 11,518
The total length of these street improvements is approximately 11,518 linear feet and the construction is roughly expected to cost between approximately $3,600,000 and $5,600,000.

City of Turlock March 6, 2025
City of Turlock’s Roads Program Task Order No. 4 Page 2 of 8 Job No.: 20-557
The street improvements for the rehabilitation plans will include pavement rehabilitation reconstruction (using FDR-C or a conventional pavement section) and grind and overlay, removal and replacement of existing curb, gutter, and valley gutter as needed for drainage, and removal and replacement and/or construction of new sidewalk, curb ramps, drive approaches and alley approaches as required to provide ADA compliance. Existing utilities will either be potholed in select locations to determine general approximate depths or located using ground penetrating radar (GPR).

We will review the City’s Active Transportation Plan (ATP) and General Plan for improvements to be included with this project. For Linwood Avenue and 5th Street, we will work closely with the City and the City’s other consultants to provide information for potential grant applications prepared by other consultants under separate contract.

Provost and Pritchard will review approximately 35 locations within the project area to determine if there is a need for the removal and replacement of the existing curb ramp or construction of a new curb ramp to meet ADA requirements. Our team will also review the existing storm water drainage facilities (inlets, pipes, and manholes) to determine recommendations for replacements required to improve storm water drainage.

SCOPE OF SERVICES
Our proposed scope of work for this proposal is segregated into several phases, described below.

PHASE SUR –TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY

TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
Upon approval of the task order we will complete a field topographic survey and right of way verification for the segments of roadway described above.
 Capturing sufficient horizontal and vertical locations for top of curbs, gutter flow lines, pavement crowns, manhole covers, valve covers, utility covers, striping, and USA markings needed to design and prepare the proposed improvement plans.
 A utility base drawing will also be prepared in AutoCAD Civil 3D format for use throughout the design process.
 Verify existing right-of-way limits with record maps and physical street monuments  Dip manholes and drain inlets to determine the depth of cover over existing gravity lines.  From the survey data and utility information collected, we will prepare a base drawing in AutoCAD Civil 3D format for use throughout the design process.

Up to 21 days of survey crew time will be required to complete the topographic survey for the entire project and prepare existing basemaps.

DELIVERABLES
Electronic basemap will be submitted to the City.

PHASE MON: PRE/POST CONSTRUCTION RECORD OF SURVEY & MONUMENT

PRESERVATION
The City has requested Provost & Pritchard include pre/post Construction record of survey and monument preservation for the project area. Provost & Pritchard will perform the following as part of this task:

City of Turlock March 6, 2025
City of Turlock’s Roads Program Task Order No. 4 Page 3 of 8 Job No.: 20-557
 Research record monuments within project area.
 Field Survey to locate existing monuments.
 Set ties to allow for re-establishing any monument destroyed during construction  Post-construction field survey to locate all monuments that were existing pre-construction, replace any destroyed monuments
 File a post-construction corner record for all monuments that were reset It is assumed that the Contractor will be responsible for setting the centerline monuments in wells based on ties provided by us. Our budget includes replacing approximately 30 monuments.

DELIVERABLES
Signed PDF copies of City’s Acknowledgment of Monument Responsibility “Pre-Construction” and Acknowledgment of Monument Responsibility “Post-Construction” and copies of pre-construction and post- construction corner records survey documents filed.

PHASE GEO: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Provost & Pritchard will work with our subconsultant, BSK, to provide needed geotechnical information.  BSK’s work will include up to thirteen (13) shallow borings to three (3) feet beneath ground surface (bgs) or until auger refusal in the roadway pavement. Pavement cores will be taken at each boring.

We will measure the existing pavement section and obtain bulk soil samples at each location to analyze for new pavement design. We will backfill each boring hole with soil cutting and cap with asphalt cold patch or quick set concrete tinted black. Testing is expected to include the following:
o Minus 200 Wash
o Corrosion Potential
o In-Situ Moisture and dry density
o R-Value tests
o FDR-C Soil Cement Mix Design
 Geotechnical analysis and a report will be prepared based on the results of the field exploration and laboratory testing. The report will include the following:
o Vicinity Map and Site Plan with boring locations
o Subsurface Conditions, Soils Boring Logs, Depth to Groundwater (if encountered) o Summary of Laboratory Testing
o Corrosion and expansion characteristics of on-site soils o Recommendation for site preparation and earthwork
o Requirements for imported fill materials
o Recommendations for site drainage
o Recommendations for construction observation and testing and excavation suitability
o Recommendations for conventional pavement section with asphalt concrete and Class 2 AB with geogrid
o Core information: AC and AB section thickness and thickness of other pavement materials encountered.
o Recommendations for alternative pavement sections including recommendations for full-depth reclamation with cement (FDR-C) and full depth HMA.

City of Turlock March 6, 2025
City of Turlock’s Roads Program Task Order No. 4 Page 4 of 8 Job No.: 20-557
 The geotechnical report will be prepared under the supervision of, and signed by, a California Licensed Geotechnical Engineer.
 A City of Turlock encroachment permit will be secured prior to drilling and is anticipated to be provided without a fee. No other permits will be required.  Borings will require a lane closure and traffic control will be limited to flagging operations.

DELIVERABLES
Geotechnical report will be submitted to the City in PDF format.

PHASE DR: DRAINAGE STUDY

CONDUCT DRAINAGE STUDY
Provost and Pritchard will review available storm water plats and record drawings provided by the City to develop an understanding of the existing drainage patterns and facilities. After mapping the existing facilities, we will analyze the drainage patterns based on existing conditions and identify any drainage or ponding issues. Provost and Pritchard will make recommendations to the City as to how to improve drainage within the project area. We will then meet with the City to review the existing facilities, identified drainage problems, and potential solutions. The selected solutions will be incorporated into the improvement plans.

DELIVERABLES
Plan view only storm water exhibits will be submitted to the City in PDF format.

PHASE SD: SCHEMATIC DESIGN
35% PLANS AND ESTIMATE
 Upon approval of the task order, we will conduct utility research and identify potential conflicts with record utilities. The City has provided plats and record drawings for their utilities. The utility information collected will be shown on an existing basemap prepared for the project.  We will prepare a schematic design set of plans for the project. We anticipate that our 35% plan set will include the following sheets:
o Cover Sheet
o General Notes and Legend Sheet
o Storm Drain Plan Sheets (1”=20’ Plan and Profile).
o Street Plan Sheets (1”=20’ plan and profile view)
o Street Plan Sheets (1”=100’ plan, Slurry Seal)
o Curb Ramp Detail Sheets (1”=5’)
o Driveway Detail Sheets (1”=5’)
o Signing and Striping (1”=40’ double plan view)
 Prepare Preliminary Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Cost (EOPCC)  Improvements will be entirely within existing right-of-way and no additional right-of-way (ROW) acquisition will be required. If improvements are required to extend outside of existing ROW, we will prepare a ROW acquisition exhibit and the City will acquire any required ROW and/or Temporary Construction Easements (TCEs).

City of Turlock March 6, 2025
City of Turlock’s Roads Program Task Order No. 4 Page 5 of 8 Job No.: 20-557
 Prepare Utility Relocation notification letters and Utility Relocation Exhibits. Any required utility relocation design will be provided by the utility companies.  A review of existing streetlighting will be conducted within project limits to determine if existing streetlighting meets City Standards and identify if any additional lighting is needed. Street lighting design/plans are not included as part of this scope. The City will be provided a list of locations where deficiencies are found.

Once the documents above are complete, we will attend an in person design review meeting with the City to discuss our 35% design. This will ensure that we are proceeding in accordance with the City’s direction before we begin preparing the construction documents.

DELIVERABLES
The plans, EOPCC and Utility Relocation Exhibits and list of additional streetlighting required listed above will be submitted to the City in PDF format only.

PHASE DD: DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
PREPARE 65% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS
Based on input received from City staff through the Schematic Design Phase, the design team will commence with engineering design and preparation of the construction documents to the 65% level.

Our 65% submittal will include:
 65% Front End and Technical Specifications
o City of Turlock to provide front end template.
 65% Construction Plans, expected to include:
o Cover sheet
o Legend / Abbreviation sheet
o General Notes sheet
o Storm Drain Plan Sheets (1”=20’ Plan and Profile).
o Street Plan sheets (1”=20’ plan and profile)
o Street Plan Sheets (1”=100’ plan, Slurry Seal)
o Curb Ramp, Alley and Drive Approach Detail sheets
o Typical Cross Section sheets
o Miscellaneous Detail sheets
o City Standard Detail sheets
o Traffic Control Plan Sheets (1”=40”)
o Signing, Striping, and Pavement Marking sheets (1”=40’ double plan view)  Revised Preliminary Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Costs.  Revised Utility Relocation Exhibits per Utility Company’s comments.

We will attend an in person design review meeting with City staff to discuss our 65% construction documents.

City of Turlock March 6, 2025
City of Turlock’s Roads Program Task Order No. 4 Page 6 of 8 Job No.: 20-557

DELIVERABLES
The 65% plans, specifications and EOPCC listed above will be submitted to the City in PDF format only.

PHASE CD: CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS
PREPARE 95% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS
We will incorporate comments from the 95% plan review and feedback from City staff as we prepare our Final construction documents.

Our 95% submittal will include:
 95% Construction Plans (expected plan set as noted above)  95% Specifications
 Engineer’s opinion of probable construction costs

PREPARE FINAL CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS
We will incorporate comments from the 95% plan review and feedback from City staff as we prepare our Final construction documents.

Our Final submittal will include:
 Final Construction Plans (expected plan set as noted above)  Final Specifications
 Engineer’s opinion of probable construction costs

DELIVERABLES
The plans, specifications and EOPCC listed above will be submitted to the City in PDF format only.

PHASE BID: BIDDING ASSISTANCE
P&P will perform the following services to assist the City during the bidding phase of the project:
 Assist City in responding to requests for information and preparing addenda, if necessary.  City will conduct bid process. Our attendance at pre-bid meeting and bid opening will not be required.

PHASE CON: ENGINEERING SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION
P&P will perform the following services to assist the City during the construction phase of the project:
 Attend pre-construction conference
 Assist City with review shop drawings and submittals
 Provide interpretation and/or clarification of construction documents during construction in response to requests for information from the contractor  Assist City with review and provide technical information for construction contract change order requests if necessary
 Conduct up to two site visits at intervals appropriate to the state of construction  Prepare record drawings based on contractor’s as-built drawings.

ASSUMPTIONS

1. Existing underground utilities do not exceed 10’ of burial depth below the finished surface.

City of Turlock March 6, 2025
City of Turlock’s Roads Program Task Order No. 4 Page 7 of 8 Job No.: 20-557

2. All scribed paint marking associated with requesting Underground Service Alert would not be required to be removed.

3. The City has prepared or will prepare all necessary environmental documents and will provide all identified mitigation measures.

4. The City will pay all permit fees, if required.

5. Construction staking, materials testing, labor compliance, construction management and construction administration will be provided by others under separate contract. Engineering Assistance during Construction will be provided according to the scope of work above.

6. Provost & Pritchard CAD standards and title block will be used for the design of this project. Provost & Pritchard’s current CAD version will be used.

PROFESSIONAL FEES
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group will perform the services on a time and materials basis for the fees shown in the table below and on the attached cost proposal. These fees will be invoiced monthly as they are accrued. Reimbursable expenses will be invoiced in addition to professional fees and are included in the estimated fees below. We will not continue to work beyond the authorized budget without additional authorization. Below is a summary of proposed fees, a detailed breakdown is provided in attached exhibit 10-H.

PROPOSED FEE

PHASE ESTIMATED FEE

PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
Phase SUR – Topographic Survey $94,805
Phase MON – Monument
Preservation $32,162
Phase GEO – Geotechnical
Investigation $38,947
Phase DR – Drainage Report $19,830
Phase UTL - Potholing/GPR $55,900
Phase SD – 35% PS&E $119,668
SUBTOTAL = $361,312

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
Phase DD – 65% PS&E $116,225
SUBTOTAL = $116,225

CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS
Phase CD – 95% PS&E $76,987
Phase FD – 100% PS&E $25,863
SUBTOTAL = $102,850

BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION
Phase BID – Bid Support $8,898
Phase CON – Construction Support $58,503
SUBTOTAL= $67,401
TOTAL ESTIMATED FEE = $647,779.27

City of Turlock March 6, 2025
City of Turlock’s Roads Program Task Order No. 4 Page 8 of 8 Job No.: 20-557
The line items shown in the table are estimates and are not intended to limit billings for any given Task.

Required task effort may vary up or down from the line-item estimates shown, however total billings will not exceed the Total shown without additional authorization.

We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal and we look forward to working with the City of Turlock on Task Order No. 4.

SCHEDULE
Once we receive a signed contract and are authorized to proceed, we will plan to proceed with the project in accordance with the attached schedule. Agency review time is outside of our control and any review time beyond the review times shown will delay the tasks that follow.

Sincerely Yours,
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
Jeff S Dorn
RCE 76749, TE 2945
Director of Operations