HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-03-04 Packet - SpecialCITY OF UKIAH
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Special Meeting
Ukiah Valley Conference Center
Chenin Blanc Room
200 S. School Street
Ukiah, CA 95482
March 4, 2011
1:00-5:00 P.M.
Strategic Planning Workshop
ROLL CALL
2. WORK STUDY SESSION
a. Strategic Planning: Discussion Of Steps Taken To Date In Strategic Planning,
Outcomes From Meeting Held In November 2010 And Discussion Of Future
Strategic Planning Processes
b. Presentation By Staff, And Council Discussion Related To FY 2010-2011
Revenues And Expenditures For The General Fund, And Budget Development
Process, Including Service Delivery Options For Fire Safety And Advanced Life
Support Services
C. Report Of Ad/Hoc Tax Sharing Discussions Between The City Of Ukiah And County
Of Mendocino Covering The Period Fall 2008 Through January 2011, And
Appointment Of Ad/Hoc Members To Continue Discussions With The County Of
Mendocino
3. PUBLIC COMMENT
4. ADJOURNMENT
Please be advised that the City needs to be notified 24 hours in advance of a meeting if any specific accommodations or
interpreter services are needed in order for you to attend. The City complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to
reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request.
Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for
public inspection at the front counter at the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482, during normal business
hours, Monday through Friday, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing agenda was posted on the
bulletin board at the main entrance of the City of Ukiah City Hall, located at 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California, not less than
24 hours prior to the meeting set forth on this agenda.
Dated this 2nd day of March, 2011.
JoAnne M. Currie, City Clerk
ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE:
Citg oJ" Ukjafe_
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2a
3/4/2011
SUBJECT: STRATEGIC PLANNING: DISCUSSION OF STEPS TAKEN TO DATE IN STRATEGIC
PLANNING, OUTCOMES FROM MEETING HELD IN NOVEMBER 2010 AND
DISCUSSION OF FUTURE STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESSES
Background: City Council has engaged in a strategic planning effort since 2007, using the 5t" Wednesday
that occurs quarterly to hold these discussions in a workshop setting.
Discussion: The process that has been used since 2007 has resulted in Council adoption of Four
Strategic Planning Areas, 3 primary outcomes for the process, and an assessment of what has been
completed within each of the four areas, and what measures can be used to determine success in three of
the four areas. The recent meeting held last November was used to summarize the process to date.
Implementation of a strategic plan involves focus and work effort on actually achieving the goals laid out for
the plan. There are 3 Fifth Wednesdays remaining in this calendar year, June 29, August 31, and
November 30. Discussion regarding how best to use this time can be held under this item.
Fiscal Impact:
Budget Amendment Required
Budgeted FY 10/11 F-1 New Appropriation X❑ Not Applicable
F
Recommended Action(s): Discussion Of Steps Taken To Date In Strategic Planning, Outcomes From
Meeting Held In November 2010 And Discussion Of Future Strategic Planning Processes
Alternative Council Option(s):
Citizens advised:
Requested by:
Prepared by: Jane Chambers, City Manager
Coordinated with:
Attachments: 1) Notes from 11/10 Strategic Planninq Workshop
Approved: 2 ,
Jane Chambers, City Manager
ATTACHMENT
Strategic Planning Session
November 2010
City of Ukiah
Four Strategic Planning Areas
Strategy 1: Maintain downtown historic place as a regional center of civic and
economic activity.
Strategy 2: Planning Valley-Wide takes place based on sound planning principles.
Strategy 3: Develop a prioritize plan for maintaining and improving public
infrastructure.
Strategy 4: Council and staff work together to create a more responsive and
effective workplace environment.
Evidence of Success:
How will we know that we have been successful in these strategy areas 18 months
from now? What will be in place as evidence of our success?
Strategy 1: Maintain downtown historic place as a regional center of civic and
economic activity.
1. Facade and Business improvement plans have resulted in fewer vacancies, pretty
store fronts, more people walking and stores open more hours
2. More outdoor dining. More activity at nights and weekends
3. State of California is closing escrow for the courthouse in the downtown and we
are in design, and we have a plan on what to do with the "old courthouse".
4. Full bike racks.
S. Rail trail is completed
6. We are taking more advantage of the Farmers Market - it is open more days per
week and bringing people to the downtown area.
7. We have an exit plan for the Palace Hotel and the power to proceed. We have a
workable plan to move forward
8. Downtown has most of the amenities people need to stay and shop in town.
9. We have implemented Phase I of the streetscape program. State Street is seen as
an asset and that it is friendly and accessible.
10. Real estate is a premium in the downtown area.
11.We have really nice landscaping with the correct plants that go together and that
are well maintained.
Some summary statements:
1. We are removing the barriers to economic development
2. Public understands and has input into the whole downtown plan
3. We have a balance between the necessary infrastructure and beautification
measures that makes economic, strategic and political sense in terms of
community acceptance to the approach
Strategy 2: Planning Valley-Wide takes place based on sound planning principles.
1. MSRs are completed
2. Spheres of Influence (SOI) are approved
3. UVAP is completed and it recognizes our desired urban boundaries
4. Tax sharing agreement is completed - at least on property
5. Annexation of the Brush Street Triangle is completed
6. Our ultimate boundaries are well-defined
7. Annex land to conserve agricultural land on east side of freeway
8. We have Regional Cooperation Agreements related to fire, police, water, etc.
(auto aid)
Strategy 3: Develop a prioritize plan for maintaining and improving public
infrastructure.
1. Process for re-evaluation of our infrastructure priorities over time - e.g. concrete
2. We have created an efficient working relationship with the Sewer District and
we have regional service delivery
3. We have determined the usage of the Low Gap and Oak street building/property
4. We have held discussions about undergrounding prior to setting rates. We are
thinking and acting strategically and taking actions with the long-term in mind
5. We have a strategy and position regarding protection of our water rights. This
has led us to develop a well thought out water plan. We also have a better
understanding of our role regarding water relative to the other providers and we
have collaborative agreements in place.
6. Electrical Infrastructure in downtown is completed is already demonstrating
greater reliability
7. We have a 5-10 year City Facilities plan
8. The Water Recycling Master Plan if completed and is being implemented
r~ ~
o ~
0
s~
~
V) o
U U
N
O
d
V ~
V)
4-J
O '
ti
4-J
3
U
w
z
O
O
~
u
i
x
O
tn V)
p
N
O
LM
V) b
0 ccz cu
a (3), > N
>
4-J
0
A
,
u
>
N
a~
rya ~ Q)
4-J
.
~ +z
~ I
u
~
P. cz
d
w
ci Ate
Uw
w ~
v0
0~
.
.
r--,
Q
o
O
N
O ~
V
^
O
llz~
+J I
.
~
U
Q
4-J
o
4- 'o
C)
cz a
I
0
V)
co
O V
(s. cu a~
4-1
w
0
O
P.
J to
cz
J
M
c1
co
V)
-
0
3
0
4-
V)
r.
4-J
Ln
4-
4-J
in.
~
I
o
cz
o o
N
o
O'
w m ° °
a°w
cn h
a,c07
a
cn
w. °Q.raV
I
o
w .
O
W
I
V)
Q)
~
a\i
4-J
J
~
ca
U
r.
V)i
0 ~
V
)
.
O
4-J
b
u
4-J
cC
3
V,
O
°
t~
3
°
O U
3
u
0
6
t~
;w
4-J
0
B
a
0
4-j
0
J
CZ
'
z
° x
n
3
C)
> s~
G
0
3
O
`Z
V
3 U
O
0
O
d
0
0. o rs
O
-6
Ri
-O O
U
O O
'C U
N
O
U
'CS
O
2
r V
o o
^M
o
cz
aW
o a~ +J
0
d
a o m m
N t~
b
n
Y4
4..1
fA
c-I
U
1
(3)
CL)
-J
o
V
A
ai
m
w
cz o
~
En
3
0
ci j~
F~ O
o
~
C)
N
v
O
d
a.
E
w
I:L4
w
-
c~
tx I
9'
U
N
~
cz
~Q/)
cn 94
(1)
bA
m
o
0
Q
u
0
C
)
.
.
.
-
~i
3
3
A
V
a
PC
y
V
O
V
r~
V J
O
V
c~
0
i•y
MCI
ptz
c~
a
V
0
V
.r.r
Cd
CA
po
U
16. >
O
O
O A
O
D O 'O
a
°N cz
3
0 -d
.4-j
-a cz
LM
'ts
z
s.
nn
a.
ct
'ct P>,
N
7~
4-J
ft
CC
U
m O
'O QJ
O
O
u
J..
d
a a~
0
r
o
t o
(U
m o
bD
U
co
w O
N
O U
U ~
<
v
w
bA v)
i
i.
r. v)
Sr
4- ;Z CZ
S.
-'l
4-1
$=4
u
w
r-
O JO 'O
OU O
"O O
O c~
d
U cz in.
Cl. v~
W
U 3
O
CO
a4
ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE:
City PJ' zrkia
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2c
3/4/2011
SUBJECT: REPORT OF AD/HOC TAX SHARING DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN THE CITY OF UKIAH
AND COUNTY OF MENDOCINO COVERING THE PERIOD FALL 2008 THROUGH
JANUARY 2011, AND APPOINTMENT OF AD/HOC MEMBERS TO CONTINUE
DISCUSSIONS WITH THE COUNTY OF MENDOCINO
Background: The City of Ukiah has engaged with the County of Mendocino in discussions regarding the
sharing of various tax revenues over the course of several years, with intermittent meetings taking place
during the fall of 2008, during the year of 2009 and 2010, and again in January of 2011. During the summer
of 2008, meetings were held with the Ad/Hoc committee members from the City of Ukiah being Council
members Doug Crane and John McCowen, and Board of Supervisors members Wattenburger and Delbar.
Meetings were renewed in 2009 with new Board of Supervisor members John McCowen and Kendal Smith,
and Ad/Hoc Committee members for City of Ukiah being Council members Doug Crane and Mari Rodin.
Meetings were held periodically in 2009 that resulted in adoption by both the Board of Supervisors and the
City Council of Tax Sharing and Annexation Discussion Principles. The City of Ukiah adopted these
principles on February 17, 2010, and the Board of Supervisors adopted them, with one principle deleted on
February 23, 2010. A copy of the principles adopted by the Board of Supervisors is attached.
In fall of 2009, the City of Ukiah hired an individual to provide staff support for issues related to annexation
and to further discussions with the County of Mendocino, regarding tax sharing. Part of the City's effort to
address annexation at that time, was a continuing request by property owners of the Brush Street Triangle
area, to have their property annexed to the City of Ukiah. Because of the many procedural steps necessary
to accomplish an annexation, including a step required by law that the City of Ukiah and County of
Mendocino agree on property tax sharing of the parcels to be annexed into the City, additional staff capacity
to complete this work was necessary.
Over the years that the City of Ukiah has engaged in discussions about tax sharing with the County, the
issue of sharing sales tax revenues, in addition to property tax revenues, has been a prominent component
of the discussions. Although an agreement regarding sales tax sharing is not required for annexation to
take place, sales tax sharing has been seen as linked to future land use decisions in the Ukiah Valley area.
The issue of sales tax sharing was part of the community discussion and debate during the course of
hearings and presentations related to the Measure A vote in November of 2009.
Continued on Page 2
Recommended Action(s): Receive report of Ad/Hoc Tax Sharing Discussions Between the City of
Ukiah and County of Mendocino Covering the Period Fall 2008 through January 2011, and appointment
of Ad/Hoc members to continue discussions with the County of Mendocino.
Alternative Council Option(s):
Citizens advised:
Requested by:
Prepared by: Jane Chambers, City Manager
Coordinated with:
Attachments: Februarv 8, 2010 Maps Information
Approved:
Z.Z
7 e Chambers, City Manager
In 2010, an effort was made by both parties to hold bi-weekly meetings of the Ad/Hoc Committee between
the City of Ukiah and County of Mendocino. Meetings began in January of 2010 and continued through
May of 2010 with the assistance of the City's staff support. Funding for this position ended July 1, 2010.
Coinciding with the loss of the additional staff capacity was the need for analysis of tax revenues within an
area under discussion by the group, as the boundary for sales tax sharing. Both City and County staff were
to work on this analysis, with Muni Systems providing the bulk of the work effort to obtain figures that the
Ad/Hoc Committee could then discuss.
The City of Ukiah needs to appoint a new member to the Ad/Hoc group, as one member is no longer
available for this work. Because of the previous series of discussions on this topic, it could be argued that a
new member would constitute a third Council member participating in the discussions, and thereby raise a
Brown Act issue. In order to provide for the appointment of a new member, this report is being made to the
City Council so that it can receive a report from the Ad/Hoc committee for the City of Ukiah, appoint a new
member, and begin from this current point, to participate in additional Ad/Hoc meetings with the County of
Mendocino.
Discussion: Attached is'information provided by Supervisor John McCowen on February 8, 2010. This
information is related to maps that the group was then discussing as a basis for identifying an area in which
sales tax sharing would take place. This information is provided because it provides a summation of all the
areas that were under discussion by the group at that time. The subject of what area to designate for
sharing purposes has been a major part of the discussion by the Ad/Hoc. Agendas for meetings held
throughout 2009 indicate the following additional topics have been discussed:
• Methodology of tax apportionment for revenue neutrality,
• Revenue streams and taxes and fees to share,
• Policy for triggering annexation,
• Joint jurisdictional planning as described in draft Ukiah Valley Area Plan,
• Terms and effective date of an agreement,
• Maximum efficiency in gathering data,
• Fiscal analysis for tax sharing ( who is to perform it),
• Reports back to Ad/Hoc regarding separate City and County staff meetings for review of finance
legal, and planning issues.
The topic of tax sharing between the City of Ukiah and County of Mendocino has been complicated by a
number of factors related to land use planning for the valley area, including the time necessary for
completion of the Ukiah Valley Area Plan (UVAP) and processes under the jurisdiction of the Local Area
Formation Commission (LAFCO). The City of Ukiah has attempted to clarify these related factors through
publication of the Annexation Project Schedule, provided to Council at its meeting of August 4, 2010. The
first five steps of the project schedule involve negotiations with the County of Mendocino for tax sharing,
which were to have been completed between July 2010 and December 2010.
The EIR for the UVAP is now under review, with the UVAP document itself to become the subject of public
discussion shortly. The property owners remain interested and concerned about the progress being made
towards annexation of the triangle area, and the City of Ukiah is working with LAFCO towards the
completion of LAFCO required processes.
Continuation of the discussions between the City of Ukiah and County of Mendocino, through the Ad/Hoc
process, and under the guidance of the tax sharing and annexation discussion principles adopted by the
City and County, is timely and important. Staff recommends that Council receive this report of the
discussion to date, and appoint an Ad/Hoc committee to continue the discussions.
Fiscal Impact:
Budgeted FY 10/11 1-1 New Appropriation X❑ Not Applicable Budget Amendment Required
Page 1 of 2
Jane Chambers ATTACHMENT
From: John McCowen [mccowen@co.mendocino.ca.us]
Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 1:46 AM
To: Jane Chambers; Tom Mitchell; Kendall Smith; Doug Crane; Zarka Popovic; David Rapport; Mari Rodin
Subject: Comments to maps
Hi, Everyone,
This is my snapshot take on the UVAP process and the significance of the maps
provided by Zarka. I welcome any corrections/differing points of view at the
meeting.The maps and related info are useful background in helping to understand
some of the history, but the immediate issue is to seek agreement on logical
boundaries for the tax sharing map.
John.
In 1990 the City and County agreed that the City of Ukiah would lead a citizen driven
process balanced between City and County residents, that would write one planning
document for the UVAP Planning Area which would serve as the City of Ukiah General
Plan within the City limits and would be considered by the County for adoption as an
Area Plan (a component of the County General Plan) for the unincorporated County
land within the UVAP Planning Area. It was referred to as the "Ukiah Valley General
Plan" when it was adopted by the City in 1995. The 1998 Mendocino County UVAP
Public Hearing Draft described it as being "formulated as a joint plan for the City of
Ukiah and the unincorporated Ukiah Valley."
Black and White maps:
#1. "Area Encompassed by the Ukiah Valley Area Plan" includes both the City of Ukiah
and the unincorporated County area within the (UVAP) Planning Area.
#2. "Planning Area Boundaries" from the 1974 City of Ukiah General Plan, adopted in
1979 by LAFCO as the City Sphere of Influence (SOI); the infamous "ridge-top to
ridge-top" that set off alarm bells from Calpella to Burke Hill. Very similar in its
dimensions to the UVAP Planning Area. This is the current and legally adopted SOI,
but its legal and practical relevance to current planning is questionable.
#3. "Zip Code 95482 and 2008 Sales Tax Sharing Zip Codes 95448 (Talmage) 95482
(Calpella)" (This was developed at the very end of 2008, after I was out of the loop.
Doug, Jane, Tom and Zarka can provide background on this.)
#4. "Ukiah Urban Boundary" as shown in the "tentatively adopted" UVAP of
6/10/2003. The Ukiah Urban Boundary was initially devised by the County Planning
Commission. Although some land is in Ag use, everything included in the "Ukiah Urban
Boundary" is currently zoned SR, I or C.
#5. "City of Ukiah Proposed Sphere of Influence" as approved by the City of Ukiah in
1995, but never submitted to LAFCO for approval.
2/8/2010
Page 2 of 2
Discussion of City SOI and Ukiah Urban Boundary: The 1995 SOI in #5. is greatly reduced
from that shown in #2., and is a reflection of the strong sentiments of County residents not
to be included in the City's SOI. Although the 1995 SOI was approved by the City Council, I
believe it was never submitted to LAFCO because City staff and/or Council believed it was
overly restrictive.
When the UVAP discussion was taken up by the County Planning Commission the SOI issue
was revisited. The Planning Commission decided that the 1995 SOI did not adequately
encompass what came to be called the "Ukiah Urban Boundary," which was an effort to
delineate areas that were already substantially urbanized or that were most conducive, based
on current development or zoning, to urban scale development. The general intention of the
Planning Commission was that urban uses should be concentrated therein, rather than sprawl
out into Ag land. I believe the "Ukiah Urban Boundary" was due in part to frustration with the
lack of a LAFCO approved SOI. LAFCO approval of an updated SOI potentially negates the
need for a "Ukiah Urban Boundary." The stated purpose of the UVAP to reflect a common
vision is somewhat undermined given the difference between the 1995 SOI and the "Ukiah
Urban Boundary."
Color Maps:
#1. "City and County Redevelopment Agency Boundaries"
#2. "2006 Sphere of Influence Discussion" was developed for discussion in November 2006
by the City - County committee in recognition that tax sharing and annexation were pieces of
the same puzzle. The discussion areas for possible inclusion in the City SOI are highlighted in
yellow. The area at the South takes in land down to the Boonville Road (SH 253) and also the
Fireside subdivision on the south side of 253. It is intended to take in already developed
areas and/or round out the SOI boundary in that area. The upper left area is mainly to
square up the boundary. The upper right area takes in already developed areas and other
areas currently zoned I or C. I thought it was pretty ambitious to think the City could or
should expand that far in 20 years, but there was strong sentiment to include the highlighted
areas by some members of the committee. Further review may show that current use and/or
zoning are more valid criteria than "squaring up the boundaries." The real value was to start
the discussion about the proper boundaries for an updated SOI.
2/8/2010