Turlock City Council
August 12, 2025

Housing Program Manager Page 2
• Oversees land purchases, relocations and financing related to Community Development projects. Serves as the City’s HUD IDIS administrator in monitoring and approving all CDBG and HOME grant funds drawdowns. Coordinates with lenders. • Serves as Secretary to the Housing Rehabilitation/Economic Development Loan Committee, member of the Neighborhood Revitalization Committee and alternate member to the Redevelopment Agency Loan Committee; provides professional advice, recommendations and information to these and other advisory groups. • Prepares and submits reports and recommendations to the department head, City Manager and City Council on a broad range of community preservation, neighborhood revitalization, affordable housing and related issues and projects. • Oversees and monitors programs, projects through all phases and assures compliance with regulations of various local, state and federal agencies; coordinates and monitors cooperation agreements with Housing Authority, Amerinational Community Services, Inc., and local and countywide non-profit agencies.
• Oversee the preparation, implementation and compliance of the City/HUD 5 year Consolidated Housing Plan with local, state and federal agencies. • Develops and monitors compliance with divisional policies and procedures. • Consults and coordinates with City departments, citizens and officials regarding conflicts and issues related to contract and regulatory compliance. • Prepares procedure manuals; oversees grant applications and other research and reports; assists with audits.
• Prepares multiple specialized budgets related to assigned activities; oversees budget implementation; determines in budget forecasts; administers the approved budget. • Makes presentations before various groups, including City Council, commissions, boards, committees, task forces, and on and off-site public meetings, as needed. • Supervises staff including provision of timely performance evaluations; recommends and implements approved discipline; provides staff development; and maintains high standards necessary for efficient, professional operations. • Answers questions; provides information to the public, other City departments, and other agencies; recommends and coordinates corrective actions; investigates, reports, documents and resolves complaints.
• Builds and maintains respectful, positive working relationships with staff, supervisors, outside agencies and the public using principles of good customer service; provides effective conflict resolution, as needed.
• Models appropriate professional management conduct; maintains appropriate confidentiality of sensitive information; complies with and supports City policies and procedures, labor laws, and MOU provisions.
• Attends assigned meetings and training; interacts with outside agencies and commissions; consortium, participates in teams, or committees, as needed. • Assures staff works in a safe manner; follows safety requirements; monitors and assures compliance with regulations and other legal requirements. • Performs other duties, as assigned.

Housing Program Manager Page 3
QUALIFICATIONS:

Knowledge of:
• Advanced principles and practices of community revitalization, affordable housing, neighborhood preservation, housing rehabilitation and related areas. • Consortia operations and functions.
• Statistical and audit methods and principles.
• Procedures involving real estate practices; appraisal methods; loan underwriting and administration; mortgage default resolution; foreclosure, title and escrow functions; loan eligibility and related activities.
• Modern office procedures, and methods including computer equipment, word processing, spread sheet, data base, graphic presentations and other needed specialized software applications, and internet and electronic communication usage and methods. • Principles of financial record keeping and reporting, auditing; technical report writing and grant writing
• Budgeting procedures and techniques.
• Principles and practices of supervision, staff selection, training and personnel management.
• Principles of effective file management and time management • Safe work practices and related regulations.
• Principles of public speaking, conflict resolution and excellent customer service. • Provisions, principles and practices of, municipal structure and organization • Applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations governing municipal housing finance, loan processing and related guidelines.

Ability to:
• Understand and interpret complex state and federal regulations, laws, codes, policies and solutions in the area of housing, revitalization and economic development. • Develop program services that benefit the community; analyze policy issues and develop sound recommendations.
• Manage and monitor complex loan, grant and related programs, and other processes involving multiple institutions and groups.
• Understand City processes and procedures and specific requirements of assigned program area.
• Work with and control sensitive and confidential information. • Estimate and project revenues and expenditures
• Plan, initiate, manage and complete complex and multiple simultaneous work assignments with a minimum of direction; set priorities and organize work to meet deadlines.
• Lead, manage, evaluate and train personnel effectively and maintain discipline. • Organize, implement and supervise departmental goals and City objectives. • Make presentations before groups and represent the City in public forums. • Use computer and needed programs in a highly effective manner. • Organize, analyze, manage and implement a variety of programs. • Prepare, forecast and administer a budget.
• Establish and maintain respectful, effective and cooperative working relationships with those contacted in the course of work.
• Communicate effectively, orally, electronically and in writing.

Housing Program Manager Page 4
EXPERIENCE:

Four years of increasingly responsible professional experience with a public agency in public administration, community preservation, housing program services or a related field and supervision, or any experience that would have provided the opportunity to develop the required skills, knowledge and abilities.

EDUCATION & TRAINING:

Equivalent to a Bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university with significant course work in the areas of Business Administration, Finance, Accounting, Public Administration, Real Estate, Economics or related fields.

LICENSE AND/OR CERTIFICATE:

Possession of a valid California Driver’s License in the category necessary to perform essential duties of the position may be required as the time of appointment. Maintenance of a valid California Driver’s license and proof of automobile liability insurance is a condition of continued employment.

Possession of a Real Estate license is desirable.

PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS
Vision adequate to operate vehicles and office equipment, read instructions and follow directions; hearing adequate to converse on telephone and in person; body mobility adequate to drive and perform required office duties including reaching and bending for files and related office items; use of hands and fingers adequate for operating vehicles, writing, typing, computer, copier, and fax machine and related functions; ability to lift office files, binders and small office equipment, as needed.

Revised 7/95
Revised 4/96
Revised 2/02
Revised 4/22
Revised 04/25/23
Revised 08/12/25
Reviewed and Approved:
______________________________
Personnel Officer
______________________________
Date

City Council Staff Report
August 12, 2025
From: Adrienne Werner, Development Services Director
Prepared by: Joanne Foster, Assistant Planner
Agendized by: Susan E. Borrego, Interim City Manager

1. ACTION RECOMMENDED:

Confirmation: City Clerk confirms: a) Proof of Publication of Notice of Public Hearing; b) Signed Waiver and Consent; c) Completed and Signed Ballot and d) Signed Certificate of Clerk Regarding Receipt of Property Owner Waiver and Consent Form and Ballot Declaring Election Results
Resolution: In the matter of calling a special mailed-ballot election and declaring the results of the mailed ballot election respecting proposed Annexation Number 37 for properties located at 905 Flower Street, Stanislaus County APN 061-004-006 and 300 N. Soderquist Road, Stanislaus County APN 061-003-040 to existing Community Facilities District Number 2 (Services Mitigation).

Resolution: In the matter of declaring the results of mailed ballot election respecting proposed Annexation Number 37 for properties located at 905 Flower Street, Stanislaus County APN 061-004-006 and 300 N. Soderquist Road, Stanislaus County APN 061-003- 040 to existing Community Facilities District Number 2 (Services Mitigation) and ordering annexation of the subject properties.

2. DISCUSSION OF ISSUE:

A Fiscal Impact Study of new residential development on General Fund supported services (Police, Fire, Park maintenance, Planning, etc.) conducted in 2004, concluded that current General Fund revenues are inadequate to support both existing as well as the planned, General Plan levels of services. In response, the City Council adopted a policy (Resolution No. 2004-189) to require all new residential development not otherwise entitled by existing zoning to be included in a Community Facilities or Mello-Roos District as a condition of development. At its meeting on October 26, 2004, the City Council formed Turlock Community Facilities District No. 2 (CFD No. 2), to generate additional General Fund revenues from an additional tax imposed on new residential units.

In 2017, an evaluation of CFD #2 was completed and it was concluded the existing tax level of CFD #2 was still adequate to mitigate the service costs created by new residential development.

The existing CFD #2 was phased in over ten (10) years. The current (FY 2025/2026) rate for multi-family dwellings subject to CFD #2 is $595 per year and will increase 2% annually. A higher rate ($760 for year 2025/2026) is charged on single-family dwelling units.

Annexation No. 37 will annex two parcels into CFD #2.

Agenda Staff Report
8/12/2025

1. A 0.72-acre parcel located at 905 Flower Street, Stanislaus County Assessor’s Parcel 061-004-006, as shown on the attached boundary map (Attachment 1 of the Resolution) into CFD #2. Minor Discretionary Permit 2024-02 (MDP 24-02) was approved on July 12, 2024 authorizing the construction of 11 residential units. Annexation into CFD #2 is required as a condition of approval for the project.

2. A 0.46-acre parcel located at 300 N Soderquist Road, Stanislaus County Assessor’s Parcel 061-003-040, as shown on the attached boundary map (Attachment 1 of the Resolution) into CFD #2. Minor Discretionary Permit 2024-03 (MDP 24-03) was approved on July 12, 2024 authorizing the construction of a 5-unit multifamily residential unit. Annexation into CFD #2 is required as a condition of approval for the project.

The second step in the annexation process entails a public hearing and, where there is unanimous agreement among property owner(s) and fewer than 12 voters, an immediate election. In this case there are seven (7) registered voters within Assessor Parcel Number 061-004-006 (905 Flower Street) and zero (0) registered voters within Assessor Parcel Number 061-003-040 (300 N. Soderquist Road) in the project areas included in this Annexation Number 37. Staff is in possession of all the documents required to conduct and conclude an election to approve the annexation to the district.

3. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:

1. Annexation into CFD #2 requires a public hearing and an election.

4. FISCAL IMPACT / BUDGET AMENDMENT:

The annexation of these properties into CFD #2 will increase revenues to the General Fund once the residential units are constructed and will pay for the increase service demand created by the new residential units.

5. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Recommend approval.

6. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:

Recommend approval.

7. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

This action does not constitute a “project” subject to CEQA review. Pursuant to Section 15378(b)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines, the creation of governmental funding mechanisms that do not make a commitment to a specific project that has the potential to result in a significant physical impact on the environment are not defined as “projects” under CEQA and, therefore, are not subject to CEQA review. The annexation of this property to CFD #2 for the purpose of funding ongoing operations of police, fire and park maintenance personnel has no potential to cause a physical change in the environment.

8. ALTERNATIVES:

Agenda Staff Report
8/12/2025

1. The Council could choose to not hold the public hearing or the special mailed ballot election to annex the subject properties into CFD#2. This option is not recommended as City General Funds are not sufficient to maintain the level of service standards for police, fire and park maintenance adopted in the Turlock General Plan without new housing developments paying into the CFD#2 assessment. Additionally, annexing into CFD#2 is a condition of approval for these properties to move forward with the respective land use permits to construct more residential units.

9. ATTACHMENTS:

1. CFD 2 Annexation 37 Calling for Election Resolution 905 Flower Street

2. CFD 2 Annexation 37 Declaring Election Results Resolution 905 Flower Street

3. 905 Flower Street Special Election Ballot

4. 905 Flower Street Waiver and Consent

5. 905 Flower Street Boundary Map

6. 300 N. Soderquist Road Special Election Ballot

7. 300 N. Soderquist Road Waiver and Consent

8. 300 N. Soderquist Road Boundary Map

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TURLOCK
IN THE MATTER OF CALLING A SPECIAL, } RESOLUTION NO. 2025- MAILED-BALLOT ELECTION AND DECLARING }
THE RESULTS OF THE MAILED BALLOT }
ELECTION RESPECTING PROPOSED }
ANNEXATION NUMBER 37 FOR PROPERTIES }
LOCATED AT 905 FLOWER STREET, STANISLAUS }
COUNTY APN 061-004-006 AND 300 N. }
SODERQUIST ROAD, STANISLAUS COUNTY }
APN 061-003-040 TO EXISTING COMMUNITY }
FACILITIES DISTRICT NUMBER 2 (SERVICES }
MITIGATION) }
WHEREAS, reference is made to the Resolution Declaring Intention to Order Annexation Number 37 (henceforth referred to as “the Resolution of Intention”), adopted by the City of Turlock City Council (Council) on June 24, 2025, to annex the SUBJECT PROPERTIES, located at 905 Flower Street, Stanislaus County Assessor’s Parcel 061- 004-006 and 300 N. Soderquist Road, Stanislaus County Assessor’s Parcel 061-003- 040, as shown on the attached map (Attachment 1) to the Existing Community Facilities District No. 2 (Services Mitigation) for the description of the petition received from the owner of the SUBJECT PROPERTIES which the Owner is requesting be annexed to the existing Community Facilities District No. 2 (Services Mitigation) (“CFD No. 2”); and WHEREAS, the City of Turlock City Council scheduled this same date as the date for the public hearing with respect to the proposed annexation of the SUBJECT PROPERTIES located at 905 Flower Street, Stanislaus County Assessor’s Parcel 061- 004-006 and 300 N. Soderquist Road, Stanislaus County Assessor’s Parcel 061-003- 040, (the “Proposed Annexation”); and
WHEREAS, on this same date, at the time set for the public hearing by the Resolution of Intention, the City of Turlock City Council conducted the public hearing, and at the close of the public hearing the City of Turlock City Council determined that a majority protest under Section 53724 of the Government Code was not made at the hearing; and
WHEREAS, in order to proceed with the Proposed Annexation, as provided by the Resolution of Intention, the matter must be submitted to an election of the qualified electors in the territory of the SUBJECT PROPERTIES, as provided in the form of special election ballot attached hereto as Exhibit A and by this reference incorporated herein; and
WHEREAS, a Certificate Regarding Registered Voters and Landowners (the “Certificate”) has been filed with the City Clerk (the “Clerk”), certifying that at no time during the ninety days preceding the close of the protest hearing on this date, were there ever any persons registered to vote within the territory of the SUBJECT

Resolution No. 2025-

PROPERTIES, with the result that, pursuant to Section 53726 of the Government Code, the qualified electors for the proposed special election shall be the Owners.

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

1. The City of Turlock City Council finds and determines that the foregoing recitals are true and correct.

2. The City of Turlock City Council accepts the Certificate heretofore filed in these proceedings and finds, in accordance therewith, that there presently are, and at all times during the ninety days just past there have not been any registered voters residing within the boundaries of the SUBJECT PROPERTIES. Accordingly, under Section 53726 of the Government Code, the qualified electors for the proposed special election shall be the Owners.

3. The City of Turlock City Council further finds and determines that the Owners are the sole landowner of record of the SUBJECT PROPERTIES and that the Certificate correctly sets forth the amount of property owned by the Owner, the number of votes to which the Owner is entitled pursuant to said Section 53726 being said number of acres rounded up to the nearest whole integer

4. The City of Turlock City Council further finds and determines that an authorized representative of the Owner has filed with the Clerk (a) the special election ballot pertaining to the SUBJECT PROPERTIES and (b) waiver and consents, by which the time limits and related requirements respecting preparation and distribution of election materials are waived.

5. Pursuant to Sections 53726 and 53751 of the Government Code, the City of Turlock City Council hereby calls an election, to be held and conducted forthwith upon adoption of this resolution, and sets this same date as the election date. Pursuant to Section 53726 of the Government Code, the election shall be conducted by mailed ballot; provided that personal service of the ballot is permitted under the terms of the waiver and consent on file with the Clerk and shall therefore be permitted and ratified.

The action of the Clerk in having made personal service of the ballot, in the form of Exhibit A, to the Owner is hereby ratified.

6. The measure to be submitted to the qualified electors of the SUBJECT PROPERTIES shall be as set forth in Exhibit A.

7. The Clerk, having received the only eligible ballot prior to adoption of this resolution, shall immediately close the election and declare the results of the City Council.

Resolution No. 2025-

8. This resolution shall take effect from and after its adoption.

Resolution No. 2025-

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Turlock this 12th day of August 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

NOT PARTICIPATING:

ABSENT:

ATTEST:
__________________________
_
Nicole 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 DECLARING THE } RESOLUTION NO. 2025
RESULTS OF MAILED-BALLOT ELECTION }
RESPECTING PROPOSED ANNEXATION }
NUMBER 37 FOR PROPERTIES }
LOCATED AT 905 FLOWER STREET, STANISLAUS }
COUNTY APN 061-004-006 AND 300 N. }
SODERQUIST ROAD, STANISLAUS COUNTY }
APN 061-003-040 TO COMMUNITY FACILITIES }
DISTRICT NUMBER 2 (SERVICES MITIGATION)
AND ORDERING ANNEXATION OF THE SUBJECT }
PROPERTIES }
}
WHEREAS, on this date, at the time set for the public hearing in the matter of annexing the SUBJECT PROPERTIES located at 905 Flower Street, Stanislaus County Assessor’s Parcel 061-004-006 and 300 N. Soderquist Road, Stanislaus, Stanislaus County Assessor’s Parcel 061-003-040, as shown on the attached maps (Attachments 1 and 2, respectively) to Community Facilities District No. 2 (Services Mitigation) (“CFD No. 2”) by its Resolution Declaring Intention to Order Annexation No. 37 to Existing Community Facilities District No. 2, the City of Turlock City Council conducted the public hearing, and at the close of the public hearing, the City of Turlock City Council determined that a majority protest under Section 53339.6 of the Government Code was not made at the hearing; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing, the City of Turlock City Council adopted its Resolution Calling Special Mailed-Ballot Election Respecting Proposed Annexation No. 37 to Existing Community Facilities District No. 2 (Services Mitigation) pursuant to Section 53339.7 of the Government Code; and WHEREAS, by said resolution calling the election, the two questions of annexing the SUBJECT PROPERTIES and levying a special tax as previously authorized for property within CFD No. 2 were combined into a single ballot measure pursuant to Section 53353.5 of the Government Code, as provided in the form of special election ballot attached thereto as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, a Certificate of Clerk regarding Receipt of Property Owner Waiver and Consent Form and Ballot and Declaring Election Results, dated this same date (the “Clerk’s Certificate”), executed by the City Clerk (the “Clerk”), has been filed with the City of Turlock City Council, certifying that a completed ballot has been returned to the Clerk for the sole landowner-voter eligible to cast a ballot in said special election, with all votes cast as “Yes” votes in favor of the ballot measure, and further certifying on said basis that the special mailed-ballot election was closed; and

Resolution No. 2025-XX

WHEREAS, the City of Turlock City Council has received, reviewed and hereby accepts the Clerk’s Certificate and wishes by this resolution to declare the results of the special mailed-ballot election.

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

1. The City of Turlock City Council finds and determines that the foregoing recitals are true and correct.

2. The City of Turlock City Council hereby finds and determines and declares that the ballot measure submitted to the qualified elector of CFD No. 2 has been passed and approved by that qualified elector in accordance with Sections 53339.8 and 53355 of the Government Code, and the SUBJECT PROPERTIES are hereby declared annexed to CFD No. 2 and made subject to the special tax of CFD No. 2 in accordance with the rate and method of apportionment of special tax previously approved for CFD No.

2. 3. The City of Turlock City Council hereby authorizes and directs the Clerk to cause the following:
a. The recordation with the Stanislaus County Recorder (the “County Recorder”) of the map titled “Proposed Boundaries, Annexation No. 37, City of Turlock Community Facilities District No. 2 (Services Mitigation),” which map is on file with the Clerk; and
b. The preparation and recordation with the County Recorder of a notice of special tax lien in accordance with the provisions of Section 3114.5 of the Streets and Highways Code and Section 53328.3 of the Government Code. Said notice shall be recorded in said County Recorder’s office within 15 days of today’s date.

4. This resolution shall take effect from and after its adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Turlock this 12th day of August, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

NOT PARTICIPATING:

ABSENT:

ATTEST:
__________________________

Resolution No. 2025-XX

_
Nicole Fiez, City Clerk
City of Turlock, County of
Stanislaus State of California

City Council Staff Report
August 12, 2025
From: Christopher Fisher, Municipal Services Director
Bill Morris, City Engineer
Prepared by: Tania Hernandez, Staff Services Analyst
Agendized by: Susan E. Borrego, Interim City Manager

1. ACTION RECOMMENDED:

Resolution: Adopting a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Turlock, acting in its capacity as the legislative body of Community Facilities District No. 3 (Maintenance Services) of the City of Turlock, establishing such community facilities district Resolution: Adopting a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Turlock, California, calling a special election and submitting to the voters of the City of Turlock Community Facilities District No. 3 (Maintenance Services), County of Stanislaus, State of California a measure with respect to the annual levy of special taxes within the community facilities district to pay the costs of certain services to be provided by the community facilities district and a measure with respect to establishing an appropriations limit for said community facilities district
Resolution: Adopting a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Turlock, California, acting in its capacity as the legislative body of City of Turlock Community Facilities District No. 3 (Maintenance Services), County of Stanislaus, State of California, declaring the results of a special election in such a community facilities district Ordinance: Introduction and first reading of an Ordinance adding Turlock Municipal Code Title 3 (Finance), Chapter 3-9 (Construction Taxes), Article 9 (Community Facilities District Number 3)

2. DISCUSSION OF ISSUE:

The City of Turlock is forming the Community Facilities District (CFD) to fund the ongoing maintenance and operation of public services, including but not limited to streetlights, landscaping, storm drain facilities, and streets. Authorized under the Community Facilities Act of 1982, a CFD provides the mechanism for local governments to impose a special tax on properties within a defined area to fund public improvements and services. These special taxes are collected via property tax bills and distributed to the local agency by their county.

To ensure sustainable funding for public services, many local agencies require the formation of or annexation into a CFD as a condition of development approval.

City staff are working to establish Community Facilities District No. 3 (CFD No. 3) with the Balisha Ranch development. This project involves the subdivision of a 17.4-acre parcel into 50 single-family residential lots located in the East Tuolumne Master Plan area. The property owner, JKB Living, Inc., has formally petitioned the City to form a CFD for the purpose of financing certain types of maintenance and operational services associated with the project. Types of infrastructure to be maintained include the following:

Agenda Staff Report
8/12/2025
• 16 streetlights
• 22 storm catch basins
• 37,000 square-foot stormwater basin
• 111,600 square feet of street pavement
• 33,725 square feet of sidewalk
The initial boundaries of CFD No. 3 would include Assessor Parcel Numbers 073-054-001 through 073-055-013.

On June 24, 2025, the City Council approved and adopted Resolution No. 2025-126, a Resolution of Intention to form the CFD. This resolution:
• Described the proposed boundaries of CFD No. 3
• Described the types of services to be funded by CFD No. 3 • Described the Rate and Method of Apportionment (RMA) of the special taxes to be levied on properties within CFD No. 3
• Scheduled a public hearing to be held on August 12, 2025 • Directed the preparation of a report (CFD Report) detailing the proposed services, estimated costs, and tax methodology
In compliance with Section 53321.5 of the California Government Code, the CFD Report has been submitted to the City Council and includes all required information. Additionally, the City Clerk has properly published a Notice of Public Hearing, allowing the CFD formation process to proceed to the next step.

The actions tonight include a public hearing, providing an opportunity for interested persons to comment on the proposed CFD No. 3. If, following the public hearing, there are no majority protests, City Council may consider the following actions:

1. Adopt the Resolution of Formation for CFD No. 3

2. Adopt the Resolution Calling a Special Election to authorize the annual special tax levy

3. Conduct the Special Election

4. Adopt the Resolution Declaring the Results of the Special Election

5. Conduct the First Reading of the Ordinance
As outlined in the RMA, the special tax will be collected in the same manner as ordinary property taxes and will be levied in perpetuity, unless the City Council votes to terminate it.

The area within the City’s boundaries is designated as a future annexation area, meaning that future development projects requiring a parcel map, subdivision map, general plan amendment, rezone, planned development, area-wide plan, annexation, or other discretionary permits may be required to annex into CFD No. 3 as a condition of approval for their project.

City staff, in coordination with Willdan Financial Services (Willdan), will guide the City Council

Agenda Staff Report
8/12/2025
and City Clerk through the CFD formation process. Future annexations into CFD No. 3 will follow a similar process, with continued support from Willdan.

3. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:

Revenues collected from CFD No. 3 ensure that those who directly benefit from new development contribute to the ongoing costs of maintaining essential services and infrastructure. As new developments are built, they create long-term needs for the upkeep and eventual rehabilitation of roads, utility systems, landscaped areas, and other public spaces. Requiring these developments to fund their own impacts helps protect the General Fund and prevents the financial burden from falling on existing taxpayers. Without a dedicated funding source, public improvements risk deterioration over time, which can lead to higher future repair costs and a decline in the quality of life for nearby residents. CFD No. 3 provides a structured, equitable tax that offers predictable revenue for long-term budgeting and maintenance planning.

4. FISCAL IMPACT / BUDGET AMENDMENT:

The approval and application of CFD No. 3 will generate revenues to support maintenance services and operations for new development projects. In the first year, the Balisha Ranch subdivision is expected to contribute $74,121.52, or $1,482.43 per lot, as outlined in the RMA. Annual adjustments will be tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for All Urban Consumers. Revenue from future developments will vary based on the type of land use and the specific improvements and quantities the City will be responsible for maintaining. Future revenue will be collected and deposited into Fund 232, which is the designated fund exclusively for CFD No. 3.

There will be no impact to the General Fund. No budget amendment is required.

5. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Recommend approval.

6. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:

Recommend approval.

7. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

This action has been reviewed per the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State and local CEQA Guidelines, and the City's environmental regulations. The City, acting as the Lead Agency, determined that the ordinance is not subject to CEQA pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), and 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, because it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment as there is no possibility that the action would result in a significant environmental impact, and because it does not constitute a “project” as defined in Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3.

8. ALTERNATIVES:

A. Reject approval of the proposed resolutions. City staff does not recommend this option, as the resolutions are necessary for establishing CFD No. 3. Without the formation of this CFD, ongoing maintenance costs for infrastructure in the proposed development would need

Agenda Staff Report
8/12/2025
to be covered by other City funds, increasing the financial burden on the General Fund or other citywide resources.

B. Reject approval of CFD No. 3 and continue to form assessment districts for new development. City staff does not recommend this alternative due to the limitations of assessment districts. They offer less flexibility, require annual reporting, and involve complex administrative processes that make them less efficient over the long term.

C. Provide direction to staff on how to proceed. The Council may wish to provide further direction or request additional changes to the resolutions before they are formally introduced.

This alternative would allow for additional refinement but could delay the adoption timeline and potentially exclude the Balisha Ranch subdivision from being included in CFD No. 3.

9. ATTACHMENTS:

1. Draft Resolution of Formation

2. Draft Resolution Calling for Election

3. Draft Resolution Declaring Election Results

4. Draft Ordinance

5. CFD Report

82741.00027\32938954.1

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TURLOCK
IN THE MATTER OF ADOPTING A RESOLUTION} RESOLUTION NO. 2025- OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF }
TURLOCK, ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE }
LEGISLATIVE BODY OF COMMUNITY }
FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 3 (MAINTENANCE }
SERVICES) OF THE CITY OF TURLOCK, }
ESTABLISHING SUCH COMMUNITY }
FACILITIES DISTRICT }
}
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Turlock (the “City Council”), has previously declared its intention to form a community facilities district and ordered the preparation of a report relating to the initiation of proceedings to create such community facilities district pursuant to the terms and provisions of the “Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982”, being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California (the “Act”). This community facilities district shall hereinafter be referred to as CITY OF TURLOCK COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 3 (MAINTENANCE SERVICES), COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, STATE OF CALIFORNIA (the “CFD No. 3”); and
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing relating to the establishment of CFD No. 3, the extent of CFD No. 3, the financing of certain types of services and all other related matters has been given, and a report (the “CFD Report”), as ordered by this City Council, has been presented to this City Council and has been made a part of the record of the hearing to establish CFD No. 3; and
WHEREAS, all communications relating to the establishment of CFD No. 3, the proposed services and the rate and method of apportionment of the special tax proposed to be levied within CFD No. 3 have been presented, and it has further been determined that a majority protest as defined by law has not been received against these proceedings or the levy of the special tax within CFD No.3; and
WHEREAS, inasmuch as there have been less than twelve (12) registered voters residing within the territory of CFD No.3 for at least the preceding ninety (90) days, the authorization to levy a special tax within CFD No.3 shall be submitted to the landowners of CFD No. 3, such landowners being the qualified electors as authorized by law.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED by the City Council of the City of Turlock, California,
Section 1. Recitals. The above recitals are all true and correct.

Section 2. Findings. The City Council finds as follows:
(a) All of the preceding recitals are true and correct; (b) On August 12, 2025, pursuant to notice thereof duly given as provided by law, the City Council conducted a public hearing with respect to the formation

Resolution No. 2025-

of CFD No. 3, and the annual levying of the special tax on such taxable property to pay the costs of the services which are to be provided within and for CFD No. 3 and which are described in Exhibit A, attached hereto (the “Services”); (c) The boundary map of CFD No. 3 was recorded on July 7, 2025, pursuant to Sections 3111 and 3113 of the California Streets and Highways Code, at page 61 in Book 7 of Maps of Assessment and Community Facilities Districts, and as Instrument No. 2025-0032880 in the official records of the County of Stanislaus; (d) All prior proceedings with respect to the formation of CFD No. 3 prior to and during the public hearing with respect to the formation of CFD No. 3 which was conducted by the City Council on August 12, 2025, were valid and in conformity with the requirements of the Act;
(e) No written protests were received, at or prior to the time of the public hearing, against the formation of CFD No. 3, or the levying of the special tax or the furnishing of specified types of Maintenance Services, and the special tax and services have, therefore, not been eliminated by majority protest pursuant to Section 53324 of the Act;
(f) The City Council is, therefore, authorized to adopt a resolution of formation pursuant to Section 53325.1 of the Act for the formation of Community Facilities District No. 3 (Maintenance Services) of the City of Turlock, County of Stanislaus, State of California, and CFD No. 3 should be established; and (g) Twelve (12) persons have not been registered to vote within the territory of CFD No. 3 for each of the 90 days preceding the close of the public hearing on August 12, 2025, and pursuant to Section 53326 of the Act, the vote in the Special Election (defined below) provided for in Section 10 hereof shall, therefore, be by the landowners of CFD No. 3 whose property would be subject to the special tax if it were levied at the time of the election, and each landowner shall have one vote for each acre, or portion thereof, which he or she owns within CFD No. 3 which would be subject to the proposed special tax if it were levied at the time of the election.

Section 3. Formation of District. Community Facilities District No. 3 (Maintenance Services) of the City of Turlock, County of Stanislaus, State of California, is hereby established. The boundaries of CFD No. 3 are set forth and shown on the map entitled “Proposed Boundary Map - Community Facilities District No. 3 (Maintenance Services) of the City of Turlock, County of Stanislaus, State of California,” which is on file with the City Clerk, and those boundaries are hereby established.

Section 4. Types of Services; Incidental Expenses.

Resolution No. 2025-

(a) A general description of the Services which are to be funded with the revenues from the Special Tax (defined below), which is to be levied on parcels of taxable property within CFD No. 3, is set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto. (b) The proposed CFD No. 3 shall also fund costs associated with the determination of the amount of and the levy and collection of the special tax which is levied to provide such services and costs otherwise incurred in order to carry out the authorized purposes of CFD No. 3 (“Incidental Expenses”).

Section 5. Special Tax. Except where funds are otherwise available, a special tax sufficient to finance the Maintenance Services (as defined in the Rate and Method) and related Incidental Expenses (“Special Tax”), secured by the recordation of a continuing lien against all taxable or nonexempt property in CFD No. 3, shall be annually levied within the CFD No. 3.

Under no circumstances will the Special Tax levied in any fiscal year against any parcel used for private residential purposes be increased as a consequence of delinquency or default by the owner of any other parcel or parcels within CFD No. 3 by more than 10 percent (10%) above the amount that would have been levied in that fiscal year had there never been any such delinquencies or defaults. A parcel shall be considered “used for private residential purposes” not later than the date on which an occupancy permit or the equivalent for private residential use is issued for such parcel.

For further particulars as to the rate and method of apportionment of the Special Tax to be levied on parcels of taxable property in CFD No. 3 reference is made to the attached and incorporated Exhibit B (the “Rate and Method”) which sets forth in sufficient detail the rate and method of apportionment of the Special Tax to allow each landowner or resident within each CFD No. 3 to clearly estimate the maximum amount that such person will have to pay.

The Special Tax may not be prepaid.

Pursuant to Section 53340 of the Act, said Special Tax shall be collected in the same manner and at the same time as ordinary ad valorem property taxes; provided however, that CFD No. 3 may collect the Special Tax at a different time or in a different manner if necessary to meet its financial obligations, and may covenant to foreclose and may actually foreclose on delinquent assessor’s parcels as permitted by the Act.

Upon recordation of a notice of special tax lien pursuant to Section 3114.5 of the California Streets and Highways Code, a continuing lien to secure the levy of the Special Tax shall attach to all non-exempt real property in CFD No. 3, and that lien shall continue in force and effect until collection of the Special Tax ceases.

Section 6. Exempt Properties. Pursuant to Section 53340 of the Act, and except as provided in Section 53317.3 of the Act, properties of entities of the state, federal, and local governments shall be exempt from the levy of the Special Tax.

Resolution No. 2025-

Section 7. Necessity. The City Council finds that the Services described in Section 4 hereof are necessary to meet increased demands placed upon the City as a result of new development occurring within the boundaries of CFD No. 3.

Section 8. Report. The CFD Report is hereby approved and is made a part of the record of the public hearing regarding the formation of CFD No. 3 and is ordered to be kept on file with the City Clerk as part of the transcript of these proceedings.

Section 9. Description of Voting Procedures. Except as otherwise provided in this section, the Special Election on the measures identified below shall be conducted by the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of the California Elections Code governing mail ballot elections of cities, insofar as they may be applicable. The voting procedures to be followed in conducting the special election on (i) the measure with respect to the levy of the special tax on parcels of taxable property within CFD No. 3 to pay the annual costs of the Services and (ii) the measure with respect to establishing an appropriations limit for CFD No. 3 in the amount of $100,000 (the “Special Election”) shall be as follows:
(a) The Special Election shall be held on the earliest date, following the adoption by the City Council of this resolution, and a resolution pursuant to Section 53326 of the Act submitting to the qualified electors of CFD No. 3 the measures with respect to (i) the levy of the Special Tax to pay the annual costs of the Services, and (ii) establishing an appropriations limit for the community facilities district to the qualified electors of the community facilities district, upon which such elections can be held pursuant to Section 53326 which may be selected by the City Council, or such earlier date as the owners of land within CFD No. 3 and the City Clerk agree and concur is acceptable. (b) Pursuant to Section 53326 of the Act, the Special Election may be held earlier than 90 days following the close of the public hearing if the qualified electors of CFD No. 3 waive the time limits for conducting the elections set forth in said Section 53326 by unanimous written consent and the City Clerk concurs in such earlier election date as shall be consented to by the qualified electors. (c) Pursuant to Section 53326 of the Act, ballots for the Special Election shall be distributed to the qualified electors by the City Clerk by mail with return postage prepaid, or by personal service.
(d) Pursuant to applicable sections of the California Elections Code governing the conduct of mail ballot elections of cities, and specifically Division 4 (commencing with Section 4000) of the California Elections Code with respect to elections conducted by mail, the City Clerk shall mail or deliver to each qualified elector an official ballot in a form specified by the City Council in the resolutions calling and consolidating the Special Election, and shall also mail or deliver to all such qualified electors a ballot pamphlet and instructions to voters, including a sample ballot identical in form to the official

Resolution No. 2025-

ballot but identified as a sample ballot, a statement pursuant to Section 9401 of that Code, an impartial analysis by the City Attorney pursuant to Section 9280 of that Code with respect to the ballot measures contained in the official ballot, arguments and rebuttals, if any, pursuant to Sections 9281 to 9287, inclusive, and 9295 of that Code, a return identification envelope with prepaid postage thereon addressed to the City Clerk for the return of voted official ballots, and a copy of Resolution No. 2025-126 provided, however, that such statement, analysis, and arguments may be waived with the unanimous consent of all the landowners who are qualified electors and shall be so stated in the resolution adopted by the City Council calling the Special Election. Such statement, impartial analysis, and arguments, if any, shall be prepared by the City Attorney. (e) The official ballot to be mailed or delivered by the City Clerk or her designee to each landowner-voter shall have printed or typed thereon the name of the landowner-voter and the number of votes to be voted by the landowner-voter and shall have appended to it a certification to be signed by the person voting the official ballot which shall certify that the person signing the certification is the person who voted the official ballot, and if the landowner-voter is other than a natural person, that he or she is an officer of or other person affiliated with the landowner-voter entitled to vote such official ballot, that he or she has been authorized to vote such official ballot on behalf of the landownervoter, that in voting such official ballot it was his or her intent, as well as the intent of the landowner-voter, to vote all votes to which the landowner-voter is entitled based on its land ownership on the measures set forth in the official ballot as marked thereon in the voting square opposite each such measure, and further certifying as to the acreage of the landowner-voter’s land ownership within CFD No. 3.
(f) The return identification envelope mailed or delivered by the City Clerk to each landowner-voter shall have printed or typed thereon the following: (i) the name of the landowner, (ii) the address of the landowner, (iii) a declaration under penalty of perjury stating that the voter is the landowner or the authorized representative of the landowner entitled to vote the enclosed ballot and is the person whose name appears on the identification envelope, (iv) the printed name and signature of the voter, (v) the address of the voter, (vi) the date of signing and place of execution of the declaration, and (vii) a notice that the envelope contains an official ballot and is to be opened only by the City Clerk.
(g) The instructions to voters form to be mailed or delivered by the City Clerk to the landowner-voters shall inform them that the official ballots shall be returned to the City Clerk properly voted as provided thereon and with the certification appended thereto properly completed and signed in the sealed return identification envelope with the certification thereon completed and signed and all other information to be inserted thereon properly inserted by the hour on the date of the election which is specified by the City Council in the resolution calling the Special Election for the receipt of voted ballots; provided that if all qualified voters have voted, the election shall be closed with the concurrence of the City Clerk.

Resolution No. 2025-

(h) Upon receipt of the return identification envelopes which are returned prior to the voting deadline on the date of the election, the City Clerk shall canvass the votes cast in the Special Election, and shall file a statement with the City Council as to the results of such canvass of the election on each measure set forth in the official ballot.

The procedures set forth in this section for conducting the Special Election, if it is held, may be modified as the City Council may determine to be necessary or desirable by a resolution subsequently adopted by the City Council.

Section 10. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED
The City Clerk shall certify the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Turlock this 12th day of August, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

NOT PARTICIPATING:

ABSENT:

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

A-1
EXHIBIT “A”

DESCRIPTION OF MAINTENANCE SERVICES
The types of services proposed to be provided for and financed by the proposed community facilities district are:
• Maintenance and lighting of parks, parkways, streets, roads, sidewalks, street trees, and open space;
• Flood and storm protection services, including, but not limited to, the operation and maintenance of storm drainage systems;
• Maintenance and operation of any real property or other tangible property with an estimated useful life of five or more years that is owned by the City; and/or • Any other services authorized under the Act.

The proposed community facilities district shall also finance costs associated with the determination of the amount of and the levy and collection of the special tax which is levied to provide such services and costs otherwise incurred in order to carry out the authorized purposes of the community facilities district. Maintenance services funded by the City or other special districts shall not be eligible for CFD No. 3 funding.

B-1
EXHIBIT “B”

RATE AND METHOD OF

APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL TAX
For the City of Turlock Community Facilities District No. 3 (Maintenance Services), County of Stanislaus, State of California The Special Tax as hereinafter defined shall be levied on all Assessor’s Parcels within the City of Turlock Community Facilities District No. 3 (Maintenance Services), (“CFD No. 3”), other than Assessor’s Parcels classified as Exempt Property as defined herein and collected each Fiscal Year commencing in Fiscal Year 2025-26, in an amount determined by the CFD Administrator through the application of the procedures described below. All the real property within CFD No. 3, unless exempted by law or by the provisions hereof, shall be taxed for the purposes, to the extent, and in the manner herein provided.

A. DEFINITIONS
The terms hereinafter set forth have the following meanings:
“Acre” or “Acreage” means the land area in acres of an Assessor’s Parcel as shown on an Assessor’s Parcel Map, or if the land area is not shown on an Assessor’s Parcel Map, the land area in acres shown on the applicable final map, parcel map, condominium plan, or other map or plan recorded with the County. The square footage of an Assessor’s Parcel is equal to the Acreage of such parcel multiplied by 43,560. “Act” means the Mello-Roos Communities Facilities Act of 1982 as amended, being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California. “Administrative Expenses” means the following actual or reasonably estimated expenses related to the administration of CFD No. 3: the costs of determining the amount of the levy of the Special Tax, the collection of Special Taxes, including the expenses of collecting delinquencies and pursuing foreclosures, the payment of a proportional share of salaries and benefits of any City employee and City overhead whose duties are directly related to the administration of CFD No. 3, fees and expenses for counsel, audits, costs associated with responding to public inquiries regarding CFD No. 3, and any and all other costs incurred in connection with the administration of CFD No. 3. “Annual Escalation Factor” means the annual percentage increase of the All Urban Consumers Consumer Price Index (“CPI”) or two percent (2%), whichever is greater. The annual CPI used shall be for the area of San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA as determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the twelve (12) months ending the preceding December 31, or such other replacement index as may be determined by the City.
“Assessor’s Parcel” means a lot or parcel shown in an Assessor’s Parcel Map with an assigned assessor’s parcel number.
“Assessor’s Parcel Map” means an official map of the Assessor of the County designating parcels by assessor’s parcel number.

B-2
“Base Year” means Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2025 and ending June 30, 2026. “Building Permit” means a permit issued for construction of a residential dwelling or non-residential structure. For purposes of this definition, “Building Permit” shall not include permits for construction or installation of retaining walls, grading, utility improvements, or other such improvements not intended for human occupancy.
“CFD Administrator” means an official of the City, or designee thereof, responsible for determining the Special Tax Requirement and providing for the levy and collection of the Special Tax for CFD No. 3. “CFD No. 3” means City of Turlock Community Facilities District No. 3 (Maintenance Services) established by the City Council under the Act.
“City” means the City of Turlock.
“City Council” means the Council of the City of Turlock, acting as the legislative body of CFD No. 3. “Commercial Property” means all Assessor’s Parcels of Developed Property for which a building permit(s) permitting the construction of one or more non-residential facilities has been issued by the City which are, or are expected by the City to be, primarily used for retail, professional/medical offices, or for any other uses that are consistent with commercial land use designations, as determined by the City. “County” means the County of Stanislaus.
“Developed Property” means an Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property for which a Building Permit was issued on or before June 1 preceding the Fiscal Year for which the Special Tax is being levied. “Exempt Property” means all Assessor’s Parcels within CFD No. 3 that are exempt from the Special Tax pursuant to the Act or Section F herein.
“Final Mapped Property” means an Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property, exclusive of Developed Property, that is located within a recorded final map, parcel map, or condominium plan that creates individual lots for which Building Permits may be issued without further subdivision, as of January 1 of the Fiscal Year preceding the Fiscal Year for which the Special Taxes are being levied. “Fiscal Year” means the period commencing on July 1 of any year and ending the following June 30. “Industrial Property” means all Assessor’s Parcels of Developed Property for which a building permit(s) permitting the construction of one or more non-residential facilities has been issued by the City which are, or are expected by the City to be, primarily used for manufacturing, production, research and development, storage and/or processing of goods, or for any other uses that are consistent with industrial land use designations as determined by the City.
“Land Use Type” means any of the land use types listed in Table 1 below. “Maximum Special Tax” means the maximum Special Tax determined in accordance with Section C, which may be levied in any Fiscal Year on an Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property. “Multi-Family Residential Property” means all Assessor’s Parcels of Residential Property for which a Building Permit has been issued for the purpose of constructing a building or buildings comprised of attached Residential Units available for rental by the general public, not for sale to an end user, and under common management.

B-3
“Maintenance Services” means those authorized services that may be funded by CFD No. 3 pursuant to the Act, as amended including but not limited to maintenance and lighting of local parks, parkways, trailways, streets, roads, storm drainage systems, sidewalks, street trees, and open space, including without limitation public easements and rights-of-way. Maintenance Services funded by the City or other special districts shall not be eligible for CFD No. 3 funding. “Non-Residential Property” means any Assessor’s Parcel classified as Developed Property, which is not classified as any, Residential Property, Public Property and Property Owner Association Property. “Property Owner Association Property” means for each Fiscal Year any property within the boundaries of CFD No. 3 that was owned by or irrevocably dedicated as indicated in an instrument recorded with the County Recorder to a property owner association, including any master or sub-association, as of June 1. “Proportionately” means in a manner such that the ratio of the actual Special Tax levy to the Maximum Special Tax is equal for all Assessor’s Parcels within each Land Use Class. “Public Property” means any property that is owned by, dedicated or irrevocably dedicated to a city, the federal government, the State of California, the County, or any other public agency (each, a “Public Entity”); provided, however, that any such property is leased by such a Public Entity to a private entity and is thereby subject to taxation pursuant to Section 53340.1 of the Act, such leasehold estate shall be classified and taxed according to the use thereof.
“Residential Lot” means an individual Assessor’s Parcel located within Final Mapped Property that is intended for the development of one or more Residential Units. “Residential Property” means all Assessor’s Parcels of Developed Property within CFD No. 3 for which a Building Permit has been issued for purposes of constructing one or more Residential Unit(s). “Residential Unit” means any residence in which a person or persons may live, which is not considered to be used for non-residential purposes.
“Single Family Residential Property” means all Assessor’s Parcels of Residential Property not classified as Multi-Family Residential Property.
“Special Tax” means the special tax authorized to be levied within CFD No. 3 pursuant to the Act, to fund the Special Tax Requirement.
“Special Tax Requirement” means the amount, as determined by the CFD Administrator, for any Fiscal Year to: (i) pay the costs of providing the Maintenance Services during such Fiscal Year, (ii) pay Administrative Expenses associated with the Special Tax, (iii) establish or replenish any operational reserve fund established for Maintenance Services, (iv) pay incidental expenses related to the Maintenance Services as authorized pursuant to the Act, (v) fund an amount equal to a reasonable estimate of delinquencies expected to occur in the Fiscal Year in which the Special Tax will be levied (“Estimated Special Tax Delinquency Amount”) and (vi) fund the shortfall, if any, in the Special Tax revenues collected in the preceding Fiscal Year necessary to fund the Special Tax Requirement for such Fiscal Year where such shortfall resulted from delinquencies in the payment of the Special Tax in such Fiscal Year that exceeded the Estimated Special Tax Delinquency Amount included in the Special Tax Requirement for such Fiscal Year.

B-4
“Taxable Property” means all Assessor’s Parcels that are not exempt from the Special Tax pursuant to the Act or Section H.
“Undeveloped Property” means an Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property which is not classified as Developed Property or Final Mapped Property.

B. CLASSIFICATION OF ASSESSOR’S PARCELS
Each Fiscal Year, beginning with Fiscal Year 2025-26, using the definitions above, each Assessor’s Parcel within CFD No. 3 shall be classified by the CFD Administrator as Taxable Property or Exempt Property. In addition, each such Fiscal Year, each Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property shall be further classified by the CFD Administrator as Developed Property, Final Mapped Property or Undeveloped Property.

Commencing with Fiscal Year 2025-26 and for each subsequent Fiscal Year, all Taxable Property shall be assigned a Land Use Type and subject to the levy of the Special Tax pursuant to Section C below.

C. SPECIAL TAX RATES

1. Developed Property
Each Fiscal Year commencing in Fiscal Year 2025-26, each Assessor’s Parcel of Developed Property shall be subject to the Special Tax, in accordance with the Method of Apportionment presented in Section D below.

The Maximum Special Tax rates for Developed Property for Fiscal Year 2025-26 are shown below in Table 1.

TABLE 1
For each subsequent Fiscal Year commencing July 1, 2026, the Maximum Special Tax rates shall be increased from the Maximum Special Tax rate in effect for the prior Fiscal Year by the Annual Escalation Factor.

Land Use Type Maximum
Special Tax
Single-Family
Residential Property
$1,482.43 per
Residential Unit
Multi-Family Residential
Property
$1,037.70 per
Residential Unit
Commercial Property $5,539.72 per Acre
Industrial Property $5,539.72 per Acre

B-5

2. Undeveloped Property and Final Mapped Property
Each Fiscal Year commencing in Fiscal Year 2025-26, each Assessor’s Parcel classified as Undeveloped Property shall be subject to the Special Tax, in accordance with the Method of Apportionment presented in Section D below.

The Maximum Special Tax rate for Undeveloped Property and for Final Mapped Property shall be $1,482.43 per Residential Lot, or if the property does not contain Residential Lots $5,539.72 per Acre.

3. Exempt Property
No Special Tax shall be levied on Exempt Property as defined in Section F.

For each Fiscal Year, if the use or ownership of an Assessor’s Parcel or Exempt Property changes so that such Assessor’s Parcel is no longer classified as one of the uses set forth in Section F, therefore making such Assessor’s Parcel no longer eligible to be classified as Exempt Property, such Assessor’s Parcel shall be deemed to be Taxable Property and shall be taxed pursuant to the provisions of Section C.

D. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL TAX
Commencing in Fiscal Year 2025-26 and for each subsequent Fiscal Year, the CFD Administrator shall levy the Special Tax on Taxable Property of CFD No. 3 using the method described below until the total amount of Special Tax levied equals the Special Tax Requirement:

1. First, the Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on each Assessor’s Parcel of Developed Property within CFD No. 3 up to 100% of the Maximum Special Tax to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement.

2. Then, if additional revenues are needed, the Special Tax shall then be levied Proportionately on each Assessor’s Parcel of Final Mapped Property within CFD No. 3 up to 100% of the Maximum Special Tax to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement.

3. Finally, if additional revenues are needed, the Special Tax shall then be levied Proportionately on each Assessor’s Parcel of Undeveloped Property within CFD No. 3 up to 100% of the Maximum Special Tax to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement.

Notwithstanding any provision of this Section D to the contrary, under no circumstances will the Special Tax levied against any Assessor’s Parcel of Developed Property that is classified as Residential Property be increased by more than ten percent (10%) per Fiscal Year as a consequence of delinquency or default in the payment of the Special Tax by the owner of any other Assessor’s Parcel.

E. PREPAYMENT OF SPECIAL TAX
The Special Tax shall be levied in perpetuity for the purpose of financing ongoing authorized services and therefore may not be prepaid.

F. EXEMPTIONS
The City Council shall classify as Exempt Property: (i) Public Property, (ii) Property Owner Association Property, (iii) Assessor’s Parcels with public or utility easements making impractical their utilization for other than the purposes set forth in the easement, including but not limited to property designated for

B-6
open space, trails, pathways, parks or park and recreation related facilities, (iv) property reasonably designated by the City or CFD Administrator as affordable housing subject to income and rent restrictions recorded in a regulatory agreement with the City or other public agency, and (v) property reasonably designated by the City or CFD Administrator as Exempt Property due to deed restrictions, conservation easement, or similar factors.

G. APPEALS
Any property owner claiming that the amounts or application of the Special Tax is not correct may file a written notice of appeal with the CFD Administrator not later than twelve months after having paid the first installment of the Special Tax. The CFD Administrator shall promptly review the appeal, and if necessary, meet with the property owner, consider written and oral evidence regarding the amount of the Special Tax, and rule on the appeal. If the decision of the CFD Administrator requires that the Special Tax for an Assessor’s Parcel be modified or changed in favor of the property owner, a cash refund shall not be made but an adjustment shall be made to the Special Tax on that Assessor’s Parcel in the subsequent Fiscal Year(s) to compensate for the overpayment of the Special Tax.

H. MANNER OF COLLECTION
The Special Tax shall be collected in the same manner and at the same time as ordinary ad valorem property taxes, provided, however, that the Special Tax may be billed and collected at a different time or in a different manner if necessary to meet the financial obligations of CFD No. 3.

I. DURATION OF TAX
The Special Tax shall be levied in perpetuity to fund the Special Tax Requirement unless such tax is no longer required as determined by the City Council.

82741.00027\32931959.1

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TURLOCK
IN THE MATTER OF ADOPTING A RESOLUTION} RESOLUTION NO. 2025- OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF }
TURLOCK, CALIFORNIA, CALLING A SPECIAL }
ELECTION AND SUBMITTING TO THE VOTERS }
OF THE CITY OF TURLOCK COMMUNITY }
FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 3 (MAINTENANCE }
SERVICES), COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, STATE }
OF CALIFORNIA A MEASURE WITH RESPECT }
TO THE ANNUAL LEVY OF SPECIAL TAXES }
WITHIN THE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT}
TO PAY THE COSTS OF CERTAIN SERVICES }
TO BE PROVIDED BY THE COMMUNITY }
FACILITIES DISTRICT AND A MEASURE WITH }
RESPECT TO ESTABLISHING AN }
APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR SAID }
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT }
}
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 53325.1 of the California Government Code, the City Council (the “City Council”) of the City of Turlock (“the City”) has adopted a resolution establishing City of Turlock Community Facilities District No. 3 (Maintenance Services), County of Stanislaus, State of California (“CFD No. 3”) and the boundaries thereof; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 53326 of said Code, it is necessary that the City Council submit to the voters of CFD No. 3 the annual levy of special taxes on the property within CFD No. 3 to pay the costs of providing the services described in Resolution No. 2025-126, the resolution of intention with respect to the formation of CFD No. 3 (“Resolution No. 2025-126”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 53325.7 of said Code, the City Council may also submit to the voters of CFD No. 3 a measure with respect to establishing an appropriations limit for CFD No. 3;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED by the City Council of the City of Turlock, California,
Section 1. Findings. The City Council finds that: (i) the foregoing recitals are correct; (ii) less than 12 persons have been registered to vote within the territory of CFD No. 3 during the 90 days preceding the close of the public hearing on August 12, 2025; (iii) pursuant to Section 53326 of the California Government Code, as a result of the findings set forth in clause (ii) above, the vote in the special election called by this resolution shall be by the landowners of CFD No. 3 whose property would be subject to the special taxes if they were levied at the time of the election, and each landowner shall have one vote for each acre, or portion thereof, which he or she owns within CFD No. 3 which would be subject to the proposed special taxes if they were levied at the time of the election; (iv) JKB Living, Inc., the owner of all of the land in CFD No. 3, has by written consent (a) waived the time limits set forth in said Section 53326 for holding the election called by this resolution, (b) consented to the holding of said election on August 12, 2025, (c) waived notice and mailed notice of the time and date of said election, (d) waived an

Resolution No. 2025-

impartial analysis by the City Attorney of the ballot measures pursuant to Section 9280 of the California Elections Code and arguments and rebuttals pursuant to Sections 9281 to 9287, inclusive, and 9295 of said Code; and (v) the City Clerk of the City has consented to the holding of said election on August 12, 2025.

Section 2. Call of Election. The City Council hereby calls and schedules a special election for August 12, 2025 on the measure with respect to the annual levy of special taxes within CFD No. 3 for paying the cost of the services to be provided within and for the benefit of CFD No. 3 and on the measure with respect to establishing an appropriations limit for CFD No. 3.

Section 3. Measures. The measures to be submitted to the voters of CFD No. 3 at such special election shall be as follows:

MEASURE A
Shall the City of Turlock be authorized to annually levy a special tax solely on lands within the City of Turlock Communities Facilities District No. 3 (the “CFD”) in accordance with the rate and method contained in the Resolution of Formation of the CFD adopted by the City Council of the City on August 12, 2025, commencing in the City’s fiscal year 2025- 26, to pay for the municipal services for the CFD and to pay the costs of the City in administering the CFD, and shall the annual appropriations limit of the CFD be established in the amount of $100,000?
Section 4. Conduct of Election. Except as otherwise provided in Section 5 hereof, said election shall be conducted by the City Clerk of the City pursuant to the California Elections Code governing mail ballot elections of cities, and in particular, the provisions of Division 4 (commencing with Section 4000) of said Code, insofar as they may be applicable.

Section 5. Election Procedures. The procedures to be followed in conducting the special election on (i) the levy of Special Taxes to pay the annual costs of the Services, and (ii) establishing an appropriations limit for CFD No. 3 to the qualified electors of CFD No. 3 (the “Special Election”) shall be as follows:
(a) Pursuant to said Section 53326 of the California Government Code, ballots for the special election shall be distributed to the qualified electors by the City Clerk by mail with return postage prepaid, or by personal service. (b) Pursuant to applicable sections of the California Elections Code governing the conduct of mail ballot elections of cities, and specifically Division 4 (commencing with Section 4000) of the California Elections Code with respect to elections conducted by mail, the City Clerk shall mail or deliver to each qualified elector an official ballot in the form attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” and shall also mail or deliver to all such qualified electors a ballot pamphlet and instructions to voter, including a sample ballot identical in form to the official ballot but identified as a sample ballot, a return identification envelope with prepaid postage thereon addressed to the City Clerk for the return of voted official ballots, and a copy of Resolution No. 2025-126; provided, however, that such statement, analysis and arguments may be waived with the unanimous consent of all the landowners.

Resolution No. 2025-

(c) The official ballot to be mailed or delivered by the City Clerk to each landowner-voter shall have printed or typed thereon the name of the landowner-voter and the number of votes to be voted by the landowner-voter and shall have appended to it a certification to be signed by the person voting the official ballot which shall certify that the person signing the certification is the person who voted the official ballot, and if the landowner-voter is other than a natural person, that he or she is an officer of or other person affiliated with the landowner-voter entitled to vote such official ballot, that he or she has been authorized to vote such official ballot on behalf of the landowner-voter, that in voting such official ballot it was his or her intent, as well as the intent of the landownervoter, to vote all votes to which the landowner-voter is entitled based on its land ownership on the measures set forth in the official ballot as marked thereon in the voting square opposite each such measure, and further certifying as to the acreage of the landownervoter's land ownership within CFD No. 3. (d) The return identification envelope mailed or delivered by the City Clerk to each landowner-voter shall have printed or typed thereon the following: (i) the name of the landowner, (ii) the address of the landowner, (iii) a declaration under penalty of perjury stating that the voter is the landowner or the authorized representative of the landowner entitled to vote the enclosed ballot and is the person whose name appears on the identification envelope, (iv) the printed name and signature of the voter, (v) the address of the voter, (vi) the date of signing and place of execution of said declaration, and (vii) a notice that the envelope contains an official ballot and is to be opened only by the City Clerk.
(e) The instruction to voter form to be mailed or delivered by the City Clerk to the landowner-voters shall inform them that the official ballots shall be returned to the City Clerk properly voted as provided thereon and with the certification appended thereto properly completed and signed in the sealed return identification envelope with the certification thereon completed and signed and all other information to be inserted thereon properly inserted by 5:00 p.m. on August 12, 2025.
(f) Upon receipt of the return identification envelopes which are returned prior to the voting deadline on the date of the election, the City Clerk shall canvass the votes cast in the special election and shall file a statement with the City Council as to the results of such canvass and the election on each measure set forth in the official ballot.

Resolution No. 2025-

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED
The City Clerk shall certify the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Turlock this 12th day of August, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

NOT PARTICIPATING:

ABSENT:

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

A-1
EXHIBIT “A”

OFFICIAL BALLOT

CITY OF TURLOCK
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 3

SPECIAL TAX ELECTION
August 12, 2025
This ballot represents 14 votes.

To vote, write or stamp a cross (“+” or “X”) in the voting square after the word “YES” or after the word “NO”. All marks otherwise made are forbidden. All distinguishing marks are forbidden and make the ballot void.

If you wrongly mark, tear or deface this ballot, return it to the City Clerk of the City of Turlock and obtain another.

Shall the City of Turlock be authorized to annually levy a special tax solely on lands within the City of Turlock Communities Facilities District No. 3 (the “CFD”) in accordance with the rate and method contained in the Resolution of Formation of the CFD adopted by the City Council of the City on August 12, 2025, commencing in the City’s fiscal year 2025-26, to pay for the municipal services for the CFD and to pay the costs of the City in administering the CFD, and shall the annual appropriations limit of the CFD be established in the amount of $100,000?
YES ______
NO ______
Property Owner: JKB LIVING, INC.

Date: _______________, 2025
___________________________________________________
By: James K. Brenda, CEO

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TURLOCK
IN THE MATTER OF ADOPTING A RESOLUTION}
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF } RESOLUTION NO. 2025- TURLOCK, CALIFORNIA ACTING IN ITS }
CAPACITY AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF }
CITY OF TURLOCK COMMUNITY FACILITIES }
DISTRICT NO. 3 (MAINTENANCE SERVICES), }
COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, STATE OF }
CALIFORNIA, DECLARING THE RESULTS OF A }
SPECIAL ELECTION IN SUCH COMMUNITY }
FACILITIES DISTRICT }
}
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Turlock, California (the “City Council”), has previously undertaken proceedings to create and did establish a community facilities district pursuant to the terms and provisions of the “Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982,” being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California (the “Act”). This community facilities district shall hereinafter be referred to as the City of Turlock Community Facilities District No. 3 (Maintenance Services), County of Stanislaus, State of California (“CFD No. 3”); and
WHEREAS, this City Council did call for and order to be held an election to submit to the qualified electors of CFD No. 3 separate measures relating to the levy of special taxes within CFD No. 3 and the establishment of an appropriations limit for CFD No. 3; and WHEREAS, at this time said election has been held and the measures voted upon and each such measure did receive the required two-thirds vote of the qualified electors, and this City Council desires to declare the results of the election in accordance with the provisions of the Elections Code of the State of California.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED by the City Council of the City of Turlock, California,
Section 1. Recitals. The above recitals are all true and correct.

Section 2. Approval of Results of the Election. This City Council hereby receives and approves the Certificate of Election Official and Statement of Votes Cast (“Certificate of Election Official”), as submitted by the City Clerk, acting in her capacity as the Election Official, said Statement setting forth the number of votes cast in the election, the measures voted upon, and the number of votes given for and/or against the measures voted upon. A copy of said Certificate of Election Official is attached hereto, marked Exhibit “A”, referenced and so incorporated.

Section 3. Entry of the Election Results in the Minutes. The City Clerk is hereby directed, pursuant to the provisions of the Elections Code of the State of California, to enter in the minutes the results of the election as set forth in said Certificate of Election Official.

Resolution No. 2025-

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED
The City Clerk shall certify the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Turlock this 12th day of August, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

NOT PARTICIPATING:

ABSENT:

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

A-1
EXHIBIT “A”

CERTIFICATE OF ELECTION OFFICIAL

AND STATEMENT OF VOTES CAST

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF STANISLAUS )

CITY OF TURLOCK )
The undersigned, ELECTION OFFICIAL OF THE CITY OF TURLOCK, COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that pursuant to the provisions of Section 53326 of the Government Code and Division 12, commencing with Section 17000 of the Elections Code of the State of California, I did canvass the returns of the votes cast at the

CITY OF TURLOCK
CITY OF TURLOCK COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 3
(MAINTENANCE SERVICES), COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SPECIAL ELECTION
in said City, held August 12, 2025.

I FURTHER CERTIFY that this Statement of Votes Cast shows the whole number of votes cast in the CFD in such City, and the whole number of votes cast for the Measures in the District in said City, and the totals of the respective columns and the totals as shown for the Measures are full, true and correct.

1. VOTES CAST ON MEASURE A: YES ___
NO 0
WITNESS my hand this ________ day of __________________, 2025.

CITY CLERK

ELECTION OFFICIAL

CITY OF TURLOCK

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

TMC 3-9 CFD 3 DRAFT

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TURLOCK
ORDINANCE NO. -CS
WHEREAS, the City of Turlock has a long-standing practice of utilizing benefit assessment districts formed under the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 and the Benefit Assessment Act of 1982 to fund the maintenance and operation of public improvements such as street lighting, landscaping, storm drain systems, street sweeping, and slurry seal treatments; and WHEREAS, the City of Turlock wishes to adopt a more streamline and flexible financing mechanism through the formation of a Community Facilities District, as authorized under the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, to fund public services more efficiently; and WHEREAS, on June 24, 2025, the City Council of the City of Turlock adopted a Resolution No. 2025-126, a Resolution of Intention to establish Community Facilities District No. 3 (Maintenance Services) (“CFD No. 3”), declaring its intent to levy a special tax on all taxable parcels within the CFD No. 3 beginning in Fiscal Year 2025-2026 and for all subsequent fiscal years in the amount of the maximum authorized tax, pursuant to Government Code Sections 53328 and 53340, and in accordance with the Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax (the “Rate and Method of Apportionment”) as set forth in said resolution; and WHEREAS, the special tax under CFD No. 3 will be levied on all new residential and nonresidential development for which a development project is approved which will install new, or contains existing improvements such as landscaping, storm drainage, sidewalks, and/or roadways which the City of Turlock will maintain, which may also include properties proposed to be annexed to the City of Turlock or properties located within its City limits; and WHEREAS, on August 12, 2025, the City Council of the City of Turlock held a public hearing, and adopted Resolution No. 2025-147, a Resolution of Formation, conducted an election and received a favorable vote from the qualified electors authorizing the levy of special taxes in CFD No. 3 as authorized pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, being Chapter 2.5, Article 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Turlock desires to establish an ordinance consistent with current State Law and local practice.

BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Turlock as follows:

SECTION 1. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The Ordinance has been reviewed with respect to applicability of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The Ordinance is not a project under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5) because the Ordinance is an administrative activity that does not have the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

SECTION 2. LEVY AUTHORIZATION: This City Council does, by the passage of this ordinance, authorize the levy of special taxes on taxable properties located in CFD No. 3 pursuant to the Rate and Method of Apportionment as set forth in Resolution 2025-147. }
}
}
IN THE MATTER OF ADDING ARTICLE 9
(COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NUMBER 3) TO
TURLOCK MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 3 (FINANCE),
CHAPTER 3-9 (CONSTRUCTION TAXES)
}
}
}
}
}
}
}

TMC 3-9 CFD 3 DRAFT
SECTION 3. SPECIAL TAX DETERMINATION: This City Council, acting in its capacity as the legislative body of CFD No. 3, is hereby further authorized, by resolution, to annually determine the special tax to be levied within CFD No. 3 for the then current tax year or future tax years; provided, however, the special tax to be levied shall not exceed the maximum special tax authorized to be levied pursuant to the Rate and Method.

SECTION 4. MANNER OF COLLECTION: The special taxes herein authorized to be levied, to the extent possible, shall be collected in the same manner as ad valorem property taxes or in such other manner as this City Council shall determine, including without limitation, direct billing of the affected property owners, and shall be subject to the same penalties, procedures, sale and lien priority in any case of delinquency as applicable for ad valorem taxes. Any special taxes that may not be collected on the County tax roll shall be collected through a direct billing procedure by the Treasurer of the City of Turlock, acting for and on behalf of CFD No. 3.

SECTION 5. SECURITY FOR SPECIAL TAXES: The special taxes authorized to be levied shall be secured by the lien imposed pursuant to Sections 3114.5 and 3115.5 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, which lien shall be a continuing lien to secure each levy of the special tax, shall attach to all non-exempt real property in CFD No. 3 and shall continue in force and effect until the lien is canceled in accordance with law or until collection of the tax by the legislative body ceases.

SECTION 6. ADDITION: Title 3, Chapter 3-9, Article 9 “Community Facilities District Number 3” is hereby added to read as follows:

TMC 3-9 CFD 3 DRAFT
Chapter 3-9

CONSTRUCTION TAXES
Article 9. Community Facilities District Number 3
3-9-901 Title.

This article shall be known and may be cited as the “Community Facilities District Number 3 Maintenance Services.”
3-9-902 Purpose.

The provisions of this article are adopted to promote the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, convenience, and general welfare of the citizens of the City and to implement the goals and objectives of the General Plan of the City. Particularly, the provisions of this chapter are adopted for the following reasons:
(a) To provide necessary public maintenance and operational services to properties within the Community Facilities District Number 3; and
(b) To fund all of the annual estimated costs and expense of maintaining and operating such facilities and providing related services as permitted by the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982; and
(c) To establish a reliable and consistent mechanism for financing unfunded public maintenance and operational costs that are reasonably related to new development; and (d) To maintain the fiscal health and stability of the City by ensuring that properties pay their share of the maintenance and operational costs of public services within the City; and (e) To ensure that public services are expanded and maintained at a pace that corresponds with the rate of development, thereby meeting the increasing demand for services while preserving the City’s established level of service, including, but not limited to, streetlighting, landscaping, street maintenance, and storm drain maintenance; and
(f) To comply with the provisions set forth in the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, Section 53311 et seq., of the Government Code of the State. 3-9-903 Definitions.

For the purposes of this article and the resolutions adopted pursuant thereto, unless otherwise apparent from the context, certain words and phrases used in this chapter and such resolutions are defined as follows:
(a) “Development project” shall mean the preparation of land and infrastructure that may include the subdivision of property creating one or more residential or nonresidential lots, the designation of land in the General Plan land use diagram or the Zoning Map of the City of Turlock for residential or nonresidential purposes, the construction or placement of one or more buildings or structures on a parcel of land, the annexation of territory for any development purposes, or other similar development activities.

TMC 3-9 CFD 3 DRAFT
3-9-904 General provisions.

The procedures set forth in the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, Section 53311 et seq., of the Government Code of the State shall be applied to the administration of Community Facilities District Number 3 (“CFD No. 3”).
3-9-905 Applicability.
(a) No land shall be developed or subdivided for residential or nonresidential purposes which is not in conformity with the General Plan and any Specific Plan of the City or permitted by any applicable provisions of this Code.
(b) Any development project, whether residential or nonresidential, located within the City limits and requiring approval of a parcel map, subdivision map, general plan amendment, rezoning, planned development, area-wide plan, annexation, or discretionary permit pursuant to Title 11 of the Turlock Municipal Code (Subdivisions), Chapter 9-5 of the Turlock Municipal Code (Administration), or TMC 9-2-113 (Planned Developments), shall be required to annex into and participate in CFD No. 3. Such participation shall include the obligation to pay a proportionate share of the costs for the ongoing maintenance and operation of public improvements directly related to or necessitated by the proposed development. Said improvements shall include, but are not limited to, street lighting, landscaping, street maintenance, sidewalk maintenance, street tree maintenance, and storm drain maintenance.
(c) A proposed development project shall be deemed to have complied with the provisions of subsection (b) of this section if the subject property has been annexed into CFD No. 3 according to the procedures and requirements set forth in the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, Section 53311 et seq., of the Government Code of the State, unless the City Council, in its discretion, determines that inclusion in CFD No. 3 is not necessary. (d) As an alternative to annexation into CFD No. 3, the proposer of a development project may provide moneys which, in the sole determination of the City, shall be sufficient to provide the services described in CFD No. 3 for the proposed project in perpetuity. The proposer shall be financially responsible for the preparation of research, studies, documents, and processes undertaken by the City to make this determination.
(e) Notwithstanding TMC 7-2-601, TMC 7-7-206, and TMC 7-7-210, the City may repair sidewalks and prune street trees within CFD No. 3, but this does not absolve any property owners of their obligations under those sections and other sections of the TMC to properly and safely maintain sidewalks and street trees.

SECTION 7. VALIDITY: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, word, or phrase of this ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance. The Turlock City Council hereby declares that they would have passed this ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, word, or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more section, subsection, sentence, clause, word, or phrase be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

TMC 3-9 CFD 3 DRAFT
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Turlock this 12th day of August, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

NOT PARTICIPATING:

ABSENT:

Signed and approved this 26th day of August, 2025.

SIGNED:

__________________________
AMY BUBLAK, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Nichole Fiez, City Clerk,
City of Turlock, County of Stanislaus,
State of California APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
George A. Petrulakis, City Attorney

C I T Y O F
Turlock
CFD Report
City of Turlock
Community Facilities District No. 3
(Maintenance Services)
July 2025
Prepared by:

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................1 II. GENERAL DESCRIPTION & BOUNDARIES OF CFD NO. 3 ............................................2 III. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES...................................................................................3 IV. COST ESTIMATES...............................................................................................4 V. REVENUE ESTIMATES .........................................................................................5 VI. RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL TAX .........................................6 EXHIBIT A (BOUNDARY MAP)...................................................................................A-1 EXHIBIT B (RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT FOR CFD NO. 3).............................B-1

1 I. Introduction
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Turlock (the “City Council”) has received a written petition from the owner of certain real property within the City of Turlock (the “City”) requesting that the City Council initiate proceedings for the formation of a community facilities district pursuant to Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 53311) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the California Government Code, commonly known as the “Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982,” (the “Act”) for the purpose of financing (a) certain services which are necessary to meet increased demands placed upon the City as a result of the development of said real property (the “Services”), and agreeing to the annual levy of special taxes on said property sufficient to pay the costs of such services and costs incidental thereto.

WHEREAS, this Community Facilities District Report (“Report”) is being provided to the City Council and generally contains the following:

1. A brief description of City of Turlock Community Facilities District No. 3 (Maintenance Services) (“CFD No. 3”);

2. A brief description of the Services (defined below) to be provided by the City in conjunction with the formation of CFD No. 3.

3. A brief description of the boundaries of CFD No. 3; and

4. An estimate of the cost of the Services, including all costs associated with formation of CFD No. 3, determination of the amount of any special taxes, collection of any special taxes, or costs otherwise incurred in order to carry out the authorized purposes of the City and the District with respect to CFD No. 3, and any other incidental expenses to be paid.

For particulars, reference is made to the Resolution of Intention, Resolution No. 2025-126, as previously approved. All capitalized terms not defined herein are defined in the Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax section (Section VI and Exhibit B) of this report.

NOW THEREFORE Willdan Financial Services, the appointed responsible firm directed to prepare the Report, pursuant to the provisions of the Act, does hereby submit the following report.

2 II. General Description & Boundaries of CFD NO. 3
The boundaries of the territory proposed for inclusion in the proposed community facilities district are described and shown on the map entitled “PROPOSED BOUNDARIES OF CITY OF TURLOCK COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 3 (MAINTENANCE SERVICES), COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,” which is on file in the office of the Clerk of the City Council of the City of Turlock and was recorded with the County Recorder of the County of Stanislaus on July 7, 2025, in Book 7 of Maps of Assessment and Community Facilities Districts on Page 61 and as Instrument Number 2025-0032880. A copy of the map is attached hereto as Exhibit A and hereby incorporated by reference.

3 III. Description of Services
The types of public services proposed to be provided for and financed by CFD No. 3 encompass a comprehensive range of operations and tasks designed to ensure the ongoing functionality, safety, and efficiency of the public infrastructure within the designated CFD No. 3 area. The services are including but not limited to:
• Maintenance and lighting of parks, parkways, streets, roads, and open space; • Flood and storm protection services, including, but not limited to, the operation and maintenance of storm drainage systems;
• Maintenance and operation of any real property or other tangible property with an estimated useful life of five or more years that is owned by the City; and/or • Any other services authorized under the Act.

The proposed CFD No. 3 shall also finance costs associated with the determination of the amount of and the levy and collection of special taxes which are levied to provide such services and costs otherwise incurred in order to carry out the authorized purposes of CFD No. 3. Maintenance services funded by the City or other special districts shall not be eligible for CFD No. 3 funding.

4 IV. Cost Estimates
The following table demonstrates the expected costs for CFD No. 3, broken down by the services provided within the boundary of CFD No. 3.

ANNUAL MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATES
Street Lighting:
16 Street Lights at $175.07 Per 1 EA $2,801.12
Landscaping Maintenance:
39,070 SF of Maintenance at $960.00 Per 1,000 SF $37,507.20 148 Street Trees (includes
replacement) at $25.00 Per 1 EA $3,700.00
Street Maintenance:
111,628 SF of Pavement (Slurry Seal) at $35.71 Per 1,000 SF $3,986.24 111,628 SF of Pavement (Overlay) at $80.36 Per 1,000 SF $8,970.43 6,389 LF of Curb (Street Sweeping) at $57.96 Per 1,000 LF $370.31 Storm Drainage Facilities:
22 EA Catch Basins at $3,280.86 Per 30 EA $2,405.96
2,250 FT of Storm Drain Pipe at $217.81 Per 1,000 LF $490.07 285 FT of French Drain Pipe at $217.81 Per 1,000 LF $62.08 285 FT of French Drain
Replacement Cost at $4,000.00 Per 1,000 LF $1,140.00
Concrete Facilities:
6,660 LF of Curb and Gutter at $466.67 Per 1,000 LF $3,108.02 33,725 SF of Sidewalk at $93.33 Per 1,000 SF $3,147.55
11 EA Curb Ramp at $250.00 Per 1 EA $2,750.00
6,238 SF of Residential Driveway at $133.33 Per 1,000 SF $831.71 Subtotal: $71,270.69
CFD Administration:
4% of Maintenance Services Costs $2,850.83
Total Annual Cost: $74,121.52

5 V. Revenue Estimates
The following table demonstrates the expected revenues for CFD No. 3, broken down by the number of expected lots within the boundary of CFD No. 3.

ANNUAL REVENUE ESTIMATES
Expected Development 50 lots
Single-Family Residential Rate $1,482.43
Multi-Family Residential Rate $1,037.70
Net Acres 13.38
Commercial Property Rate $5,539.72
Industrial Property Rate $5,539.72
Estimated Annual Revenue $74,121.50

6 VI. Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax
The Rate and Method of Apportionment (RMA) provides sufficient information to allow a property owner within CFD No. 3 to estimate the Maximum Special Tax for his or her property.

For particulars on the RMA, reference is made to Exhibit B of this report.

A-1

EXHIBIT A
Boundary Map

B-1

EXHIBIT B
Rate and Method of Apportionment
CFD No. 3

B-2

RATE AND METHOD OF

APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL TAX
For the City of Turlock Community Facilities District No. 3 (Maintenance Services), County of Stanislaus, State of California The Special Tax as hereinafter defined shall be levied on all Assessor’s Parcels within the City of Turlock Community Facilities District No. 3 (Maintenance Services), (“CFD No. 3”), other than Assessor’s Parcels classified as Exempt Property as defined herein and collected each Fiscal Year commencing in Fiscal Year 2025-26, in an amount determined by the CFD Administrator through the application of the procedures described below. All the real property within CFD No. 3, unless exempted by law or by the provisions hereof, shall be taxed for the purposes, to the extent, and in the manner herein provided.

A. DEFINITIONS
The terms hereinafter set forth have the following meanings:
“Acre” or “Acreage” means the land area in acres of an Assessor’s Parcel as shown on an Assessor’s Parcel Map, or if the land area is not shown on an Assessor’s Parcel Map, the land area in acres shown on the applicable final map, parcel map, condominium plan, or other map or plan recorded with the County. The square footage of an Assessor’s Parcel is equal to the Acreage of such parcel multiplied by 43,560. “Act” means the Mello-Roos Communities Facilities Act of 1982 as amended, being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California. “Administrative Expenses” means the following actual or reasonably estimated expenses related to the administration of CFD No. 3: the costs of determining the amount of the levy of the Special Tax, the collection of Special Taxes, including the expenses of collecting delinquencies and pursuing foreclosures, the payment of a proportional share of salaries and benefits of any City employee and City overhead whose duties are directly related to the administration of CFD No. 3, fees and expenses for counsel, audits, costs associated with responding to public inquiries regarding CFD No. 3, and any and all other costs incurred in connection with the administration of CFD No. 3. “Annual Escalation Factor” means the annual percentage increase of the All Urban Consumers Consumer Price Index (“CPI”) or two percent (2%), whichever is greater. The annual CPI used shall be for the area of San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA as determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the twelve (12) months ending the preceding December 31, or such other replacement index as may be determined by the City.
“Assessor’s Parcel” means a lot or parcel shown in an Assessor’s Parcel Map with an assigned assessor’s parcel number.
“Assessor’s Parcel Map” means an official map of the Assessor of the County designating parcels by assessor’s parcel number.
“Base Year” means Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2025 and ending June 30, 2026.

B-3
“Building Permit” means a permit issued for construction of a residential dwelling or non-residential structure. For purposes of this definition, “Building Permit” shall not include permits for construction or installation of retaining walls, grading, utility improvements, or other such improvements not intended for human occupancy.
“CFD Administrator” means an official of the City, or designee thereof, responsible for determining the Special Tax Requirement and providing for the levy and collection of the Special Tax for CFD No. 3. “CFD No. 3” means City of Turlock Community Facilities District No. 3 (Maintenance Services) established by the City Council under the Act.
“City” means the City of Turlock.
“City Council” means the Council of the City of Turlock, acting as the legislative body of CFD No. 3. “Commercial Property” means all Assessor’s Parcels of Developed Property for which a building permit(s) permitting the construction of one or more non-residential facilities has been issued by the City which are, or are expected by the City to be, primarily used for retail, professional/medical offices, or for any other uses that are consistent with commercial land use designations, as determined by the City. “County” means the County of Stanislaus.
“Developed Property” means an Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property for which a Building Permit was issued on or before June 1 preceding the Fiscal Year for which the Special Tax is being levied. “Exempt Property” means all Assessor’s Parcels within CFD No. 3 that are exempt from the Special Tax pursuant to the Act or Section F herein.
“Final Mapped Property” means an Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property, exclusive of Developed Property, that is located within a recorded final map, parcel map, or condominium plan that creates individual lots for which Building Permits may be issued without further subdivision, as of January 1 of the Fiscal Year preceding the Fiscal Year for which the Special Taxes are being levied. “Fiscal Year” means the period commencing on July 1 of any year and ending the following June 30. “Industrial Property” means all Assessor’s Parcels of Developed Property for which a building permit(s) permitting the construction of one or more non-residential facilities has been issued by the City which are, or are expected by the City to be, primarily used for manufacturing, production, research and development, storage and/or processing of goods, or for any other uses that are consistent with industrial land use designations as determined by the City.
“Land Use Type” means any of the land use types listed in Table 1 below. “Maximum Special Tax” means the maximum Special Tax determined in accordance with Section C, which may be levied in any Fiscal Year on an Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property. “Multi-Family Residential Property” means all Assessor’s Parcels of Residential Property for which a Building Permit has been issued for the purpose of constructing a building or buildings comprised of attached Residential Units available for rental by the general public, not for sale to an end user, and under common management.

B-4
“Maintenance Services” means those authorized services that may be funded by CFD No. 3 pursuant to the Act, as amended including but not limited to maintenance and lighting of local parks, parkways, trailways, streets, roads, storm drainage systems, and open space, including without limitation public easements and rights-of-way. Maintenance Services funded by the City or other special districts shall not be eligible for CFD No. 3 funding.
“Non-Residential Property” means any Assessor’s Parcel classified as Developed Property, which is not classified as any, Residential Property, Public Property and Property Owner Association Property. “Property Owner Association Property” means for each Fiscal Year any property within the boundaries of CFD No. 3 that was owned by or irrevocably dedicated as indicated in an instrument recorded with the County Recorder to a property owner association, including any master or sub-association, as of June 1. “Proportionately” means in a manner such that the ratio of the actual Special Tax levy to the Maximum Special Tax is equal for all Assessor’s Parcels within each Land Use Class. “Public Property” means any property that is owned by, dedicated or irrevocably dedicated to a city, the federal government, the State of California, the County, or any other public agency (each, a “Public Entity”); provided, however, that any such property is leased by such a Public Entity to a private entity and is thereby subject to taxation pursuant to Section 53340.1 of the Act, such leasehold estate shall be classified and taxed according to the use thereof.
“Residential Property” means all Assessor’s Parcels of Developed Property within CFD No. 3 for which a Building Permit has been issued for purposes of constructing one or more Residential Unit(s). “Residential Unit” means any residence in which a person or persons may live, which is not considered to be used for non-residential purposes.
“Single Family Residential Property” means all Assessor’s Parcels of Residential Property not classified as Multi-Family Residential Property.
“Special Tax” means the special tax authorized to be levied within CFD No. 3 pursuant to the Act, to fund the Special Tax Requirement.
“Special Tax Requirement” means the amount, as determined by the CFD Administrator, for any Fiscal Year to: (i) pay the costs of providing the Maintenance Services during such Fiscal Year, (ii) pay Administrative Expenses associated with the Special Tax, (iii) establish or replenish any operational reserve fund established for Maintenance Services, (iv) pay incidental expenses related to the Maintenance Services as authorized pursuant to the Act, (v) fund an amount equal to a reasonable estimate of delinquencies expected to occur in the Fiscal Year in which the Special Tax will be levied (“Estimated Special Tax Delinquency Amount”) and (vi) fund the shortfall, if any, in the Special Tax revenues collected in the preceding Fiscal Year necessary to fund the Special Tax Requirement for such Fiscal Year where such shortfall resulted from delinquencies in the payment of the Special Tax in such Fiscal Year that exceeded the Estimated Special Tax Delinquency Amount included in the Special Tax Requirement for such Fiscal Year.
“Taxable Property” means all Assessor’s Parcels that are not exempt from the Special Tax pursuant to the Act or Section H.

B-5
“Undeveloped Property” means an Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property which is not classified as Developed Property or Final Mapped Property.

B. CLASSIFICATION OF ASSESSOR’S PARCELS
Each Fiscal Year, beginning with Fiscal Year 2025-26, using the definitions above, each Assessor’s Parcel within CFD No. 3 shall be classified by the CFD Administrator as Taxable Property or Exempt Property. In addition, each such Fiscal Year, each Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property shall be further classified by the CFD Administrator as Developed Property, Final Mapped Property or Undeveloped Property.

Commencing with Fiscal Year 2025-26 and for each subsequent Fiscal Year, all Taxable Property shall be assigned a Land Use Type and subject to the levy of the Special Tax pursuant to Section C below.

C. SPECIAL TAX RATES

1. Developed Property
Each Fiscal Year commencing in Fiscal Year 2025-26, each Assessor’s Parcel of Developed Property shall be subject to the Special Tax, in accordance with the Method of Apportionment presented in Section D below.

The Maximum Special Tax rates for Developed Property for Fiscal Year 2025-26 are shown below in Table 1.

TABLE 1
For each subsequent Fiscal Year commencing July 1, 2026, the Maximum Special Tax rates shall be increased from the Maximum Special Tax rate in effect for the prior Fiscal Year by the Annual Escalation Factor.

Land Use Type Maximum
Special Tax
Single-Family
Residential Property
$1,482.43 per
Residential Unit
Multi-Family Residential
Property
$1,037.70 per
Residential Unit
Commercial Property $5,539.72 per Acre
Industrial Property $5,539.72 per Acre

B-6

2. Undeveloped Property and Final Mapped Property
Each Fiscal Year commencing in Fiscal Year 2025-26, each Assessor’s Parcel classified as Undeveloped Property shall be subject to the Special Tax, in accordance with the Method of Apportionment presented in Section D below.

The Maximum Special Tax rate for Undeveloped Property and for Final Mapped Property shall be $5,539.72 per Acre.

3. Exempt Property
No Special Tax shall be levied on Exempt Property as defined in Section F.

For each Fiscal Year, if the use or ownership of an Assessor’s Parcel or Exempt Property changes so that such Assessor’s Parcel is no longer classified as one of the uses set forth in Section F, therefore making such Assessor’s Parcel no longer eligible to be classified as Exempt Property, such Assessor’s Parcel shall be deemed to be Taxable Property and shall be taxed pursuant to the provisions of Section C.

D. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL TAX
Commencing in Fiscal Year 2025-26 and for each subsequent Fiscal Year, the CFD Administrator shall levy the Special Tax on Taxable Property of CFD No. 3 using the method described below until the total amount of Special Tax levied equals the Special Tax Requirement:

1. First, the Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on each Assessor’s Parcel of Developed Property within CFD No. 3 up to 100% of the Maximum Special Tax to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement.

2. Then, if additional revenues are needed, the Special Tax shall then be levied Proportionately on each Assessor’s Parcel of Final Mapped Property within CFD No. 3 up to 100% of the Maximum Special Tax to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement.

3. Finally, if additional revenues are needed, the Special Tax shall then be levied Proportionately on each Assessor’s Parcel of Undeveloped Property within CFD No. 3 up to 100% of the Maximum Special Tax to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement.

Notwithstanding any provision of this Section D to the contrary, under no circumstances will the Special Tax levied against any Assessor’s Parcel of Developed Property that is classified as Residential Property be increased by more than ten percent (10%) per Fiscal Year as a consequence of delinquency or default in the payment of the Special Tax by the owner of any other Assessor’s Parcel.

E. PREPAYMENT OF SPECIAL TAX
The Special Tax shall be levied in perpetuity for the purpose of financing ongoing authorized services and therefore may not be prepaid.

F. EXEMPTIONS
The City Council shall classify as Exempt Property: (i) Public Property, (ii) Property Owner Association Property, (iii) Assessor’s Parcels with public or utility easements making impractical their utilization for other than the purposes set forth in the easement, including but not limited to property designated for

B-7
open space, trails, pathways, parks or park and recreation related facilities, (iv) property reasonably designated by the City or CFD Administrator as affordable housing subject to income and rent restrictions recorded in a regulatory agreement with the City or other public agency, and (v) property reasonably designated by the City or CFD Administrator as Exempt Property due to deed restrictions, conservation easement, or similar factors.

G. APPEALS
Any property owner claiming that the amounts or application of the Special Tax is not correct may file a written notice of appeal with the CFD Administrator not later than twelve months after having paid the first installment of the Special Tax. The CFD Administrator shall promptly review the appeal, and if necessary, meet with the property owner, consider written and oral evidence regarding the amount of the Special Tax, and rule on the appeal. If the decision of the CFD Administrator requires that the Special Tax for an Assessor’s Parcel be modified or changed in favor of the property owner, a cash refund shall not be made but an adjustment shall be made to the Special Tax on that Assessor’s Parcel in the subsequent Fiscal Year(s) to compensate for the overpayment of the Special Tax.

H. MANNER OF COLLECTION
The Special Tax shall be collected in the same manner and at the same time as ordinary ad valorem property taxes, provided, however, that the Special Tax may be billed and collected at a different time or in a different manner if necessary to meet the financial obligations of CFD No. 3.

I. DURATION OF TAX
The Special Tax shall be levied in perpetuity to fund the Special Tax Requirement unless such tax is no longer required as determined by the City Council.

City Council Staff Report
August 12, 2025
From: Christopher Fisher, Municipal Services Director
Prepared by: Tania Hernandez, Staff Services Analyst
Agendized by: Susan E. Borrego, Interim City Manager

1. ACTION RECOMMENDED:

Resolution: Approving the Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 for all Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts and all Street Maintenance Benefit Assessment Areas in the City of Turlock
Resolution: Confirming diagrams, assessments, and ordering the levying and collection of assessments as originally proposed for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 for all Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts Exhibit A and all Street Maintenance Benefit Assessment Areas Exhibit B in the City of Turlock pursuant to Resolution No. 97-128

2. DISCUSSION OF ISSUE:

The Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 and the Benefit Assessment Act of 1982 allow for the formation of Assessment Districts and Benefit Assessment Areas. The purpose of assessment districts and benefit assessment areas is to ensure that development pays for its own maintenance and operation of streetlights, landscape maintenance, street sweeping, future slurry seals, and storm drainage facilities. The formation of assessment districts and benefit assessment areas allow the associated developments to be built and not impact existing City funds that maintain these components.

The filing of an annual report is required for each fiscal year assessments to be levied and collected. The Engineer of Work produces an Engineer’s Report detailing the annual costs to each lot of each assessment district and benefit assessment area which are collected on property taxes. The Engineer’s Report is on file with the City Clerk and available to the public.

The proceedings for the filing of the annual report are conducted at two (2) Council meetings.

The first meeting was held on July 22, 2025, at which time Council initiated the proceedings, declared the City’s intention to levy and collect assessments, preliminarily approved the Engineer’s Report, and appointed a time and place for the public hearing. In this second and final meeting, Council will conduct the public hearing and, upon its conclusion, by resolution, confirm the diagrams and assessments for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 for filing with the Stanislaus County Auditor.

3. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:

1. Staff recommends the filing of the annual report to the Stanislaus County Auditor.

2. City will receive funds collected from the County Auditor for the maintenance of landscaping, streetlights, storm drainage facilities, and streets.

Agenda Staff Report
8/12/2025

4. FISCAL IMPACT / BUDGET AMENDMENT:

The assessment districts will generate approximately $2,625,600 in revenue to Fund 246 “Landscape Assessment.” This revenue is used to perform the maintenance work identified in the assessment districts and benefit assessment areas.

5. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Recommend approval.

6. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:

Recommend approval.

7. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

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. This action 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:

City Council could choose to decline to approve assessment reports and levy and collect assessments. Staff does not recommend this action because the City utilizes these funds for the maintenance of the streetlights, landscaping, storm drainage facilities, and streets the assessment districts and benefit assessment areas.

9. ATTACHMENTS:

1. Draft Resolution Approving FY 2025-2026 Engineer's Report

2. Draft Resolution Confirming Assessments and Ordering the Levying

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TURLOCK
IN THE MATTER OF APPROVING THE } RESOLUTION NO. 2025-
ENGINEER’S REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR }
2025-2026 FOR ALL LANDSCAPING AND }
LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS }
AND ALL STREET MAINTENANCE BENEFIT }
ASSESSMENT AREAS IN THE CITY }
OF TURLOCK }
}
WHEREAS, on the 22nd day of July, 2025, the City Council of the City of Turlock adopted Resolution No. 2025-146, initiating proceedings for the filing of the Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 for all Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts and all Street Maintenance Benefit Assessment Areas in the City of Turlock; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Turlock designated the City Engineer of the City of Turlock as the engineer of work for the purpose of preparing the Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 for all Landscape and Lighting Assessment Districts and all Street Maintenance Benefit Assessment Areas in the City of Turlock; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Turlock ordered the City Engineer to prepare and file a report in accordance with Article 4 (commencing with section 22620) of Chapter 1 of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972; and WHEREAS, on the 22nd day of July, 2025, the City Engineer filed his report with the City Clerk for submission to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the filed report contains the information statutorily required; and WHEREAS, the City Council may approve the report, as filed, or may modify the report and approve it as modified.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Turlock does hereby approve the City Engineer’s report as filed.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proposed amount to be collected for some of the assessments has increased per the Engineering News Record (ENR), but will not exceed the maximum allowable, pursuant to City of Turlock Council Resolution 97-128.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED City of Turlock has determined and certifies that the proposed charges are either exempt from or are in compliance with all the provisions of Proposition 218 which was passed by voters in November 1996. The City Council of the City of Turlock further determines the charges are in compliance with all laws pertaining to the levy of such charges.

Resolution No. 2024-

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Turlock this 12th day of August, 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 CONFIRMING } RESOLUTION NO. 2025-
DIAGRAMS, ASSESSMENTS, AND }
ORDERING THE LEVYING AND }
COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS AS }
ORIGINALLY PROPOSED FOR }
FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026 FOR ALL }
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING }
ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS (EXHIBIT A) }
AND ALL STREET MAINTENANCE }
BENEFIT ASSESSMENT AREAS (EXHIBIT }
B) IN THE CITY OF TURLOCK PURSUANT }
TO RESOLUTION NO. 97-128 }
}
WHEREAS, on the 22nd day of July, 2025, the City Council of the City of Turlock adopted Resolution No. 2025-146, initiating proceedings for the filing of the Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 for all Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts and all Street Maintenance Benefit Assessment Areas in the City of Turlock; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Turlock designated the City Engineer of the City of Turlock as the Engineer of Work for the purpose of preparing the Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 for all Landscape and Lighting Assessment Districts and all Street Maintenance Benefit Assessment Areas in the City of Turlock; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Turlock ordered the City Engineer to prepare and file a report in accordance with Article 4 (commencing with section 22620) of Chapter 1 of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972; and WHEREAS, on the 22nd day of July, 2025, the City Engineer filed his report with the City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, on the 22nd day of July, 2025, the City Council of the City of Turlock adopted Resolution No. 2025-137 declaring the City Council’s intention for the levy and collection of assessments, preliminarily approving the Engineer’s Report, and appointing a time and place for a public hearing for the existing Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts (Exhibit A) and Street Maintenance Benefit Assessment Areas (Exhibit B) in the City of Turlock for Fiscal Year 2025-2026; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code §22625 and Government Code §53753, on Tuesday, the 12th day of August, 2025, at the hour of 6:00 p.m., prevailing local time, the City Council of the City of Turlock, at its regular meeting, conducted a public hearing on the question of the levying and collecting the proposed annual assessment. The public hearing was held in the Yosemite Room on the 2nd floor of City Hall at 156 S. Broadway, in Turlock, California; and

Resolution No. 2025-

WHEREAS, at the public hearing, the City Council considered all oral statements and written protests made or filed by any interested party to the proposed annual assessment. Every person was permitted to present oral and/or written testimony.

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Turlock does hereby confirm the diagrams, assessments as originally proposed as set forth in the annual report of the Engineer of Work and hereby levies the assessment set forth therein for Fiscal Year 2025- 2026 for all Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts and all Street Maintenance Benefit Assessment Areas in the City of Turlock pursuant to Resolution No. 97-128.

WHEREAS, the City of Turlock has determined and certifies that the charges are either exempt from or are in compliance with all the provisions of Proposition 218 which was passed by voters in November 1996. The City Council of the City of Turlock further determines the charges are in compliance with all laws pertaining to the levy of such charges. A certified copy of this resolution and report shall be delivered to the County Auditor-Controller’s Office for the County of Stanislaus.

NOW THEREFORE IT BE RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Turlock does confirm diagrams, assessments, and ordering the levying and collection of assessments as originally proposed for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 for all Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts (Exhibit A) and all Street Maintenance Benefit Assessment Areas (Exhibit B) in the City of Turlock pursuant to Resolution No. 97-128.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Turlock this 12th day of August, 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-

EXHIBIT A
Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972
Assessment Districts
Amberwood Dewar Estates No. 3
Apple Lane Estates Dianne Business Park
Arlinda Estates Dust Bowl Brewery
Ashley Estates Dutch Bros
Asoofi Subdivision Enterprise Park
Autumn Brook No. 1 Fairbanks Ranch
Autumn Brook No. 2 Ferreira Ranch Estates
Balboa Park (Fitzpatrick Apartments) Ferreira Ranch Estates No. 2 Bandera Ferreira Ranch Estates No. 3
Bandera No. 2 Ferreira Ranch Estates No. 4
Baptista Estates Ferreira Ranch Estates No. 5
Baptista Estates No. 2 Festival
Blue Diamond Fifth Street Community
California Freight Florsheim NEMP (DeLaMotte) for Palermo Calista Estates Forest Oak No. 2
Campus Park No. 1,2 ,3 FQC 1347 N Palm
Campus Vista Gabrielle Estates
Cedarcrest Gemstone Estates
Cedarcrest No. 2 Gerald Court Estates
Centennial Place No. 2 Glenwood Park
Chevron Fulkerth Health & Wellness Center
Cimmaron No. 1 Heartland Estates
Cimmaron No. 2 Heirlooms No. 1
Claremont Meadows Heirlooms No. 2
Colorado Springs Heirlooms No. 3
Cottage Park Hervey Estates
Countryside No. 2 Hilmar Cheese
Countryside No. 3 & PM 01-08 Huntington Estates
Countryside No. 4 Huntington Estates No. 2
Countryside Estates J&R Investments
Countryside Plaza Jessica House
Danielle Estates Johnson
Danielle Estates No. 2 Kandola
Del’s Lane Townhomes Karampoor
Delta National Bank L&M Industrial
Dewar Estates Lauren Estates
Dewar Estates No. 2 Lauren Estates No. 2

Resolution No. 2025-

EXHIBIT A
Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972
Assessment Districts
Lauren Estates No. 3,4 Pinecrest Estates
Legends No. 1,2 Pinecrest Estates No. 2
Legends No. 3 Pinecrest Estates No. 3
Legends No. 4 PM 97-07 Kennedy/King
Legends No. 6 PM 00-03 Sondeno/Starkweather
Legends No. 7 PM 04-02 College Plaza
Legends North No. 1 PM 04-09 Gwin
Legends North No. 2 PM 05-01 Emanuel
Legends North No. 4 PM 05-03 Byung
Lewis Terrace Estates & PM 04-03 PM 05-07 Hawkeye Shopping Center Les Chateaux PM 05-09 Lewis
Liberty Industrial Park PM 05-12 Heritage Homes
Makoor Estates PM 07-06 Kevin Berger
Milestone PM 11-04 Avena Bella
Montana Ave Industrial Park (Freitas) PM 12-01 Moline
Montana Estates PM 13-01 Sutter Gould
Monte Verde PM 14-02 Quong & Jennie Doo
Monte Vista Crossings PM 17-02 Turlock Corners LLC
Monte Vista Crossings North PM 17-03 Scott
Monte Vista Estates PM 17-04 Kuo
Monte Vista Manor PM 17-05 680 D Street LLC
Monte Vista Village PM 18-01 Nazmi
Mooneyham Estates PM 18-02 Castle
Northern Sunrise Estates PM 19-01 Warrior Crossing
Northern Sunrise Estates No. 2 PM 21-03 Bright
Northern Sunrise Estates No. 2A PM 21-05 Hackler
Northern Sunrise Estates No. 3 Potter’s Landing
Northern Sunrise Estates No. 4 Project Hornet
Northlock Industrial Park Promenade
Northview Meadows No. 2 Rhodes Estates
Northview Meadows No. 3 Rolling Hills
Old Vineyard Rose Cottage
Olive Grove Manor Rose Cottage No. 2
Ormi Rose Cottage No. 3
Pereira No. 1,2 Rose Walk No. 1
Pereira No. 3 Rose Walk No. 2,3,4

Resolution No. 2025-

EXHIBIT A
Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972
Assessment Districts
Rose Walk No. 5 Valley Ventures PM 04-05
Shergill Ventana
Sierra Oaks Apartments Vermont Villas
Sondeno, Denny’s, Jack-n-Box Wyndfair Estates
Starbucks
Sterling Oaks No. 1
Sterling Oaks No. 2
Sterling Oaks No. 4
Sterling Oaks No. 5
Sterling Oaks No. 6
Summerfield
Sun Ridge South
Superstore 2600 Spengler Way
Swanpark Estates
Taco Bell
Tamimi
The Classics
Tiffany Park
Traditions
Traditions No. 2
Traditions No. 3
Traditions No. 4,5
Turlock 99 Business Park
Turlock Auto Plaza
Turlock Dental Care
Turlock Multi-Family
Turlock Park Villas (Commercial)
Turlock Park Villas (Residential)
Turlock Self Storage
Turlock Village (Commercial)
Turlock Village (Residential)
Turlock Walnut Company
US Cold Storage
Valley Milk
Villagio (Baptista)
Voumard No. 1 (Rose Classics)
Voumard No. 2
Winter Haven
Winter Haven No. 2

Resolution No. 2025-

EXHIBIT B
Benefit Assessment Act of 1982
Benefit Assessment Areas
Added Space Comm. Center Countryside Plaza
Alpine Estates Danielle Estates
Amberwood Danielle Estates No. 2
Anderson Estates Del’s Lane Townhomes
Apple Lane Estates Delta National Bank
Arbor Estates No. 10 Dewar Estates
Arlinda Estates Dewar Estates No. 2
Ashley Estates Dewar Estates No. 3
Asoofi Subdivision Dianne Business Park
Autumn Brook No. 1 Dust Bowl Brewery
Autumn Brook No. 2 Dutch Bros
Balboa Park (Fitzpatrick Apartments) Eastbrook Estates
Bandera Elizabeth Court
Bandera No. 2 Enterprise Park
Baptista Estates Fairbanks Ranch
Baptista Estates No. 2 Ferreira Ranch Estates
Berkeley Woods Ferreira Ranch Estates No. 2
Blue Diamond Ferreira Ranch Estates No. 3
Bristol Park Ferreira Ranch Estates No. 4
California Freight Ferreira Ranch Estates No. 5
Calista Estates Festival
Cambridge Place No. 6 Fifth Street Community
Campus Park No. 1,2,3 Florsheim (DeLaMotte) for Palermo Cedarcrest Forest Oak Estates
Cedarcrest No. 2 Forest Oak Estates No. 2
Centennial Place No. 2 FQC 1347 N Palm St
Chakkar Estates No. 2 Gabrielle Estates
Champagne Estates Gemstone Estates
Chevron Fulkerth Gerald Court Estates
Christel Estates Glenwood Park
Cimmaron No. 1 Health & Wellness Center
Cimmaron No. 2 Heartland Estates
Claremont Meadows Heirlooms No. 1
Colorado Springs Heirlooms No. 2
Cottage Park Heirlooms No. 3
Countryside No. 2 Hervey Estates
Countryside No. 3 & PM 01-08 Hilmar Cheese
Countryside No. 4 Hollis Manor
Countryside Estates Huntington Estates

Resolution No. 2025-

EXHIBIT B
Benefit Assessment Act of 1982
Benefit Assessment Areas
Huntington Estates No. 2 Mooneyham Estates
J&R Investments North Berkeley Estates
Jessica House North Olive Estates No. 3,4
Johnson Northern Sunrise Estates
Kandola Northern Sunrise Estates No. 2
Karampoor Northern Sunrise Estates No. 2A
Kensington Estates Northern Sunrise Estates No. 3
Kirkwood No. 3 Northern Sunrise Estates No. 4
L&M Industrial Northlock Industrial Park
Lauren Estates Northview Meadows
Lauren Estates No. 2 Northview Meadows No. 2
Lauren Estates No. 3,4 Northview Meadows No. 3
Legends No. 1,2 Oak Park
Legends No. 3 Old Vineyard
Legends No. 4 Oleander Gardens
Legends No. 6 Ormi
Legends No. 7 Pereira No. 1,2
Legends North No. 1 Pereira No. 3
Legends North No. 2 Pinecrest Estates
Legends North No. 4 Pinecrest Estates No. 2
Les Chateaux Pinecrest Estates No. 3
Lewis Street Manor Pineridge Place
Lewis Terrace Estates & PM 04-03 Pleasant Valley Estates Liberty Industrial Park PM 97-07 Kennedy/King
Linwood Estates No. 1,2 PM 00-03 Sondeno/Starkweather
Linwood Estates No. 3 PM 04-02 College Plaza
Makoor Estates PM 04-09 Gwin
McDonald Manor PM 05-01 Emanuel
Milestone PM 05-03 Byung
Montana Ave Industrial Park (Freitas) PM 05-07 Hawkeye Shopping Center Montana Estates PM 05-09 Lewis
Monte Verde PM 05-12 Heritage Homes
Monte Vista Crossings PM 07-06 Kevin Berger
Monte Vista Crossings North PM 11-04 Avena Bella
Monte Vista Estates PM 12-01 Moline
Monte Vista Village PM 13-01 Sutter Gould

Resolution No. 2025-

EXHIBIT B
Benefit Assessment Act of 1982
Benefit Assessment Areas
PM 14-02 Quong & Jennie Doo Swan Park Estates
PM 17-02 Turlock Corners LLC Taco Bell
PM 17-03 Scott Tamimi
PM 17-04 Kuo The Classics
PM 17-05 680 D Street LLC Thorsen Estates No. 2
PM 18-01 Nazmi Tiffany Park
PM 18-02 Castle Traditions
PM 19-01 Warrior Crossing Traditions No. 2
PM 21-03 Bright Traditions No. 3
PM 21-05 Hackler Traditions No. 4,5
Potter’s Landing Tuolumne East Estates
Project Hornet Turlock 99 Business Park
Promenade Turlock Dental Care
Rhodes Estates Turlock Self Storage
Rolling Hills Turlock Multi-Family
Rose Cottage Turlock Park Villas (Commercial)
Rose Cottage No. 2 Turlock Park Villas (Residential)
Rose Cottage No. 3 Turlock Village (Commercial)
Rose Walk No. 1 Turlock Village (Residential)
Rose Walk No. 2,3,4 Turlock Walnut Company
Rose Walk No. 5 US Cold Storage
Royal Oaks Valley Milk
Shergill Valley Ventures PM 04-05
Sierra Oaks Apartments Vasconcellos Estates
Silverado Heights Ventana
Sondeno, Denny’s, Jack-n-Box Venture Park
Southern Belle Estates / PM 03-08 Vermont Villas
Starbucks Villa Woods
Sterling Oaks No. 1 Villagio (Baptista)
Sterling Oaks No. 2 Voumard No. 1 (Rose Classics)
Sterling Oaks No. 4 Voumard No. 2
Sterling Oaks No. 5 W Main / Walnut
Sterling Oaks No. 6 Walnut Acres No. 2
Stonridge (Silver Oak) Winter Haven No. 2
Summer Faire Wyndfair Estates
Summerfield
Sun Ridge South
Superstore 2600 Spengler Way

City Council Staff Report
August 12, 2025
From: Anthony Sims, Economic Development/Communications Director Prepared by: Anthony Sims, Economic Development/Communications Director Agendized by: Susan E. Borrego, Interim City Manager

1. ACTION RECOMMENDED:

Approving the City of Turlock Economic Development Strategic Plan Update that was completed by Kosmont Companies.

2. DISCUSSION OF ISSUE:

The current City of Turlock Economic Development Strategic Plan was adopted in June of 2017 and needed to be updated to reflect the current economy.

Staff issued an informal Request for Proposals (RFP) on April 3, 2024. A panel was formed to review proposals submitted, and Kosmont Companies was selected to develop and implement the City of Turlock Economic Strategic Plan Update. With 39 years of experience being in business within the economic development industry, as well as working with cities and public agencies on economic development strategies, Kosmont Companies has successfully managed over 1,000 economic development projects and initiatives. The total cost of the Economic Development Strategic Plan Update is not to exceed $77,470.

Kosmont Companies began work on the Economic Development Strategic Plan Update in September of 2024, and completed the update in July/August of 2025. Kosmont Companies carried out a range of economic development activities in support of the Economic Development Strategic Plan update, including:
• Kick-off Meeting
• Demographic and Economic Profile Analysis
• Retail Market Demand Analysis
• SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) Analysis • Community/Stakeholder Outreach
• Economic and Development Strategic Plan Preparation
• Meetings
The updated Economic Development Strategic Plan will identify challenges and threats to the City's economic growth. It will also establish economic development goals, strategies, investment opportunities, and implementation actions for the City over the next several years. An Economic Development Strategic Plan that is current will support existing businesses, as well as play an instrumental role in attracting innovative industries that will elevate Turlock into the future and strengthen its market position within the region for attracting jobs and economic development projects.

3. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:

Agenda Staff Report
8/12/2025
The updated Economic Development Strategic Plan will establish economic development goals, strategies, investment opportunities, and implementation actions for the City over the next several years. An Economic Development Strategic Plan that is current will support existing businesses, as well as play an instrumental role in attracting innovative industries that will elevate Turlock into the future and strengthen its market position within the region for attracting jobs and economic development projects.

4. FISCAL IMPACT / BUDGET AMENDMENT:

Funding for the Economic Development Strategic Plan Update was approved at the August 27, 2024, City Council meeting. The total project cost was not to exceed $77,470 and was allocated from Fund 120 "Tourism Fund" account 120-10-120.43288 “Economic Development Strategic Plan.” There is no fiscal impact associated with the approval of the updated plan scheduled for the August 12, 2025, City Council meeting.

5. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Recommend approval.

6. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:

Recommend approval.

7. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

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. This action 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. City Council may choose not to Approve the City of Turlock Economic Development Strategic Plan Update.

B. City Council may ask for additional or clarifying information to be provided.

9. ATTACHMENTS:

1. Economic Development Strategic Plan - July 2025 Final

2. Economic Development Strategic Plan Appendix - July 22, 2025

3. Kosmont Companies - Proposal to City of Turlock for EDSP Update

DRAFT
2301 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 4140
El Segundo, CA 90245
TEL: 424-297-1070 | URL: www.kosmont.com

CITY OF TURLOCK

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN
JULY 2025

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 2

CITY OF TURLOCK

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN
Kosmont Companies Staff City Council Staff & Advisory
Ken K. Hira, President
Thomas Jirovsky, Senior Advisor
Fernando Sanchez, Vice President
Amy Bublak, Mayor
Kevin Bixel, Councilmember
Rebecka Monez, Councilmember
Cassandra Abram, Councilmember
Erika Phillips, Councilmember
Sue Borrego, Interim City Manager
Anthony Sims, Economic Dev. Director
Adrienne Werner, Dev. Services Director
Isaac Moreno, Finance Director

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction Page 4

2. Background Page 12

3. Existing Conditions Page 17

4. Strategies Page 26

5. Regional Econ Dev Comparison Page 43

6. Opportunity Sites Evaluation Page 50

7. Economic Development Tools Page 55

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 4

1. INTRODUCTION
CITY OF TURLOCK – EDSP

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 5

INTRODUCTION
Disclaimer: The analyses, projections, assumptions, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or future results. Actual results are difficult to predict as a function of market conditions, natural disasters, pandemics, legislation and administrative actions.

Kosmont Companies ("Kosmont"), a real estate and economics advisory firm serving hundreds of local governments for over 38 years, has been retained by the City of Turlock ("City" or “Turlock") to develop an updated Economic Development Strategic Plan (“EDSP”). The goal of the EDSP update is to provide a current assessment of Turlock’s strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities for high-quality job growth and business development, identify and develop a list of prioritized goals and objectives to meet the economic development vision, and provide stakeholder-informed implementation strategies and performance measures.

Kosmont’s approach to preparing the EDSP includes the following tasks:
¡ Review of relevant documents (2017 EDSP and Stanislaus County CEDS), together with a tour of the City and its business districts
¡ Interviews / feedback from City staff and community stakeholders ¡ Assessment of regional economic trends
¡ Assessment of local demographic and market conditions ¡ Assessment of major employment districts
¡ Identification of key opportunities, strategies and economic development tools

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 6

INTRODUCTION
¡ The City is the second largest city in Stanislaus County, home to California State University Stanislaus, several cultural experiences, sports activities, twenty-nine parks, sixteen schools, and a full range of medical facilities. ¡ It has been seven years since the last EDSP was produced and the City wants an updated EDSP to reflect current market conditions and community economic development goals. ¡ City would also like to explore economic development projects including additions to the West Side Industrial Specific Plan (“WISP”), Downtown and a Tournament Sports Complex project. ¡ The goal of the new EDSP is to analyze and update the City’s economic vision and goals, assess the City’s current market position and demographics, and develop a list of prioritized goals and objectives that can guide the City for the next three to five years.

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 7

HISTORY
¡ The City grew relatively fast up until the 2008 financial crisis. City council established a policy that called for development fee study that required new projects to pay for 100% of the average per unit cost for all utilities, roads, parks and capital facilities. Since then, there has been modest single-family construction with little or no multi-family. ¡ The City is planned with residential development to the east of the 99 freeway and commercial and industrial on the west side. Cal State Stanislaus is located near northern edge of the City. ¡ Downtown is centrally located about 2 miles east from Highway 99. It is 100 years old, retains many historic buildings and is a regional tourist draw with restaurants, retail and office spaces. ¡ Monte Vista Crossing is a major regional power center on both sides of Highway 99 along with several smaller retail centers totaling over 1 million SF. It is the 4th largest center in California. There are 5-6 large large monument signs to advertise each subarea’s tenants.
¡ The southwest quadrant of the City comprises the master planned Westside Industrial Specific Plan (2600 acres), which has seen significant growth in recent years with new ~1 million SF Amazon warehouse and DIVERT biorecycling facility.

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 8
2017 EDSP VISION AND GOALS
Vision – Create economically and socially diverse population and vibrant business community in Turlock • Attract, retain and expand businesses in Turlock
• Increase job opportunities in agriculture, manufacturing, logistics and medical service cluster and support small business • Be cultural leader in Central Valley for arts, music and other events - Downtown to be business, cultural and civic center • Maintain retail centers competitiveness and seek new market opportunities • Expand tourism and community sporting events/activities • Improve education system and provide support to give all workers access to living wage jobs The EDSP also identified a number of challenges facing the City’s long term sustainability:
• City budget needs strengthening
• Lack of visitor attractions
• Relative lack of hospitals, doctors and health services • Labor shortages in many occupations, need for workforce training • Need for more workforce and executive housing and amenities for young professionals, as well as senior housing • Accelerate development of Southeast and North Specific Plans as scarcity puts upward pressure on local housing prices • Improve industrial companies’ representation in Chamber of Commerce

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 9
2017 EDSP VISION AND GOALS
In the past few years, the City has made substantial progress in addressing these challenges:
• Passage of Measure A in 2021 increased sales tax revenues supporting general fund expenses by $15 million per year • New Amazon warehouse is likely to be City’s largest sales tax generator • WISP has helped attract major new development to City ( Amazon, Divert) • Hotel demand has strengthened with several new hotels in process • City researching opportunities for major indoor sports facility However, one area that has fallen short is the limited production of new single family and multi-family housing City’s population has seen little or no growth in past decade

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 10

STANISLAUS COUNTY CEDS
In 2022, Stanislaus County adopted a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (“CEDS”) that outlined regional challenges and discussed assets and opportunities for each community in the County. • County suffers from relatively high unemployment and low high school graduation rates (~80%) • Large numbers of residents commute to the greater Bay Area • Per capita income is well below State levels
• Agriculture is the major economic driver accounting for over $7 billion per year • Manufacturing (food and beverage related) is a growing sector (EJ Gallo Winery, Foster Farms, Del Monte Foods, Blue Diamond)
• Warehouse/Distribution is a strong sector (e.g., 1.1 million SF Amazon warehouse opened in 2022 • Water supply is a major threat to economic prosperity due to State’s frequent drought conditions

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 11
OPPORTUNITY STANISLAUS – VOLT INSTITUTE
¡ Stanislaus County formed Opportunity Stanislaus to address regional challenges and opportunities for business in each community in the County by providing business development and talent development services. Opportunity Stanislaus is the County regional economic development arm (501(c) 3) that partners with major private sector businesses. (Dave White – CEO; Eric Nuenfeldt - Executive Director)
¡ Volt Institute is a member of California Manufacturing Network, was established as offshoot of OS in 2017 to provide expedited training in high-paying careers in manufacturing, such as Industrial Maintenance Mechanic and Supervisor Development Academy. “Volt on the Go” is a new program that brings training classes directly to local businesses or community centers.
¡ In 2024, Volt provided 30,000 hours of training for 125 trainees at homesite, plus 156 trainees offsite at employers’ place of business. 91% of the trainees were successfully placed in industrial maintenance and electric mechanisms. The goals for 2025 are to provide apprenticeships and gain national accreditation from ACCET to gain eligibility for financial aid and deepen industry partnerships.

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 12

2. BACKGROUND
CITY OF TURLOCK – EDSP

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 13

BACKGROUND
The City’s economic prosperity is underpinned by several compelling factors:
¡ Cal State University, Stanislaus is a 100-acre campus with 10,000 students and over 700 full time faculty
¡ Turlock Regional Industrial Park (WISP) 2,600 acres
planned for industrial development with over 8 million SF built.
¡ Monte Vista Crossings is a +1 million SF regional shopping center
¡ Turlock Town Center
¡ Turlock’s commitment to workforce training is evident in its collaboration with Opportunity Stanislaus
Sources: CSU Stanislaus; Modesto Bee; CBRE (Accessed January 2025) Left: Exterior of new Amazon fulfillment center (located within the Westside Industrial Specific Plan); Middle: Aerial image of Monte Vista Crossings shopping center; Right: CSU Stanislaus campus

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 14

COMMUNITY ASSETS
Kosmont has identified significant community assets that act as regional draws.

Downtown Turlock – Due to age of buildings, there are
ADA and other building code issues that make reuse
problematic. Downtown PBID maintains the 10-12 block
area. Current budget is $215,000 annually. Property
owners pay $0.36 psf of building area +$0.10 pf of land area (including the city hall space). City also contributes $40,000 per year towards maintenance. PBID sponsors
4th of July parade and many small events.

Stanislaus County Fairgrounds is 78-acre site that is
adjacent to the regional transit center. 10-day county fair attracts 240,000 people in summer. 2-day swap meet in
January attracts ~100,000 people. There are many smaller events as well.

Top Left and Right: Outdoor dining and street art in
Downtown Turlock
Below Left: Stanislaus County Fairgrounds
Below Right: Exterior shot of Turlock Community Theatre

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 15

COMMUNITY ASSETS
¡ Turlock Regional Sports Complex – 2 softball fields; 10 full-size soccer fields; two other adjacent parks that have playgrounds, covered arbor areas, picnic areas, and 2 professional volleyball sand pits ¡ Pedretti Sports Complex – 4 softball fields; 1 baseball diamond; large arbor area with playgrounds Sources: City of Turlock (cityofturlock.org) (Accessed January 2025) Above Left: Pedretti Sports Park
Above Right: Baseball field at Regional Sports Complex

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 16

COMMUNITY EVENTS / ASSETS
¡ Class 1 Bike Trails – 50+ miles paved for walking,
running, hiking, and cycling
¡ Dozens of community events are funded by the
City and Chamber every year. Some notable
events hosted in Downtown Turlock include:

Farmers Market, Makers Market, Independence
Day Parade and Car Show, Sip and Stroll (second
Saturday in September), Festival of Lights (Black
Friday), Christmas Parade
Sources: City of Turlock (cityofturlock.org) and Instagram @downtownturlock (Accessed January 2025)
Top Left: Farmers Market
Top Right: Christmas Parade
Bottom Left: Cyclists in Downtown Turlock
Bottom Right: Cyclists riding the bicycle lanes in Turlock

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 17

3. EXISTING CONDITIONS
CITY OF TURLOCK – EDSP

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 18

ECONOMIC TRENDS
¡ Economic forces are reshaping local economies across the State:

Ø Today’s consumers are using online websites for purchasing a broad array of goods. As e-commerce continues to take an increasing percentage of consumer spending, cities must take new approaches to land use that explore concepts for public amenities and private attractions that help cities capture trips and thus “sales”.

Ø Younger consumers, with increased use of media and digital communication, seek gathering places with restaurants, entertainment venues and experiential retail, rather than simply a collection of traditional store fronts.

Ø Telework dynamics have drastically changed work patterns over the past few years and are poised to reshape office needs. Creative class professionals are attracted to communities with clustered centers, which provide a sense of vitality, diversity, convenience and a mix of work, entertainment, services, arts and culture. ¡ In light of these trends, Kosmont is assisting the City in achieving its economic objective by providing market analysis and recommendations with a goal to foster economic vitality in the City, improving business conditions and resident quality of life.

Sources: Kosmont Companies, CoStar, Coresight Research, Cowen & Company, Cushman & Wakefield, ICSC, St. Louis Federal Reserve, UBS, U.S. Census Bureau, St. Louis Federal Reserve,

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 19

E-COMMERCE GROWTH

SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ON BRICK-AND-MORTAR RETAIL
¡ Historically, e-commerce sales in the U.S. have increased steadily over time from 2000 to 2019. The COVID-19 pandemic saw
increased online retail utilization and e-commerce sales soared by 42% compared to 2019. E-commerce sales continued to grow by double-digits into 2021 but cooled to just 6% growth in 2022. 2023 saw an increase in e-commerce sales by 9%
¡ The share of e-commerce sales continues to grow as well with ecommerce reaching 17.1% of total retail sales by year-end 2023. ¡ FTI Consulting’s 2024 Online Retail Report projections indicate U.S. online retail sales would hit $1.2 trillion in 2024, an increase of 9.8% or $108 billion compared to 2023. Additionally, the report states that e-commerce sales growth represented 46% of total retail sales growth in 2023.
¡ Furthermore, a UBS report estimates that 45,000 net retail store closures will occur in the U.S. by 2028 (approximately 5% of the total retail store base)
Source: St. Louis Federal Reserve; FTI Consulting “2024 Online Retail Report”; UBS (Accessed December 2024)

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 E-Commerce Share of Total Retail Sales
(by year-end)
E-Commerce Retail Sales
(Billions)
E-Commerce Retail Sales
E-Commerce Sales
E-Commerce Share of Total Retail Sales

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 20
¡ Per ESRI July 2024 data, Turlock has a Population of ~73,100 (24,500 households). ¡ Average Household Size is 2.9 persons, lower than County/State, and the Median Age is 36 years, younger than County and State median of 37 and 38 years old, respectively. ¡ City Average Household Income is $103,900, approx. 2% lower than County and 25% lower than statewide levels.

Turlock residents generate $647 million in annual retail spending potential across major retail categories. ¡ Per ESRI and Census data, Turlock businesses have ~29,000 Employees with a resident workforce of ~8,300 people. ¡ Jobs in the City are primarily in Health Care and Social Assistance, Retail Trade, Educational Services, Accommodation and Food Services, and Manufacturing. Of these five, three are part of the fastest growing industries in the County (shown in italics).
¡ Residents of the City are primarily employed in Healthcare and Social Assistance / Educational Services / Manufacturing / Retail Trade / Accommodation and Food Services.

DEMOGRAPHIC / EMPLOYMENT OVERVIEW
See Appendix A.2
Sources: ESRI Business Analyst Online; Zillow.com; U.S. Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies, California Employment Development Department, ESRI Business Analyst Online

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 21

ECONOMIC GROWTH COMPARISON
See Appendix A.4
Sources: Costar, Kosmont Companies
To help understand the City’s ability to capture a fair share of regional growth, Kosmont has researched economic incentive policies and impact fees affect growth for Turlock’s and its main competitor cities of Modesto and Merced.

Retail
• City retail space at 5.9 million SF, comprises 21% of the overall retail market in Stanislaus County. Since 2017, City retail space grew by 334,000 SF, much faster than the retail markets of Manteca, Merced, and Modesto. Roughly 56% of the growth in the retail development in Stanislaus County has been in Turlock. • Over that time period, market asking rents in the region have grown by 23% to 27% across the comparison cities, with Turlock reaching $22.12 PSF, the highest in Stanislaus County. • During the 15-year period from 2008 to 2023, Turlock’s retail vacancy peaked at 7.7% in 2011 and has since steadily declined. Retail vacancies in Turlock in Q3 2024 were lowest in the region at 2.2%, while Manteca, Merced, and Modesto have retail vacancies of 5% or greater.

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 22

ECONOMIC GROWTH COMPARISON
Source: Kosmont Companies
Office
• Office market growth came from Modesto (78,000 SF).Turlock’s office market grew by just 4,000 SF. • Market rents inTurlock increased by 25%,similar to the comparison cities • The region has a sub-5% vacancy rate with office vacancies inTurlock at 3.2%,slightly higher than in 2017 Multi-Family
• Despite need for more housing Statewide, new construction from 2017 to Q3 2024 added 660 units in the County, but was limited to 36 new units inTurlock (~1% growth)
• Over the 15-years from 2008 to 2023, the County saw 1,700 new units constructed compared to 327 inTurlock. • Multifamily residential vacancies in the region were below 4%, withTurlock seeing the lowest vacancies at 2.5%. • Average rents across the region showed solid growth of 40% to 50% since 2017. Turlock and Merced have the lowest average rents reflecting a significant percentage of Class C and affordable housing projects (~70%) as compared to Class A/B units (~30%).

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 23
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
1/1/20204/1/20207/1/2020
10/1/2020
1/1/20214/1/20217/1/2021
10/1/2021
1/1/20224/1/20227/1/2022
10/1/2022
1/1/20234/1/20237/1/2023
10/1/2023
1/1/20244/1/20247/1/2024
10/1/2024
Visitors Employees
Placer.ai is a mobility data provider that tracks daily movement of over 30 million people in the U.S. via anonymized mobile app data. This information reveals travel trends to/from major events, shopping centers, and other places of interest – providing insight into retail center trade areas, hourly and daily visitation statistics, and consumer demographic characteristics. ¡ Visits to the City by visitors and employees dropped
sharply at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.
¡ Visits by visitors to the City returned to pre-pandemic levels beginning August 2021. Since then, visitor traffic has averaged 4% lower than pre-pandemic levels fluctuating
between -13% and 6% compared to the 2019 baseline.
¡ Visits by employees to the City returned to pre-pandemic levels beginning July 2023. Since then, employee visits have averaged 5% less compared to the 2019 baseline due to
the increasing number of people working from home.

PLACER.AI LOCATION ANALYSIS
See Appendix A.3 for more detail
Sources: Placer.AI (Accessed October 2024)

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 24

CITY OF TURLOCK

VISITOR / EMPLOYEE FOOT-TRAFFIC OVERVIEW
Visitor / Employee Summary Data
(1/1/2024 to 12/31/2024)
Visitors Employees
Annual Visits 27.0 million 16.5 million
Visit Frequency 13.5 252.5
Visitors 2.0 million 65.3 thousand
Median Visit Length 1 hr. 33 min. 9 hrs. 39 min.

Median HH Income $72,300 $75,100
Visitation Data:

Distance from Home Area
(Based on % of Visits)
0-3
Miles
3-7
Miles
7-10
Miles
Visitors 2% 17% 15%
Employees 42% 14% 10%
10-30
Miles
30-100
Miles
100+
Miles
Visitors 42% 15% 9%
Employees 28% 5% 1%
Source: Placer.ai (Accessed January 2025);
Notes: Considers a minimum of 1 visit to the City of Turlock by visitors.

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 25
Strengths
¡ Monte Vista Crossing is major regional retail draw – 3rd largest power center in CA with dozens of strong retailers (Costco, Target, Wal-Mart, Auto Mall)
¡ Regularly draws hundreds of thousands of shoppers from 20 miles away (640,000 population in trade area)
¡ City is home to a major agricultural economy
¡ Entrepreneurial spirit with many startup companies
¡ Significant outdoor amenities and recreational venues ¡ Opportunity Stanislaus / Volt Institute
Weaknesses/Threats
¡ Due to age of buildings in downtown there are ADA and other building code issues making reuse difficult
¡ Development fees slowed new industrial and residential development (fees $400,000 to $1 million per acre)
¡ Need to improve business permit processes
¡ Limited number of City owned development sites
¡ There is a relatively unskilled labor pool for STEM
Opportunities
¡ Downtown Turlock is a unique regional draw with boutique shops, fine dining, and entertainment
¡ Strong regional demand for single family housing
¡ City has healthy financial reserves for possible investment ¡ Large infill sites that can grow with mixed-use development such as D.O.R.® and financing districts can facilitate
development. See Section 7 – Economic Development Tools ¡ WISP area ideally located to provide commercial/industrial and recreational facilities.
¡ City well positioned for agricultural processing jobs ¡ New online permitting software can be major benefit to business attraction by expediting permits

SWOT ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Kosmont has summarized City strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (“SWOT”).

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 26

4. STRATEGIES
CITY OF TURLOCK – EDSP

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 27
Housing is Not a Loss
Leader, it’s a
Growth Driver
Retail is Not Just
Retail Anymore
Telework is
Reconfiguring Office
Industrial /
Distribution is Critical
for the Economy
Housing Creation as
Economic Development
Retail Reimagination as
Economic Development
Office Conversions as
Economic Development
Industrial & Fulfillment as
Economic Development
• New housing generates significant
new tax revenues and supports
local jobs from resident spending
• Variety of housing types is essential
to attracting new businesses and
developing diverse productive
workforce
• Housing is not a net negative fiscal
impact, especially at current
property values
• U.S. retail over-built and needs
“right sizing;” Covid accelerated
trends; today its about essentials,
experience & e-commerce
• Blended/mixed use projects
integrate multiple uses (housing,
retail, open space, creative office,
hotel)
• Telework and work from home
options are reshaping the needs for
office space and business districts
• New multi-family projects with coworking spaces and amenities will help attract young professionals
with computer skills
• Retail can’t thrive without
distribution; Booming demand for
e-commerce, particularly smaller
last-mile delivery facilities
• Flex space (a blend of industrial,
office, research and development
space) is a growing market. Cities
can attract high tech / skill firms.
• Industrial supports development of
new agricultural products
Key Market and Economic Development Trends

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 28

STRATEGIES / PROPOSED ACTION PLAN
Kosmont has identified Economic Development Strategies and an estimated investment range in order of priority for City’s consideration. Here is a summary that is followed by supporting detail and action items:

1. Business Enhancement, Attraction & Retention (“BEAR”)

2. Housing as Economic Development (Housing Element for Economic Development HEEDTM)

3. Establish Business Incentive Program for targeted retail / commercial /industrial

4. WISP

5. Utilize Value Capture

6. Expand Sports Facilities

7. Downtown Placemaking

8. Gather Performance Metrics to measure annual progress Source: Kosmont Companies

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 29

BUSINESS EXPANSION, ATTRACTION AND RETENTION
A vibrant business sector is important to the fiscal health of the City. Business Expansion, Attraction and Retention (“BEAR”) is the keystone of most economic development departments. Ideally the City should focus on attracting industries with diverse employment opportunities, that embrace new technology and offer higher paying jobs.

City attracted ~1 million SF Amazon warehouse and has had success in large scale food processing with companies such as Divert (converting 100,000 tons of food waste into energy and nutrients), Sensient (global company creating colors, flavors and fragrances from organic foods), and Blue Diamond (using technology to create value added almond products).

Business-friendliness (“How to get to Yes”) is a vital component to support the needs of businesses, developers and to foster entrepreneurship, and bolster the local economy.

Action Item 1: Develop technical assistance programs to support emerging businesses/entrepreneurs in the City.

Action Item 2: Proactively work with business/property-owners to understand challenges and opportunities that may align with the City’s economic development goals. Regularly contact the top 25 Sales Tax generators / Employer Action Item: Pursue Healthcare providers (new and expansion).

Action Item 3: Create customized development agreements/incentive packages to facilitate major tenants.

Source: Kosmont Companies

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 30

BUSINESS EXPANSION, ATTRACTION AND RETENTION
Action Item 4: Conduct outreach and collaborate with property owners to explore development opportunities and address challenges that can bring new uses to privately-owned sites.

Action Item 5: Standard plan check review process with a set number of days for initial submission and subsequent submittals.

Action Item 6: Consider incubator/accelerator programs for maker spaces that can help small businesses thrive.

Action Item 7: Online permitting system will improve business attraction and expansion.

Action Item 8: Consider adding business concierge or ombudsman to ED or Planning Dept to assist new business or development applications.

Action Item 9: Attend ICSC and other conferences to meet with major retailers / restaurants / hotels / developers / brokers.

Source: Kosmont Companies

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 31

HOUSING AS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
(HOUSING ELEMENT FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTTM)
Source: Kosmont Companies
New housing generates demand for commercial service and retail uses, significant new tax revenues, and supports wide range of local jobs.

New mid to high-end single family housing with recreational amenities can draw regional skilled tradesmen, as well as STEM workers (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) that can attract medical and other professional companies to Turlock.

Office reconfiguration and work at home schedules alleviate traffic and help keep “wallets” in local communities – allowing small businesses to capture more local spending.

High assessed value = annual City share of property taxes of $750 to $1,000 per unit (including VLF In Lieu).

Retail spending by new households of $25,000 to $30,000 could generate $500 to $600 annually in sales and use taxes (including E-commerce spending from new Amazon warehouse).

Live
Work
Shop

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 32

BUSINESS INCENTIVE PROGRAM
There are a wide range of business and economic development incentive programs utilized by communities across the State. The City can create such a program, but first it is important to set specific goals (e.g., assist small business, expand job creation, attract major tax generator, attract downtown development) and create a system to measure the success of each initiative. Cost of implementing can vary: job credits, façade improvement and infrastructure represent out of pocket costs, while tax sharing agreements and fee waivers are offset by new development tax revenues.

Examples of incentives include:
¡ Fast track permitting
¡ Tax sharing agreements / tax abatements
¡ Job tax credits / Workforce training
¡ Façade Improvement Program
¡ Infrastructure investment
¡ Fee waivers / deferrals in targeted areas
See Section 5 – Regional Econ Dev Comparison for specific examples of incentives used by nearby cities Source: Kosmont Companies

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 33

IMPACT FEES AND CREDITS
Development Impact Fees can be an obstacle to new development. Kosmont’s analysis indicates that residential and industrial impact fees are 50% to 150% higher than Modesto and Merced. There appears to have been less than 350 new apartment units built in past 15 years. City should consider re-examining its development fee schedule. ¡ Consider establishing a Citywide policy of Impact Fee Credits to encourage redevelopment opportunities. This is a strategy used by Sacramento County allowing developers to receive (harvest) a pro rata credit for impact fees from demolition of existing commercial centers against impact fees for new redevelopment. ¡ The Sacramento County Ordinance provides credits from demolition of commercial buildings on a square footage basis. The credit captures Road, Water and Drainage, and other fees and can be applied towards the impact fees required for construction of new square footage. The credit has a term of three years and can be extended for one additional year. The credit can also be used on different assessor parcels if the parcels are contiguous. ¡ The Ordinance is credited for the redevelopment of How Bout Arden (HBA), Country Club Centre and Country Club Plaza in Sacramento.

Source: Kosmont Companies

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 34

WESTSIDE INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN (WISP)
Source: Kosmont Companies
The City has a 20-year old Master Plan for the 2,600-acre Turlock Industrial Park, which is in need of significant infrastructure. The recent construction of the ~1 million SF Amazon warehouse at the northern end of WISP was a major economic success, but not every new tenant can invest the millions of dollars for impact fees and wait years.

Action Item 1: Establish Community Facilities Districts to help major land owners finance the infrastructure backbone and enable them to attract developers who market to major users in need of near-term space for rent.

Action Item 2: City Econ Dev Staff to participate in NAIOP and other industrial organizations to promoteWISP Action Item 3: Explore creation of Property Business Improvement District (PBID) to give area a unified image.

Action Item 4: Consider update of the Specific Plan with an emphasis on assisting economic growth.

Action Item 5: Explore feasibility of Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District to refund CFD Special Taxes paid by developers for the upfront infrastructure (See Section 7 discussion of EIFD financing strategies).

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 35

UTILIZE VALUE CAPTURE REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES
Public and private sector real estate can be important assets to leverage for long-term economic development benefits. While Turlock has limited publicly owned land available for new development, there are many large private sector properties that can be leveraged, as discussed on following slides.

Capture Value from Private Real Estate
• From Value Capture Zoning VCZTM - Development Opportunity Reserve (D.O.R.®) allows cities to create a “bank” of new density in zoning / specific plans, allowing them to give the density to projects that deliver community benefits & public amenities.* • From Tax Increment and Special Districts - Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (“EIFD”) use property tax increment and Community Facility Districts (“CFD”) are tools to fund important local and regional infrastructure, especially WISP.* • From Public Private Partnerships - Enter into partnerships with property-owners to commit local government resources, help solicit development proposals that will advance both the property owner’s goals and the community’s goals.

Capture Value from Public Real Estate
• Cities can use a variety of sale or lease strategies to capture the value of their properties, while also increasing the General Fund tax base.
*See Section 7 - Economic Development Tools for more detailed discussion Source: Kosmont Companies

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 36

DOWNTOWN PLACEMAKING
Source: Kosmont Companies
A healthy Downtown is important to a city. Turlock has significant assets, but the age of many buildings makes reuse challenging.

Action Item 1: Consider programs to help existing businesses (such as façade improvement programs, streetery / outdoor retail) and help existing properties utilize their space (such as expanding allowable uses in storefront spaces and allowing small scale manufacturing, food makers, artisans, breweries, woodworkers). Support non-profits willing to develop collaborative spaces with tools and other resources in underutilized buildings.

Action Item 2: Explore expansion of the Property Based District to support enhanced cleaning, security, marketing and physical improvements in downtown.

Action Item 3: Evaluate publicly-owned opportunity sites in the downtown area – such as the surface parking lots– to evaluate potential reuse strategies that aim to add gathering places, activities, and other amenities.

Action Item 4: Invest in physical improvements that can create sense of place and further activate the downtown area—through gateway signage and wayfinding, public art, pedestrian-oriented improvements such as plazas and outdoor spaces, water features, street improvements, micro-transit services.

Action Item 5: Grow social media engagement channels, social medial influencer/engagement channels, as well as marketing/trade publications to promote Downtown businesses and events.

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 37

PLACEMAKING BY DESIGN, DISTRICTS & EVENTS
The Medical
Main Street
district in
Lancaster, CA
aims to be a
blended use area centered around
major medical
anchors that
includes many
complementary
uses.

Murals in downtown
Providence, RI add
character and highlight
local artists and themes.

Events like the CicLAvia bike / walk fairs in
Los Angeles and the Mission Inn Festival of
Lights in Riverside, CA are memorable and
engaging activations of public spaces.

Distinctive signs –
such as the neon signs in Fillmore and
the Star Theatre in
Oceanside – can give
an area a distinctive sense of place.

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 38

SPORTS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
In the past decade, youth sports facilities have become a major economic driver for suburban communities across the U.S. with families traveling hours to participate in weekend tournaments for baseball, softball, soccer, tennis etc. In early 2022, the City retained Victus Advisors to analyze the potential for an indoor sports center in Turlock. Based on extensive interviews from County business and community leaders and other stakeholders they found significant support for an indoor facility to serve up to 80 weekend tournaments per year (e.g. basketball, volleyball, pickleball, cheer leading). During the week, the facility would be used by local groups. ¡ Victus estimated the center could increase overnight hotel visits by 76,000 per year and generate over $50 million in economic activity and close to $1 million per year in hotel and sales tax revenues to Turlock. ¡ Kosmont research found exciting examples of sports facilities built in rural/suburban areas that expanded into major entertainment centers that can be good examples for Turlock to consider. ¡ WISP has large land to accommodate a major indoor/outdoor sports facility and supporting retail, entertainment and hospitality uses. If desired by City Council, consider interviewing sports facility experts with operation experience on projects illustrated on following pages.

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 39

EXAMPLE - ADVENTHEALTH SPORTS PARK

OVERLAND PARK, KANSAS
¡ Opened: 2024
¡ Owned/Operated by Bluhawk Sports
¡ Size: 420,000 sf indoor sports & entertainment
complex
¡ Facilities: 3,200-seat multipurpose arena, 8 basketball courts, 1,500-seat NHL regulation ice rink, 40,000 sf
indoor turf football field, e-sports arena,
performance training center
¡ Hawk’s Outpost (family entertainment center)

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 40

EXAMPLE - SAND MOUNTAIN PARK & AMPHITHEATER

ALBERTVILLE, ALABAMA
¡ Size: 130-acre sports, leisure, wellness & entertainment venue. Opened: 2021
¡ Owned by the City of Albertville
¡ Operated by The Sports Facilities Companies
¡ Outdoor Features: outdoor water park, 9 diamond turf
fields, 5 multi-sport turf fields, 18-hole disc golf course, 17 slot RV park, 16 tennis courts, 5,000+ capacity
amphitheater, 2 basketball courts, 2 sand volleyball
courts
¡ Indoor Amenities: fitness center, 2 racquetball courts, 2- ane indoor track, 8-lane aquatics center, 4 hardwood
courts, 25,000 sf event space, concession area

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 41
Sand Mountain Park
Indoor & Outdoor Facilities Blueprint

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 42

PERFORMANCE METRICS
In order to track economic development progress, it is important for the City to maintain annual business and development data analytics to keep on top of economic and market trends:

1. Commercial Building Permits in Key Areas – measure commercial developer interest

2. Assessed Value of Commercial and Industrial Property – show increased private sector investment

3. Number and Type of Business Licenses – measure new business formations

4. Employment by Industry – show success in commercial and industrial business attraction and employment growth

5. Sales Tax Revenues by Geographic District – measure success in attracting businesses and economic activity

6. Hotel Tax Revenues – measure success in attracting more visitors

7. Hotel Visitor Survey – identify types of visitors, short term vs longer term stays

8. Annual Survey of Business Owners – identify issues regarding City permitting / zoning process and other programs

9. Special Event Data attendance estimates – show success of community outreach efforts Source: Kosmont Companies

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 43

5. REGIONAL ECON DEV COMPARISON
CITY OF TURLOCK – EDSP

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 44

REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMPARISON
Source: Kosmont Companies
To help understand the City’s competitive position, Kosmont has done research on how two key nearby competitive cities treat economic development, how their impact fees and incentive policies compare with Turlock.

Turlock has few formal economic incentives.

Merced offers the following economic incentives:
• Development fee reduction of 50% for construction in infill zone plus fee deferrals • PG&E 5-yr electricity rate reduction for large power users • Recycling zone low interest loans and credits for businesses that use recycled material • Small business revolving loan fund
• UC Merced Venture Lab Proof of Concept fund to assist in commercialization of university startups

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 45

REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMPARISON
Source: Kosmont Companies
Modesto has significant business attraction and development incentives:
• White glove permitting assistance from entitlement thru certificate of occupancy • Incentives for green business by providing financing through the Community Development Financial Institution • Workforce training programs thru Modesto JC and Stanislaus Workforce Development at low or no cost • Expedited entitlement and permitting ( same day tenant improvement permits) • Fee deferrals (5-year installments) and full waiver in special circumstances) • Downtown occupancy incentive (rebate of 1-year City sales and mil tax) • Downtown façade incentives of up to $10,000 matching rebate upon completion of approved projects • Downtown residential development incentives (fee exemptions and free permits) • Shop Greater Modesto free e-commerce portal for local businesses • Modesto Irrigation District incentives for new energy efficient equipment

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 46

COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE COMPARISON

RETAIL TURLOCK MERCED MODESTO
Water & Sewer Fees (Per SF) $ 2.10 $ 6.50 $ 3.57
Parks $ - $ 4.04
Capital Facilities $ 19.80 $ 3.14 $ 13.50
Transportation $ - $ 7.54
Storm Drain $ 2.00 $ -
Total Per Unit/SF $ 23.90 $ 21.22 $ 17.07

MASTER PLAN/CFD AREAS
Master Plan/CFD Fees $ 4.20 NA $ 26.00
Total Per Unit/SF $ 28.10 NA $ 26.00
Disclaimer: The estimates shown above are for illustrative prototypes Actual fees vary based on location, land use type and density Turlock fees for new retail development are modestly higher than Merced and Modesto.

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 47

INDUSTRIAL IMPACT FEE COMPARISON

INDUSTRIAL TURLOCK MERCED MODESTO
Water & Sewer Fees (Per SF) $ 3.00 $ 6.30 $ 1.64
Parks $ - $ 1.79 $ -
Capital Facilities $ 2.60 $ 1.38 $ 3.40
Transportation $ 2.53 $ -
Storm Drain $ 1.10 $ - $ -
Total Per Unit/SF $ 6.80 $ 12.00 $ 5.04

MASTER PLAN/CFD AREAS
Master Plan/CFD Fees $ 13.70 NA $ 7.00
Total Per Unit/SF $ 20.50 NA $ 7.00
Disclaimer: The estimates shown above are for illustrative prototypes Actual fees vary based on location, land use type and density Turlock fees for new industrial development within WISP are significantly higher than Merced and Modesto.

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 48

MULTI-FAMILY IMPACT FEE COMPARISON

MULTI-FAMILY TURLOCK MERCED MODESTO
Water & Sewer Fees (Per Unit/SF) $ 7,800 $ 7,200 $ 3,100 Parks $ 2,100 $ 4,110 $ -
Capital Facilities $ 13,500 $ 3,000 $ 12,250
Transportation $ - $ 1,900 $ -
Storm Drain $ 620 $ - $ -
Total Per Unit/SF $ 24,120 $ 16,210 $ 15,350

MASTER PLAN / CFD AREAS
Master Plan/CFD Fees $ 14,700 NA $ 24,800
Total Per Unit/SF $ 38,820 NA $ 24,800
Disclaimer: The estimates shown above are for illustrative prototypes Actual fees vary based on location, land use type and density Turlock fees for new multi-family development within Master Plan areas are up to $38,000 per unit, which is almost $1 million per acre, much higher than Merced and Modesto.

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 49

TURLOCK IMPACT FEES
Multi-Family Office Retail Industrial
Units/SF 100 50,000 40,000 80,000
Street Lights est (per acre) $2,333 $2,333 $2,333 $2,333 Water/Sewer Fees (per DU/1000 SF) /1 $7,800 $1,300 $2,100 $3,000 Master Storm Fee (per acre) $15,500 $22,000 $22,000 $22,000 Capital Facilities Fee /2 (per DU/1000 SF) $15,600 $10,500 $19,800 $2,600 North Area Master Plan (per DU) $14,700 NA NA NA
WISP Master Plan Fee (per acre) NA $4,197 $4,197 $13,721 Project Total - Low /3 $2,411,000 $687,000 $973,000 $545,000 Per Unit/1000 SF $24,100 $13,700 $24,300 $6,800
Project Total - MP Areas $3,881,000 $897,000 $1,141,000 $1,643,000 Per Unit/1000 SF $38,800 $17,900 $28,500 $20,500
Development Fees - 4-acre Example
/1 Water Fees are included as rough estimates as they are based on fixtures and meter size /2 Includes Park Fees for Residential Only ($2,100 per unit) /3 Project Total -Low excludes projects in North Area and WISP master plan Fees

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 50

6. OPPORTUNITY SITES EVALUATION
CITY OF TURLOCK – EDSP

DRAFT
Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online (Accessed December 2024) KOSMONT COMPANIES | 51 Geer Rd.

W. Main St.

W. Monte Vista Ave.

Fulkerth Rd. Golden State Blvd.

E. Main St.

W. Linwood Ave.

Lander Ave.
1 3 2
City has three major development
areas with several thousand acres of
privately owned land for industrial,
retail, entertainment and blended-use
opportunities,
They include:

1. Hwy 99 Corridor

2. Downtown Turlock

3. Westside Industrial Specific Plan
The most significant near-term
opportunity is the ~30-acre site on
the east side of Hwy 99 planned for
restaurants, entertainment, retail and
hotel uses.

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 52
§ Total area size: 371.2 acres with over

1.7 million SF of existing retail space
and over ~100 acres of vacant land
§ Zoning: Planned Development (PD),
Community Commercial (C-C),
Thoroughfare Commercial (C-T),
Heavy Commercial (C-H)
§ 30-acre site north of Countryside
Plaza is master planned for high
volume food, retail shops and hotel
uses.

OPPORTUNITY AREA #1:

HWY 99 RETAIL

CORRIDOR
Sources: (Accessed December 2024)
Countryside
Plaza
Monte Vista
Crossings
Monte Vista
Crossings West
Turlock
Crossroads
W. Monte Vista Ave.

W. Cristoffersen Pkwy.

W. Tuolumne Rd.

Fulkerth Rd.

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 53
OPPORTUNITY AREA #2:

DOWNTOWN TURLOCK
Sources: (Accessed December 2024)
§ Total area size: 38.4 acres
§ Zoning: Low-Density Residential (R-L),
Transitional Commercial (TC), Office
or Residential (OR), Downtown Core
(DC), Planned Development (PD)
Turlock
City Hall
S. Broadway Ave.

A St.

E. Marshall St.

W. Main St.

E. Main St.

S. 1st St.

N. 1st St.

S. Golden Gate Blvd.

N. Golden Gate Blvd.

Crane Ave.

E. Olive Ave.

Lander Ave.

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 54
OPPORTUNITY AREA #3:

WESTSIDE INDUSTRIAL

SPECIFIC PLAN
Sources: (Accessed December 2024)
§ Total area size: 2,598 acres
§ Zoning: Industrial (I), Industrial
Business Park (IBP), Community
Commercial (C-C), Office
Commercial (C-O), Low Density
Residential (R-L), Public/Semi-Public
(P-S), Planned Development (PD)
With major infrastructure investment, and
city incentives, the northern area can help
attract thousands of new industrial jobs,
as well as an indoor/outdoor regional
sports complex, hotels and regional
entertainment uses.

Fulkerth Rd.

W. Main St.

W. Linwood Ave.

S. Walnut Rd.

Fransil Ln.

Amazon
S. Tegner Rd.

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 55

7. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOOLS
CITY OF TURLOCK – EDSP

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 56

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOOLS
Kosmont has prepared a summary of various Economic Development tools and a playbook that the City can consider for Value Capture and to facilitate future development:

Capture Value from Tax Increment and Special Districts
• Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (“EIFD”) use property tax increment and Community Facility Districts (“CFD”) are tools to fund important local and regional infrastructure.

Capture Value from Zoning (Value Capture Zoning VCZTM)
• Development Opportunity Reserve (D.O.R.)® allows cities to create a “bank” of new density in zoning / specific plans, allowing them to give the density to projects that deliver community benefits & public amenities.

Capture Value from Real Estate
• Cities can use a variety of strategies to capture the value of their properties (sale or long-term lease / Surplus Land Act).

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 57

THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAYBOOK
Special
Districts -

EIFD, CRIA,
CFD
Development
Opportunity
Reserve
(D.O.R.)®
Sales Tax
Assessment
Revenue
(STAR*)®
Other Public
Money (OPM)
- ARPA,
Infrastructure
Surplus Land Act
EIFDs
Capture Value from
Tax Increment
Zoning
Create Value
from Zoning &
DA Negotiations
OPM
Create Value
from New
Funding
Government
Financing
Financing
Create Value
through public
financing/refinancing
Real Estate
Strategies
Source: Kosmont Companies

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 58

SPECIAL DISTRICTS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING
¡ Public agencies can utilize a variety of tax increment financing (TIF) and special district tools to fund infrastructure projects that can help to motivate private investment. This includes Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFDs), community facilities districts (CFDs), and business improvement districts (BIDs). These special districts are not mutually exclusive, and can work well together to advance goals of motivating private investment. ¡ Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFDs) may be well suited for some of the Region’s opportunity areas that have significant infrastructure needs (roads / connectivity, water / sewer, electricity, telecom / broadband, etc.). ¡ EIFDs utilize property tax revenues from new development to finance public infrastructure projects without introducing new or increased taxes.
¡ EIFD project areas do not have to be contiguous, allowing them to target specific areas of high development and high infrastructure need.
¡ The district commitment of revenues toward infrastructure can induce private sector investment, accelerate growth, create jobs, and capture / grow fiscal revenues.

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 59

SPECIAL DISTRICTS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING

FUNDAMENTALS OF EIFDS
Tax Increment
Financing
Tax increment from new development / assessed value increase used to fund infrastructure projects in approved project areas
Long-term
Districts
Up to 45-year districts from first bond issuance; Districts provide long-term, committed revenues in targeted investment areas; Districts can be created in 12-18 months Non-Contiguous
Areas
EIFD project areas do not have to be contiguous, allowing them to target specific sites / areas and making them compatible with other zoning / entitlement strategies Eligible Projects Any property with useful life of 15+ years and of communitywide significance; purchase, construction, expansion, improvement, seismic retrofit, rehabilitation, and maintenance Return on
Investment
Private sector investment induced by District commitment accelerates growth of net fiscal revenues, job creation, housing production, essential infrastructure improvements Attract
Additional Funds
Allows community to attract tax increment from other entities (cities, special districts), federal / state grants & loans (TOD, water, housing, parks), brownfield funding

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 60

EIFD WITH A POTENTIAL CITY/COUNTY PARTNERSHIP
Federal & State Sources
§ Cap-and-Trade / HCD grant &
loan programs (AHSC, IIG, TCC)
§ Prop 1 bond funds / Prop 68
§ SB 1 Road funds
§ SB 2 Transfer Tax funds
§ Federal DOT / EPA / EDA
funding
Other Potential Funding Sources
§ Property tax revenue including RPTTF
§ Vehicle license fee (VLF) prop. tax backfill increment § Development Agreement / impact fees
§ Benefit assessments (e.g. contribution from CFD)
§ Local transportation funding (e.g. Measure M/R)
§ Private investment
TIF Districts which involve a City / County joint effort are more likely to win state grant funding sources Sources: Kosmont Companies Notes: Actual shares vary by tax rate area.

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 61

TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT CASE STUDY
PLACENTIA CASE STUDY – FORMED IN 2019
Placentia / Orange County EIFD Partnership
§ 300+ acres: Old Town Placentia Revitalization Plan, Metrolink Station, TOD Packing House Area
§ Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP) will fund $13 million in public infrastructure improvements for those areas
§ Water, sewer, streets, parking, transit connectivity
§ $460M+ expected in new AV from residential, retail,
restaurant development
§ Net Fiscal Benefit: $22M to City, $15M to County
BEFORE
Implementation AFTER § EIFD feasibility analysis & formation process § Led education/outreach meetings with County BOS
§ Developed County EIFD Policy for City/County EIFD
§ Completed first EIFD TIF Court Validation in the state § Working on TIF Bond—expected by fall of 2022
Sources: Kosmont Companies, City of Placentia

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 62

SPECIAL DISTRICTS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING

OTHER DISTRICT TOOLS
Property Business
Improvement
Districts (PBID)
Property Business Improvement Districts are special assessments levied on real property to fund improvements and promote activities the benefit the properties located within the PBID area. This includes capital improvements, parking facilities, street / streetscape improvements, lighting and landscaping, marketing and promotion, and business attraction / retention. The special assessment amount that each property owner pays must be directly proportional to the benefit received.

Community
Facilities District
(CFD)
Community Facility Districts are a new property assessment or ”special tax” that appears as a separate line item on a tax bill and can be used to fund infrastructure / services that benefit the property. This includes transportation, parking, street / utility improvements, hazardous waste remediation, street lighting / sidewalk, and public services. CFDs are useful because they provide early financing for a variety of critical services and infrastructure. CFDs also pair well with EIFDs as a value capture strategy – with CFDs providing early funding and EIFDs providing funds as projects are constructed, and tax increment grows.

Parking Authority
District
Parking Authority Districts can utilize a variety of funding sources – including bonds, ad valorem taxes, user fees, parking meter charges, parking revenues, and City / County contributions – to fund improvements such as parking lots, structures, and alterations to circulatory infrastructure to facilitate ingress and egress.

Climate
Resilience
District (CRD)
Climate Resilience Districts are a new type of district can fund projects to mitigate climate change. These districts have broad financing powers, and can fund a wide range of eligible projects, including projects that address sea level rise / flooding, extreme weather, wildfire, and drought.

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 63

ZONING AND LAND USE STRATEGIES
DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY RESERVE D.O.R.®
Zoning and entitlements create value. Cities can avoid simply giving that value away, and instead capture that value as currency to support community benefits and public amenities.

Old Playbook:

Rezone Areas for New Density
and Expect New Development
Rezoning gives the value of the new density to current property owners: inflated land values, limited possibility of development.

New Playbook:

Bank Density with Development
Opportunity Reserve D.O.R.®
D.O.R.® allows cities to create a “bank” of new density in zoning / specific plans, allowing them to give the density to projects that deliver community benefits & public amenities.

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 64

ZONING AND LAND USE STRATEGIES
DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY RESERVE D.O.R.® - PROCESS
Create
D.O.R.®
Step 1
Conduct market / economic density analysis to
understand development potential.

Identify sites and areas within community as
areas targeted for new development.

Step 2
Use planning process to create a reserve bank
of density to use in target areas and create an
amenity list of desired community benefits and
advance projects.

Implement
D.O.R.®
Step 3
Development Projects apply for density from
the DOR in exchange for amenities and
community benefits delivered.

Step 4
City & Developer sign a Development
Agreement, assigning D.O.R.® density to
project with contractual commitment to
deliver amenities or infrastructure.

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 65
D.O.R.
® CASE STUDY ILLUSTRATIONS
§ Goal: Induce housing development in downtown area
§ Benefits & Amenities: public restrooms, off-site
improvements, public parking, parking district, public art, parks, green buildings, other
§ Incentives: Increase density up to 40 units / acre, increase heights, reduce on-site parking , reduced setbacks, reduced traffic and application fees
City of Buellton: Avenue of Flags
Implementation Steps

1. Conduct market housing / economic
study to match RHNA needs

2. Discuss new density and public amenities
with community

3. Create DOR mechanism as new Zoning /
Specific Plan provision
City of El Monte: Downtown Main St.
§ Goal: Increase downtown density along with community benefits and public improvements
§ Benefits & Amenities: streets, bicycle facilities, parking, open space, beautification, transit, arts / cultural spaces, lot consolidation; developer can either install improvements or make payment into public improvement fund; value based on a portion of residual land value (~75%)
§ Incentives: Increase density, heights, FAR, dwelling units per acre Sources: Kosmont Companies, City of Buellton, City of El Monte

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 66

CREATE CURRENCY WITH REVENUE REPLACEMENT
REPLACING TAX REVENUES VIA DAS & P3S
Project would result
in a loss in retail
sales tax revenues
resulting from nonsales tax generating
uses
(e.g. industrial)
Analyze sales tax
revenue loss potential
of opportunity sites &
zoning designations to
understand scale
Create equivalent General
Fund revenue through
entitlement document /
development agreement
(Tax Equivalency as currency)
STAR* Case Study: Jurupa Valley – Agua Mansa Commerce Park Site • ~280-acre site (originally planned for retail)
• Proposed 3.6 million SF industrial development project • STAR analysis estimated annual sales tax in-lieu payment of ~$362,500 Replace Revenue with Sales Tax Assessment Revenue
(STAR*)®
Sources: Kosmont Companies, City of Jurupa Valley

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 67

CAPTURE VALUE WITH CITY PROPERTY

REAL ESTATE & LEASING STRATEGIES
Cities can use a variety of strategies to better utilize the value of their properties:
§ Performance-based leases / ground leases
§ Monetizing assets (such as parking garages)
§ Selling property to private sector – includes leaseback strategies, continued operation of existing use, redevelopment into new uses
SELLER BEWARE –
Cities must follow Surplus Land Act (SLA)
requirements / procedures
Sources: Kosmont Companies, California Assembly Bill 1486 (2019)

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 68

SURPLUS LAND ACT CONSIDERATIONS
(FOR PUBLIC AGENCY OWNED PROPERTIES)
¡ The Surplus Land Act (SLA) was passed in response to the housing shortage in California. Public agency owned property cannot be sold or leased until it complies with the SLA, with certain exceptions.
¡ After navigating the SLA for a City-owned site, either an affordable housing project will be ready to come to the site, or the City will have the ability to market the land for a different use.
¡ SLA requires an up to 150-day (NOA for 60 days + good faith negotiations for 90 days) RFP process to either select or reject an affordable housing project/proposal. City does not have to sell the property for less than fair market value. If rejected, property can be sold to broader market.
¡ After completing the process, any development will be subject to a covenant requiring any residential development with 10 or more units to provide at least 15% of units available to low-income households.
¡ If local agency does not comply with SLA, HCD will impose fine of 30% of final sale price for first violation, 50% of final sale price for second violation. ¡ City should engage real estate and legal counsel to navigate SLA process and conduct appropriate property due diligence.
¡ Potential exemptions include leases existing prior to 1/1/2019, land dedicated for 75% or more affordable housing or public uses and land not suitable (too small).

SLA Required Disposition Process

1. Declaration of the property as either “surplus” or “exempt surplus.”

2. If declared “surplus,” disseminate a Notice of Availability (NOA) offering the property to other government agencies and
affordable housing developers for a period of 60 days.

3. If the City receives letters of interest from government agencies and/or affordable housing developers, then it must negotiate in good faith with those interested parties for a period of 90 days.

4. After the 90-day good faith negotiation period, the City must notify the State Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) and provide information that documents compliance with the process and request a letter of compliance.

5. HCD has 30 days to respond to City with questions/request for more information and, at the conclusion of the 30-day period, must provide a letter stating that the City has complied with the process or not.

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 69

CITY OF TURLOCK

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

STRATEGIC PLAN
JULY 2025
2301 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 4140
El Segundo, CA 90245
TEL: 424-297-1070 | URL: www.kosmont.com

DRAFT
2301 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 4140
El Segundo, CA 90245
TEL: 424-297-1070 | URL: www.kosmont.com

CITY OF TURLOCK

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN

APPENDIX
JULY 2025

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 2

CITY OF TURLOCK

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN
Kosmont Companies Staff City Council Staff & Advisory
Ken K. Hira, President
Thomas Jirovsky, Senior Advisor
Fernando Sanchez, Vice President
Amy Bublak, Mayor
Kevin Bixel, Councilmember
Rebecka Monez, Councilmember
Cassandra Abram, Councilmember
Erika Phillips, Councilmember
Sue Borrego, Interim City Manager
Anthony Sims, Economic Dev. Director
Adrienne Werner, Dev. Services Director
Isaac Moreno, Finance Director

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 3
CITY OF TURLOCK – EDSP

APPENDIX
A.1 FINANCIAL DATA
A.2 DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
A.3 PLACER.AI VISITATION DATA
A.4 REAL ESTATE MARKET DATA

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 4
APPENDIX – DATA
The following sections contain detailed supporting information on the following topics

1. City general fund financial trends

2. Demographic comparison with surrounding communities

3. Placer.ai visitation and trade area

4. Real estate market data trends
a) Retail Market
b) Office
c) Industrial
d) Multi-Family
e) Hotel

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 5
A.1 FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
¡ Like most cities, Turlock saw major declines in retail sales taxes following the Great Recession in 2008-09. It took until 2015 before sales recovered to 2008 level. However, Citywide retail sales growth have been very strong for the past decade, with growth averaging approximately 6% per year, excluding the impact of new Amazon facility, which will add several million dollars per year in tax revenue. We note that during Covid, the City had only one quarter decline in sales of approximately 7%.
¡ There has been strength in most categories with the exception of gasoline and furniture sales, reflecting the increase in electric vehicles and lack of new home development.
¡ The graphs on next page illustrate how important retail sales and use taxes are to Turlock, representing almost 60% of total general fund revenues, compared to less than 22% for the average city in California, which rely more on property taxes, utility taxes, and other business taxes.

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 6
2022 GENERAL FUND REVENUES
CITY OF TURLOCK VS. ALL CA CITIES
Source: Kosmont Companies; CA DOF (Accessed Sept. 2024) Note: The City of Turlock did not collect Utility User Fees, Transportation Tax, Parking Fees, and Admission Fees. Other revenues may include interest, penalties, employer payroll tax, also includes Measure A, a 2021 sales and use tax.

Property Taxes,

39.1%
Sales and Use Tax,

21.9%
Transient Occupancy
Taxes & STR Fees,

6.0%
Utility User Fee, 4.9%
Business License Tax,

6.3%
Franchise Fee, 3.5%
Transportation
Tax, 3.5%
Property
Transfer Fee,

4.0%
Construction, 1.5%
Parking , 0.5%
Admission, 0.1%
Other, 8.6%
City of Turlock All CA Cities
Property Taxes,

21.8%
Sales and Use Tax,

26.8%
Transient Occupancy Taxes
& STR Fees, 3.2% Business License Tax,

2.6%
Franchise Fee, 4.6%
Property Transfer
Fee, 0.4%
Construction, 7.4%
Other (includes
Measure A), 33.2%

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 7
HISTORIC TAX REVENUE GROWTH TABLES (2018-2022)

CITY OF TURLOCK VS STANISLAUS COUNTY CITIES VS ALL CA CITIES /1 Excludes Measure A sale and use tax revenue
Source: Kosmont Companies; CA DOF (Accessed Sept. 2024) Note: Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative number.

City of Turlock
YEAR TOTAL PROPERTY SALES /1 HOTEL PROP % SALES % HOTEL % 2018 $ 37,951,822 $ 12,104,494 $ 13,673,561 $ 1,603,705 31.9% 36.0% 4.2% 2019 $ 40,966,263 $ 12,942,930 $ 14,704,486 $ 1,659,697 31.6% 35.9% 4.1% 2020 $ 42,511,143 $ 13,646,993 $ 14,457,358 $ 1,566,292 32.1% 34.0% 3.7% 2021 $ 52,013,432 $ 14,324,145 $ 17,118,031 $ 1,757,476 27.5% 32.9% 3.4% 2022 $ 68,762,103 $ 14,979,546 $ 18,449,523 $ 2,228,182 21.8% 26.8% 3.2% % Chg. ‘18-’22 81% 24% 35% 39% (32%) (26%) (23%)
Stanislaus County Cities
YEAR TOTAL PROPERTY SALES HOTEL PROP % SALES % HOTEL %
2018 $ 220,574,723 $ 65,466,962 $ 66,532,299 $ 5,132,622 29.7% 30.2% 2.3% 2019 $ 226,106,200 $ 69,340,392 $ 70,512,352 $ 5,328,454 30.7% 31.2% 2.4% 2020 $ 242,667,301 $ 73,433,136 $ 70,288,464 $ 5,231,115 30.3% 29.0% 2.2% 2021 $ 279,808,888 $ 77,006,596 $ 83,671,973 $ 5,539,916 27.5% 29.9% 2.0% 2022 $ 301,869,504 $ 81,021,309 $ 92,398,483 $ 6,766,030 26.8% 30.6% 2.2% % Chg. ‘18-’22 37% 24% 39% 32% (10%) 1% (4%)
All CA Cities
YEAR TOTAL PROPERTY SALES HOTEL PROP % SALES % HOTEL %
2018 $ 31,799,746,521 $ 12,890,489,342 $ 7,005,395,050 $ 2,585,451,532 40.5% 22.0% 8.1% 2019 $ 34,539,905,371 $ 14,177,924,698 $ 7,726,240,615 $ 2,748,778,129 41.0% 22.4% 8.0% 2020 $ 34,343,088,470 $ 14,733,616,783 $ 7,273,442,316 $ 2,052,851,870 42.9% 21.2% 6.0% 2021 $ 37,523,287,391 $ 15,875,562,038 $ 7,935,922,642 $ 1,299,716,160 42.3% 21.1% 3.5% 2022 $ 42,007,714,014 $ 16,441,856,815 $ 9,212,861,760 $ 2,532,105,390 39.1% 21.9% 6.0% % Chg. ‘18-’22 32% 28% 32% (2%) (3%) 0% (26%)

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 8
HISTORIC TAX REVENUE GROWTH (2018-2022)

CITY OF TURLOCK VS STANISLAUS COUNTY CITIES VS ALL CA CITIES /1 Excludes Measure A sale and use tax revenue
Source: Kosmont Companies; CA DOF (Accessed Sept. 2024) -10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Property Tax Revenue
Growth Since 2018
Turlock
Stanislaus County Cities
All CA Cities
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Sales Tax Revenue /1
Growth Since 2018
Turlock
Stanislaus County Cities
All CA Cities
-50%
-30%
-10%
10%
30%
50%
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
TOT Revenue
Growth Since 2018
Turlock
Stanislaus County Cities
All CA Cities

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 9
/1 Excludes Measure A sale and use tax revenue
Source: CA DOF; CDTFA; Kosmont Companies (Accessed Sept. 2024); *CAGR = Compound Annual Growth Rate Note: Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative number.

City Sales Tax Revenue by Year, 2013-2023 Year City Brick & Mortar Subtotal
City Share from
County Pool
City
Total
2023 $19,684,000 $3,278,000 $22,962,000
2022 $17,057,000 $3,235,000 $20,292,000
2021 $16,816,000 $2,874,000 $19,690,000
2020 $13,007,000 $2,834,000 $15,841,000
2019 $13,906,000 $2,209,000 $16,115,000
2018 $13,052,000 $1,826,000 $14,878,000
2017 $13,060,000 $1,605,000 $14,665,000
2016 $12,694,000 $1,989,000 $14,683,000
2015 $12,261,000 $1,545,000 $13,806,000
2014 $11,856,000 $1,365,000 $13,221,000
2013 $10,780,000 $1,349,000 $12,129,000
10-Year CAGR* 6.2% 9.3% 6.6%
COVID-19 Effect
(2019-2020) (6.5%) 28.3% (1.7%)
SALES TAX REVENUES BY YEAR /1
CITY OF TURLOCK (2013-2023)
$12,129,000.00
$20,292,000.00
$22,962,000.00
$10,000,000.00
$12,000,000.00
$14,000,000.00
$16,000,000.00
$18,000,000.00
$20,000,000.00
$22,000,000.00
$24,000,000.00
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Turlock Total Sales Tax Revenue

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 10

RETAIL SALES BY CATEGORY BY YEAR
CITY OF TURLOCK (2018-2023)
Source: CA DOF; CDTFA; Kosmont Companies (Accessed Sept. 2024); 2023 includes full year retail sales data Notes: Other retail may include pet supply stores, tobacco stores, art dealers, etc. All other outlets refers to business to business Category No. of
Outlets 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 5-Year % (2018-2023) 1 Clothing and Clothing
Accessories Stores 121 $80,724,904 $81,404,267 $67,792,720 $104,309,894 $104,053,075 $105,063,042 30% 2 Food and Beverage Stores 61 $57,150,684 $59,411,705 $64,304,968 $72,110,636 $71,281,105 $69,799,976 22% 3 Food Services and Drinking Places 272 $161,108,894 $175,947,599 $151,483,989 $203,012,886 $213,898,850 $220,647,281 37% 4 Gasoline Stations 28 $144,784,522 $150,039,074 $98,569,470 $137,890,851 $170,385,064 $151,039,701 4% 5 Building Material and Garden
Equipment and Supplies Dealers 29 $110,142,823 $112,729,735 $139,946,382 $154,631,367 $142,627,880 $143,402,521 30% 6 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers 92 $127,753,461 $125,776,785 $141,218,678 $174,679,263 $157,002,990 $158,853,732 24% 7 Home Furnishings and Appliance
Stores 46 $18,878,022 $16,217,119 $14,850,052 $17,040,243 $15,414,354 $11,900,504 (37%) 8 General Merchandise Stores 37 $255,158,735 $268,039,186 $269,993,069 $311,000,090 $325,201,197 $316,694,406 24% 9 Other Retail Group 428 $92,770,647 $91,475,088 $101,199,448 $135,163,386 $152,594,461 $470,631,019 407% Total Retail and Food Services 1,114 $1,048,472,692 $1,081,040,558 $1,049,358,776 $1,309,838,616 $1,352,458,976 $1,648,032,182 57% All Other Outlets 738 $277,068,741 $276,283,343 $263,239,212 $302,424,662 $344,954,102 $302,873,556 9% Total All Outlets 1,852 $1,325,541,433 $1,357,323,901 $1,312,597,988 $1,612,263,278 $1,697,413,078 $1,950,905,738 47%

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 11
A.2 DEMOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW
¡ With an estimated population of 73,100, Turlock has had the lowest household growth in the Stanislaus County region over the past decade, growing 2.1% versus 5.7% population growth in Modesto and 16% growth in Merced.
¡ Over the past decade, median household income grew by 50%, lower than the +60% growth for Merced, Modesto and the County.
¡ Percent of adults with college degrees in Turlock increased from 23.5% to 28.7%, much higher than the ~20% level for Merced, Modesto and the County

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 12

DEMOGRAPHICS

CITY, COMPARABLE CITIES, COUNTY, AND STATE
2024 Turlock
City
Manteca
City
Merced
City
Modesto
City
Stanislaus
County
California
State
Population 73,100 90,700 92,700 218,900 556,700 39,530,500 Households 24,500 29,100 29,500 74,500 178,600 13,641,500 Average HH Size 2.90 3.10 3.11 2.91 3.08 2.83
Median Age 36.0 37.9 31.4 37.3 36.5 38.4
% Bachelor’s
Degree or Higher 28.7% 21.6% 19.0% 21.7% 20.3% 38.7%
% Hispanic Origin 43.7% 42.0% 58.0% 45.5% 50.8% 40.7%
Per Capita Income $34,900 $40,000 $27,200 $35,200 $34,100 $48,200 Median HH Income $77,500 $97,700 $61,700 $78,300 $80,200 $97,600 Average HH Income $103,900 $124,700 $85,200 $103,300 $106,300 $139,300 Average Home Value $482,000 $602,100 $393,800 $444,500 $464,700 $773,200 Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online; Zillow.com (Accessed October 2024); Note: Values rounded to the nearest hundred. The average home value is taken from the Zillow Home Value Index and is shown for the most recent month (September 2024)

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 13

POPULATION & INCOME CHANGE
2015 – 2024, CITY VS COMPARISON CITIES AND COUNTY
City of Turlock City of Merced City of Modesto County of Stanislaus 2015 2024 % Chg. 2015 2024 % Chg. 2015 2024 % Chg. 2015 2024 % Chg.

Population 70,600 73,100 3.5% 81,100 92,700 14.3% 207,500 218,900 5.5% 527,400 556,700 5.6% Households 24,000 24,500 2.1% 25,300 29,500 16.6% 70,500 74,500 5.7% 169,200 178,600 5.6% Average
HH Size 2.92 2.90 (0.7%) 3.16 3.11 (1.6%) 2.90 2.91 0.3% 3.08 3.08 0.0% Median Age 33.6 36.0 7.1% 28.9 31.4 8.7% 34.9 37.3 6.9% 33.5 36.5 9.0% Bachelor’s
Degree or
Higher

23.5% 28.7% 22.1% 16.9% 19.0% 12.4% 18.6% 21.7% 16.7% 16.5% 20.3% 23.0% % Hispanic
Origin 37.9% 43.7% 15.3% 50.4% 58.0% 15.1% 37.5% 45.5% 21.3% 43.6% 50.8% 16.5% Median
HH Income $51,400 $77,500 50.8% $37,600 $61,700 64.1% $48,600 $78,300 61.1% $50,100 $80,200 60.1% Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online; City of Turlock “2017 Economic Development Strategic Plan” (Accessed October 2024) Note: Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative % change. Numbers rounded to nearest hundred. 2017 EDSP utilized American Community Survey 2015 5-year estimates from 2011-2015.

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 14
Workers employed in City
but living outside
Workers living & employed
in City
Workers living in City but
employed outside
Notes: *Employment Ratio = People employed within City (living and working in City + those who come into City for work) / Employed population of City (living and working in City + workers who live in the City, but work outside of the City); Source: U.S. Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies; California Employment Development Department (2022, Accessed January 2025) ¡ Top sectors of employment in the City of Turlock include health care and social assistance, retail trade, educational services, accommodation and food services, and manufacturing
¡ Employees who work in the City are coming from Modesto, Ceres, Merced, Delhi CDP, and Atwater
¡ Employed residents living in the City are traveling to Modesto, Ceres, Stockton, San Jose, and Livingston for work

WORKER INFLOW / OUTFLOW

CITY OF TURLOCK
Reference City of
Turlock
County of
Stanislaus
Workers Living and
Working 8,285 117,108
Workers Coming (Inflow) 21,030 80,447
Workers Going (Outflow) 23,674 111,968
Net Inflow/Outflow (2,644) (31,521)
Employment Ratio* 0.92 0.86
¡ Per CoStar, top employers in Turlock
include:

Ø Foster Farms (est. 2,000 employees)
Ø Amazon (1,000)
Ø Sunnyside Farms (250)
Ø Supherb Farms (230)
Ø The Home Depot (201)
Ø Emanuel Medical Center (185)
Ø Grover Gonzalez, inc. (180)
Ø Costco, Sysco Corp., and Covenant
Care (150)

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 15
A.3 PLACER.AI VISITATION OVERVIEW
To help cities understand the shopping patterns of residents and visitation patterns of regional families, Kosmont utilized Placer.ai, which is a mobility data provider that tracks daily movement of over 30 million people in the United States via anonymized mobile app data. This information reveals visitor and employee travel trends to/from major events, shopping centers, major retailers, and other points of interest – providing insights into store/center trade areas, hourly and daily visitation statistics, and consumer demographic characteristics. A sample of what Placer.ai can provide is described below:
• Visitor, Resident, and Inbound Commuter Demographics and Visitation Trends • Overnight Visitors
• Shopping Center Performance
• Trade Areas
• Traffic Counts / Travel Patterns
The following slides provide trade area maps, favorite retail destinations, and 5-year illustration of daily visits to major City attractions that shows impact of Covid lockdown.

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 16
TRADE AREA COVERAGE: 1/1/2024 TO 12/31/2024

EMPLOYEES AND VISITORS TO TURLOCK
Source: Placer.ai (Accessed January 2025); Notes: Considers a minimum of 1 visit by visitors to the City of Turlock over the last year. True trade area reflects where 70% of visitors and employees to the City of Turlock come from.

Visitor True Trade Area Employee Home Area

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 17

RESIDENTS (CITY OF TURLOCK)
TOP VISITED PLACES – PLACER.AI
Location City Dist. (miles) %
Restaurants
Chili’s Grill & Bar Turlock 1.5 12%
Texas Roadhouse Turlock 1.0 9%
Elvia’s Tacos Turlock 1.3 9%
Olive Garden Turlock 1.4 9%
Applebee’s Turlock 1.0 8%
Fast Food / QSR
In-N-Out Burger Turlock 1.6 40%
McDonald’s (Geer Rd.) Turlock 0.9 12%
Raising Cane’s Ceres 9.6 10%
McDonald’s (Countryside Dr.) Turlock 1.6 9%
In-N-Out Burger Ceres 6.8 6%
Location City Dist. (miles) %
Breakfast / Coffee /
Dessert Shops
Starbucks (Golden State Blvd.) Turlock 0.5 8%
Starbucks (Canal Dr.) Turlock 1.9 8%
Dutch Bros. Coffee
(Golden State Blvd.) Turlock 0.6 8%
Dutch Bros. Coffee
(Monte Vista Ae.) Turlock 1.2 7%
Panera Bread Turlock 1.8 7%
Grocery Stores
Walmart Neighborhood Market Turlock 1.0 38%
Safeway Turlock 1.7 27%
Cost Less Food Company Turlock 0.9 21%
FoodMaxx Turlock 1.1 19%
Raley’s Turlock 1.2 18%
Sources: Placer.ai; Percentage reflects the percentage of residents of the City of Turlock who visited each location 2 or more times from 1/1/24 to 12/31/24. (Accessed January 2025); *Location listed as permanently closed now.

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 18

RESIDENTS (CITY OF TURLOCK)
TOP VISITED PLACES – PLACER.AI
Location City Dist. (miles) %
Bars / Pubs
Dust Bowl Brewing Co. Turlock 1.3 6%
The Udder Place Turlock 1.0 3%
Jams@209 Sports Bar Turlock 0.8 1%
Churchkey Modesto 12.1 1%
MoMo’s San Francisco 85.9 1%
Fitness
Planet Fitness Turlock 1.0 8%
Brenda Athletic Club Turlock 1.1 5%
In-Shape Family Fitness Turlock 1.6 4%
Insomnia Gym Turlock 0.6 3%
Modesto Grappling & Judo Modesto 12.1 1%
Location City Dist. (miles) %
Entertainment (Theatres /
Music)
Regal Cinemas Turlock Turlock 1.2 14%
Galaxy Theatres Riverbank IMAX Riverbank 16.6 5%
Brenden Theatres Modesto Modesto 12.2 2%
Regal Cinemas Modesto Modesto 15.2 2%
State Theatre of Modesto Modesto 12.2 1%
Super Stores
Walmart Turlock 0.8 47%
Costco Turlock 1.9 45%
Target Turlock 1.5 45%
Walmart Ceres 7.0 13%
Big Lots Turlock 0.9 5%
Beauty & Spa
Ulta Beauty Turlock 1.6 11%
Bath & Body Works Turlock 1.7 3%
Amazing Nails & Spa Turlock 1.4 3%
Colossal Tattoo Turlock 1.0 2%
Organic Nail & Spa Turlock 1.0 2%
Sources: Placer.ai; Percentage reflects the percentage of residents of the City of Turlock who visited each location 2 or more times from 1/1/24 to 12/31/24. (Accessed January 2025); *Location listed as permanently closed now.

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 19
-100%
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
1/1/20203/1/20205/1/20207/1/20209/1/2020
11/1/2020
1/1/20213/1/20215/1/20217/1/20219/1/2021
11/1/2021
1/1/20223/1/20225/1/20227/1/20229/1/2022
11/1/2022
1/1/20233/1/20235/1/20237/1/20239/1/2023
11/1/2023
1/1/20243/1/20245/1/20247/1/20249/1/2024
11/1/2024
Downtown Turlock Costco Wholesale Regal Turlock

TURLOCK

VISITS TO COSTCO,

REGAL CINEMAS,

AND DOWNTOWN
TURLOCK (1/1/24
TO 12/31/24)
Source: Placer.ai (Accessed January 2025)

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 20

RETAIL VOID ANALYSIS
Kosmont utilized data from Placer.ai, a mobile data analytics provider with access to travel patterns of 30 million devices, together with proprietary data from individual retail chains to identify potential retailers suitable for the vacant sites located along the 99 Fwy. Retail Corridor, south of Monte Vista Crossings and north of Countryside Plaza. ¡ The Void Analysis identifies which retail chains may be a good fit for the area, based on various measures, including in-state expansion, demographic fit score, cannibalization score, and relative fit score as explained herein. ¡ Demographic fit analysis determines which chains may be a good fit, based on a variety of demographic metrics and the level of trade area overlap with existing locations. ¡ The cannibalization score measures the estimated overlap between the studied trade area and the trade areas of existing retail store locations nearby.
¡ The relative fit score combines demographic fit scores, cannibalization score, and other metrics (number of visits). ¡ The chains were filtered by relative fit score and by in-state expansion. ¡ Although the 99 Fwy. Retail Corridor has a substantial amount of retail, there were several fast-food/fast-casual and grocery retailers that featured strong demographic fit and relative fit scores (74 and above)

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 21
SITE: VACANT PROPERTY WITHIN
99 FWY. RETAIL CORRIDOR
Preliminary Site Info
Owner Golden Triangle Investments
Zoning CC (Community Commercial)
Land Area 28.16 AC
Description Vacant Land adjacent to two shopping centers Monte Vista Crossings (to the north) and Countryside Plaza (to the south) Built N/A

GLA N/A
Vacancy N/A
Opportunities
Site is now planned to add a blend of uses (e.g., food, retail, office, and hotel) complementing existing retail corridor
Source: CoStar (Accessed December 2024)
SITE

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 22

RETAILER VOID

ANALYSIS
PLACER.AI
To identify potential retail options for the
Site, Placer.ai’sVoid Analysis Tool analyzed
the drive time trade area for the
neighboring Countryside Plaza retail
center and compared it to trade area data
for various retail categories, including
dining and entertainment.

The list on the following slide identifies
potential tenants. The list is filtered for
chains with positive in-state expansion
rates and excludes chains with high
cannibalization score.

Sources: Placer.ai (Accessed December 2024)
Score Description How to Interpret
Demographic
Fit Score
The demographic fit score measures how well
retailer customers fit the demographic profile of
a property.

The demographic fit score combines the
similarity such as household income distribution,
educational attainment, ethnicity, age, household
type, and marital status – essentially measuring
the shared level between the property and the
prospective retailer.

Demographic fit scores and attribute
similarity scores that are closer to
100 are a better match.

A demographic fit score of 0 would
mean there is no demographic
similarity between the local trade
area and the trade areas of the
retailer chain.

Cannibalization
Score
The cannibalization score measures the
estimated overlap between the studied trade
area and the trade areas of existing retail store
locations nearby.

This overlap assesses how much a new store for
that brand would “cannibalize” consumers that
are already served by existing nearby locations of
that brand.

Cannibalization scores closer to 0 are
a better match.

A cannibalization score of 100 would
imply that the trade area for a new
store iwould draw consumers that
are already served by existing nearby
stores.

Relative Fit
Score
The relative fit score combines demographic fit
scores, cannibalization score, and other metrics
(such as average monthly visits) to arrive at one
simplified score.

A relative fit score of 100% indicates
the chain is the highest-ranked match
relative to the full list of chains that
were examined.

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 23
PLACER.AI VOID ANALYSIS
Source: Placer.ai (Accessed December 2024)
Notes: This list represents the top retailers / chains by overall relative fit score. Stores that are contracting are not considered. Stores that are expanding in the State listed above the dotted red line. Stores below the dotted red line were neither expanding nor contracting, but had high relative fit scores.

Chains Est. Min-Max
Size (SF)
Typical Trade Area Drive
Time (min)
Avg. Monthly
Foot Traffic
Nearest
Location
(mi)
# of
Locations
(State)
Expansion Rate in State
(%)
Demographic Fit
Score
Cannibali- zation (%)Relative
Fit Score (%)
Vallarta Supermarkets 12-73K 5 77,700 17 58 7 86 0 89
El Super 19-74K 4 75,100 67 61 3 82 0 86
Superior Grocers 12-83K 4 69,200 106 72 6 78 0 83
Me-N-Eds Pizzeria 2-6K 8 7,200 17 56 2 95 0 81
Yoshinoya 1-4K 5 9,700 64 101 1 80 0 79
FYE ~10K 8 2,600 13 20 5 89 17 78
Pollo Campero 1-5K 8 9,700 58 27 13 88 0 77
WSS 6-23K 5 9,600 9 89 2 82 31 77
Daiso USA 4-15K 9 14,800 18 79 27 74 0 76
Curacao 32-109K 14 17,900 260 11 10 86 0 76
America’s Best Contacts 2-6K 10 3,000 14 95 20 86 19 76 Earthbound Trading Company 2-5K 46 6,300 72 6 20 75 0 76 Volcom 1-5K 27 2,300 50 18 6 77 3 76
Foods Co. 31-90K 11 79,900 65 20 0 89 0 90
Perfumania 1-3K 30 1,700 50 9 0 83 3 86
Food 4 Less 34-88K 4 86,300 8 112 0 83 6 85

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 24
A.4 RETAIL MARKET OVERVIEW
Turlock retail market is very strong, attracting shoppers across the region to Costco, Wal-Mart, Target Home Depot etc. Like most communities in the State, Stanislaus County and surrounding areas were hard hit by the aftermath of the Great Recession in 2008-09.

Vacancy rates climbed by 400 basis points and asking rents declined by 15% before starting to recover in 2012. ¡ The tables on the following pages show comparison retail market statistics for Turlock, Manteca, Modesto, Merced and Stanislaus County for 2017 (date of the last EDSP) and the third quarter of 2024. ¡ Turlock retail space at 5.9 million SF, comprises 21% of the overall retail market in Stanislaus County. Since 2017, City retail space grew by 334,000 SF, much faster than the retail markets of Manteca, Merced, and Modesto. Roughly 56% of the growth in the retail development in Stanislaus County has been in the City of Turlock. ¡ Over that time period, market asking rents in the region have grown by 23% to 27% across the comparison cities, with Turlock reaching $22.12 PSF, the highest in Stanislaus County.
¡ During the 15-year period from 2008 to 2023 Turlock’s retail vacancy peaked at 7.7% in 2011, and has since steadily declined.

Retail vacancies in Turlock in Q3 2024 were lowest in the region at 2.2%, while Manteca, Merced, and Modesto have retail vacancies of 5% or greater.

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 25
As shown on the adjoining aerial map,
Turlock is home to dozens of regional
retailers, including big boxes Costco,
Wal-Mart, Target, Lowe’s, and Home
Depot

RETAIL MARKET

OVERVIEW
Source: Placer.ai (Accessed January 2025)

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 26
Q3 2024
Turlock Manteca Merced Modesto Stanislaus
County
Market Asking
Rent $PSF $22.12 $25.30 $19.22 $20.37 $20.89
Vacancy Rate 2.2% 5.0% 6.5% 5.0% 3.8%
Vacant SF 129,747 196,499 385,453 784,619 1,050,036
Net Absorption (28,900) (93,363) 33,492 (58,938) 19,886 Inventory
Existing SF 5,863,000 3,962,000 5,888,000 15,670,000 27,275,000 Retail SF
per Capita 80.2 43.7 63.5 71.6 49.0

RETAIL MARKET OVERVIEW
CITY VS. COMPARABLE CITIES AND STANISLAUS COUNTY
Source: CoStar (Accessed October 2024); Note: Market asking rents were observed instead of Triple Net (“NNN”) because NNN data is sourced from actual transactions, which may not be reflective of the whole market. Vacant space refers to all space that is not occupied by a tenant regardless of availability or lease obligation. Available space is the amount of space currently being marketed as available. It includes any space that is vacant, occupied, or available at a future date. Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative number.

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 27
Year-End 2017
Turlock Manteca Merced Modesto Stanislaus
County
Market Asking
Rent $PSF $18.05 $19.88 $15.35 $16.45 $16.87
Vacancy Rate 2.8% 1.4% 7.5% 3.6% 3.5%
Vacant SF 154,458 55,949 436,309 554,314 923,452
Net Absorption 45,690 29,377 (86,160) 234,076 300,706
Inventory
Existing SF 5,529,000 3,921,000 5,820,000 15,563,000 26,680,000

RETAIL MARKET HISTORY
CITY VS. COMPARABLE CITIES AND STANISLAUS COUNTY (YEAR-END 2017) Source: CoStar (Accessed October 2024); Note: Market asking rents were observed instead of Triple Net (“NNN”) because NNN data is sourced from actual transactions, which may not be reflective of the whole market. Vacant space refers to all space that is not occupied by a tenant regardless of availability or lease obligation. It includes any space that is available at a future date. Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative number.

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 28

RETAIL MARKET TRENDS
2008 - 2023
Vacancy Rates Market Asking Rent $PSF
Source: CoStar (Accessed November 2024)

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Turlock Manteca Merced Modesto Stanislaus County
$14.00
$16.00
$18.00
$20.00
$22.00
$24.00
$26.00
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Turlock Manteca Merced Modesto Stanislaus County

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 29

OFFICE MARKET OVERVIEW
Stanislaus County office market is relatively small with 9.2 million SF of non-government space. Modesto has almost 75% of the County office market, while Turlock office market is primarily local serving, with the inventory comprises 14% of the County market. ¡ The tables on the following pages show comparison office market statistics for Turlock, Manteca, Modesto, Merced and Stanislaus County for 2017 and the third quarter of 2024.
¡ Since 2017, there has been relatively limited growth in the office markets across the region. Most of the office market growth came from Modesto (78,000 SF). Turlock’s office market grew by just 4,000 SF. ¡ Compared to 2017, market rents in Turlock increased by 25%, similar to the comparison cities with Manteca rents growing by 23%, and 22% for Merced and Modesto
¡ Like most real estate, office space demand was hit hard by the “Great Recession” in 2008-09, with vacancies climbing into double digits through 2012. The region now has a sub-5% vacancy rate. Office vacancies in Turlock in Q3 2024 were at 3.2%, slightly higher than in 2017.
¡ Office market asking rents have generally increased since 2014, reflecting minimal new construction and modest population growth and stronger demand for office space. Turlock hit its peak rent of $23.28 in 2024 rebounding from a low of $15.00 in 2012-2013.

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 30
Q3 2024
Turlock Manteca Merced Modesto Stanislaus
County
Market Asking
Rent $PSF $23.28 $24.84 $22.37 $22.47 $22.57
Vacancy Rate 3.2% 0.4% 1.2% 4.2% 4.5%
Vacant SF 40,989 3,802 32,370 290,359 421,844
Net Absorption 8,716 4,423 6,837 15,829 (931)
Inventory
Existing SF 1,298,000 890,000 2,617,000 6,884,000 9,295,000

OFFICE MARKET OVERVIEW

COMPARABLE CITIES AND STANISLAUS COUNTY
Source: CoStar (Accessed November 2024); Note: Market asking rents were observed instead of full-service gross rents (“FS”) because FS data is sourced from actual transactions, which may not be reflective of the whole market. Vacant space refers to all space that is not occupied by a tenant regardless of availability or lease obligation. Available space is the amount of space currently vacant, occupied, or available at a future date. Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative number.

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 31
Year-End 2017
Turlock Manteca Merced Modesto Stanislaus
County
Market Asking
Rent $PSF $18.65 $20.20 $18.39 $18.43 $18.43
Vacancy Rate 2.2% 1.7% 4.0% 4.6% 4.8%
Vacant SF 28,718 15,214 105,920 314,611 438,429
Net Absorption (10,031) 26 (17,924) 123,627 114,395
Inventory
Existing SF 1,294,000 879,000 2,622,000 6,805,000 9,194,000

OFFICE MARKET HISTORY
COMPARABLE CITIES AND STANISLAUS COUNTY (YEAR-END 2017) Source: CoStar (Accessed November 2024); Note: Market asking rents were observed instead of full-service gross rents (“FS”) because FS data is sourced from actual transactions, which may not be reflective of the whole market. Vacant space refers to all space that is not occupied by a tenant regardless of availability or lease obligation. Available space is the amount of space currently being marketed as available for lease or sale in a given time period. It includes any space that is vacant, occupied, or available at a future date.

Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative number.

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 32

OFFICE MARKET HISTORY
2008 - 2023
Vacancy Rates Market Asking Rent $PSF
Source: CoStar (Accessed November 2024)

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Turlock Manteca Merced Modesto Stanislaus County
$14.00
$16.00
$18.00
$20.00
$22.00
$24.00
$26.00
2008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020202120222023 Turlock Manteca Merced Modesto Stanislaus County

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 33

INDUSTRIAL/FLEX MARKET OVERVIEW
Modesto is the major industrial center for Stanislaus County with almost 40 million SF of industrial/flex space. ¡ The tables on the following pages show comparison industrial market statistics for Turlock, Manteca, Modesto, Merced and Stanislaus County for 2017 and the third quarter of 2024. ¡ As of Q3 2024, there has been moderate growth across the region. Manteca and Modesto experienced significant growth with both cities adding over 2.4 million SF to their industrial/flex markets ¡ Turlock and Modesto and the County have seen low industrial/flex vacancies of less than 4% between 2017 and 2024, indicating a very strong industrial market. Conversely, Merced has had high vacancies around 14% through both periods ¡ During the 15-year period from 2008 to 2023. Vacancies trend downward from 2012 onward, highlighting improving market conditions and increased demand for industrial/flex space. ¡ Manteca saw a 50% increase in industrial development, and while absorption was strong vacancy rates have remained above 8% ¡ Rents have steadily increased since 2013 and reached their highest levels in 2023 across the region.

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 34
Q3 2024
Turlock Manteca Merced Modesto Stanislaus
County
Market Asking
Rent $PSF $10.14 $10.89 $6.95 $8.15 $8.67
Vacancy Rate 1.8% 8.7% 13.8% 3.2% 2.7%
Vacant SF 148,981 648,011 859,180 1,216,809 1,675,343
Net Absorption 64,656 136,006 59,269 (47,951) 31,998
Inventory
Existing SF 9,353,300 7,420,000 6,241,000 37,816,000 62,052,000

INDUSTRIAL/FLEX MARKET OVERVIEW

COMPARABLE CITIES AND STANISLAUS COUNTY
Source: CoStar (Accessed October 2024); Note: Market asking rents were observed instead of Triple Net (“NNN”) because NNN data is sourced from actual transactions, which may not be reflective of the whole market. Vacant space refers to all space that is not occupied by a tenant regardless of availability or lease obligation. Available space is the amount of space currently being marketed as vacant, occupied, or available at a future date. Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative number. Vacancy does not reflect Amazon warehouse.

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 35
Year-End 2017
Turlock Manteca Merced Modesto Stanislaus
County
Market Asking
Rent $PSF $7.40 $6.82 $5.00 $5.76 $6.16
Vacancy Rate 0.7% 1.0% 14.3% 2.4% 1.8%
Vacant SF 59,861 51,797 876,943 856,876 1,021,549
Net Absorption 175,142 121,403 146,109 750,418 1,127,276 Inventory
Existing SF 8,046,000 5,010,000 6,139,000 35,250,000 57,884,000

INDUSTRIAL/FLEX MARKET OVERVIEW
COMPARABLE CITIES AND STANISLAUS COUNTY (YEAR-END 2017) Source: CoStar (Accessed October 2024); Note: Market asking rents were observed instead of Triple Net (“NNN”) because NNN data is sourced from actual transactions, which may not be reflective of the whole market. Vacant space refers to all space that is not occupied by a tenant regardless of availability or lease obligation.

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 36

INDUSTRIAL/FLEX MARKET HISTORY
2008 - 2023
Vacancy Rates Market Asking Rent $PSF
Source: CoStar (Accessed November 2024)

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Turlock Manteca Merced Modesto Stanislaus County
$3.00
$6.00
$9.00
$12.00
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Turlock Manteca Merced Modesto Stanislaus County

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 37

MULTIFAMILY MARKET OVERVIEW
The Central Valley / Stanislaus County region has a relatively small multi-family residential market with approximately 12% of households living in apartments compared to over 40% statewide. Turlock comprises roughly 22% of the total multifamily market in Stanislaus County with 4,400 units.
¡ Stanislaus County housing market, like much of the Central Valley suffered extensively from the aftermath of the “Great Recession” of 2008-2009 when home prices collapsed, apartment vacancy rates climbed to 10% and rents remained stagnant through 2015
¡ The tables on the following pages show comparison multifamily market statistics for Turlock, Manteca, Modesto, Merced and Stanislaus County for 2017 and the third quarter of 2024. ¡ By Q3 2024, multifamily residential vacancies in the region were below 4%, with Turlock seeing the lowest vacancies at 2.5%. ¡ New construction from 2017 to Q3 2024 added 660 units in the County, but was limited to 36 new units in Turlock (~1% growth)
¡ Over the 15-year period from 2008 to 2023 the County saw 1,700 new units constructed compared to 327 in Turlock. ¡ Average rents across the region showed solid growth of 40% to 50% since 2017. Turlock and Merced have the lowest average rents reflecting a significant percentage of Class C and affordable housing projects (~70%) as compared to Class A/B units (~30%). ¡ Higher rents and low vacancies indicate a strong multifamily residential market and emphasize the need for additional housing.

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 38
Q3 2024
Turlock Manteca Merced Modesto Stanislaus
County
Asking Rent
Unit / Mo. $1,400 $1,899 $1,250 $1,621 $1,517
Avg. SF 834 825 864 785 804
Asking Rent PSF $1.68 $2.30 $1.45 $2.06 $1.89
Vacancy Rate 2.5% 3.0% 3.0% 3.6% 3.3%
Vacant Units 112 116 208 437 676
Net Absorption 2 (7) 1 25 29
Inventory
Total # of Units 4,442 3,837 6,856 12,254 20,491

MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL MARKET OVERVIEW

COMPARABLE CITIES AND STANISLAUS COUNTY
Source: CoStar (Accessed November 2024); Notes: Data represents the average asking rents across all unit types (studio, 1BR, 2BR, etc.).

Inventory does not include condos, co-ops, dormitories, or mobile homes and observes units in buildings with 10 or more units. Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative number. Inventory is reflective of just for-rent housing, not condo/townhome buildings.

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 39

MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL MARKET OVERVIEW
COMPARABLE CITIES AND STANISLAUS COUNTY (YEAR-END 2017) Source: CoStar (Accessed November 2024); Notes: Data represents the average asking rents across all unit types (studio, 1BR, 2BR, etc.).

Inventory does not include condos, co-ops, dormitories, or mobile homes and observes units in buildings with 10 or more units. Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative number. Inventory is reflective of just for-rent housing, not condo/townhome buildings.

Year-End 2017
Turlock Manteca Merced Modesto Stanislaus
County
Asking Rent
Unit / Mo. $961 $1,464 $932 $1,177 $1,104
Avg. SF 834 788 861 781 801
Asking Rent PSF $1.15 $1.86 $1.08 $1.51 $1.38
Vacancy Rate 2.5% 2.7% 4.3% 3.3% 3.3%
Vacant Units 108 82 274 383 661
Net Absorption (7) (11) 3 (6) 51
Inventory
Total # of Units 4,406 3,083 6,371 11,729 19,790

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 40

MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL MARKET TRENDS
2008 – 2023
Source: CoStar (Accessed December 2024); Notes: Data represents the average asking rents across all unit types (studio, 1BR, 2BR, etc.). Inventory does not include condos, co-ops, dormitories, or mobile homes and observes units in buildings with 10 or more units.

CITY OF TURLOCK
Year Inventory
Units
Vacant
Units
Vacant
%
Absorp.

Units
Asking
Rent PSF
2023 4,442 127 2.9% (19) $1.61
2022 4,442 107 2.4% 22 $1.57
2021 4,406 92 2.1% (22) $1.54
2020 4,406 71 1.6% 49 $1.39
2019 4,406 121 2.7% (23) $1.30
2018 4,406 97 2.2% 12 $1.22
2017 4,406 108 2.5% (7) $1.15
2016 4,406 100 2.3% 64 $1.08
2015 4,406 165 3.7% 40 $1.00
2014 4,406 204 4.6% 78 $0.95
2013 4,406 283 6.4% 79 $0.94
2012 4,326 282 6.5% 58 $0.92
2011 4,326 340 7.9% - $0.90
2010 4,326 340 7.9% 65 $0.88
2009 4,326 405 9.4% 109 $0.87
2008 4,115 303 7.4% (59) $0.96

STANISLAUS COUNTY
Year Inventory
Units
Vacant
Units
Vacant
%
Absorp.

Units
Asking
Rent PSF
2023 20,441 818 4.0% 236 $1.85
2022 20,132 745 3.7% (134) $1.82
2021 20,024 503 2.5% (38) $1.76
2020 20,024 465 2.3% 432 $1.60
2019 19,790 664 3.4% (50) $1.51
2018 19,790 614 3.1% 47 $1.44
2017 19,790 661 3.3% 51 $1.38
2016 19,718 640 3.2% 146 $1.30
2015 19,669 738 3.8% 233 $1.21
2014 19,669 971 4.9% 327 $1.11
2013 19,519 1,147 5.9% 196 $1.07
2012 19,387 1,211 6.2% 205 $1.05
2011 19,337 1,367 7.1% 113 $1.03
2010 19,269 1,412 7.3% 311 $1.02
2009 19,204 1,656 8.6% 128 $1.02
2008 18,731 1,312 7.0% (160) $1.08

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 41

MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL MARKET HISTORY
2008 – 2023
Vacancy Rates Market Asking Rent $PSF
Source: CoStar (Accessed December 2024); Notes: Data represents the average asking rents across all unit types (studio, 1BR, 2BR, etc.). Inventory does not include condos, co-ops, dormitories, or mobile homes and observes units in buildings with 10 or more units.

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%

10.0%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Turlock Manteca Merced Modesto Stanislaus County
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Turlock Manteca Merced Modesto Stanislaus County

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 42
Q3 2024 (Class A/B)
Turlock Manteca Merced Modesto Stanislaus
County
Asking Rent
Unit / Mo. $1,523 $1,910 $1,399 $1,819 $1,693
Avg. SF 950 836 880 841 859
Asking Rent PSF $1.60 $2.28 $1.59 $2.16 $1.97
Vacancy Rate 2.1% 2.9% 3.8% 3.3% 3.3%
Vacant Units 28 66 57 154 242
Net Absorption 0 (6) 0 13 17
Inventory
Total # of Units 1,326 2,251 1,485 4,601 7,356

MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL MARKET OVERVIEW

COMPARABLE CITIES AND STANISLAUS COUNTY (CLASS A/B)
Source: CoStar (Accessed December 2024); Notes: Data represents the average asking rents across all unit types (studio, 1BR, 2BR, etc.).

Inventory does not include condos, co-ops, dormitories, or mobile homes and observes units in buildings with 10 or more units. Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative number. Inventory is reflective of just for-rent housing, not condo/townhome buildings.

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 43

MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL MARKET OVERVIEW
COMPARABLE CITIES AND STANISLAUS COUNTY (YEAR-END 2017) Source: CoStar (Accessed December 2024); Notes: Data represents the average asking rents across all unit types (studio, 1BR, 2BR, etc.).

Inventory does not include condos, co-ops, dormitories, and observes units in buildings with 10 or more units. Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative number. Inventory is reflective of just for-rent housing, not condo/townhome buildings.

Year-End 2017 (Class A/B)
Turlock Manteca Merced Modesto Stanislaus
County
Asking Rent
Unit / Mo. $1,068 $1,504 $1,046 $1,343 $1,261
Avg. SF 954 763 869 834 855
Asking Rent PSF $1.12 $1.97 $1.20 $1.61 $1.47
Vacancy Rate 2.8% 1.5% 4.1% 2.9% 3.5%
Vacant Units 36 23 52 119 233
Net Absorption (5) (4) 10 10 67
Inventory
Total # of Units 1,290 1,497 1,270 4,111 6,690

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 44

MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL MARKET TRENDS
2008 – 2023 (CLASS A/B)
Source: CoStar (Accessed December 2024); Notes: Data represents the average asking rents across all unit types (studio, 1BR, 2BR, etc.) for Class A and B buildings. Inventory does not include condos, co-ops, dormitories, or mobile homes and observes units in buildings with 10 or more units. Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative number.

CITY OF TURLOCK
Year Inventory
Units
Vacant
Units
Vacant
%
Absorp.

Units
Asking
Rent PSF
2023 1,326 27 2.0% 14 $1.51
2022 1,326 41 3.1% 26 $1.57
2021 1,290 31 2.4% (14) $1.56
2020 1,290 16 1.2% 24 $1.34
2019 1,290 41 3.2% - $1.22
2018 1,290 39 3.0% (3) $1.15
2017 1,290 36 2.8% (5) $1.12
2016 1,290 31 2.4% 31 $1.03
2015 1,290 63 4.9% 24 $0.94
2014 1,290 87 6.7% 49 $0.90
2013 1,290 137 10.6% 51 $0.91
2012 1,210 108 8.9% 27 $0.89
2011 1,210 136 11.2% (7) $0.87
2010 1,210 129 10.7% 22 $0.85
2009 1,210 152 12.6% 129 $0.85
2008 999 70 7.0% - $0.97

STANISLAUS COUNTY
Year Inventory
Units
Vacant
Units
Vacant
%
Absorp.

Units
Asking
Rent PSF
2023 7,306 318 4.4% 226 $1.93
2022 7,032 270 3.8% (7) $1.93
2021 6,924 154 2.2% 61 $1.89
2020 6,924 215 3.1% 231 $1.69
2019 6,690 213 3.2% 5 $1.60
2018 6,690 219 3.3% 16 $1.53
2017 6,690 235 3.5% 66 $1.47
2016 6,618 230 3.5% 79 $1.40
2015 6,569 261 4.0% 102 $1.31
2014 6,569 363 5.5% 203 $1.18
2013 6,419 415 6.5% 119 $1.15
2012 6,307 422 6.7% 117 $1.12
2011 6,257 488 7.8% 97 $1.10
2010 6,189 516 8.3% 140 $1.08
2009 6,124 590 9.6% 281 $1.08
2008 5,673 420 7.4% (21) $1.18

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 45

MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL MARKET HISTORY
2008 – 2023 (CLASS A/B)
Vacancy Rates Market Asking Rent $PSF
Source: CoStar (Accessed December 2024); Notes: Data represents the average asking rents across all unit types (studio, 1BR, 2BR, etc.) for Class A and B buildings.

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Turlock Manteca Merced Modesto Stanislaus County
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Turlock Manteca Merced Modesto Stanislaus County

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 46

HOSPITALITY MARKET OVERVIEW
Kosmont utilized Costar hotel data to measure the strength of the hospitality market for the Stanislaus County region. ¡ The market area contains mostly economy and midscale-class hotels. Approximately 60% of hotels in Turlock and the County are economy and midscale class. However, from a room-count basis, 55% of the hotel rooms in the region are in upper midscale and upscale class hotels, and new hotels that are planned or under construction in the area, are mostly upper midscale or upscale class hotels.
¡ Manteca has the only upper upscale hotel (500-room Great Wolf Lodge and Waterpark) ¡ The Costar analysis examined hotel market performance across a 6-year span beginning from the 12-month period of Nov. 2018 - Oct. 2019 to Nov. 2023 - Oct. 2024. The data showed significant differences in occupancy and average daily rates (“ADR”) between economy/midscale and upscale hotels.
¡ Turlock economy/midscale hotels saw a decline in demand of 22%, while ADR increased by 14% from $86.20 to $98.13. ¡ Turlock upper midscale/upscale hotels saw 90 new units built and achieved an 11.7% increase in room night demand, while ADR increased by 13.4% from $125.78 to $142,59.

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 47

HOSPITALITY MARKET
¡ The hospitality market has hotels with different levels of service:

Ø A limited-service hotel is a budget-friendly hotel offering low-cost accommodations, minimal amenities, and typically do not offer a full-service restaurant. These hotels typically fall under economy, midscale, or upper midscale classes according to STR
Ø A select-service hotel offers more amenities than a limited-service hotel, such as small meeting spaces and a casual restaurant, but fewer features than a fullservice hotel. Select-service hotels are a blend of full- and limited-service hotels and are the fastest growing type of hotels being developed. These hotels typically are upper midscale or upscale class hotels
Ø A full-service hotel offers more services than a select- or limited-service hotel.

Such services could include larger banquet/conference space, restaurants/bars, shuttle services, laundry service, room service, expanded fitness centers, and spas.

Full-service can refer to different hotel types including boutique hotels and resorts and generally fall under upscale, upper upscale, and luxury class hotels ¡ Economy hotels are patronized primarily through drive-by visitors, while large hotel chains have Rewards Programs with millions of loyal customers, who will search for those properties on the internet, thus increasing demand ¡ Examples of various hotels by class are highlighted in the table to the right. Note: STR hotel classes are typically grouped according to actual average room rates Class Hotels
Economy Motel 6, Studio 6, Red Roof Inn, Days Inn, Super 8 Midscale Best Western, Quality Inn, Extended Stay America Upper Midscale Hampton Inn & Suites, La Quinta Inn & Suites, Fairfield Inn & Suites, Holiday Inn
Upscale DoubleTree, Courtyard, Hyatt House, Homewood
Suites, Residence Inn, SpringHill Suites
Upper Upscale Sheraton, Hilton, Marriott, Le Meridien, Embassy Suites, Westin, Wyndham Grand
Luxury JW Marriott, Ritz-Carlton, W Hotel, Shangri-La,
Langham, Four Seasons, Fairmont

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 48

HOSPITALITY MARKET BY HOTEL CLASS
CITY VS. COMPARABLE CITIES AND STANISLAUS COUNTY
Turlock Manteca Merced Modesto Stanislaus
County
Hotel Class
Economy 4 hotels, 198 rooms 4 hotels, 167 rooms 8 hotels, 323 rooms 15 hotels, 666 rooms 26 hotels, 1,164 rooms Midscale 4 hotels, 212 rooms 1 hotel, 85 rooms 4 hotels, 241 rooms 5 hotels, 395 rooms 11 hotels, 657 rooms Upper Midscale 5 hotels, 432 rooms 3 hotels, 274 rooms 4 hotels, 375 rooms 3 hotels, 272 rooms 16 hotels, 1,242 rooms Upscale 1 hotel, 71 rooms 1 hotel, 99 rooms 1 hotel, 90 rooms 5 hotels, 671 rooms 6 hotels, 742 rooms Upper Upscale 0 hotels 1 hotel, 500 rooms 0 hotels 0 hotels 0 hotels Luxury 0 hotels 0 hotels 0 hotels 0 hotels 0 hotels
Total Hotels
and Rooms
14 hotels,
913 rooms
10 hotels,
1,125 rooms
17 hotels,
1,029 rooms
28 hotels,
2,004 rooms
59 hotels,
3,805 rooms
Planned / Proposed / Under Construction
• 2 hotels
• 197 rooms
• 3 hotels
• 311 rooms
• 4 hotels
• 447 rooms
• 3 hotels
• 217 rooms
• 7 hotels
• 616 rooms
Sources: CoStar; Smith Travel Research (Accessed November 2024)

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 49
HOTEL MARKET DEMAND ANALYSIS – TURLOCK

MARKET PERFORMANCE (ALL HOTELS)
Sources: CoStar; Smith Travel Research (Accessed November 2024); Notes: Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative percentage change. *Annual averages were calculated.

Data represented in this section reflects CoStar’s weighted average of the market based on STR trends and does not include data reported directly from hotels.

Year Occupancy Average Daily
Rate (ADR)
Annual Supply
of Room Nights
Annual
Demand for
Room Nights
Change in
Occupied
Room Nights
Revenue per
Available
Room
(RevPAR)
Change in
RevPAR
Nov. ‘18 - Oct. ’19 70.5% $106.77 301,490 212,538 - $75.70 - Nov. ‘19 - Oct. ’20 60.2% $101.14 301,490 181,326 (14.7%) $61.37 (18.9%) Nov. ‘20 - Oct. ’21 66.3% $110.62 327,938 218,294 20.4% $74.39 21.2% Nov. ‘21 - Oct. ’22 65.2% $125.06 333,245 217,241 (0.5%) $81.73 9.9% Nov. ‘22 - Oct. ’23 62.4% $129.35 333,245 207,916 (4.3%) $80.89 (1.0%) Nov. ‘23 - Oct. ’24 60.9% $125.10 333,245 203,025 (2.4%) $76.55 (5.4%) Total Growth (%) (13.6%) 17.2% 10.5% (4.5%) - 1.1% -

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 50
HOTEL MARKET DEMAND ANALYSIS – TURLOCK

MARKET PERFORMANCE (ECONOMY AND MIDSCALE HOTELS)
Year Occupancy Average Daily
Rate (ADR)
Annual Supply
of Room Nights
Annual
Demand for
Room Nights
Change in
Occupied
Room Nights
Revenue per
Available
Room
(RevPAR)
Change in
RevPAR
Nov. ‘18 - Oct. ’19 68.2% $86.20 149,650 102,090 - $59.14 - Nov. ‘19 - Oct. ’20 61.1% $84.43 149,650 91,453 (10.4%) $52.03 (12.0%) Nov. ‘20 - Oct. ’21 65.7% $94.05 149,650 98,302 7.5% $62.43 20.0% Nov. ‘21 - Oct. ’22 62.5% $103.93 149,650 93,553 (4.8%) $65.12 4.3% Nov. ‘22 - Oct. ’23 57.5% $107.00 149,650 86,130 (7.9%) $61.63 (5.4%) Nov. ‘23 - Oct. ’24 53.2% $98.13 149,650 79,643 (7.5%) $52.18 (15.3%) Total Growth (%) (22.0%) 13.8% 0.0% (22.0%) - (11.8%) - Sources: CoStar; Smith Travel Research (Accessed November 2024); Notes: Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative percentage change. *Annual averages were calculated. Data represented in this section reflects CoStar’s weighted average of the market based on STR trends and does not include data reported directly from hotels.

DRAFT
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 51
HOTEL MARKET DEMAND ANALYSIS – TURLOCK
MARKET PERFORMANCE (UPPER MIDSCALE + HOTELS)
Year Occupancy Average Daily
Rate (ADR)
Annual Supply
of Room Nights
Annual
Demand for
Room Nights
Change in
Occupied
Room Nights
Revenue per
Available
Room
(RevPAR)
Change in
RevPAR
Nov. ‘18 - Oct. ’19 72.7% $125.78 151,840 110,448 - $92.01 - Nov. ‘19 - Oct. ’20 59.2% $117.93 151,840 89,873 (18.6%) $70.57 (23.3%) Nov. ‘20 - Oct. ’21 66.7% $124.23 178,288 119,992 33.5% $84.29 19.4% Nov. ‘21 - Oct. ’22 67.4% $141.04 183,595 123,688 3.1% $95.26 13.0% Nov. ‘22 - Oct. ’23 66.3% $145.18 183,595 121,786 (1.5%) $96.60 1.4% Nov. ‘23 - Oct. ’24 67.3% $142.59 183,595 123,382 1.3% $96.41 (0.2%) Total Growth (%) (7.4%) 13.4% 20.9% 11.7% - 4.8% -
Sources: CoStar; Smith Travel Research (Accessed November 2024); Notes: Numbers in parentheses and in red indicate a negative percentage change. *Annual averages were calculated. Data represented in this section reflects CoStar’s weighted average of the market based on STR trends and does not include data reported directly from hotels.

City Council Staff Report
August 12, 2025
From: Adrienne Werner, Development Services Director
Prepared by: Jennifer Figueroa, Housing Program Manager Agendized by: Susan E. Borrego, Interim City Manager

1. ACTION RECOMMENDED:

Resolution: Awarding the bid and approving an agreement with A and P Construction, in the amount of $134,510.00, authorizing a contingency amount of $20,176.50 (15%), and adding an estimate permit fee of $3,000.00 for a total project cost of $157,686.50. $121,644.00 to be paid from Fund 260 “PLHA-Permanent Local Housing Allocation” account 260-41-494.47224 “Acquisition and Rehab of Affordable Rental Housing” and $36,042.50 to be paid from Fund 255 “CDBG” account 255-41-485.47210_001 “Housing Program Services Programs Affordable Housing Development” for the rehabilitation of a single-family residential property located at 2065 Cody Court in Turlock and authorizing the Interim City Manager to sign all necessary documents.

Resolution: Awarding the bid and approving an agreement with A and P Construction, in the amount of $71,850.00, authorizing a contingency amount of $7,185.00 (10%), and adding an estimate permit fee of $2,000.00 for a total project cost of $81,035.00. $46,000.00 to be paid from Fund 260 “PLHA-Permanent Local Housing Allocation” account 260-41-494.47224 “Acquisition and Rehab of Affordable Rental Housing” and $35,035.00 to be paid from Fund 255 “CDBG” account 255-41-485.47210_001 “Housing Program Services Programs Affordable Housing Development” for the rehabilitation of a singlefamily residential property located at 1827 Shadow Park Drive in Turlock and authorizing the Interim City Manager to sign all necessary documents.

Resolution: Awarding the bid and approving an agreement with Zack’s Handyman and Construction, in the amount of $53,195.00, authorizing a contingency amount of $5,319.50 (10%), and adding an estimate permit fee of $2,000.00 for a total project cost of $60,514.50. $25,000.00 to be paid from Fund 260 “PLHA-Permanent Local Housing Allocation” account 260-41-494.47224 “Acquisition and Rehab of Affordable Rental Housing” and $35,514.50 to be paid from Fund 256 “Stanislaus Housing Consortium” account 256-41-486.47225_002 “Affordable Housing Affordable Housing - Prior” for the rehabilitation of a single-family residential property located at 573 Birchwood Way in Turlock and authorizing the Interim City Manager to sign all necessary documents.

2. DISCUSSION OF ISSUE:

The City of Turlock currently owns five (5) residential properties that were purchased with the intent to rehabilitate the units, as needed, to meet housing quality standards, and transfer the properties either to qualified non-profit agencies to provide and sustain affordable housing units within the City of Turlock or sell the homes to income eligible first-time homebuyers. Of the five (5) properties, two (2) are in acceptable condition and do not require rehabilitation, while the remaining three (3) will undergo necessary repairs and improvements.

Agenda Staff Report
8/12/2025
On June 9, 2025, Housing Division staff distributed a bid invitation via email to all contractors on the division’s pre-approved contractor’s list. The invitation included brief descriptions of the three (3) residential properties in Turlock requiring rehabilitation: 2065 Cody Court, 1827 Shadow Park Drive, and 573 Birchwood Way. In accordance with the division’s policies and procedures, a walk-through was conducted on June 23, 2025, for interested contractors.

During the walk-through, staff provided scopes of work for each property, draft contracts, and addressed any questions from the contractors. By the bid deadline on July 8, 2025, four (4) bids were received for each property.
2065 Cody Court
On February 8, 2023, the City of Turlock purchased a 3-bedroom, 2-bath single-family residential dwelling located at 2065 Cody Court in Turlock with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for $365,000. This property is currently vacant. Four (4) bids were received for the rehabilitation of 2065 Cody Court:

Bid Summary:

BIDDER BID AMOUNTS
CAS Construction, Inc. $154,900.00
Zack’s Handyman and Construction $148,725.00
ANV Contractors, Inc. $142,100.00
A and P Construction $134,510.00
Staff reviewed the bids for bidder responsiveness and responsibility and recommends approval of an agreement with A and P Construction as the lowest reasonable bid with a bid amount of $134,510.00. This project is anticipated to be completed by November 21, 2025.

Staff is requesting a 15% contingency due to the prior use of the house, including unpermitted structures which will be removed and external water damage. Once construction begins, there may be unforeseen interior damage that needs to be repaired that is not currently visible.
1827 Shadow Park Drive
On March 6, 2023, the City of Turlock purchased a 3-bedroom, 2-bath single-family residential dwelling located at 2065 Cody Court in Turlock with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program funds for $440,000. This property is currently vacant. Four (4) bids were received for the rehabilitation of 2065 Cody Court:

Bid Summary:

BIDDER BID AMOUNTS
CAS Construction, Inc. $ 80,225.00
Zack’s Handyman and Construction $ 77,839.00
ANV Contractors, Inc. $ 75,550.00
A and P Construction $ 71,850.00

Agenda Staff Report
8/12/2025
Staff reviewed the bids for bidder responsiveness and responsibility and recommends approval of an agreement with A and P Construction as the lowest reasonable bid with a bid amount of $71,850.00. This project is anticipated to be completed by October 22, 2025.

Staff is requesting a 10% contingency, the customary amount for construction contracts. 573 Birchwood Way
On March 3, 2023, the City of Turlock purchased a 3-bedroom, 2-bath single-family residential dwelling located at 573 Birchwood Way in Turlock with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program funds for $375,000. This property is currently vacant. Four (4) bids were received for the rehabilitation of 573 Birchwood Way:

Bid Summary:

BIDDER BID AMOUNTS
CAS Construction, Inc. $ 63,650.00
ANV Contractors, Inc. $ 58,900.00
A and P Construction $ 53,550.00
Zack’s Handyman and Construction $ 53,195.00
Staff reviewed the bids for bidder responsiveness and responsibility and recommends approval of an agreement with Zack’s Handyman and Construction as the lowest reasonable bid with a bid amount of $53,195.00. This project is anticipated to be completed by October 7, 2025.

Staff is requesting a 10% contingency, the customary amount for construction contracts.

3. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:

1. The City of Turlock is responsible for seeing that CDBG and HOME funds are spent in accordance with each program requirements and in a way that is consistent with the Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan.

2. According to HOME program requirements, a subrecipient has four (4) years from the project inception date to complete a project. In this case, two (2) of the three (3) homes being rehabilitated were acquired using both HOME and CDBG funds. As a result, based on the purchase date, the City is required to complete these two (2) projects by February 2027.

4. FISCAL IMPACT / BUDGET AMENDMENT:

Funds have been budgeted in Fiscal Year 2025-2026 for these projects.

5. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Recommend approval.

Agenda Staff Report
8/12/2025

6. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:

Recommend approval.

7. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The housing units at 1827 Shadow Park Drive, 2065 Cody Court, and 573 Birchwood Way require minor repairs and maintenance to rehabilitate the structures. Therefore, in accordance with Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines, the projects are Exempt from the provisions of CEQA.
2065 Cody Court

The NEPA Environmental review concluded on January 31, 2023, that this project is categorically excluded and converts to exempt per 24 CFR 58.34(a)(12), because it does not require any mitigation for compliance with any listed statutes or authorities. 1827 Shadow Park Drive
The NEPA Environmental review concluded on February 15, 2023 that this project is categorically excluded and converts to exempt per 24 CFR 58.34(a)(12), because it does not require any mitigation for compliance with any listed statutes or authorities. 573 Birchwood Way
The NEPA Environmental review concluded on February 28, 2023, that this project is categorically excluded and converts to exempt per 24 CFR 58.34(a)(12), because it does not require any mitigation for compliance with any listed statutes or authorities.

8. ALTERNATIVES:

A. Council could reject all bids submitted for the project. Staff does not recommend this alternative as this would create the need to restart the bid process which may result in increased costs and inefficiencies.

B. Council could only approve selective bids. Staff does not recommend this alternative as this would create the need to restart the bid process which may result in increased costs and inefficiencies.

9. ATTACHMENTS:

1. Cody Court Resolution

2. Shadow Park Resolution

3. Birchwood Way Resolution

4. Construction Contract - 2065 Cody Court

5. Construction Contract - 1827 Shadow Park Dr

6. Construction Contract -573 Birchwood Way

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TURLOCK
IN THE MATTER OF AWARDING THE BID AND }
APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH A AND P } RESOLUTION NO. 2025- CONSTRUCTION, IN THE AMOUNT OF }
$134,510.00, AUTHORIZING A CONTINGENCY }
AMOUNT OF $20,176.50 (15%), AND ADDING }
AN ESTIMATED PERMIT FEE OF $3,000.00 }
FOR A TOTAL PROJECT COST OF $157,686.50. }
$121,644.00 TO BE PAID FROM FUND 260 }
“PLHA-PERMANENT LOCAL HOUSING }
ALLOCATION” ACCOUNT 260-41-494.47224 }
“ACQUISITION AND REHAB OF AFFORDABLE }
RENTAL HOUSING” AND $36,042.50 TO BE PAID}
FROM FUND 255 “CDBG” ACCOUNT 255-41-485 }
.47210_001 “HOUSING PROGRAM SERVICES }
PROGRAMS AFFORDABLE HOUSING }
DEVELOPMENT” FOR THE REHABILITATION OF}
A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY }
LOCATED AT 2065 CODY COURT IN TURLOCK }
AND AUTHORIZING THE INTERIM CITY }
MANAGER TO SIGN ALL NECESSARY }
DOCUMENTS. }
}

WHEREAS, the City of Turlock Housing Program Services Division held a bid tour on June 23, 2025, for rehabilitation of 2065 Cody Court, Turlock, CA, a single-family residential property currently owned by the City of Turlock; and WHEREAS, on July 8, 2025, four (4) bids were received for the project; and WHEREAS, A and P Construction was the lowest reasonable bidder with a bid amount of $134,510; and
WHEREAS, the project costs are $134,510.00, with a contingency of $20,176.50 (15%) and an estimated permit fees of $2,000 for a total project cost of $157,686.50; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Turlock does hereby adopt a resolution awarding the bid and approving an agreement with A and P Construction, in the amount of $134,510.00, authorizing a contingency amount of $20,176.50 (15%), and adding an estimated permit fee of $3,000.00 for a total project cost of $157,686.50. $121,644.00 to be paid from Fund 260 “PLHA-Permanent Local Housing Allocation” account 260-41-494.47224 “Acquisition and Rehab of Affordable Rental Housing” and $36,042.50 to be paid from Fund 255 “CDBG” account 255-41- 485.47210_001 “Housing Program Services Programs Affordable Housing Development’ for the rehabilitation of a single-family residential property located at 2065 Cody Court in

Resolution No. 2025-

Turlock and authorizing the Interim City Manager to sign all necessary documents.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Turlock this 12th day of August, 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 AWARDING THE BID AND }
APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH A AND P } RESOLUTION NO. 2025- CONSTRUCTION, IN THE AMOUNT OF }
$71,850.00, AUTHORIZING A CONTINGENCY }
AMOUNT OF $7,185.00 (10%), AND ADDING }
AN ESTIMATED PERMIT FEE OF $2,000.00 }
FOR A TOTAL PROJECT COST OF $81,035.00. }
$46,000.00 TO BE PAID FROM FUND 260 }
“PLHA-PERMANENT LOCAL HOUSING }
ALLOCATION” ACCOUNT 260-41-494.47224 }
“ACQUISITION AND REHAB OF AFFORDABLE }
RENTAL HOUSING” AND $35,035.00 TO BE PAID}
FROM FUND 255 “CDBG” ACCOUNT 255-41-485.}
47210_001 “HOUSING PROGRAM SERVICES }
PROGRAMS AFFORDABLE HOUSING }
DEVELOPMENT” FOR THE REHABILITATION OF}
A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY }
LOCATED AT 1827 SHADOW PARK DRIVE IN }
TURLOCK AND AUTHORIZING THE INTERIM }
CITY MANAGER TO SIGN ALL NECESSARY }
DOCUMENTS. }
}

WHEREAS, the City of Turlock Housing Program Services Division held a bid tour on June 23, 2025, for rehabilitation of 1827 Shadow Park Drive, Turlock, CA, a singlefamily residential property currently owned by the City of Turlock; and WHEREAS, on July 8, 2025, four (4) bids were received for the project; and WHEREAS, A and P Construction was the lowest reasonable bidder with a bid amount of $71,850.00; and
WHEREAS, the project costs are $71,850.00, with a contingency of $7,185.00 (10%) and an estimated permit fees of $2,000 for a total project cost of $81,035.00; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Turlock does hereby adopt a resolution awarding the bid and approving an agreement with A and P Construction, in the amount of $71,850.00, authorizing a contingency amount of $7,185.00 (10%), and adding an estimated permit fee of $2,000.00 for a total project cost of $81,035.00. $46,000.00 to be paid from Fund 260 “PLHA-Permanent Local Housing Allocation” account 260-41-494.47224 “Acquisition and Rehab of Affordable Rental Housing” and $35,035.00 to be paid from Fund 255 “CDBG” account 255-41- 485.47210_001 “Housing Program Services Programs Affordable Housing Development” for the rehabilitation of a single-family residential property located at 1827 Shadow Park

Resolution No. 2025-

Drive in Turlock and authorizing the Interim City Manager to sign all necessary documents.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Turlock this 12th day of August, 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 AWARDING THE BID AND }
APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH ZACK’S } RESOLUTION NO. 2025- HANDYMAN AND CONSTRUCTION, IN THE }
AMOUNT OF $53,195.00, AUTHORIZING A }
CONTINGENCY AMOUNT OF $5,319.50 (10%), }
AND ADDING AN ESTIMATED PERMIT FEE }
OF $2,000 FOR A TOTAL PROJECT COST OF }
$60,514.50. $25,000.00 TO BE PAID OUT OF }
“PLHA-PERMANENT LOCAL HOUSING }
ALLOCATION.” ACCOUNT 260-41-494.47224 }
“ACQUISITION AND REHAB OF AFFORDABLE }
RENTAL HOUSING” AND $35,514.50 TO BE PAID}
FROM FUND 256 “STANISLAUS HOUSING }
CONSORTIUM” ACCOUNT 256-41-486.47225_002}
“AFFORDABLE HOUSING AFFORDABLE }
HOUSING-PRIOR” FOR THE REHABILITATION }
OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY}
LOCATED AT 573 BIRCHWOOD WAY IN }
TURLOCK AND AUTHORIZAING THE INTERIM }
CITY MANAGER TO SIGN ALL NECESSARY }
DOCUMENTS. }
}
WHEREAS, the City of Turlock Housing Program Services Division held a bid tour on June 23, 2025, for rehabilitation of 573 Birchwood Way, Turlock, CA, a singlefamily residential property currently owned by the City of Turlock; and WHEREAS, on July 8, 2025, four (4) bids were received for the project; and WHEREAS, Zack’s Handyman and Construction was the lowest reasonable bidder with a bid amount of $53,195.00; and
WHEREAS, the project costs are $53,195.00, with a contingency of $5,319.50 (10%) and an estimated building permit fees of $2,000 for a total project cost of $60,514.50; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Turlock does hereby adopt a resolution awarding the bid and approving an agreement with Zack’s Handyman and Construction, in the amount of $53,195.00, authorizing a contingency amount of $5,319.50 (10%), and adding an estimated building permit fee of $2,000.00 for a total project cost of $60,514.50. $25,000.00 to be paid from Fund 260 “PLHA-Permanent Local Housing Allocation” account 260-41-494.47224 “Acquisition and Rehab of Affordable Rental Housing” and $35,514.50 to be paid from Fund 256 “Stanislaus HOME Consortium” account 256-41-486.47225_002 “Affordable Housing

Resolution No. 2025-

Affordable Housing-Prior” for the rehabilitation of a single-family residential property located at 573 Birchwood Way in Turlock and authorizing the Interim City Manager to sign all necessary documents.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Turlock this 12th day of August, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

NOT PARTICIPATING:

ABSENT:

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

-1-
CITY CONTRACT NO. 2026-035
2251\02\3726015.1

CITY PROJECT

CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT
City Contract No. <2026-035>
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into on August 12, 2025, between City of Turlock of 156 S. Broadway, Suite 140, Turlock, hereinafter referred to as "OWNER," and A and P Construction of 1350 Burman Drive, Turlock holding California State Contractor's License No.# 688996 Classification B-General Building Contractor and hereinafter referred to as "CONTRACTOR."
In consideration of the following mutual covenants, and conditions, CONTRACTOR and OWNER agree as follows:

Section 1. Description of Work:

The scope of the work to be performed by CONTRACTOR on OWNER's property, located at 2065 Cody Court, Turlock, shall be as specified in the Work Write-up, dated July 8, 2025, attached here to marked as Exhibit "A," incorporated herein by reference and hereinafter referred to as the "PROJECT," and any properly executed Change Orders made in conformance with Section 5 of this AGREEMENT. All work to be performed pursuant to this AGREEMENT shall be performed in strict conformance with and to the exact standards established in the CITY OF TURLOCK HOUSING AND

PROGRAM SERVICES DIVISION REHABILITATION PROGRAM A GUIDE TO REHABILITATION STANDARDS Manual attached hereto marked as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. No oral agreements relative to the work shall be binding on CONTRACTOR or OWNER.

Section 2. Time of Completion:

The CONTRACTOR shall begin work within Ten (10) calendar days of the OWNER's issuance of Order to Proceed, and shall complete the work within Ninety (90) calendar days after issuance of the Order to Proceed.

-2-
CITY CONTRACT NO. 2026-035
2251\02\3726015.1
Section 3. CONTRACTOR's Responsibilities:
a. The CONTRACTOR certifies as part of entering into this AGREEMENT that neither it or nor its principals nor any of its subcontractors are presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from entering into this AGREEMENT by any federal agency or by any department, agency or political subdivision of the state.
b. The CONTRACTOR shall supervise and direct the work, using its best skill and attention.
c. The CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for all construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, and procedures and for coordinating all portions of the work under this AGREEMENT.
d. The CONTRACTOR shall provide and pay for all labor, materials, equipment, tools, construction equipment and machinery, transportation, and other facilities and services necessary for the proper execution and completion of the work, whether temporary or permanent and whether or not incorporated or to be incorporated into the work.
e. The CONTRACTOR warrants that all materials and equipment incorporated into the work will be new unless otherwise specified, and that all work will be of good quality. f. The CONTRACTOR will pay all sales, consumer, use and similar taxes, and shall secure and pay governmental fees, licenses, and inspections necessary for the proper execution and completion of the work.
g. The CONTRACTOR shall give all notices and comply with all laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, and lawful order of any public authority bearing on the performance of the work.
h. The CONTRACTOR shall keep the premises free from accumulation of waste materials or rubbish caused by their operations. At the completion of the work, the CONTRACTOR shall remove all of the waste materials and rubbish from the work area as well as tools, construction equipment, machinery, and surplus materials. i. The CONTRACTOR shall guarantee to OWNER the work performed for a period specified by State law, in any event no less than one (1) year and in compliance with California Civil Code 896 thru Code 917, from the date of final acceptance of all work required by the AGREEMENT.
j. The CONTRACTOR shall be solely responsible for providing safe conditions for the performance of the work and for initiating, maintaining and supervising all safety precautions and programs in connection with the performance of the work. k. The CONTRACTOR shall promptly remedy damage and loss to the property to the extent caused in whole or in part by the CONTRACTOR, or by anyone for whose acts it may be liable, except damage or loss attributable to acts or omissions of OWNER or anyone directly or indirectly employed by it, or by anyone for whose acts OWNER may be liable and not attributable to the fault or negligence of the CONTRACTOR.
l. The CONTRACTOR shall furnish the OWNER with all manufacturers' and suppliers' written guarantees and warranties covering materials and equipment under this AG m. The CONTRACTOR will be responsible for all materials at the job site prior to, and during installation.

-3-
CITY CONTRACT NO. 2026-035
2251\02\3726015.1
Section 4. OWNER's Responsibilities:
a. The OWNER shall pay for the building permit(s) cost. b. The OWNER shall permit the CONTRACTOR to use, at no cost, existing utilities, such as light, heat, natural gas, power and water necessary to carrying out the completion of the work.
c. The OWNER shall issue a written Order to Proceed within thirty (30) days from the date of this AGREEMENT.
d. The OWNER will be entirely responsible for their property and any materials after installation.
e. The OWNER shall not unreasonably interfere with CONTRACTOR in his execution of the work.
f. The OWNER shall be familiar with the scope of the work and shall watch over the work in order to be satisfied that it is being carried out in all respects in accordance with the Work Write-up. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the CONTRACTOR shall be solely responsible for and have control over the work and shall be responsible to the OWNER for acts and omissions of the CONTRACTOR’s employees, subcontractors and other persons or entities performing portion of the work for or on behalf of the CONTRACTOR.

Section 5. Work Change Orders:

The OWNER, without invalidating the Contract, may from time to time, order changes in the work to be performed under the Contract, consisting of additions, deletions or other revisions ("Change Order"). Such changes, including, without limitation, any increase or decrease in the Contract sum or Contract time shall be authorized only by written Change Order signed by the OWNER. No adjustment in the Contract time or Contract sum shall be permitted, however, in connection with a concealed or unknown condition that does not differ materially from those conditions disclosed or that reasonably should have been disclosed by the CONTRACTOR's prior inspections or inspections that the CONTRACTOR had the opportunity to make or should have performed in connection with the work. In the absence of an executed Change Order, no (1) course of conduct or dealings between the parties, nor (2) express or implied acceptance of alterations or additions to the work, nor (3) any claim that the OWNER has been unjustly enriched by any alterations or addition to the work (whether or not there is in fact any such unjust enrichment) shall be basis for any claim by the CONTRACTOR to increase the Contract sum or to change the Contract time. In the event the CONTRACTOR utilizes any components that reduce the Contract sum, or otherwise reduces the costs of materials necessary to complete the work, then the OWNER shall be entitled to such savings through a deductive Change Order.

Section 6. Public Works and Payment of Prevailing Wage:
a. Monitoring and Enforcement. In accordance with the provisions of Sections 1725.5, 1771.1, 1771.3, and 1771.4 of the Labor Code, all work performed under the Contract is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”). All work performed by CONTRACTOR or its