Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1998-08-05 Packet
ITEM NO. URGENCY ITEM DATE: AUGUST 5, 1998 URGENCY ITEM SUMARY REPORT SUBJECT: APPROVE NON-AGENDIZED ITEM AS EMERGENCY ITEM; AUTHORIZE THE EXPENDITURE OF AN ADDITIONAL $42,345 FOR THE STATE STREET SURFACE REMEDIATION PROJECT, AND APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT Submitted for the City Council's consideration and approval as an emergency item is a non-agendized matter pertaining to the State Street Surface Remediation project currently in progress. A decision regarding project funding and/or the reduction of the scope-of-work needs to be made immediately. Staff is requesting the City Council's authorization to expend an additional $42,345 from Gas Tax Fund No. 2107 for the completion of the State Street Surface Remediation project from Low Gap Road to Henry Street. Additional funds are needed to complete the undersealment of the concrete panels. The volume of voids under the joints of the concrete panels is greater than what was anticipated and, therefore, a greater amount of urethane than what was estimated is being consumed. CONTINUED ON PAGE 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize an increase in the approved project funding level and approve budget amendment increasing Account No. 301.9830.240.000 by 942,345. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Not approve the funding increase. Allow project limits to fall where current funding allows. Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Rick H. Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Rick H. Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Project reports from Contractor. 2. Copy of Fund Summary in 1998/99 Budget. 3. Budget Worksheet. Candace Horsley, C~y Manager R: 1 \PW:kk ASTATE.ST Approve Non-agendized Item as Emergency Item; Authorize the Expenditure of an Additional $42,345 for the State Street Surface Remediation Project, and Approval Budget Amendment August 5, 1998 Page 2 BACKGROUND At the time the proposed State Street Surface Remediation project was submitted to the City Council for project approval on June 3, 1998, Staff emphasized that the proposed project funding level of $120,000 was based on assumed material usage of 13,900 (pounds) lbs of urethane for undersealment and 52,032 square feet of surface to be milled. Unit item costs for the undersealment are $6.40 per lbs of urethane for the first 13,900 lbs and $5.45 per lb. for quantities over 13,900 lbs, and $490 per day for traffic control. It was assumed that 24 lbs of urethane would be consumed per common joint. This assumed consumption rate translates to 1.33 lbs per foot of traffic lane. There are four (4) traffic lanes between the project limits of Low Gap Road and Henry Street each being 2,600 feet long for a total traffic lane footage of 10,400 feet. Based on the first six (6) days of undersealment work, urethane consumption was averaging just under 2 lbs per linear foot of traffic lane. From Sunday, July 26 to Monday, August 3, 3,890 linear feet of traffic lane had been completed and 7,480 lbs of urethane consumed. The work completed included the entire length of the outside north bound lane from Henry Street to Low Gap Road (2,600 feet) and both the outside and inside southbound lanes from Low Gap Road to Evans Street (each lane at 645 _ feet). Last night, the urethane consumption rate exceeded the average of 2 lbs per foot for the work performed within the inside northbound lane as reported in the attached memorandum from the contractor. If project funding is not increased, and if the urethane consumption rate remains in the vicinity of 2 lbs per foot of traffic lane, the limits of project completion for undersealment will most likely be between Low Gap Road and Clara Street for the two southbound lanes and the inside northbound lane. The limits for the milling work will not change, however, without slab undersealment and stabilization, the milling of the surface will not be a lasting improvement. Staff is recommending that the approved project funding be increased by $42,345. This funding increase would permit an additional 7,590 lbs of urethane at a unit price of $5.45 per lb. and two more days of traffic control at $490 per day. Based on the observed 2 lbs of urethane consumption per foot of traffic lane and a balance of 3,450 feet of traffic lane remaining to be undersealed (two southbound lanes, one inside northbound lane from Clara to Henry) after the maximum urethane poundage of 13,900 is reached, it is calculated that an additional 6,900 lbs of urethane will be needed to complete the entire project. Based on last night's experience, it is recommended that we increase the balance needed by 10% to 7,590 lbs. It is recommended that the additional funding be taken from the fund balance of $72,854 in Gas Tax Fund No. 2107. A budget amendment is required to authorize this expenditure. RHK:KK R:I\PVV ASTATE.ST Rug 05 98 07:47a 3im Barber 707-8S4-937S p.1 Attention: Rick Kennedy Date: 8/5/98 Company: City of Ukiah Number of Pages: Fax Number: i 707 463 6204 Voice Number: i 707 463 6280 From: Jim Barber Company: URETEK USA, INc. Fax Number: 707-864-9376 Voice Number: 707-864-9372 Subject: Ukiah Project Spread Sheet & Daily Report Comments: Rick, Attached are the two reports ref'ed above. The consumption of foam increased from 0.50 Ibs/sq.ft to 0.70 Ibs/sq.ft. in last night's work. Much larger voids were found in the work area. You will need to adjust your calculations to reflect this as to the amount required to complete. This illustrates the uncertain nature of your roadway. It has been very consistent in the amount of foam used from the beginning of the project until last night's shift. At this point we concerned about the remainder and what to expect. Please call me so we can discuss this further. Thanks. Rug 05 98 O?:47m Jim Barber 707-864-93?6 p.2 URETEK USA, FIELD OPERATIONS DAILY REPORT . .. --- .,.~... / .(,,' / f - - INJURIE.$ OR NEAR M[S:SE$ ? _'~'~ CREW OR INOMDUAL PROBLEMS f' NO. WHO? DID ALL CREW MEMBERS HAVE FER$ON~~UIP. ~AI:ETY OlSCU~lSION TOOA¥ WA$~/~ '"- TRUCK NEEI~S ~ WE COULD IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF OUR WORK AND INCREASE OUR PRODUCTION I~' Id I,,ldO~:Tl 866I ~ '6hid 6~E~ E9P A(~- : 'ON BHOHd NN [ A~qODS [(] : Rug 05 98 O?:47a Jim Barber ?07-8G4-9376 p.3 ~'~ooooo O0 dddddddddodddooooood ~ooooo o o oO Ru~ 04 98 08:58a 3im Barber ?0?-864-93?6 p. 1 Attention' Rick Kennedy Date: 8/4/98 Company: City of Ukiah Number of Pages: Fax Number: 1 707 463 6204 Voice Number: 1 707 463 6280 From: Jim Barber Company: URETEK USA, INc. Fax Number: 707-864-9376 Voice Number: 707-864-9372 Subject: Ukiah Project / Daily Report for 8/3/98 & Spread Sheet Comments: Rick, Attached are the above items. We are averaging right at 0.50 lbs / sq.ft, on the worst part of the project (all four lanes south of Low Gap) or about 2.0 lbs / foot of lane. Thru last night we have used 54% of the foam in the base contract. I do not have a means of translating that into sq.ft of completed roadway. You have the street layout so maybe you can measure that off and let me know what it is. We can compare that with what will be needed to finish. Thanks! Ru~; 04 98 08:58a AUG-04-1. 998 08:29 Jim Barber ?0?-864-93?6 URETEK USA, !NC P.01 URETEK USA, FIELD OPERATIONS DAILY REPORT TRUCK W]~ CDULI~ NPROVl[ I'HE nUAI.ITY Of: OUR WORK ANt) iNCREASE OUR PROOUCTtON JF TOTAL P.01 Ru~ 04 98 0B:58a Jim Barber ?07-864-9376 p.3 O' .o 'o N · The URETEK Method® URETEK USA, INC. Friday, July 31, 1998 Rick Kennedy Director of Public Works / City Engineer City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482-5400 Re: City of Ukiah / Street Restoration Contract Dear Rick: Enclosed please find the "daily report" for the last two days work on the State Street Project as well as the Project Summary Spread Sheet. To date we have consumed 6174 lb. of foam material, slightly more than originally estimated up to this point in the project. We are injecting only the end joints of each panel, stabilizing the joint and doing no lifting. We first began by trying to lift the centers on a few panels which were "bowed down" or sagging about one inch in the middle but found that the entire panel tried to lift. We rejected that process in favor of end joint injection only. The grinding phase should take care of most of the unlevelness in the "bowed" panels. The exception to that is where we find a panel with a longitudinal crack, we inject foam on both sides of the crack in the middle of the panel. This is to underseal and stabilize the failed area. The higher consumption of foam is due to larger void areas at the joints than we usually find. This is probably due to the length of time since the roadway was last repaired and the high traffic load. The fines in the subbase have long since been pumped away. The inability to take out the sag in the badly bowed panels, I believe is due to the age of the concrete paving, which is thirty years plus. At that advanced age the flexural capability of the material is virtually nonexistent, particularly in a roadway application. It has taken a shape or set and it is not going to change. We will correct this by the grinding operation. We started on the south end of State Street at Henry, worked north and have completed all of the outside (#2) lane to Low Gap. Last night we started at Low Gap in the outside (#2) lane and worked south to a point between Evans and Ford Streets. Predicated upon our telephone conversation Wednesday and meeting yesterday, we will concentrate on the three remaining lanes, one northbound (#1) and two southbound (#1 & #2), south from Low Gap to Norton. 47 Jodi Ct. ° Suisun City, CA 94585 ° 707-864-9372 ° Fax 707-864-9376 The idea being to get "the most bang for the buck" in the worst remaining areas. If we still have foam poundage left in the contract after working that area, we will address the next worst area. Right now that appears to be the two inside (#1 & #1) lanes starting at Henry Street and going north. Please take another look at the this and see if you concur. I think we are on track to achieve our original goal of restoring the stability and riding comfort of the roadway as well as extending the useful life for many more years. The field production crew is well aware that we need to extend the foam poundage as far as possible without sacrificing quality and are working to that end. Our crew will be back on site Sunday afternoon at 2:30 PM to start again. You can reach me at my office number throughout the weekend or on my cell phone (510-774- 1695). We plan the start back in the south bound inside lane (#1) to even with where we knocked off last night. I will transmit all subsequent daily reports at the same time I receive them as well as an updated Spread Sheet. Thanks again for the opportunity to be of service. Regards, ~ Jim Barber, PE URETEK USA, Inc. Encl.: City of Ukiah Daily Reports (7/29/98 &7/30/98) City of Ukiah /Contract Billing & Production Spread Sheet (Updated 7/31/98) rtl For i_m~__ne__~dia_~te release' MEMORIAL WAI.K A short memorial walk will take place in Ukiah at $:30pm next Wednesday, August $. The one-block walk along State Street will cover the path of the recent shooting tragedy, beginning in front of Foster Freeze and ending in front of the stairwell where the tragedy occurred. According to J. Holden, co-organizer of the walk, "We intend this to be a collective healing opportunily for people in our community to peacefully and respeclfully express their grief over this tragic event, and to share our hopes that it will never happen again. There will be no political speeches or demonswations, and no blaming of anybody. Just a quiet expression of sympathy and compassion for all people whose lives have been touched by this tragedy, no matter in what way." ALI, interested persons are invited to share in the memorial walk. For information or to assist, call 462-AIJcr1. 3a MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting Wednesday, July 15, 1998 The Ukiah City Council met at a Regular Meeting on July 15, 1998, the notice for which had been legally noticed and posted, at 6:30 p.m. in the Civic Center Council C..::~.mbers, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. Roll was taken and the followin~.::..Coun.~i~:~mbers were present' Councilmembers Chavez, Ashiku, Kelly, Mastin, and Mayo..~i~..a.!O.~!!:''' Staff present' Assistant Redevelopment Director DeKnoblough, City Ma .n:.~:.e..r Hor.:~!~i~:!!iiii~i~.!c Works Director Kennedy, Associate Planner Lohse, Planning Director Sa.~!~:Seni(j:~i::~~![$tump, and Ci~:y...: Clerk Ulvila. 2. Pledae of Alleaiance ::~:~:~:~:~:~:~ ................... ~:~:~:~:~::':~:~::'::':~:~:~::':'::~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~ ................. Councilme~ber Masti-n led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. S_~ecial Order of Business .... ~!~::~::~;~!~!~::~::~i~::~::~i~i~i~::~::~i~::~::~?:~::~:?:~i~ ..... a. Presentation from the Shade Brigade .~ili:? Nancy Race, representing of the Shade Brigade, p~?...S.'ie, nted in'~~{~iii:-t:..0. Council concerning the shade tree program. Their purpose is to co.l~~::::i~:to Ukial~::~::~iii~~nity Forest through public/private partnership, and advocate park.[.~ii~ii~i!ii~,ees. Tl~ii~gram received a grant from ReLeaf for $1,000 in trees to be pla..~"'0n '~i~~.a.!ks..:~j~'h volunteer participation. They have agreed to replace 15 trees in' which will finish the grant funds. She discussed their partnership .~'h the ~i~"to "::;:~:~:;~:~::'"~:;:~:~:~:;:::~:~:;:' .... ..... pro~::ii~::"budget design concept for the City Parking Lot C located next .t.:~iiii~ libra.r.:~i::?:"The Ci.t-!~?and the Shade Brigade are sharing design costs in matching grant fo~i!~?ShadeiiilB:rigade ha~:~i::~,lso pledged to raise additional funds ====================== ::i:::::i:!:i:' .'.':':'.':" for planting trees in Lot C if nee~!:' The S..~ ariga.:~ii~quested support from the City to join Tree City uS:A, reactivate ..t..~.. ~munit?~il;~~::i::::~mittee, provide an inventory of existing trees in th..e.?;i~:wntown .a..~ii~;~,vide a b~{~i~;::~itizens as a guide to tree planting on City sidewa!~iiiiili!~gg Iot'J~iii!~iiiii::~., and ~'~i!~::::~ clear City directive advocating shade tree canopie~;~:'~ii~ii~i!~,:..as W'~i~i!i~ili~!ii~..e. strian friendly component to the community. · ================================================== -.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:,:.:+:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.. ......................... :: .......... :: ............ '.::i!ii::!i~i~::ii~i!::~::!i!i~i~iiii::!::iii::!iiii?:i::!~ ...... City Manager"::~~iiii~p...orted'::~i!~!~iii~:ity was a member of Tree City USA when she was staff represea~~i;~i;;i~i!~rban ":~".~;~t Committee several years ago. She will check on the ..::i:i:i:i:i:!:.::'"'" .......... ::!:!i'..:iiii~!:i:!:~:i.i:~:~:!:~:~.~:ii!;!i~.~.~:!.:.. "? City's sta~§';' ':~;:~:~:~ ..................... ::::::~:~:~:~:~:~: .... .--..... "::i:i:!:!:~:!:!:!~:!:!:i.'.::i:!:i:i:i:i:~:~:i:i~::.. Phy!.!]~ii~urtis advised thi~;ii~:~.,........ .......... trees can reduce temperatures in parking lots by as much as 10::iiii~i~:grees, as well as:i~clu'~ing hydrocarbons. She noted that several months ago an article o~iii~.....,................ Shade Tree Brig..~:e was published in the Ukiah Daily Journal, resulting in five trees being ~ii~:...d asa demon.s..~!~:ion to the community. They secured a commitment from the owners ~6~ili::i~:.ej.r care....~::"are delighted to be working with the City on the parking lot near the ================================================== ........... ::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: "::~:i:~:{:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:i:~:~:~:i:i:~:i:i:i:i:i:!:i:i:i:i::,:i::':" Ci~i!ii~i~:;' Horsley noted that grant funds could be used to cover maintenance cost for those business owners who do not provide tree maintenance. Several private owners have requested the cutting of trees on their property and would like to replace those trees. The Shade Brigade is willing to assist these property owners with new tree plantings. She discussed her participation as a founding member of the Urban Forest Committee and the possibility of Regular Meeting - July 15, 1998 Page 1 obtaining additional park trees. The Planning Department has integrated the current tree inventory with landscaping requirements within the City. 4. A_m)roval/Correction of Minutes a. S_~ecial Meetings of June 23 and 24, 1998 (Budpet Sessions} b. Joint Meeting with Ukiah Valley Sanitation District of June 24, 199R c. Regular Adjourned Meeting of July 1, 1998 (Interviews} d. Regular Meeting of July 1, 1998 A correction was noted by several Councilmembers to the minutes of June 23, .~::~8, Page 5, third paragraph, first sentence, to read Consensus of the Council ~as to ~lish a fund, totaling $2,000 for the Council as a whole, with Council app[:~:.o~:~ch requested MIS Mast}n/Malone to approve the minutes of the Spe~[~:~eeting..::~~:[~::~and June 1998, with correction to page 5, the minutes of the Joi~:Meeting..::~ U'~~ii~::.:San.~n District of June 24, 1998; the Regular Adjourned M~j. ng of.::~i~ 1, 19~:~~?~i~~ular Meeting of July 1, 1998; as submitted, carried by' ro, ca~ Ashiku, Kelly, Mast}n, and Mayor Malone. NOES: No~?:?:~~AIN· None. ABS'~'~T: None. 5. RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION .:~?;~? .... ~?~::~ Mayor Malone ravia wed the appeal process. ":~::~::~?:~?:~::~::~::~?:~?:~?:~ .... ....................::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ...... ....:;::~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~¢~::.. "::~~::-' 6. CONSENT CALENDAR ..::~[[~ ~?:~::~ . MIS Mastin/Chavez to approve Items a-k~:~::~Ee C~~nda~::::~'~ follows: a. Awarded Bid for 45, 50, and~:5 Foot:~:i"ass '~~~[;~'n Cedar Poles to McFarland Cascade in the Amount of..:~[::~'033.667 b. Approved Report of Disb.~:~nts ~¢~he Uon~:?of June 1998; c. Awarded Contract to F~'ti Con~tion f~e Construction of the Sidewalk Replacement and D~ain~ Impro~~::::~j~::~'t Spec. No. 98-08 in the Amount of ~ 7 ~.9.42; .... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~::::[[~;~? :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ' ........ . .............. .~.~.~:~:~:~:.:~:~:~:~:~:~:.:.:~:~:~:~:~:~: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: d. ~~:-~' Mend~;~nty Boa':~?~'pervisors Request for the Cit of Ukiah's ====================================================== =================================================== - y S"~~::Hobil~::~:E~..~::.provisions of AB 2309 (aowen); e. Rec~:~;~[t Reg~~?~?~cquisition of Services from Tim Narvaez for Slope Stabili~~~k. at th'~[~~?~ndfill; f. Appr..~~~te Repi'~::~:~e City of Ukiah Representative on the AB 939 Task g. ;:?:~pted Resol'~~::¢Calling for General Municipal Election, Consolidating General .::?:~?:~?' M u n ici p a I ' ':~:~:~:~*~:~:~*~:~:::"::::;:; .... ' ...... Elect~::~-'Statew~de General Election, Presenting Ballot Measure To Make ::~?? Mayor Position ~p~¥~tive Rather Than Elective, Transmitting Measure to City Attorney -'-'-'-"'-'-'-'.......... ........ ................ ::::[~;~ For Impartial A~l~sis, and Authorizing Arguments and Rebuttal Arguments in Favor of ~~?:::Denied Cl~i~or Damages Received From Fred Williams Jr., Gregory Severson, and Sue ~[[~[?[~??[~??[~~::::~osa Mendez, and Referral to the Joint Powers Authority, Redwood Empire '~::::~[~??~?~~'1 Insurance Fund; , ~. '"':':'::::::::::R~:~eived Repo~ Regarding the Acquisition of Services From Meyer General Equipment Construction for Rental of Truck and Driver; j. Approved Budget Amendment and Received Report for the Purchase and Installation of Replacement Heating and Air Conditioning Units at Civic Center.; k. Accepted Repo~ Regarding Purchase of Chlorine Tablets for Municipal Swimming Pool Regular Meeting - July 15, 1998 Page 2 from Lincoln Equipment, Inc., in the Amount of $5,834.40, The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Chavez, Ashiku, Kelly, Mastin, and Mayor Malone. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS ..::!::.. ..;.:.:.:.,.:.:.. Phil Baldwin, 627 Willow Avenue, expressed his concern with aircra:f.t noise?:!~i'iution in the :':':':':' ..::::i:i:i, · City. It was his opinion that the Ukiah Airport is increasingly a sour..~i~:'.e..=f.?~i~e pollution. He recommended the City invite the Federa~ Aviation Autho~t~ (FAA.¥~!!~ii!i~i~ to discuss noise vas u sure is a ta.e-o s landings to have high levels of noise. He felt t~::"helicopt,~¢~~.r reside~:i neighborhoods has increased significantly since Co~il apprQ~::~'th~::~[~~[~,b~i:~[er ?:~::~::~?:~::~ ............ ~¢:.- '-~?~¢~::::~:~:~:~:~ .... Commis~oner Masfin discussed the flight path of plan~:'~[~~::.travel in a sout~';';~:~ direction to the Airport. It was his understanding that there is,.¢~~?~ute from the Airport to the east that private planes are supposed to utilize. He fet¢~he Ci~~i~::..have some control over the flight paths, noting safety is also an issue with .a'i'~craft fl'i*~~~.s. . ,.;.::~:~::.. '-::~:::~'~'~:. Mayor Malone discussed planes flying at Io~~~er the .... .... ..::;;::::::::.. ,,:-:-;-:.;.:-:,:-:-:-:.:-:-:-:->:-:-:::::-;-:.:*:*:-.. ,;:~:~:- Commis~oner Ashiku discussed the fligh.~th alon~[~::~(~. ~~=?:;nd the west side of Ukiah being disruptive and noisy to residenCeS. He ..:~e'p"'*::~ ....... orted:~*~:~*'~:::~:~:~:~*~:~:~*~::" ''~u:ss~ ~??. ~::~? ......~?~;~?. .............. ng the matter with Airport Manager Bud ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .;;; ........... .....,.... ...... .-:-:->:-:.:-:.:.:,:-' .-~:E:M:' City Manager Horsley advised:~¢~( she ~(~report.;::~k to Council concerning regulations governing the Ukiah Airpo(¢~[~e issue.¢~~¢~¢~ Due to ~~~.ther i(:'~?[~[~..Agend'~?:~;~:~::~oved ahead of Item 8, Public Hearing, which No one came~~?~¢ress"~?:~ouncil. ..;:::::.:,:.:. a...::~¢~?Reoo~ from Soli'~:~~, Inc. Status and Schedule for Ukiah Solid Waste Transfer ::::::::::: '""'"'""' ~ """'"" .......-...-... ::::::;:::. · :{~i~i~: ,.:::::::::' ~[~anager HorCey ~(ributed a letter to Council which was received by the City this week ~~ay Hall, Depa.[~nt of Planning and Building Services for Mendocino County, regarding S~[~~?'~epresenting Solid Waste Systems, Inc., discussed the schedule for the design, per~:i~i:~:'~"'and construction of the Ukiah Transfer Station proposed for the Taylor Drive site. He advised Steve Debain from EBA Wastechnologies, an engineering firm from Santa Rosa, which Solid Waste, Inc. has contracted with for the design and supervision of the transfer station was also in attendance. Mr. Katte reported it is the intent of Solid Waste Systems, Inc. to submit the Use Permit application and Initial Study on July 24, 1998. He advised that in Regular Meeting - July 15, 1998 Page 3 order to submit a completed application to the California Pollution Control Financing Authority (CPCFA), they need to include information from the Initial Study. They anticipate having their application to CPCFA by August 7, 1998, with an initial resolution by CPCFA on August 26, 1998, and hopefully approval by early 1999. Solid Waste Systems is confident they will have the station constructed and in operation by November 1999. With the latest closure date for the Ukiah Landfill set for the May 1, 2000, trial loads could be made during the interim period of time. It is their goal that the transfer station be in operation prior to the closure of the landfill. Councilmember Mastin inquired if there would be additional costs if the... LandfilJ~ii~ained open between November 1999 and May 2000. .,~iiiiii::?:i~ ...... ~!ilili::i~''-:~ Public Works Director Kennedy advised there would be..~?~ditio~iiiii~!i!~s the City wou.!~ still be receiving fees and the fees would offset the cos~!ii!!?~i!~"~aff has .h~i!~i~i,n concern, j::~'"'~ a severance program to encourage the Landfill emplo~s to rem...e'."~':"untiF~iii~...f, jll a~ily closes. In order to do that, it is felt the City shoui~?~ii::guaraQ~:"'them a"::~i~i~!iiii~i~:t of . ont s' a,ter c,oses, ot er He felt the best time to utilize these employees would'~iii~i!:~ii.M..ay. It would be to the City's advantage to work until the last possible date. He not~~!!~;~.'-.v..en employees are involved. . ..... ......... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: City Manager Horsley inquired as to which c.....~ii~~..~ wishe~ii~ii~iii~'01unteer to attend the upcoming Sundays in the Park Concert. ~i~;':'"~'~j~!ii~i!i~.C. oun.cii~'ember Ashiku will check their schedules and contact the City M~er ~a~.e...~ii!~...::~.:iii~{~ii~iiii~iiiii~iiiii~i!ii~iii~i}iiii~ii~i~? .... a. Introduction of O.~!~:Ce A~:~ding A~le 15 of Chamer 2 of the Ukiah ~unicioal Code - .;~j~j~ . ;.:.:.:.:.:.:. S~ior Planner S~mp discus~.ed~:e prop~~.~:i~::::~o the Zoning Code, which updates the regulations::~i::the City o~::~i~ub~ic F~i~!i~i~:~' Zo~in.District. The purpose of revising these re~~. is to '~~Drovisio~~:~onformance with the Ukiah General Plan, to ~,,t, ~':::~~~ ,na":~~,.~ o~ r~,~,tio~,. ,nd ~o ~,~ tH, ~orm,t oon,i,t,~t ~itH other Zon~':~::~~Article~?:~?~~d the Planning Commission, at their June 24, 1998 ~,tm. ~o~a:~:~:~g~:~,~ ~:~i~a vot~ ~,,~i~o~,~ to ,~pport tH, r~vi,~ ~,n~,,,, ..... :.:~.:.:.- :.:.- -.- :.:.:.:.:.: :.:.:.:.. . =========================== . and to reco~~?:~::~.c~l ado~n of the Ordinance. The proposed amendments to the Public F,.:~iii~:~"'Zo~:i::~:~~5?nc~::~n reformatting, the Purpose and Intent Section, Allowed and P~:~ffted Lane U~~!~pment Standards, and Landscaping Requirements. .............. '?:::~::~?:~f :::::::::::::::::::::::::: .... ............ ::::::::,.'.'.'.' N~?~embers of the audience..........., came forward to speak at the Public Hearing. ~i~. H~,ri,g C~o~?:04 p.m. .......... ..................... ..::::::::~.?. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ..;.:::.t:::::::-' ~~:~i~t~ii~i:5 introduce Ordinance Amending Division 9, Chapter 2, Article 15, by title ~i~~~:'~he following roll call vote: AYES: Chavez, Ashiku, Kelly, Mastin, and Mayor M~i~:¢::?:::::~'ES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. City Clerk Ulvila read the Ordinance by title only. MIS Mastin/Kelly to introduce Ordinance Amending Article 15 of Chapter 2 of the Ukiah Regular Meeting - July 15, 1998 Page 4 Municipal Code, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Chavez, Ashiku, Kelly, Mastin, and Mayor Malone. NOES- None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 12. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Kelly distributed copies of Ukiah Unified School District's (UUSD) school site acquisition plan, unanimously adopted by UUSD on July 14, 1998, which targ.e...-t:-.s, the former Montgomery Ward property on South State Street for the potenti~..[:..new..::.s..'.~!~ol site. She discussed the School District's plan to relocate the Adult School in or~iii[~....e...'~'and Frank Zeek School. The School District is encouraged by the support{~iven by~!i~iiii~i~'' and County, and is looking forward to working with both entities. She.:..i~ii~d tl~':¥ii!i~iii~.'.s..:..cautious about making a (City) commitment to the School District, how~;~', she did:~i~::~!ili~!!ii~.rtions of.,:~i~ minutes from the City's Budget Hearings with regardiii~' the City!ii!~'ng ~~i~..e...n....t..~:!i~:ds for this project. :...'~!~i~ii~i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i~i!~i~i~: ======================================= ...... She discussed the upcoming community services me~ii~iiii~iii~.onterey in Augu~'~':':':~Nhere they will have school, county, and ,c, ity partnership discussi~::ili~;ii~r..rent collaborate activities. In addition ,o the School Districts attorney, Suzanne .~..:~'d, '~!!!~.....t..he School District and t h e C o u n t y p I a n t o a t t e n d t h i s co n f e r e n ce. "~~ .... ======================================================== ......... · ,.;-.'.:,:.:.;,:,:.:.:.:.. Councilmember M,stin commented on the ....a..'~"~i~ii~i~i~:y.....'s issue::~.::~ii.~'he UMah Daily Journal which indicates the City will contribute ..:tii~ii~"'~00'~iii~iiiii~~..el~!~'~t Funds. He expressed concern with the possibility of the prior commitment to this Commissioner Kelly clarified th~ii~ii~'ter b~iiiiii~aying t~ the article indicates the City has discussed offering redevelop~-~ funds.:~i~ii!iii~he SC.~i:' District. Commissi~ili...K...elly repo~!ili~i~ii~the Sun i~~ii!~ii~ met today and they are happy with their meeting~i~iii~i~?~i~i~ity st~i~ii~ii~~}i..ng the plan. She advised that the University of 60 baskets'~'iiiii?,~i?,~r an U' iii i i i i an. A new sign is being prepared for the Guild which will describe t'~i~~..exhibi'~!~i~:iay and will be a great addition to the museum ...... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .... . ~::i:~:!:i:i:i:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:i:!:!:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:~:i:~:~::.~ :-ii::::i:.i::" on o, en oc,no So,, Autho~i.i.'~" (MSWMA) ~iliiii~i~!~iiii!i..".-l:", 1998. The North Forks Improvement Group requested .;:::::::.:.- ============================================= MS~'A's support of ~iii!~'~":"for filing an appeal relating to the North State Street property, w.h~'was purchased b~?~MA for a transfer station. MSWMA voted not to support another .':::;:::::;:::;:: d.~!~I, based on the n.~ to go forward. The North Forks Improvement Group plans to go all t~i~ay to the Supr.:~'e Court if necessary to finalize the decision. · ~ ..-,-.-o-.-...,.....-..... ...,......:c ' ' -:-:.:-:-:-:-:-:.:-:-:-:,:-:,:->, . ..::::::::;:::-' ;.:.:.:.:.:.:,:,:.:.:.:-:.:.:,:.:,~ ..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ..... . ~$~ii~~::?--':~'"'i:~g with Eric Anderson and Martin Millek during his visit to the Cold Creek ================================================================================== - C~~i?~i~ii:::'::~bly 9, 1998. He commended them for their effort to mitigate problems and iss~':~~"~:~d to the project. He discussed their leachate system and how impressed he was with the site and its operation. He spoke with neighbors and they indicated having no problems with noise or odors, however, some blue turps covering the compost sight are visible from their property and can be easily mitigated. Regular Meeting - July 15, 1998 Page 5 He reminded Council that July 18 is opening night for Dames At Sea and Bernadette Peters, who starred in the original production, may be present for opening night. David Christmas, who is directing this production, was Ms. Peters' leading man in the original production. Mayor Malone reported that the City of Willits is foreclosing on the Ukiah railroad property and Mendocino Transit Authority (MTA) is considering the purchase of the depot property. He advised that the City of Willits had originally considered declaring the property surplus. He described the procedure for North Coast Rail Authority (NCRA) abandoning a right-of-way. Councilmember Ashiku reported on the approved funding of the .:~..r::.,.evenu..e:.:.i.~.i:i~:~ds for the hydroelectric plant, with a savings of $48 million. He discussed how::i::~.~.:..n.e..:~.?~vings from the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) would be applied ..~:,the ge..0:.~~'.[';;;'debt and the City will be able to pay it off earlier. Approximately $5 mill!:~iiiiii~iiiiSavin"=~iii~i!!ii.~iiii..t....o the City. . .................. Commissioner Kelly advised that David Faulkner is I~'ing his County Air Quality Control District. The report con~ing th.eiiii;i~:'~ qualit¥'::!~!~iiiiii~~i?Was funded by the Board of Supervisors and MCOG and inci~ii::ar~::i!~ission invent(~i~'"~i~!i!~i~rology study, and a mitigation study, should be available ;;~":i:::: .... Commissioner Ashiku advised that the study is now a .V.......~l:able'-:a~::~.~::~i~::~i~.a.s read portions of it and w i I I I e n d C o u n c i I m e m b e r Ke I I y h i s c o p y. ":'~-'::~::~i~i~::~":~i~i~::~::~::~i~!~::~::~!~i~::~::~i~i~i~::~ .... =================================== ·...:-:,:.:.:,:.:.:.:,:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:,:.. .......................................... Councilmember Kelly advised she will be on .~ii~~iiii~.n..g the fi'~iiii~'"~'ek of August and will not be able to attend the City Council .::~'~g":'~:.~iiii~~.t... 5 ..... ~i~'~~ the MCOG meeting on Monday, August 3, 1998. ...-...... ........,... .......... .-...-.,,- ..,.:.:.:... .......... ........... ..,........ ..z...... ..::::::::t- :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ..,....... Mayor Malone advised that he wil..!.~ii~!: be ab!:~ii:O atten.d..'.!ii~'~"City Council meeting on August 5, 1998, since he will be out of ...~!~?from :~::gust 1-!.~' 1998. Commissioner Ashiku advised t-.-:~[ he is t.~iii~.e..r:n..:.a.~ii!!¥0r MCOG and will attend the August 3 Mayor ~~i!i~i~ed th'~!ii~i!ii~League of California Cities' Policy Committee meeting for Communit'~":ii~i'~::~:..vvill b~iii~iii!~i~[t. 13 and 14, 1998 in Sacramento. He will attend the August 13 m~i~ii~?~![t.:..was ~ili~!!ii::i::ommissioner Kelly will also be attending the August 13 meeting r.~i~!!~!~munit~:"~i:~:es. He re~:~d that a j~:i~iiii~i~ of the Empire Division and the North Bay Division of the Leag.~:?bf California Citi~iii~!!i?~i~ held on Thursday, September 3, 1998 in Rohnert Park. It will be:..iii~~ last division me~i:n~":before ..... the fall conference. Councilmembers should be receiving .......... n or at o. ..:.:.:.:.:.:.:,:.:.:,:, ..:,:.:.:.:.. .-.-.-.-.-.-.-,-.-,-...-. ,.:.:.:.:.:.: ............. .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:,. .;.:.:.:.:.:.- · :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. .,:.:.:..",:.- ,.............................. ~i~i~!iii!ii":iiiiii!i::i:... CIT¥.¥:~NAG ER/DIR ECTOR REPORTS 14:'':::::''i:iiiiii!!iii!i!i!i!i:!:!:: ......... CLOSED SESSION None. 15. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Malone adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m. Regular Meeting - July 15, 1998 Page 6 AGENDA SUMMARY Sa ITEM NO. DATE: Aug 5, 1998 REPORT SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE EXPENDITURE FOR PRIMARY SLUDGE PROCESS MODIFICATIONS TO KBL NOT TO EXCEED $10,841.30 REPORT: Included in the 98/99 Wastewater Treatment Plant Budget is $1 5,000 to modify the primary sludge process to bring the plant into compliance with state regulations. The necessary work includes the following: 1. Modifications to the existing programmable logic controller (PLC) control panel. 2. Wonderware and PLC programing modifications. 3. Provide level sensor and transmitter. 4. Engineering and documentation. The firm of Krug, Bixby, Long and Associates (KBL) has performed all of the installation and design of the computerized control system at the wastewater treatment plant. KBL has submitted quotation for $10,841.30 to perform the necessary modifications. Staff recommends authorizing KBL to perform this work for the sum not to exceed $1 0,841.30 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize KBL to perform the necessary primary sludge modifications for the sum not to exceed $10,841.30 ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Reject proposal Acct. No. (if not budgeted): Acct. No.: 612-3580-800 Appropriation Requested: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by' Darryl L. Barnes, Director of Public Utilities Prepared by: George Borecky, Water/Sewer Operations Superintendent~--~'~ Coordinated with' Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: None Candace Horsley, Manager AGENDA SUMMARY 5b ITEM NO. MEETING DATE: Aua 5. 1998 REPORT SUBJECT: AWARD OF BID FOR SODIUM HYDROXIDE PRODUCTS TO SIERRA CHEMICAL COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $285.42 PER DRY TON REPORT: Each year it is necessary to purchase approximately 84 tons of sodium hydroxide for use at the water and wastewater treatment plants. Sodium hydroxide is used to raise the pH of the water and for corrosion control. Total quantities are an annual estimate of usage. Orders are placed on an as needed basis by plant personnel. Requests for Quotations through the formal bid process were sent to twelve chemical suppliers. Six bids were returned and opened by the City Clerk on July 21, 1998. The Iow bidder is Sierra Chemical Company with a bid of $285.42 per dry ton totaling $23,975.28 for the estimated 84 tons. $60,000 was budgeted in the Water Account 820-3908-520 and $122,000 was budgeted in the Sewer Account 612-3580-520 for the purchase of chemicals. RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council award the bid for Sodium Hydroxide to Sierra Chemical Company for the amount of $285.42 per dry ton. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Take no action. 2. Postpone award of bid. Acct. No. (if not budgeted): N/A Acct. No.: 820-3908-520 Appropriation Requested: N/A 612-3580-520 Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Darryl L. Barnes, Director of Public Utilities Prepared by' George Borecky, Water/Sewer Operations Superintendent~--~ Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: 1. Tabulation of bids APPROVED: Candace Horsley, Ci~ Manager 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o .~ ITEM NO. 5c DATE: August 5, 1998 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: AWARD OF MAINTENANCE SERVICE AGREEMENT TO MATT'S CUSTOM TREE CARE SUMMARY: The City distributed specifications for tree pruning services through its informal bidding process to 22 contractors. Four proposals were received and opened by the City Clerk on July 21, 1998. Staff has reviewed and identified the most competitive bid as being Matt's Custom Tree Care. The second most competitive bid, Davey Tree Surgery, did not clearly identify a cost for stump removal. Matt's Custom Tree Care's performance has been satisfactory on past tree pruning projects. If the proposal is awarded, compensation for the performance of the work will be based on the hourly rate bid for various tree pruning services. The Street Department has a budget of $10,000 for tree pruning in its leaf and tree control budget (Attachment 2). Continued on Parle 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Award the maintenance service agreement to Matt's Custom Tree Care. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Council may choose not to award the agreement thereby requiring City staff to seek competitive proposals for each and every tree pruning project throu~]hout the year. Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Rick Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Prepared by: Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works,~~ Coordinated with' Candace Horsley, City Manager Rick Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Attachments: 1. Bid Proposal from Matt's Custom Tree Care 2. Fiscal Year 1998/1999 Budget Sheet Candace Horsley, ~ty Manager RJS:AGTRPRN2.SUM 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Description 1. Tree pruning, emergency response within 2 hours including nights, weekends, and holidays. 2. Tree pruning and/or tree removal, routine work. 3. Stump grinding. Stumps to be ground to a minimum 2-inches below grade. PUBLIC WORKS TREE PRUNING PROPOSAL FORM (this form must be completed, signed, and returned with the bid) Hourly Cost - Bucket Truck Work for crew including all equipment, clean-up and debris disposal costs. Specify reach of bucket truck. (Cost may include tree climbing work as needed.) Emergency tree pruning, cost per hour of $_ !0__5, eo. Reach of bucket truck ('oO feet. Routine tree pruning, cost per hour of $ "7~, ~o. Reach of bucket truck ~ feet. Hourly Cost - Tree Climbing Work for crew including all equipment, clean-up and debris disposal ~?~'L, (Cost only for tree climbing work, cost does not include bucket truck work.) Emergency tree pruning, cost per hour of Routine tree pruning, cost per hour of $ '7~,oo . Cost per inch stump diameter of $/,¢,¢ . Diameter measured at the widest point at ground level. The undersigned declares he is familiar with the items specified and has carefully checked all of the figures stated on the above TREE PRUNING PROPOSAL FORM and accepts full responsibility for any error or omission in the preparation of this proposal. This proposal is submitted by (check one)' Individual Owner .. Partnership Corporation Other Legal Name of Company: (Specify) Address' City, State, Zip: Phone Number: (Signature) Dated: ATTACHMENT "A" STATEMENT OF EXPERIENCE OF BIDDER AND LIST OF EQUIPMENT (this form must be completed, signed, and returned with the bid) The bidder is required to state below what work of similar magnitude or character he or she has done and to give references that will enable the City Council to judge of his or her experience, skill and business standing and his or her ability to conduct work as completely and rapidly as required under the terms of the contract. The bidder shall also list vehicles and equipment he/she proposes to utilize to perform work identified in this bid. In particular, the bidder shall indicate the reach length of his/her bucket truck. My name is Matthew Barker and I am the proud owner of Matt's Custom Tree Care. I started my career in arborculture as a youth, cutting and selling firewood. I worked for the U.S. Forest Service in 1984 and graduated from Mendocino College in 1985 with a degree in Timber Falling and Forest Practices. My formal training was with Davey Tree in Davids, CA. I also studied in Sacramento under Roger Paulson, Licensed Arborist. In both of these positions, I learned proper pruning and trimming procedures, safety and personal management, as well as all other aspects of tree service work. My company is locally owned and operated, serving all of Lake and Mendocino counties. We have highly trained professionals on staff as well as a full:-time meChaniC-to-ensure our vehicles and equipment are in proper working order at all times. We faced our biggest challenge so far, during .last winter's storm season. We responded 24 hours a day, seven days a week to numerous customers throughout both counties. As exhausted as we, and our equipment were, we take great pride in the magnitude of work that was performed durinq that time. We are happy to say that the quality of our service did not diminish with the quant- ity of work wew were able to accomplish. We currently hold the contract for the City of Ukiah. Public Works Tree Pruning. We feel that our 6 month commitment to the City was a sucess and very beneficial to the company. On SIGNATURE OF BIDDER: By: Dated' ATTACHMENT "A" STATEMENT OF EXPERIENCE OF BIDDER AND LIST OF ECIUIPMENT (this form must be completed, signed, and returned with the bid) The bidder is required to state below what work of similar magnitude or character he or she has done and to give references that will enable the City Council to judge of his or her experience, skill and business standing and his or her ability to conduct work as completely and rapidly as required under the terms of the contract. The bidder shall also list vehicles and equipment he/she proposes to utilize to perform work identified in this bid. In particular, the bidder shall indicate the reach length of his/her bucket truck. On behalf of myself and my crews, we would like to extend our thank you for the opportunity to participat'e in the preservation and enhancement of our City's Urban Forest, along with our hopes that we will be able to do so again. SIGNATURE OF BIDDER: By: Dated' References List of Equipment/Vehicles Rodney Fagundes, Maintenance Supervisor Mendocino Colnmunity Development Commission Carl Snibbe, Suprvisor CalTrans Tree Crew Jim Looney City of Ukiah, Public Works Kurt Johnson, Owner Johnson's Quality Tree Service Don Pardini, Superintendent Anderson Valley Cemetery Carole Hester Ukiah Daily Journal Dick Selzer Selzer Realty Linda LeVanway, Paralegal Law Offices, Ukiah .GMC Bucket Truck (60' working height) with hydraulic pruner GMC 2 Ton Dump Truck Chevy 4 x 4 Chip Dump Truck with Wench System Commercial V-8 Chipper Commercial V-6 Chipper Rayco Supr Junior Stump Finder Power Pruners, Pole Pruners, various saws and all other necessary tools. Adam Frye, Winemaker Frey Vineyards ITEM NO. 5d DATE: AUGUST 5, 1998 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: APPROVE SOLE SOURCE PROCUREMENT AND AWARD CONSULTANT SERVICE AGREEMENT TO EBA WASTECHNOLOGIES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WORK PLAN FOR SOIL AND GROUNDWATER INVESTIGATION AT CITY CORPORATION YARD AT A COMPENSATION NOT EXCEEDING $12,500 Submitted for the City Council's consideration and approval is Staff's request for a sole source procurement and the award of a Consultant Service Agreement to EBA Wastechnologies for the implementation of the approved and amended Work Plan for soil and groundwater investigation at the City Corporation Yard. It is proposed that the performance of the work as described and detailed in the Work Plan be compensated on a time and expense basis not to exceed a guaranteed maximum total compensation of $12,500. CONTINUED ON PAGE 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve sole source procurement and award Consultant Service Agreement to EBA Wastechnologies for the implementation of the conditionally approved Work Plan for soil and groundwater investigation at the City Corporation Yard at a compensation not exceeding $12,500. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Direct Staff to prepare Request for Proposal for the solicitation of proposals. Requested by' Rick H. Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Prepared by: Rick H. Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: 1. Correspondence from RWQCB dated June 18, 1998, conditionally approving the Work Plan. 2. Revised Cost Estimate for implementation of the conditionally approved Work Plan. . Correspondence to Environmental Coordinator with AESlL. Copy of excerpt from APWA publication entitled "Selection and Use of Engineers, Architects, and Professional Consultants." APPROVED: R: 1 \FW:kk AEBA Candace Horsley, City ger Approve Sole Source Procurement and Award Consultant Service Agreement to EBA Wastechnologies for the Implementation of the Work Plan for Soil and Groundwater Investigation at City Corporation Yard at a Compensation not Exceeding $12,500 August 5, 1998 Page 2 The City procured the services of EBA Wastechnologies for the preparation of a Work Plan which would outline hydrogeological investigation measures needed to determine the full extent of the fuel contamination to soil and groundwater at the City Corporation Yard. The Work Plan is a document required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) prior to beginning any work related to the investigation or the mitigation of contamination to soil and groundwater. EBA Wastechnologies completed and submitted the completed Work Plan prior to the April 15 deadline set by RWQCB. The RWQCB completed their review of the Work Plan on June 18 and approved the document subject to additions to the scope-of-work described in the Work Plan. The conditional approval and changes requested by RWQCB are described in their correspondence of June 18, 1998. A deadline for the implementation of the Work Plan and the Report of Findings has been set at September 30, 1998, by RWQCB. At Staff's request, EBA Wastechnologies has submitted a cost estimate summary for the performance of the work as described in the conditionally approved Work Plan including the changes in scope-of-work as requested by RWQCB. It is estimated that the work as described can be completed at a cost of $12,393. The provisions of Section 1522 of the Ukiah Municipal Code state that a professional services contract costing more than $10,000 be awarded based upon a competitive process. Section 4526 of the Government Code also stipulates that professional services shall be awarded on the basis of demonstrated competence and on the professional qualifications necessary for the satisfactory performance of the services required. Cost may be considered as one factor in awarding the contract, but not the sole factor. The Request for Proposal (RFP) process must be conducted in such a manner by which the consultant's expertise and qualifications are equitably compared and evaluated with other proposals. Not only does the small size of this project not warrant this time consuming process, but the short time frame for completion necessitates sole source procurement of a consultant with known expertise and demonstrated effectiveness. EBA Wastechnologies has performed work for the City in the past on a timely manner and has always worked cooperatively and competently with us. The proposed costs as presented in the estimate are reasonable, and EBA is familiar with the project. It is advantageous that the City procure the services of EBA Wastechnologies for the implementation of the conditionally approved Work Plan. Staff's proposal to sole source the implementation of the Work Plan was discussed with the Environmental Coordinator with Agricultural Excess and Surplus Insurance Company to whom a claim has been made by the City, and he does not object to the proposal. Funds in the amount of $25,000 have been budgeted for this work in the Corporation Yard Account No. 100.3301.250.000. R: 1 \PW AEBA Peter M. Rooney Secretary for Environmental Protection Califor'nia Regional Water Quality Control Board North Coast Region Ross R. Liscum, Chairman I I II I I Ill Illll Illlllll I Illl Ill Intemet Address: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov 5550 Skylane Boulevard, Suite A, Santa Rosa, California 95403 Phone (707) 576-2220 ,, FAX (707) 523-0135 June 18,1998 Pete Wilson Governor Mr. Rick Kennedy City of Ukiah Department of Public Works 300 Seminary Drive Ukiah, CA 95482 Dear Mr. Kennedy: Subject: Ukiah, City Corporation Yard, 1320 Airport Road, Ukiah Case No. 1TMC201 We reviewed the Workplan for Soil and Groundwater Investigation dated April 1998, prepared by EBA Wastechnologies and part of the file for the subject site. Based on this review, we concur with the proposed scope of work provided that: o Soil and groundwater samples are collected from all borings. We caution you that using a hydraulic push-type drilling device may not be as effective as using a rotary-type drill rig. The hydraulic device may reach practical refusal prior to reaching groundwater due to subsurface gravels which may require redrilling of the boring with a rotary drill rig to reach groundwater. . At least one (1) additional boring is drilled within 20 feet in the assumed hydrologic, down- gradient direction of the former 6300-gallon underground storage tank (UST) that was removed on November 29, 1989. o If drilling is performed during high groundwater conditions, soil samples should be collected below the top of the water table to capture the petroleum smear zone. If these soil samples register high on the hydrocarbon vapor field screening device, additional deeper samples should be collected and analyzed to define the vertical extent of the soil contamination. . At least one (1) soil sample per boring which shows the highest field screening for hydrocarbon vapors and one (1) groundwater sample per boring, should be analyzed for the constitutes listed on page five (5). Additional soil samples should be analyzed, if needed, to define the vertical extent of the soil contamination. California Environmental Protection Agency Recycled Paper Mr. Rick Kennedy - 2 - June 18, 1998 o o o o In addition to the laboratory analysis proposed on page five (5) of the Workplan, we require you to analyze the groundwater samples for Methanol, Ethanol, Tertiary Butanol, Di- isopropyl Ether (DIPE), Ethyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (ETBE), and Tertiary Amyl Methyl Ether (TAME) by EPA Method 8260 (modified). These oxygenated compounds are additives that have been found in groundwater contamination plumes originating from gasoline. The samples collected downgradient of the former 6300-gallon UST shall also be tested for TPH motor oil, chlorinated solvents, cadmium, chromium, lead, nickel, and zinc, in addition to the analysis proposed on page five (5) of the workplan and item number five (5) above. A Monitoring Well Application/Drilling Permit is obtained from the Mendocino County Environmental Health Department, prior to drilling. All monitoring wells shall be identified by permanent markings identifiable by surface observation and consecutively numbered. 9. The graphic boring logs and monitoring well construction diagrams indicate the: a. groundwater level, b. soils are classified according to the Unified Soils Classification System, Ce laboratory analytical results along with hydrocarbon vapor field screening device reading for all samples, d. types and quantities of material placed in the borehole. And, e. details of the locations of screening, bentonite seal, sanitary seal, etc. And, 10. Map(s) showing the: a. calculated groundwater gradient and direction of flow, b. isochemical concentrations for any significant soil contaminates, c. isochemical concentrations for any significant water contaminates. And, d. location(s) of any sensitive receptors. California Environmental Protection Agency Recycled Paper 0/: Mr. Rick Kennedy -3- June 18, 1998 We look forward to receiving your Report of Findings by September 30, 1998. I am available to meet with you to discuss your project and if you wish to set up an appointment or if you have any questions please feel free to call me at (707)576-2691. Sincerely, Marti Lyon, R.G. Associate Engineering Geologist ML:lmtSword\workplan.m-z\ukiahcor. 598 CC: Mendocino County Environmental Health Department EBA Wastechnologies, 825 Sonoma Avenue, Suite C, Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Californ ia Environ tn en tal Protection Agency Recycled Paper JUL--10-98 85:05 PM EBA WASTECHNOLOGIE$ ?~? 544 0866 P.01 Engineers & Environmental Consultants July 10, 1998 Mr. Rick Kennedy City of Ukiah Department ofPublic Works 300 Seminary Drive Ukiah, CA 95482 FAX(707) 463-6204 SUBJECT: REVISED COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY CITY OF UKIAH CORPORATION YARD 1320 AI'RPORT ROAD, UKIAH, CALIFORNIA EBA PROJECT No. 98-621 (6) Dear Mr. Kennedy: At your request EBA WASTECHNOLOGIES (EBA) is providing this revised cost estimate summary to perform the work as outlined in EBA's Work Plan for Soil And Groundwater Investigation, dated April 2, 1998, and in response to Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) staff requirements ibr additional work for the above referenced site. Also in response to RWQCB concerns, EBA has provided a cost for rotan drill soil borings rather than direct push. If field conditions permit the less expensive direct push method will be used. The revised costs are as follows: COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY FOR SOIL AND GROUNDWATER INVESTIGATION The estimated cost to implement the above referenced Subsurface Soil and Groundwater Investigation is as follows: Project Coordination & Permitting Total $320.00 Drilling Additional Drilling Analytical Testing TPH-d/BTEX/TPH-g/MTBE Additional Testing TPH-mo 8260 (oxygenated compounds) 8010 (chlorinated solvents) LUFT 5 metals 5 borings and 2 wells 1 boring to 20 feet depth $5,635.00 $860.00 16 ~ $1 O0 $1,6o0.00 ~ $46 $46.00 65115 $115.00 @ $70 $70.00 @ $87 $87.00 Total $8,413.00 L:~JN V~tJ$'T~ H UK lA I R('O ~'IlJST 825 5onoma Avenue, .5ui~e C Santa Rosa, Cahfnrni.~ 95404 (7(17) 544-07t14 225 W. I-to.qpilality [ano, h~ito 200 San 8ernardino, CA 9240[3 (909~ 890-04.12 www. ebawaste.com e-ma/l: info@ebawaste.com /'AX (71)7) r^x (909) 8')0-0472 JUL--10--98 0~ :05 PM EISA WASTECH~OLO~IE$ ?0? 544 0866 P.02 Monitoring Well Development Total S600.00 Monitoring Well Sampling (4 wells per event) Analytical Testing TPtt-cl/BTEXFFPH-g/MTBE 4 (~ $100.00 Additional Testir~g 8260 (oxygenated compounds) 4 ~ $115.00 Total $7O0.OO $400.00 $460.00 $1,560.00 Report of Investigation Total $1,500.00 Total Cost Estimate for Subsurface Investigation This revised cost summary is based on the installation and sampling of six borings; converting two of the borings into 2-inch monitoring wells to a depth of 20 feet; development of the two new monitoring wells; sampling of the two existing and two new monitoring wells; and preparation ora Report of Findings with conclusions and recommendations for additional work. If you have questions or comments regarding this matter, please contact me at (707) 544-0784. Sincerely, EBA WASTECHNOLOGIES Christine Scheib, R. EA.//06901 Sr. Environmental Specialist CS/mc 300 SE~.,.,, .'.~..~VE.. UKI/~H, C_~ 95482-5400 · /~)MIN, 707/463-6200 · PUBLIC SAFETY 463-6242/6274 · FAX # 707/463-6204 · duly 2, 1998 William Harris Environmental Coordinator Agricultural Excess and Surplus Insurance, Co. Dixie Terminal South Building, Suite 30 49 East Fourth Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3803 RE: AESIL CLAIM 561-U-500178; UKIAH, CALIFORNIA Dear Bill: Enclosed is correspondence from the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB) confirming their approval of the Work Plan prepared by EBA Wastechnologies. Their approval is conditioned upon the inclusion into the Work Plan those items enumerated in their letter. Sometime ago, I copied you on estimates prepared by EBA for the implementation of the work identified in the Work Plan. With the addition of those items listed by NCRWQCB, the estimated total cost of ¢9,750, will be increased. The additional boring within 20-feet down gradient of the former 6,300 gallon underground storage tank that was removed on November 29, 1989, has nothing to do with the referenced claim. Given the Iow cost of ¢11,000 to ¢12,000 to implement the Work Plan, i am recommending to the City Manager that we forgo the time consuming request for proposal process and acquire the services of EBA to implement the approved plan. I am very pleased with their timely and professional services. Mrs. Marti Lyon of NCRWQCB expects to receive the report of finding (implementation) by September 30, 1998. Michael F. Harris, Assistant City Manager \LANDFILL LHARRI$ '~/e /'-,re Here To Serve" SELECTION .~ND USE 0t: ENGINEERS, .~RCHIIECTS ~,ND PROFESSIONAL CONSULI~,NTS SELECTION AND USE OF ENGINEERS, ARCHITECTS ,&ND PRO~eESSlONL~L CONSULTANTS Guidelines for Public Agencies American Public Works Association © 1991, 1997 All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America American Public Works Association 2345 Grand Boulevard, Suite 500 Kansas City, MO 64108-2625 http://www, pubworks.org Principal Author James I,. Martin, Director of Public Works (retired) Fresno, California SELECIION AND USE OF ENGINEERS, ARCflIIECIS AND PROEESSIONAL CONSUUANIS tHIS CONSUUANT SELECTION ProcEss Request for Proposals There are several important objectives in developing an effective consultant selection process: · Participation by a sufficient number of qualified consultants to ensure the agency's ability to secure a truly qualified firm; · Fair competition between available firms-while narrowing tile final group under consideration to avoid undue imposition on the consultant community; · Involvement of stakeholders whose satisfaction with the selection process and the eventual accomplishment of the consultant's work is vital to final success. However, some of these parties may be impractical to reach and involve as individuals, such as motorists who use a highway; · Formulation and thoughtful administration of policies and procedures to ensure fair, thorough, and objective comparison of agency needs and goals with the capabilities, concepts, time frames, and other relevant capabilities offered by each firm under consideration; and, · Flexible selection procedures to keep the degree of agency and consultant effort in reasonable proportion to tile magnitude of the work to be done. Many consultant selection processes commence with issuance of a "Request for Qualifications" (RFQ) or "Request for Proposals" (RFP); these two are not interchangeable. They have different meanings and objectives and the degree of response effort is not the same. Request for Qualifications A Request For Qualifications is normally used to ascertain the general qualifications of consultants or particular qualifications in a selected area of expertise such as pipeline design. They are frequently used to develop a data bank of interested and qualified consultants. Some agencies solicit RFQs annually to ensure fresh information for use during the year. Responses are often referred to as an SOQ, (Statement of Qualifications) or SOI (Statement of Interest). SOQs and SOls generally highlight overall firm qualifications, recent client lists, key staff resumes, and other promotional materials. Agencies sometimes require or accept federal (U.S.) standard forms 254 and 255. Request For Proposals tend to be used in conjunction with specific projects or studies and contain details such as the scope of services desired, project descriptions, and budget allocations. Tile more specific the information, the better will be tile responses, in which consultants should be encouraged to focus on relevant qualifications rather than reputation. RFPs should describe factors to be used in determining the most highly qualified firm and also include a selection schedule. Consultants expect to receive and respond to RFQs and RFPs as a normal part of doing business, but client agencies must guard against imposing on tile consultant community through unnecessary information requests, steps, or delays in selection. Both RFQs and RFPs entail a definite cost to responding consultants. Costs for RFQs usually range from very low to moderate, while RFP responses can be quite expensive, increasing with the size and complexity of the project or study. Slruduring the Process To the extent laws and regulations permit, details of the process should be tailored to the nature and magnitude of the services desired. For relatively small, uncomplicated projects or studies, it may be reasonable to interview only two or three consultants (or even sole source), possibly based on SOQs, unsolicited SOls, or te'lephonc contacts, ttowcver, for larger and more complex projects tile process should be more formal and comprehensive, often including advertising and other proposal solicitation steps, leading to three to six-rarely more-firms appearing for interview. In some cases, a combined process might be used for matching a group of consultants with an array of smaller, but similar, projects, resulting in multiple contracts. Selection should be kept in proper perspective between tile probable cost of responding and the expected range of fees. This saves agency and consultant time and money but does not deprive tile agency of an opportunity to select a qualified firm. In any event, tile agency should announce a selection and contract timetable for tile information of candidate consultants. For especially significant projects, particularly architectural designs, a competition might be appropriate. Such competitions involve longer time frames, special judging arrangements, and may also include special compensation (a prize) for all or the best of the competitors. This is an elaborate and more costly process but can result in a truly unique or outstanding project. The American Institute of Architects, the American Consulting Engineers Council, and tile Association of Consulting Engineers of Canada can provide more information on this approach. Policies on ConsulJan} Selection Consultant selection can be politically or ethically sensitive and is thereby open to controversy and misunderstanding. Adoption of a written agency consultant selection policy serves to protect both staff and agency from allegations of impropriety through inspiring confidence in staff recommendations within the governing body, the public, and thc consulting community. Selection policies can include a wide variety of steps and criteria, but most good policies do tile following: Establish qualifications as the basis for selection; Specify criteria by which qualifications will be judged; Provide for effectively publicizing the availability of the work; Correlate the number of consultants to be interviewed with the sizes and kinds of projects or other service needs anticipated by the agency; State the procedure(s) for screening proposals; Require that a comprehensive agreed-upon scope of services be tile basis for consultant compensation and contract finalization; Identify departmental responsibility for administering the process; Specify who makes recommendation(s) and who makes (which) final decisions; and, Assign responsibility for contract negotiations with thc selected consultant and state whether tile contract is 1) to bc executed by a designated official, or 2) presented to tile governing body for final decision. In the latter case, negotiation with another candidate firm should occur only in the event the first contract is disapproved. Most federal, state, and provincial laws and policies are designed to control how and when consultant selection is undertaken at those levels, but local and regional agencies can also be impacted. Such agencies are urged to review appropriate nation:Il and state/provincial codes and regulations. Summaries of the fcdenfl Brooks Act (Appendix C) and California's "Mini-Brooks Act" (Appendix D) are provided as examples. These laws deal with matters such as applical)ility, advertising, and criteria for selection. Some local agencies endeavor to minimize delay and GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC AGENCIES confusion by incorporating in their selection processes all relevant requirements potentially applicable to their capital and work programs. The foregoing does not suggest that consultant selection policies are necessarily lengthy or complex. Policy details should relate well to variations in magnitude of projects and studies, and the policy should allow flexibility for unusual situations. Selection policies can support overall agency acquisition objectives if qualifications remain tile determining factor. Designating an administrative lead department is essential, but detailing staff anti organization is unnecessary. Many policies require maintenance of a list of potential consultants for mailing letter queries to solicit proposals for available work. Unique projects and studies, or those involving capabilities not found in the regular list, are often handled through targeted advertising in technical journals. Some policies tie the number of firms to be interviewed to estimated or budgeted construction costs. For studies, the interviewee minimum can be tied to tile projected fee or left to administrative discretion. Again, prevailing laws and/or funding agency regulations may dictate different or more elaborate consultant recruitment procedures. There are options for formulating selection criteria-use those of technical and professional associations or other agencies, or write your own. However they are derived, the agency's selection criteria should specify that qualifications are tile final determinant. If desired, technical qualification criteria can be supplemented with-but not replaced by- considerations concerning "local" vs." non-local" firms, fair sharing of opportunities to serve thc agency, minority/disadvantaged enterprises, affirmative action, or other concerns. An agency clearly risks poor selection results if other criteria-especially price-are allowed to prevail over qualifications. A sample consultant selection criteria list is found in Appendix E. OJher 5eledi0n C0ncept, The established criteria are used both for initial screening of responses by interested consultants and evaluating and nmking candidate firms through interview and final selection. Screening is essential when there are more responding firms than are reasonable or necessary to interview. In determining an optimum number, bear in mind that intcrvicws :irc costly for participating firms and that too many interviews can fatigue the selection panel. Spreading interviews over separate days might relieve panel Se ITEM NO. DATE: August 5, 1998 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING DIVISION 9, CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 15 (REGULATIONS IN THE PUBLIC FACILITIES ZONING DISTRICT) OF THE UKIAH MUNICIPAL CODE SUMMARY: On July 15, 1998, the City Council voted unanimously to introduce an Ordinance revising the regulations for the PF (Public Facilities) Zoning District. The introduced Ordinance has been prepared in final form and is now ready for adoption. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt the Ordinance amending Division 9, Chapter 2, Article 15 (Public Facilities Zoning District) of the Ukiah Municipal Code. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Do not adopt the Ordinance, and provide direction to staff. Citizen Advised: Legal notice published according to the requirements of the Ukiah Municipal Code Requested by: Planning Department Prepared by: Charley Stump, Senior Planner Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager; Bob Sawyer, Planning Director; and David Rapport, City Attorney Attachments: Ordinance amending Division 9, Chapter 2, Article 15 of the Ukiah Municipal Code APPROVED: Candace Horsley, City ~anager 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH AMENDING ARTICLE 15, CHAPTER 2 (ZONING) OF DIVISION 9 OF THE UKIAH CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Ukiah hereby ordains as follows: SECTION ONE Pursuant to Section 9:260 of the Ukiah City Code, Division 9, Chapter :2 (Zoning) is amended by revising Article 15 (Regulations in Public Facilities (PF) Zoning District); as indicated on Exhibit "A" attached to this Ordinance. SECTION 'I'VVO The amendments to Article 15 of Chapter 2 of the Ukiah City Code includes reformatting the text to make it easier to read, understand, and administer; adding a Purpose and Intent section; making minor changes to the allowed and permitted land uses; adding specific development standards; and including landscaping requirements for development projects. SECTION THREE This amendment to Article 15 of Chapter 2 of the Ukiah City Code is necessary to ensure that it is consistent with the Ukiah General Plan, and to create a more orderly and readable set of Public Facility Zoning District regulations. SECTION FOUR This Ordinance shall be published as required by law in a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ukiah. SECTION FIVE This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after adoption. Introduced by title only on July 15, 1998, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Chavez, Ashiku, Kelly, Mastin, and Mayor Malone NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ORDINANCE NO. Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Passed and adopted on August 5, 1998, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Sheridan Malone, Mayor ATTEST: Marie Ulvila, City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. Page 2 of 2 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ARTICLE 15. EXHIBIT "A" ZONING CHAPTER 2 REGULATIONS IN PUBLIC FACILITIES (PF) ZONING DISTRICT SECTION: 9170' Purpose and Intent 9170.1' Allowed Uses 9170.2: Permitted Uses 9170.3: 9170.4: 9170.5: 9170.6: 9170.7: 9170.8: Building Height Limits Required Site Area Required yard Setbacks Required Parking Additional Requirements Determination of Appropriate Use 9170: PURPOSE AND INTENT: This district classification is intended to be applied to properties which are used for or are proposed to be used for public or quasi-public purposes or for specified public utility purposes. Additionally, the purpose of the Public Facilities Zoning District is to provide business opportunities on large public serving land uses such as the airport. Finally, the Public Facilities zone is consistent with the Public ("P") Land Use Designation of the General Plan. 9170.1: ALLOWED USES: The following uses are allowed in Public Facilities (P-F) Districts: a, bo c. e, g. Public schools. Parks and recreation areas and facilities. Public gardens. Fairgrounds. Civic centers and similar sites and uses. Conservation and natural resource conservation areas. Airports and aviation related functions and uses. ORDINANCE NO. Exhibit "A" Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 h. Public utility facilities and uses. Historical sites and monuments. Uses and structures which are incidental or accessory to allowed uses. 9170.2: PERMITTED USES: The following uses are permitted in Public Facilities (P-F) Districts subject to first securing a Use Permit: a. Public cemeteries and similar uses. b. Refuse disposal/recycling areas, and refuse transfer stations and similar uses. C. d. e. go Corporation yards. Quasi-public land uses. Light manufacturing and industrial uses. Storage facilities and bulk fuel storage. Establishment, maintenance, operation and removal of circuses, carnivals, amusement parks, open air theaters, or other similar temporary establishments involving large assemblages of people. h. Uses and structures which are incidental or accessory to permitted uses. i. Public transportation facilities j. Community concerts, farmers markets, craft bazaars, and flea markets. k. Minor food services unrelated to the primary use. 9170.3: BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITS: The maximum height limits for buildings in a Public Facilities (PF) Zoning District are as follows: a. Airport buildings: The height limit for buildings on the City Airport grounds varies depending upon exact location. The maximum height shall be pursuant to the provisions of Division 3, Chapter 9, Article 2 (Building Heights Near Airports; Restrictions and Penalties) of the Ukiah Municipal Code. b. City park buildings: Thirty feet (30'). ORDINANCE NO. Exhibit "A" Page 2 of 7 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 c. City utility facilities and public safety structures: Forty feet (40'), except for electrical transmission towers, which are not limited in height. d. School buildings: Thirty feet (30'). e. Fairground buildings: Thirty feet (30'). 9170,4: REQUIRED SITE AREA: There is no required site area for the Public Facilities (PF) Zoning District. 9170.5: REQUIRED YARD SETBACKS: While no specific yard setbacks are established for the PF Zoning District, it is intended that the yard setbacks shall be equal to or greater than those for adjacent districts. The exact yard setbacks for development projects in the PF Zoning District shall be established and set forth as conditions of approval in the discretionary review process. 9'170.6: REQUIRED PARKING: The minimum parking area required in the Public Facilities (PF) Zoning District shall be as follows: a. Public utility facilities: one (1) parking space for each employee on duty at any one time, and one (1) space for each vehicle used in connection with the facility with a minimum ofthree (3)spaces. One (1) additional space for every 250 square feet of office space. b. Elementary and junior high schools: three (3) spaces for each classroom. A minimum of one (1) designated bus zone for loading and unloading students. One (1) space per office, and a minimum of three (3) on-site designated drop off/pickup spaces. c. Senior high school: one (1) space for each member of the faculty and each employee, plus one space for each six (6) students. A minimum of three (3) on-site designated drop off/pickup spaces. d. Airport: the number of required parking spaces at the airport shall depend on the individually proposed uses. The number of spaces shall be determined by the provisions contained in Article 17. ORDINANCE NO. Exhibit "A" Page 3 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 e. Stadiums and ball fields: the number of spaces shall be equal in number to 33% of the capacity of the facility. f. Golf driving range: one (1) parking space per tee, plus the spaces required for additional uses on the site. g. Golf course: six (6) spaces per hole, plus the spaces required for accessory uses on the site. h. Miniature golf course: three (3) spaces per hole, plus the spaces required for accessory uses on the site. i. Commercial swimming pool: one (1) space for each 100 square feet of water surface. j. Tennis courts: three (3) spaces for each court, plus the spaces required for accessory uses on the site. e. All other uses are subject to the provisions contained in the Article 17 of this Chapter. 9170.7: ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: The following additional requirements are applicable in the Public Facilities (PF) Zoning District: a. Existing development as of the date of this Ordinance inconsistent with the provisions listed herein, shall be considered legal non-conforming, provided that they were legal at the time of their creation, and shall be subject to the non-conforming provisions contained in this Chapter. b. A Site Development Permit shall be required for development projects in the Public Facilities (PF) Zoning District, pursuant to the requirements of Section 9261 (B). c. All development projects in the PF Zoning District requiring discretionary review shall include a proposed Landscaping Plan commensurate with the size and scale of the proposed development project. Landscaping Plans shall be submitted as a required component of all Site Development and Use Permits at the time of application filing. ORDINANCE NO. Exhibit "A" Page 4 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 d. Landscaping Plans submitted for projects on the Ukiah Municipal Airport property shall not include trees, except in areas deemed acceptable in the Airport Master Plan. Landscaping Plans submitted for public utility projects shall only include trees if they will not conflict with utility operations. e. All proposed Landscaping Plans, except as noted in subsection "d" above shall comply with the following standards: 1. Landscaping shall be proportional to the building elevations. 2. Landscape plantings shall be those which grow well in Ukiah's climate without extensive irrigation. Native species are strongly encouraged. 3. All landscape plantings shall be of sufficient size, health and intensity so that a viable and mature appearance can be attained in a reasonably short amount of time. 4. Deciduous trees shall constitute the majority of the trees proposed along the south and west building exposures; non-deciduous street species shall be restricted to areas that do not inhibit solar access. 5. Parking lots with twelve (12) or more parking stalls shall have a tree placed between every four (4) parking stalls within a continuous linear planting strip, rather than individual planting wells, unless clearly infeasible. Parking lot trees shall primarily be deciduous species, and shall be designed to provide a tree canopy coverage of 50% over all paved areas within ten years of planting. Based upon the design of the parking lot, a reduced number of trees may be approved through the discretionary review process. 6. Parking lots shall have a perimeter planting strip with both trees and shrubs. 7. Parking lots with twelve (12) or more parking stalls shall have defined pedestrian sidewalks or marked pedestrian facilities within landscaped areas and/or separated from automobile travel lanes. Based upon the design of the parking lot, and the use ORDINANCE NO. Exhibit "A" Page 5 of 7 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 that it is serving, relief from this requirement may be approved through the discretionary review process. 8. Street trees may be placed on the property proposed for development instead of within the public right-of-way if the location is approved by the City Engineer, based upon safety and maintenance factors. 9. All new developments shall include a landscaping coverage of 20 percent (20%) of the gross area of the parcel, unless because of the small size of a parcel, such coverage would be unreasonable. A minimum of fifty percent (50%) ofthe landscaped area shall be dedicated to live plantings. 10. Landscaping Plans shall include an automatic irrigation system, signs, Lighting Plan, and any other design amenities. 11. All required landscaping for public facility development projects shall be adequately maintained in a viable condition. 12. The Planning Director, Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission, or City Council shall have the authority to modify the required elements of a Landscaping Plan depending upon the size, scale, intensity, and location of the development project. 9170.8: DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE USE BY PLANNING DIRECTOR: Whenever a use is not listed in this Article as a use permitted by right or a use subject to a Use Permit in the PF Zoning District, the Planning Director shall determine whether the use is appropriate for the zoning district, either as a right or subject to a Use Permit. In making this determination, the Planning Director shall find as follows: a. That the use would not be incompatible with other existing or allowed uses in the PF Zoning District. b. That the use would not be detrimental to the continuing development of the area in which the use would be located. ORDINANCE NO. Exhibit "A" Page 6 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 c. In the case of determining that a use not articulated as an allowed or permitted use could be established with the securing of a Use Permit, the Planning Director shall find that the proposed use is similar in nature and intensity to the uses listed as permitted uses. All determinations of the Planning Director regarding whether a use can be allowed or permitted in the Public Facilities (PF) Zoning District shall be final unless a written appeal to the City Council, stating the reasons for the appeal, and the appeal fee, if any, established from time to time by City Council Resolution, is filed with the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the date the decision was made. Appeals may be filed by an applicant or any interested party. The City Council shall conduct a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal in accordance to the applicable procedures as set forth in this chapter. At the close of the public hearing, the City Council may affirm, reverse, revise or modify the appealed decision of the Planning Director. All City Council decisions on appeals of the Planning Director's actions are final for the City of Ukiah. ORDINANCE NO. Exhibit "A" Page 7 of 7 5f ITEM NO. DATE' Aug 5, 1998 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: AWARD BID FOR TRACTOR/LOADER TO LAMPSON TRACTOR FOR THE SUM OF $16,409.25 REPORT: Included in the 1998/99 Budget is $20,000 for the purchase of a new tractor/loader to perform mowing and light grading at the water treatment plant. Requests for Quotation through the formal bid process were sent to seven suppliers of this type of equipment. Seven bids were returned and opened by the City Clerk on July 24, 1998. The lowest bidder to meet specifications is Lampson Tractor for the sum of $16,409.25. RECOMMENDED ACTION- Award the bid for the tractor/loader to Lampson Tractor for the sum of $16,409.25. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Reject proposal Acct. No. (if not budgeted): Acct. No.- 820-3908-800 Appropriation Requested. N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Darryl L. Barnes, Director of Public Utilities Prepared by: George Borecky, Water/Sewer Operations Superintendent Coordinated with' Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: Tabulation of Bids APPROVED- ~ ~!i- ~' Candace ' ' ~ y~ C~y Manager C AGENDA SUMMARY 5g ITEM NO. DATE: AUGUST 5, 1998 REPORT SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A FOUR-WAY STOP AT THE INTERSECTION OF COMMERCE DRIVE AND AIRPORT PARK BOULEVARD Submitted for the City Council's consideration and adoption is a resolution which would, if adopted, establish a four-way stop at the intersection of Commerce Drive and Airport Park Boulevard. A Traffic Engineering Study of the referenced intersection was undertaken because of the high frequency of reported traffic incidents which came to the attention of Staff. As a result of the Study, it is concluded that a four-way stop at this intersection is warranted. The Traffic Engineering Committee (Traffic Engineer) has reviewed the Study and recommends to the City Council that a four-way stop at Commerce Drive and Airport Park Boulevard be established. Details of existing conditions at the intersection are provided in the attached Study. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt the resolution Establishing a Four-Way stop at the Intersection of Commerce Drive and Airport Park Boulevard. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Determine that the four-way stop is not warranted and not adopt resolution. Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Rick H. Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Rick H. Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Resolution for adoption. 2. Traffic Engineering Study. APPROVED: '~~. ~~~ Candace Horsley, Ci!y Manager R: 1 \PVV:kk AAIPSTOP.4 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ESTABLISHING A FOUR-WAY STOP AT THE INTERSECTION OF COMMERCE DRIVE AND AIRPORT PARK BOULEVARD WHEREAS, a Traffic Engineering Study (Study) of the intersection of Commerce Drive and Airport Park Boulevard was undertaken and the findings from the Study indicate that a four-way stop at the intersection is warranted; and WHEREAS, the Traffic Engineering Committee (Traffic Engineer) has reviewed the findings of the Study and recommends to the Ukiah City Council that a four-way stop at Commerce Drive and Airport Park Boulevard be established. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to Section 7100 of the Ukiah Municipal Code, all traffic approaching the intersection of Commerce Drive and Airport Park Boulevard shall be required to stop prior to proceeding through the intersection, and that a four-way stop at this intersection is hereby established. vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of August, 1998, by the following roll call ATTEST: Sheridan Malone, Mayor Marie Ulvila, City Clerk B:I~=,ES1 AI~STOP.4 Resolution No. 98- DATE: TO: FROM' SUBJECT: CITY OF UKIAH MEMORANDUM July 7, 1998 Rick Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works ~~ Intersection of Airport Park Blvd. with Commerce Drive At your request I have reviewed the accident history and have conducted a field inspection of the subject intersection to consider placing stop signs on the Airport Park Boulevard legs of the intersection. EXISTING FACILITIES At the location of the intersection, Airport Park Boulevard has an overall curb to curb width of 70 feet. Airport Park Boulevard at this intersection has two northbound lanes, two southbound lanes, a northbound left turn lane, and a southbound left turn lane. Airport Park Boulevard was posted on May 1, 1998 for a 30 mph speed zone. Commerce Drive does not currently have a posted speed zone. Commerce Drive has a curb to curb width of 40 feet. Commerce Drive is a two lane street. As shown on the attached collision diagram, three of the corner lots at the intersection are currently vacant. The northeast corner of the intersection is occupied by Wal-Mart. The store building is set back a considerable distance from the intersection. The intersection of Airport Park Boulevard and Commerce drive is unique to drivers of Ukiah. At no other location in the City will drivers stop on the minor street leg of the intersection and cross free flowing traffic on a four lane boulevard with median islands. Sight distance at this intersection is satisfactory with the exception of the Commerce Drive westbound leg. The southeast corner of the intersection is overgrown with weeds and has the potential to limit the southerly sight distance to motorists westbound on Commerce Drive. The median islands on Airport Park Boulevard at Commerce Drive contained vegetative growth through November 1997 which may have limited sight distance for drivers approaching the intersection. In December 1997, Redwood Business Park removed the vegetation and set the median island cobble rock in concrete to prevent re-growth of vegetation. All of the accidents reported in 1997 occurred prior to December of that year. There have been four accidents in 1998 through May 24, 1998 at the intersection. Page 2 Rick Kennedy July 7, 1998 SIGNING The Commerce Drive legs of the intersection are currently posted with stop signs. Airport Park Boulevard is posted with 30 mph speed limit signs. ACCIDENTS During the 1997 calendar year there were a total of nine accidents at the subject intersection. There have been four accidents in 1998 through May 24, 1998. All of the accidents can be classified as right angle collisions including the accident whereby a driver swerved off the road to avoid a right angle collision. The attached collision diagram details the dates and times of the accidents along with the approximate location of the collisions. SUMMARY The Caltrans Traffic Manual, Section 4-03.6, lists individual policies for regulatory signs. In particular, multiway stop signs may be warranted at locations where five or more reported accidents occur within a 12 month period. The subject intersection meets this warrant since a total of ten accidents occurred within the calendar year ending May 24, 1998. RECOMMENDATION Based on the Caltrans warrants for installing multiway stop signs it is my recommendation that stop signs be posted in accordance with the Ukiah Municipal Code Sections 7060 through 7063 on the Airport Park Boulevard legs at the subject intersection, in addition, the property owner for the parcel at the southeast corner of the intersection should be notified and required to remove or cut the weeds to improve sight distance. ATTACHMENTS 1. collision diagram for Airport Park Blvd. and Commerce Drive 2. excerpt from Caltrans Traffic Manual regarding warrants for stop signs pt '--"' th ' "-""" '"'--:--:----' '"---'-- °----,:------ ~',',~, ',,~o · 3. 6xcer ,,,,.,,,, 6 ,..,,-,,~,, ,,,u,~,v,F,c,, v~,~, ~.,~,..~,,.,,,o , ,.,,.,,.,-, ,.,,.,,., cc: file : OLg. 131Ot'J Vt~c~q ~ T- ' ~¢_YH 70 FT. Traffic Manual 4-O3.6 SIGNS 4-41 , . I 1-1996 INDIVIDUAL POLICIES FOR REGULATORY SIGNS POLICY R1 Federal Sign No. R1-1 ~._.. R1-3 R1-3 STOP SIGNS, SUPPLEMENTAL PLATES AND YIELD SIGNS STOP SIGN The Stop sign (R1) shall be used where traffic is required to stop except at signalized intersections. The Stop sign shall be an octagon with white message and border on a red background. At a multiway stop intersection, a supplemental plate (R1-3 or R1-4), may be used. When used, they should be mounted below each Stop sign. The numeral on the supplementary plate shall correspond to the number of approach legs, or the legend Ali-Way (R1-4) may be used. The plate shall have white letters and border on a red background. The supplemental plates R1-3 and R1-4 should not be used at intersections with State highways. A red flashing beacon, or beacons may be used in conjunction with a Stop sign. See Section 9-05, "Flashing Beacons". Secondary messages shall not be used on Stop sign faces. R1-4 R1-4 · Warrants for Stop Signs Because the Stop sign causes a substantial inconvenience to motorists, it should only be used where warranted. A Stop sign may be warranted at an intersection where one or m. ore of the following conditions exist' 1. On the less important road at its intersection with a main road where accident history justifies the placement of Stop signs. 2. On a county road or city street with its intersection with a State highway. 3. At the intersection with two main highways. The highway traffic to be stopped depends on approach speeds, volumes and turning movements. 4. On a street entering a legally established through highway or street. 5. On a minor street where the safe approach speed to the intersection is less than 16 km/h. 6. At an unsignalized intersection in a signalized area. 7. At other intersections where a combination of high speed, restricted view and accident record Indicates a need for control by the Stop sign. A Stop sign is not a "cure-ail" and is not a substitute for other traffic control devices. Many times the need for a Stop sign can be eliminated if the sight distance is increased by removing obstructions. 4-42 SIGNS Traffic Manual POLICY Stop signs should not be used for speed control. Stop signs shall not be erected at any entrance to an intersection when such entrance is controlled by an official traffic control signal, nor at any railroad grade crossing which is controlled by automatic signals, gates, or other train- actuated control devices except as provided in CVC 21355, Stop Signs. The conflicting commands of two types of control devices are confusing. Where two main highways Intersect, the Stop sign or signs should normally be posted on the minor street to stop the lesser flow of traffic. Traffic engineering studies, however, may justify a decision to install a Stop sign or signs on the major street, as at a three-way intersection where safety considerations may justify stopping the greater flow of traffic to permit a left turning movement. Stop or Yield signs may be installed at any highway-rail grade crossing without automatic traffic control devices with two or more trains per day traversing the crossing. Two or more trains per day is interpreted to mean an average two or more trains per day operating over the crossing each day for a period of one year prior to the installation of the Stop or Yield control sign. Portable or part-time Stop signs shall not be used except for emergency purposes. · Multiway Stop Signs The "Multiway Stop" installation may be useful at some locations. It should ordinarily be used only where the volume of traffic on intersecting roads is approximately equal. A traffic control signal is more satisfactory for an intersection with a heavy volume of traffic. Any of the following locations may warrant multiway Stop sign installation: le =, Where traffic signals are warranted and urgently needed, the multiway stop may be an interm measure that can be Installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the signal installations. An accident problem, as indicated by five or more reported accidents within a 12 month period of a type susceptible of correction by a multiway stop installation. Such accidents include right and left- turn collisions as well as right angle collisions. 3 .Minimum traffic volumes; (a) The total vehiclular volume entering the Intersection from all approaches must average at least 500 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day, and Traffic Manual R1-2 R1-2 SIGNS 4-43 1-1996 (b) POLICY The combined vehicular and pedestrian volumefrom the minor street or highway must average at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an average delay to minor street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the maximum hour, but (c) When the 85th percentile approach speed exceeds 64 km/h, the minimum vehicular volume warrant is 70 % of the above requirements. · YIELD SIGN The Yield sign (R1-2) assigns right of way to traffic on certain approaches to an intersection. Vehicles controlled by a Yield sign need stop only when necessary to avoid interference with other traffic that is given the right of way. The Yield sign shall be a downward pointing, equilateral triangle having a red border band and a white interior and the word Yield in red inside the border band. Stop or Yield signs may be installed at any hig hway-rail grade crossing without automatic traffic control devices with two or more trains per day traversing the crossing. Two or more trains per day is interpreted to mean an average two or more trains per day operating over the crossing each day for a period of one year prior to the installation of the Stop or Yield control sign. · Warrants for Yield Signs .The Yield sign may be warranted: 1. On the minor road at the entrance to an Intersection Where it is necessary to assign the right of way to the major road, but where a stop is not necessary at all times, and where the safe approach speed on the minor road exceeds 16 km/h. 2. On the entrance ramp to an expressway where an acceleration lane is not provided. 3. Within an Intersection with a divided highway, where a stop sign is present at the entrance to the first roadway and further control is necessary at the entrance to the second roadway, and where the median width between the two roadways exceeds 9 m. 4. Where there is a separate or channelized right turn lane, without an adequate acceleration lane. TT tCH/ F_/ T-' ITEM NO. 5h DATE: AUGUST 5, 1998 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A NO PARKING ZONE/BUS LOADING ZONE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE 200 BLOCK OF SOUTH ORCHARD AVENUE JUST SOUTH OF STELLA DRIVE The Traffic Engineering Committee reviewed the request from Steve Turner of Mendocino Transit Authority (MTA) for the establishment of a "No Parking Zone/Bus Loading Zone" on the west side of the 200 block of Orchard Avenue just south of Stella Drive. The stop would be located along the side frontage of 599 Stella Drive between the curb return and the secondary/backyard drive approach to the residence at 599 Stella Drive. This proposed bus stop location is included in MTA's bus stop enhancement program. If approved, the bus top will be activated after the planned roadway work for Orchard Avenue is completed. The Traffic Engineering Committee recommends to the City Council that the request be granted. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution Establishing a No Parking Zone/Bus Loading Zone on the West Side of the 200 Block of South Orchard Avenue just south of Stella Drive. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Deny the request. Citizen Advised' Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with' Attachments' Property owner and resident at 599 Stella Drive Rick H. Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Rick H. Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Resolution. 2. Site Plan. APPROVED,: ~'~ndace Ho-rsley, Cit~,~Manager R: 1 \PW:kk AORCHARD.NP RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ESTABLISHING A NO PARKING ZONE/BUS LOADING ZONE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE 200 BLOCK OF SOUTH ORCHARD AVENUE JUST SOUTH OF STELLA DRIVE WHEREAS, the City Council may by resolution designate portions of streets upon which the standing, parking, or stopping of vehicles is prohibited or restricted pursuant to Article 11, Chapter 1, Division 8, of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the provision of Section 21458 of the California State Vehicle Code permits the stopping of buses in a red zone marked or sign posted as a bus loading zone; and WHEREAS, the Traffic Engineering Committee (Traffic Engineer) considered the request from the Mendocino Transit Authority (MTA) for the establishment of a "No Parking Zone/Bus Loading Zone" on the west side of the 200 block of South Orchard Avenue just south of Stella Drive, and the Committee recommends approval of the request. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Ukiah City Council that a "No Parking Zone/Bus Loading Zone" is hereby established along the west side of the 200 block of South Orchard Avenue just south of Stella Drive between the curb return and the side yard/backyard driveway approach to 599 Stella Drive. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of August, 1998, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Sheridan Malone, Mayor Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Resolution No. 98- :_ / ,wY / , ORCHARD 14Z 156 566 WARREN 576 575 98 IOl 190.09' oo ., ITEM NO. 5i DATE: August 5, 1998 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: AWARD ACQUISITION OF DUMP BODY FOR STREET DEPARTMENT TO DOUBLE 'D' TRUCK CENTER IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,857.35 SUMMARY: The City Street Department worked with the Purchasing Department to obtain bids for the acquisition of a dump body. A notice requesting bids for the dump body was published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on July 13, 1998 and July 19, 1998. Seven companies received requests for quotations. Three companies responded with bids. The Iow bid of $9,857.35 is less than the Street Department budget amount of $1o,ooo. Tabulation of Quotes -Dump Body Company Quote Amount Double 'D' Truck Center Arcata, CA $9,857.35 North Bay Truck Works Cotati, CA $10,483.69 Dailey Body Company Oakland, CA $11,625.77 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Award acquisition of dump body for Street Department to Double 'D' Truck Center in the amount of $9,857.35. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: None. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Rick Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works j~~ -- Rick Candace Horsley, City Manager Rick Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer 1. Fiscal Year 1998/1999 budget sheet ,JS^GOUM,BOSU~ Candace Horsley, Ci!y Manager 0 0 0 0 0 AGENDA SUMMARY 5j ITEM NO. DATE: AUGUST 5, 1998 REPORT SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR VARIOUS FUNDS At the time of the adoption of the 1998/99 budget several items were being finalized or details were not available for inclusion in the budget. This report documents those matters and recommends authorization of the revised revenues or expenditures. The City's direct financial participation in the Mendocino Emergency Services Association (MESA) for 1998/99 is $9,902, an increase of $1,586 over last year. The budget amendment reflects this difference, as $8,316 was included in account 100.1990.260.000 of the adopted budget. The Ukiah Valley Sanitation District holds special liability insurance coverage which is not part of the premiums paid through REMIF. This item was not included in the insurance calculations presented in account 612.3505.340.000. The subject account is to be increased by $809 to meet the cost for this insurance premium. An increase in the premium for City property insurance was not included in the adopted budget. The difference of $1,650 is to be added to account 920.1990.340.005. On June 22 the paperwork for the State grant to complete the runway crack seal, slurry seal, and painting project at the Airport was finalized. On July 1 the City Council awarded a contract for the project to American Asphalt Repair and Resurfacing Co. in the amount of $121,253.43. The total project cost is estimated at $135,803.81, with $122,223.43 funded by the State grant, and the remaining $13,580.38 coming from City Airport funds as the local match (10%). The project was not included in the adopted budget. Both revenue and expenditure accounts are to be amended to accommodate this project. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve Amendments to the 1998/99 Budget increasing expenditure accounts 100.1990.260.000 by $1,586 for MESA costs, 612.3505.340.000 by $809 for Sanitation District special liability insurance, 920.1990.340.005 by $1,650 for property insurance premium, and 310.7860.250.000 by $135,804 for runway project; and establishing revenue account 310.0600.488.002 with $135,804 of State grant and local match fundin~l for the runway improvements. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Determine modifications to budget amendments are necessary, identify changes, and approve revised amendments. 2. Determine bud~let amendments are not necessary and take no action. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: NA Michael F. Harris, Risk Manager/Budget Officer ~ Rick Seanor, Deputy Public Works Director, Don Bua, Airport Manager, Gordon Elton, Director of Finance, and Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Budget Amendment worksheet, page 1. APPROVED: ~.~', ')~'~I, .c--tri:,/ (~andaceHorsley, citY~anager mfh:asrcc98 0805BA _ 0 0 ITEM NO. 5k DATE: August 5, 1998 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: AWARD ACQUISITION OF FOUR WHEEL DRIVE PICK-UP TRUCK FOR SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENT TO BIDDULPH ISUZU IN THE AMOUNT OF $16,618.39 SUMMARY: The City Solid Waste Department worked with the Purchasing Department to obtain bids for the acquisition of a new or used four wheel drive pick-up truck. A notice requesting bids for the truck was published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on July 15, 1998 and July 23, 1998. Twenty two companies received requests for quotations. Three companies responded with quotes. The Iow bidder, Hertz Sale Office was determined not responsive since it neither provided sufficient detail with the bid nor by follow-up phone call. The lowest responsive bidder, therefore, is Biddulph Isuzu which quoted a price of $16,618.39 for a 1996 Chevrolet four wheel drive pick-up with 38,767 miles. continued on paste 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Award acquisition of four wheel drive pick-up truck for Solid Waste Department to Biddulph Isuzu in the amount of $16,618.39. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: None. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Rick Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engin. eer Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works ~ Rick Candace Horsley, City Manager Rick Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer 1. Fiscal Year 1998/1999 budget sheet APPROVED' :~ ; ~ '~ ' Candace Horsley, Ci'~y Manager RJS:AGLFPKUP SUM Page 2 Award Acquisition of Four Wheel Drive Pick-up Truck for Solid Waste Department to Biddulph Isuzu in the Amount of $16,618.39 August 5, 1998 The lowest, responsible bid of $16,618.39 is less than the solid waste department budget amount of $18,000. Tabulation of Quotes - Four Wheel Drive Pick-up Truck Company Biddulph Isuzu Santa Rosa, CA Manly Oldsmobile/GMC Trucks Santa Rosa, CA Hertz Sale Office Sacramento, CA Lasher Auto Center Woodland, CA Quote Amount $16,618.39 $16,621.61 $15,000 NO BID Z Z o o o o o -Om' o o o v > o o 51 ITEM NO. DATE: August 5, 1998 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: AWARD ACQUISITION OF STREET DEPARTMENT TO AMOUNT OF $10,540 THERMOPLASTIC APPLICATOR FOR STIMSONITE CORPORATION IN THE SUMMARY: The City Street Department worked with the Purchasing Department to obtain bids for the acquisition of a thermoplastic applicator. A notice requesting bids for the thermoplastic applicator was published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on July 15, 1998 and July 23, 1998. Eleven companies received requests for quotations. The Iow bidder, Stimsonite Corporation, met all of the requirements of the City's specifications. A bid was received from Centerline Supply, Inc. after the bid opening date. However, this bid was not the lowest of the three bids received. continued on page 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Award acquisition of thermoplastic applicator for Street Department to Stimsonite Corporation in the amount of $10,540. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: None. Citizen Advised' Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Rick Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works,~,L~ Rick Candace Horsley, City Manager Rick Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer 1. Budget Adjustment Authorization 2. Fiscal Year 199811999 budget sheet Can~ac~~ Horsley, Cit~. RJS:AGTHERMO SUM Manager Page 2 Award Acquisition of Thermoplastic Applicator for Street Department to Stimsonite Corporation in the Amount of $10,540 August 5, 1998 The Iow bid of $10,540 is less than the Street Department budget amount of $13,000. Tabulation of Quotes - Thermoplastic Applicator Company Quote Amount Stimsonite Corporation Atlanta, GA Centerline Supply, Inc. Grand Prairie, TX Line Master Engineering, Inc. Long Beach, CA $10,540 $10,795 $13,589.61 Interstate Sales Auburn, CA NO BID Linear Dynamics, Inc. Parsippany, NJ NO BID TO: BUDGET ADJUSTMENT AUTHORIZATION Director of Finance DATE: Please adjust the budget for the amounl(s) as shown below: From To Account No. Amount ^_ccount No. Amount .~, Justification: ! BY: Deparlment Head/ City Manager Approval of City Manager required for transfers within Depadment Budgets. Council approval required between Depadment or Fund Budgels. IVl.E.M.O.R , DATE' July 9, 1998 TO' Candace Horsley, City Manager FROM' Rick H. Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer ~__~ RE' REQUESTED BUDGET ADJUSTMENT Your approval to transfer funds from two (2) Street Department accounts to the Street Department Fixed Asset account to facilitate the acquisition of a operator propelled thermoplastic applicator is requested. During budget preparations, we had anticipated acquiring the services of a traffic striping contractor for applying thermoplastic crosswalks along heavily traveled roads such as State Street. Traffic paint dos not last one full year under heavy use and the heat applied powder may last up to a year under the same conditions. The initial cost of thermoplastic is very high when compared to paint or heat applied powder, but it will last up to five (5) years under heavy use. We had allowed $10,600 in the budget for various locations. Since the approval of the budget, Jim Looney and I have discussed the advantages in owning a small manual propelled unit which can apply the thermoplastic material. Based on quotes, we can acquire an economical applicator and two (2) tons of material for approximately $13,000. With this unit, we can repair or replace crosswalks which have been removed by patching or other road repair work without waiting for the annual striping contract. As an example, the contemplated surface remediation work for State Street which will begin the week of July 20, will obliterate portions of the existing crosswalk. If authorized to acquire the thermoplastic applicator, we could repair the crosswalks soon after the surface remediation work is completed. We will also perform rework or new crosswalk work with this unit in-lieu of contracting it out. Your most earliest consideration of my request is requested. RHK:kk R: 1 \PW MHORSLEY.27 LLJ o o ITEM NO. DATE: August 5, 1998 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: AWARD OF BID FOR HURST BRAND RESCUE EQUIPMENT TO L.N. CURTIS & SONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $16,070.34. SUMMARY: The Ukiah Fire Department was awarded a grant by the Office of Traffic Safety to include the purchase of rescue equipment. The Fire Department currently has one older model Hurst Rescue/Extrication System in its equipment inventory. The grant will add a second, more capable rescue/extrication system. To simplify training, maintain compatibility with current equipment, maintain commonality with systems owned by neighboring fire agencies, and keep maintenance simple, the decision was made to specify a Hurst Brand System, only. Requests for quotations were sent to five equipment vendors and three proposals were opened by the City Clerk on July 21, 1998 at 2:45 p.m. Only one price quotation was submitted and it was by L.N. Curtis & Sons in the amount of $17, 546.10. This price was higher than expected. Subsequent conversation with the vendor indicated the bid was incorrect and an amended quotation was offered in the amount of $16,070.34. The amended quotation is approximately 15% below retail pricing and is consistent with cost expectations of staff. Funds for this purchase were approved in the 1998/99 budget under account 250.2101.690.911 and 250.2101.800.911. Because there was only one responsive bidder staff believes it is appropriate for the City Council to waive any irregularity in changing the bid after the bid opening and to award the bid to L.N. Curtis & Sons. This position was developed after consultation with the City Attorney. Staff has clarified with bidder the ML2H power unit will come equipped with a roll cage without adjustment in cost. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Award the bid for Hurst Brand Rescue Equipment to L.N. Curtis & Sons in the amount of $16,070.34 and make a finding that waiving an irregularity in the bid process will not prejudice the rights of any others because there was only one responsive bidder. ALTERNATE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Reject all bids 2. Direct staff to rebid. Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Candace Horsley, City Manager Roe M. Sandelin, Fire Chief Candace Horsley, City Manager and David Rapport, City Attorney 1. Tabulation of Bids 2. Amended Quotation from L.N. Curtis & Sons 3. Excerpt of 1998/99 Budget APPROVED: (~f~ '~ .... }Z~.c .... c~hdace H~)rsley, tzity M~nager COMPLETE SERVICE FIRE & SAFET~ EQUIPMENT FOR I~UN~CIPAL & INDUSTRIAL FIRE DEPT. SUPPLIES Q OTATION DATE I TERMS 7/24/98 Net 30 EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT AND SERVICE 1800 PERALTA ST. - OAKLAND. CA 94607-1603 (510) 839-5111 (800) 4-43-3556 FAX (510) 839-5325 JF'°'8'DestJ. n a ~n- Ukiah ESTABLISHED 1929 JDELIVERY 10-21 days after receipt of orde City of Ukiah This quotation subject to acceptance within 30 days. Shipmen! contingent upon strikes, fires, accidents or other delays beyond TO' At,n: City Clerk, Marls Ulvi]~ reasonable control of the company. _.L,..N.,,Curt!s~ .and S. ons relams ownership and lille to all equipmen! un[ti ;ully pa~a ;or in legal money of the United Slates of America c/o Chief Roe Sande.]J.n All prices quoted subject lo apl31icable Federal. Slate. County or City Taxes and LJceoseS. 300 Seminary Ave. ~ND SONS Ukiah, CA 95482 . -- By xj~au~~, Pres~dentuNiT ($H/DL QUANTITY CATALOG NO. F'AX-' 1_-'7{~'~ - 4~-~. - ~-~0~--~1:3~ DESCRIPTION PRICE TOTAL PHO: Per your request, we are pleased to offer our amended quote to your Req. No. E17754. We are pleased to offer as follnws. If you need more information, have a question, or would like to place an order, please contact Scott Henderson at 800-443-3556 or Fax at 510-839-5325. OUR PRIEES INCLUDE TRANSPORTATIDN 1 362R196 ML16S combination tool 3942.00 3,942 90 1 363R260 ML2H power unit with handle* 3395.00 3,395.90 *If power unit is desired with roll cage, correct part number is 363R126. Your total price i~ $3,53~.00 2 257R042 JL30B 30" ram 1900.00 3,800.00 1 542R041 Hurst manual hose reel with 100' orange hose 2005.00 2,005.00 2 3530016 Hurst 16' orange hydraulic hose 225.00 450.00 1 cs. 180R002 Hurst hydrau]~c fluid NO ;HARGE 1 pr. l10R016T Hurst blades for ML16S combo tool 1392.00 1,392.00 Plus applicable tax ' ...... ~ i~ .'~'i ;:~.~. ~Sub ~ota[ ~4,984.0( JUL 2 199& __,~'Tax 1,086.3L To~al 16,070.3/- "-~17'v C;i :-:!-,;':,, . ~-r,.)..~.~. . ~ , ....._, , ,,, ,?;, , ITEM NO. 5n DATE: August 5, 1998 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: REPORT OF THE ACQUISITION OF THERMOPLASTIC MATERIAL FROM INTERSTATE SALES IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,040.75 SUMMARY: In compliance with Section 1522 of the City of Ukiah Municipal Code, this report is being submitted to the City Council for the purpose of reporting the acquisition of office equipment costing more than $5,000 but less than $10,000. The City Street Department worked with the Purchasing Department to obtain bids for the acquisition of thermoplastic material. This material will be used with the new thermoplastic applicator for pavement markings such as crosswalks, stop bars, etc. throughout the City. The acquisition price of $5,040.75 is within the Street Department's budget amount. RECOMMENDED ACTION' Receive and file report. Report is submitted pursuant to Municipal Code. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: None. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Rick Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works Candace Horsley, City Manager Rick Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer 1. Fiscal Year 1998/1999 budget sheet 2. Price Quote from Interstate Sales Candace Horsley,' City'~anager RJS:AGTHMATL.SUM LAJ 0 0 0 .r- 0 0 t- o t- O 0 0 I.. 0 0 0 0 JUL-17-98 01 : 10 PM INTERSTATE :SALES 2. P. 01 CITY of UKIAH 300 S~tn~y Av~na~ Uki~h CA, Phone 707-463.6233 F~ 7~-463-6234 .....'' ii i i iiii ii ir ' ' ,I TO: RErURN THIS FORM TI-IlS IS NOT AN ORDER DATE: 7/14/98 REQ. NO. E 18,50~ BIDS wrt.l, aP. r~.c:r.,.z~a UNTg_. 1:00 pan, Ju,!y. 27, 1998 AT TIlE OI;'I:iCE Oi'-" TiLE I'URCHASING AGENT, CH"Y of UKIAH Nora K~nn~y INTERSTATE SALES 1230,.5 Locksley Lane Auburn, CA 95603 QUOTA"I'ION$ ARE REQUESTED FOR TI IE FOI.I.OWING l"I~.',M..q: J.._, ........ :',' 211 .... '~-'' IThermoplastic. Wtfitc, Alkyd, Block tOllS '",,.,. ---, -.. -. ii TERMS: DEL. TO: Net, 30 JUL' i 6' 1998 INT£RSIA'f'E SALES Ukiah I,~L. °,Ct'is: -, ~ _ ,-, n ItlDDi.,R: 'll~l~ll I lJl i i i ii ALL QUOTATIONS SHAL. L...B._}.] F__,_O_.~_. UKIAH, CA. U N'IT PRICE 1, Rloht is reservea to reject an? an~ att bios, 2, Right is reserved Io a¢¢ept separate items unle~ spe¢.ifi~;;y dunlOO by bidder. 3. in CASE OF DEFAULT, ~e Oi~ of U~ah may procure ~]e Items quot~ on from o~er ~our~s ~d hold mo origln~ bidder I~able fm any ~ncroased ~sB. 4, 8uOst[tuttons snell sl~ manufacturers n~e. mt~og number and ~m~io s~cs. 5. The pdt, terms, delJve~ point, and dellve~ date may muwldually er mliec~vely ~ ~u J~lS O[ ~e awning of the bM. . 6, ALL QUO3 ATlaS MUST BE SIGNED. OPENING DATE ~3Q TIME 'MUSI' ~ prominently displayed on suOml~lnO envelope. ~ 7. In submi~ no ~e ~ove the vendo- a~tees ~at the a~ptan~ o~ ~ o~ all ~otagons . TOTAL I l, lllll I ITEM NO. 5o DATE: August 5, 1998 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: REPORT OF THE ACQUISITION OF GRIFFOLYN TARPS FROM REED & GRAHAM, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,038.39 SUMMARY: In compliance with Section 1522 of the City of Ukiah Municipal Code, this report is being submitted to the City Council for the purpose of reporting the acquisition of supplies costing more than $5,000 but less than $10,000. The City Solid Waste Division worked with the Purchasing Department to obtain bids for the acquisition of the Griffolyn tarps. These tarps will be used as alternative daily cover. The tarps save landfill "space" by not requiring frequent application of soil as daily cover material. The acquisition price of $8,038.39 is less than the Solid Waste Disposal Site budget amount of $8,400. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file report. Report is submitted pursuant to Municipal Code. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: None. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Rick Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engine_er Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works,.~ Candace Horsley, City Manager Rick Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer 1. Fiscal Year 1998/1999 budget sheet 2. Price Quote from Reed & Graham, Inc. APPROVED: C~nda~e H0rsley, City ~anager ! LU o · ~ ._~ o o o ~O000~O 0 0 0 0 JLIL- E"9-1 TO: i5:4G I~ED & GRAHAM, INC. 2,6 Ught Sky Court $ocromento, CA 95826 8~-.~81-Ot~0. F~ 916-;3~-1A,86 9i6, 5:--::-] i4:=:6 F'. 0;2 DATE: 7/28/98 .......... DI~,C~ION 20 40 ft. x 60 ft_ Oriffol ALL fl, x 100 fl. Giffolyn Tartm ~30TATIOI~3 SHALL BE' F.O.B. UIf[AIL CA. $892.50 $1,785.00 86 ITEM NO. 5p DATE: August 5, 1998 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: REPORT OF THE ACQUISITION OF MANUAL FEED ENGINEERING PLAIN PAPER COPIER FOR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FROM ELLIS ART & ENGINEERING SUPPLIES IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,423.40 SUMMARY: In compliance with Section 1522 of the City of Ukiah Municipal Code, this report is being submitted to the City Council for the purpose of reporting the acquisition of office equipment costing more than $5,000 but less than $10,000. The City Engineering Department worked with the Purchasing Department to obtain bids for the acquisition of an engineering plain paper copier. A notice requesting bids for the engineering plain paper copier was published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on July 17, 1998 and July 23, 1998. Ten companies received requests for bids. Quotes were obtained for two different models of copiers. The OCE Model 7051 copier with an OCE 7032 stand/paper dispenser has been selected since it can produce more than one copy from a single original. The OCE Model 7050 prints only one copy from each original. The engineering plain paper copier will allow the duplication of engineering size drawings onto a black and white copy prints. The copier can also be used to produce duplicate large maps, etc. which could not previously be duplicated with the blueprint machine. The acquisition price of $7,423.40 is less than the Engineering Department budget amount of $10,345. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file report. Report is submitted pursuant to Municipal Code. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: None. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Rick Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Enaineer Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public WorkshOp" Candace Horsley, City Manager .-~ Rick Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer 1. Fiscal Year 1998/1999 budget sheet 2. Price Quote from Ellis Art & Engineering Supplies APPROVED.~...~i'~, .? ~/~, ~'~-, candace Horsley, ci~ Manager RJS:AGPLCOPY.SUM TO: 'JUL 2 ,'; 1996 F. ! CITY CL_Ht~ L)EPt~,~ I MEN'I' CITY of UKIAH 300 Scmhmry Avenue · Uldah CA. 95482 Phonu 707-463-6217 REQUEST FOR QUOTATION NO FAX WILL BE ACCEPTED REllJRN THIS FORM THIS IS NOT AN ORDER ELLIS ART DRAFTING & ENGINEERING SUPPLIES 122 Broadway Chico, CA 95482 Attn: Phil Wasden I DATE: 7/10/98 REQ. NO. E 18255 ii BIDS WILL BE RE. CEIVED UNTIL 2:00 p.m. JUly 28, ~99~ AT TH~ OFFICE OF TILE CITY CLERK 300 SEMINARY AVE. CITY of UKIAH BY: Mm'ia Ulvila QUOTATIONS ARE R.EQUF~TED FOR Tim FOLLOWING ITEMS: ALL QUOTATIONS SHALL BE F.O.B. UKIAH CA. QUANTITY DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 OCE' Manual Feed Engineering Plain Paper Copier. Quote Pricing on OCE' Model 7050 (Single Copy) Cost: $ 4,7. 4 7.0 0 Equipment to include pre-packed toner & developer. Sales Tax: Fre±ght/Installat±on/Tra±n±ng (Not taxable) ~ ~g~' or Total: $,5,004.9~v 1 OCE' Manual Feed Engineering Plan Paper Copier. Quote PHcing on OCE' Model 7051 (Up to Nine Copies) Cost: m q 1 q n n n T~k 450.00 (~r.e i gh t ~.I. ns.ta 11 a t ion/Trai ning (Not Taxable) umy one oxme aoove will be purchased) Total: $5,973.3~'--/ 1 Optional Accessory, OCE' 7032 Stand w/2 Rolls, Manual Feed Cost: $1 , 3 5 2.0 0 , , Sales Tax: 9 8.0 2 Total: $1,450.02 . . .. , . ~ TERMS: 1%, 20 ~ays ARe DEL. TO: Destination DEL. DATE:3 - 5 BIDDER: Ellis Art & Da~s ARe Engineering BY: Phil Wasden TITLE: S a 1 e s M a n a ~e r Phone:~ 3 0-8 91 - 9 3 ]:'~x: 891-0662 DATE/BID: ;-..2-. TERMS: ' .. 1. Bight i~ reserved to reject any and ~11 bids. 2, Right la reserved to accept separate Roma unless Specifically denied by bidder. 3. In CASE OF DEFAULT, the Clly o! Uldah may proc, urn the Items quoted on from other sources and hold the original bidder Ilab!.e k~ any Increased costa. 4. Ali substltu~ons shall show manuhac~urers name. ca~og number and comparable 5. Tho price, terms, delivery point, and de. livery date may Individually ~ collec~vely be tho ba~ls of the awarding of the bid. 6. ALL QUOTATIONS MUST BE SIGNED. OPENING DATE and TIME 'MUST' bo promlnantly displayed on subml~ng envelope. 7. In ~ubmlrflng the abovo, tho vendor aoreo~ that tho accoptanco of any or all quola'Jons by ~ho CIly of Uklah, within 30 day~ constitutes a contract. i i i iii i i i il Il I ,.3 ITEM NO.. DATE: 5q August 5, 1998 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: AWARD OF BID FOR THREE POLICE VEHICLES TO DOWNTOWN FORD IN THE AMOUNT OF $76,701.99 AND APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENT The original Police Department request for the 1998/99 budget included the purchase of three new police patrol vehicles. At the time of budget preparation, it was estimated that the new replacement vehicles would cost approximately $23,000 per vehicle. The current bid process resulted in an offer of $25,567.33 per vehicle for the purchase of three 1998 Ford Crown Victorias. The purpose of this budget amendment is to request the additional funds to make up the balance needed ($6,202). The necessity for the replacement of three vehicles was determined based on the condition of our current fleet, the increased costs for the anticipated maintenance, and the overall concern for safe vehicle operation under emergency situations. Prior to the completion of the budget process a decision was made to transfer funds for equipment replacement to the General Fund Fixed Assets Fund #698. Though three vehicles were planned for replacement in FY 1998/99, a higher department priority to acquire a third dispatch station was identified as the budget proposal was completed. Thus the adopted budget included the dispatch station in lieu of replacing the third vehicle during FY 98~99. On June 17, 1998, the City Council approved the purchase two radio consoles for the Public Safety Communications Center Improvement Project. At that time the costs to purchase these two consoles were estimated to be $55,585. The Council was informed Continued on page 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Award bid for three Police vehicles to Downtown Ford in the amount of $76,701.99 and approve amendment to 1998~99 budget increasing account 698.2001.800.000 by $6,202.00. ALTERNATE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. determine that award of bid or budget amendment is not appropriate and take no action. 2. Determine an alternate action is appropriate and provide direction to staff. Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Wayne McBride, Police Captain Candace Horsely, City Manager 1. Budget worksheets 2. Bid tabulation APPROVED:~-' /,Z~ ~/'~,.,.~ ca~'dace ~o&e'iy, ~ity Manager AWARD OF BID AND BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR POLICE VEHClLES AUGUST 5, 1998 Page 2 that if funding was received from the State 9-1-1 grants the total cost to the City would be reduced to less than $28,000. The 1998/99 budget had not yet been approved but the timeliness of ordering the communications equipment was a major consideration if the City were to maximize our cost savings and project efficiency. Since the reality of the funding was only anticipated, some adjustments to our 98~99 budget proposals had to be made pending the receipt of grant funds. Items within the General Fund Fixed Asset Account 698.2001.800.000 were redefined to reduce the number of replacement vehicles to two at $23,000 each. The funds planned for a third vehicle were allocated to the purchase of a third dispatch radio console ($18,585) and emergency equipment for vehicles ($5,915). On July 29, 1998, the Police Department was given verbal assurance from Pacific Bell that the costs for the additional radio console would be funded out of the State 9-1-1 grant. The communications equipment has been ordered by Pacific Bell and a written agreement is forthcoming. With this agreement the actual costs of the items approved in June will be less than $28,000. These savings can be used to secure a third replacement vehicle. With the approval of this budget amendment these funds will be re-allocated to allow for the purchase of the third police vehicle. Funds are available in the Police Department operating budget, vehicle maintenance and repair account (100.2001.303.000) to purchase the emergency equipment for each vehicle that must be acquired separately. The necessary $6,202 is available in the fund balance of the Police Department portion of the 698 Fund. The Replacement Fund (698.2001.800.000) change is: Safety vehicles Dispatch radio console Emergency vehicle equipment Total Budgeted Proposed 46,000 76,702 18,585 -0- 5,915 -0- ,$70,500 ,$76,702 Requests for Quotations for the three vehicles were sent to nine vendors and bids were opened by the City Clerk on July 20, 1998. Only two acceptable bids were received, as an alternate from Henry Curtis was for 1999 vehicles which would not available for another year. The Iow bid is Downtown Ford at a total price of $76,701.99 for the three Ford Crown Victoria Police vehicles. Staff recommends approval of the budget amendment necessary to purchase a third public safety vehicle and award of bid to Downtown Ford for three vehicles. mfh:asrcc98 0805POL ASSET REPLACEMENT RESERVE - FUND #698 Budgeted amounts: Beginning fund balance 7/1/98 From Gen Govt Buildings Ambulance payment from fire dept From General Fund for storage building Finance dept equipment Public Safety computerization/dispatch project Police equipment Fire equipment Streets equipmemt Parks equipment Budgeted ending fund balance 6/30/99 729,003 4,000 24,447 175,000 (60,000) (209,400) (91,200) (67,186) (80,500) (20,000) 404,164 Adiustments made durinq the fiscal year: Date Approved 7/1/98 7/15/98 8/5/98 8/5/98 8/5/98 Change in beginning fund balance per audit HVAC replacement at Civic Center Safety vehicles (from 2 to 3) Delete Dispatch radio console Delete Emergency vehicle equipment Account No. 698.1915.800.000 $ 698.2001.800.000 $ 698.2001.800.000 $ 698.2001.800.000 $ (6,338) (30,702) 18,585 5,915 Revised ending fund balance 6/30/99 $ 391,624 General Government Buildings Police Fire Building Inspection Engineering Streets Parks Finance Other Corporation yard Fund Balance 7/1/98 $ 18500 310.325 45 302 10.000 25.000 113 375 39 583 60 000 500 106,418 Income Expense 4,000 (6,338) (306,802) 24,447 (67,186) 175,000 (80,500) (20,000) (60,000) Fund Fund Balance Balance Adjustments 6/30/98 16,162 3,523 2,563 10,000 25,000 32,875 19,583 - 175,500 106,418 TOTAL $729,003 $203,447 $(540,826)$ - $ 391,624 RESERV99.XLS 7/30/98 Page 3 Funds 696; 697; 698 UJ ~ > BID OPENINGS FOR:1998 FQrd Crown Victoria Police Vehicles - REO. No, E16242 DATE: TIME: 0 e Se . 10. Marie Uivila, City Clerk ITEM NO. 7a DATE: August 5, 1998 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL DRAFT SUMMARY PLAN AS PART OF THE AB 939 INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR MENDOCINO COUNTY & ESTABLISHING IT AS A PART OF THE CITY OF UKIAH'S SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN REPORT: The Summary Plan has been prepared by the Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority (MSWMA) on behalf of the City of Ukiah and other participating agencies. It identifies county-wide goals for waste prevention, recycling and composting, current solid waste management practices, diversion programs implemented, and anticipated contingency measures to increase diversion to 50% by the year 2000. The Plan is required by the California Integrated Waste Management Board to be incorporated continued on page '2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council conduct the public hearing on the Summary Plan; accept input from citizens and Council members; adopt the resolution approving the Summary Plan and establishing the document as a part of the City's Solid Waste Management Plan; and transmit Council's comments and recommendations to the Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Continue the public hearing. 2. Refer the Summary Plan back to the MSWMA. 3. Make modifications and conduct another public hearing after document is amended. Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Rick Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer ~)y'~ Mike Sweeney, General Manager, MSWMA Prepared by: Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works j~t~ Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: 1. Final Draft Summary Plan 2. Draft Resolution Adopting Summary Plan 3. Public Hearing Proof of Publication 4. State Regulations on preparation/review of Summary Plan 5. CIWMB comments and MSWMA response to Preliminary Draft Summary Plan 6. LTF comments on Initial, Preliminary and Final Draft Summary Plan Candace Horsley, . _ ~ity~~lanager RJS:AGAB939.SUM Page 2 Adoption of Resolution Approving Final Draft Summary Plan as Part of the AB 939 Integrated Waste Management Plan for Mendocino County & Establishing it as a Part of the City of Ukiah's Solid Waste Management Plan August 5, 1998 into the Integrated Waste Management Plan for Mendocino County. The AB 939 Management Plan of Mendocino County also includes the previously approved and adopted Source Reduction and Recycling Element, Household Hazardous Waste Element, Non-disposal Facility Element and Siting Element. A copy of the Final Draft Summary Plan is attached (Attachment 1). A public hearing is now required by each participating jurisdiction to allow comments from the public and members of the governing body on the Final Draft. After considering all comments regarding the Final Draft Summary Plan, the City is to, by resolution, approve and establish it as a part of the City of Ukiah's Solid Waste Management Plan. The City does have the option of disapproving the Summary Plan. Attachment 2 is a draft resolution approving the Final Draft Summary Plan. The Notice of Public Hearing for adoption of the Summary Plan was published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on July 2, 1998, thirty days prior to the City Council meeting, as required by law (Attachment 3). The document has been available for public review in the office of the City Clerk. Final adoption of the Summary Plan requires approval by the Board of Supervisors and a majority of the cities containing a majority of the population of the incorporated areas. The specific state regulations for the preparation and review of the Summary Plan are defined in Attachment 4. BACKGROUND: On January 28, 1998, the MSWMA received written comments and recommendations from the AB 939 Local Task Force (LTF) after its preliminary review of the Initial Draft Summary Plan. On February 18, 1998, at the request of the MSWMA, this Initial Draft was introduced to the City Council for response and comment to the recommendations made by the LTF. At that time, the Council recommended the MSWMA Board reference the forthcoming Waste Characterization Study in the Summary Plan and stated that changes, if any, in diversion policies and programs would be made after the results of the Study were presented to the member agencies. That Waste Characterization Study is now close to completion. The Draft Summary Plan can be amended at a future date to reference the Waste Characterization Study once it is completed. The AB 939 Local Task Force (LTF) completed its review of the Preliminary Draft Summary Plan at its March 26, 1998 meeting. The LTF's comments were submitted to the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), as required. The City Council approved Page 3 Adoption of Resolution Approving Final Draft Summary Plan as Part of the AB 939 Integrated Waste Management Plan for Mendocino County & Establishing it as a Part of the City of Ukiah's Solid Waste Management Plan August 5, 1998 the Preliminary Draft Summary Plan on April 1, 1998. Comments made by the CIWMB to the Preliminary Draft Summary Plan and MSWMA's response to those comments are identified in Attachment 5. Specifically, the Waste Board requested more detail on how the City plans to meet 50% diversion by the year 2000, including milestones/dates. The MSWMA revised the Preliminary Draft Summary Plan taking into consideration all comments made by the participating jurisdictions, LTF and CIWMB, and produced a Final draft. The MSWMA then sent the Final Draft Summary Plan to the LTF for final review and comment. On May 28, 1998, the LTF met and determined that the document was adequate, submitting their written comments to the MSWMA and the CIWMB. A copy of those comments and the comments made on the Initial and Preliminary Draft Summary Plan are attached (Attachment 6). MSWMA held a public hearing on the Negative Declaration for the Final Draft Summary Plan on July 22, 1998. After closure of the public hearing, MSWMA voted to adopt the Negative Declaration for the Final Draft Summary Plan. Since the MSWMA has adopted the Negative Declaration, Mendocino County cities have no required California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) action regarding the Summary Plan. After each of the cities acts on the summary plan, MSWMA will send the Final Draft Summary Plan to the California Integrated Waste Management Board for approval. Staff recommends adoption of the resolution approving the Summary Plan. Addendum to Mendocino County Final Draft AB 939 Summary Plan Pursuant to review by the Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority Board of Directors on May 27, 1998 and the Mendocino Solid Waste Local Task Force on May 28, 1998, the following additions are made to the Final Draft: 1. Add to "Note 3" on pp. 11, 14, 17, 19, and 21: The Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority has arranged to sponsor two full-time Americorps workers in 1998- 99 who will assist in promoting waste diversion at businesses, organizations and elsewhere in the community. These workers will supplement MSWMA's existing recycling promotion efforts, and give MSWMA the capability to reach out to all waste generators to get maximum participation in source separation programs. 2. Revise Section 1.2(A)(2) as follows: Full recycling and ~',',,"""'"'o*;"'",......,, ,,.,,.,,.,,,, ,::, compostable collection opportunities will be provided at the point of waste disposal for all waste generators--households, businesses, and self- 'na'o'~e'rs. 3. Add to Table 5, "Other Recycling Centers" Ukiah Recycling Center, 1080 Cunningham Road, Ukiah O~er&tor: Ukiah Rec¥cting Center 4. Revise Section 4.3, "Additional nondisposal facilities," to add the following third sentence: A proposed transfer station in Willits may serve the North County and the Fort Bragg coastal area. Mike Sweeney Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority June 2, 1998 Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority A Joint Powers Public Agency Michael E. Sweeney GeneraJ Manager P.O. Box 123 Ukiah, CA 95482 Telephone (707) 468-9710 Fax (707) 468-3877 May 8, 1998 To: From: Mendocino Solid Waste Local Task Force County of Mendocino City of Ukiah City of Fort Bragg City of Willits City of Point Arena Mike Sweeney ~~_, (AB 939) Subject: Transmittal of Final Draft Summary Plan Enclosed is the Final Draft of the Summary Plan, which is required by state law as part of the County's Integrated Waste Management Plan. This draft was produced by making revisions to the Preliminary Draft in accordance with comments from the local jurisdictions, the LTF, and the California Integrated Waste Management Board. The procedures for adoption of the Summary Plan are stated in CCR Section 18783, which is attached. Each jurisdiction must oublish a notice of public hearing 30 days in advance to consider the Final Draft, and may then either approve or disapprove of the Final Draft by resolution. (I will need to get copies of the proofs of publication and the resolutions.) The Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority has issued a Negative Declaration for the Final Draft Summary Plan and will have a public hearing on the Negative Declaration on July 22. This provides CEQA compliance for the document. This Summary Plan states the specific commitments that the local jurisdictions are willing to make at this time for compliance with the year 2000 mandate of 50% recycling. After local adoption, the Plan must be submitted to the CIWMB for approval. The California Integrated Waste Management Board may or may not accept the Summary Plan as adequate. Please contact me if you have any questions. enclosures FINAL DRAFT AB 939 SUMMARY PLAN County of Mendocino City of Ukiah City of Fort Bragg City of Willits City of Point Arena PART I -- Goals, Policies & Objectives CCR SeCtion 18757.1 1.1 Goals A. The Cities and County will utilize waste prevention, recycling and composting to divert as much solid waste as possible from landfill disposal. Those materials which cannot be recycled or composted shall be landfilled in an environmentally safe and effective manner. B. The implementation of integrated waste management shall be coordinated or implemented on a multi-jurisdictional basis to the greatest feasible extent in order to ensure the least cost to ratepayers and the most effective programs, and to avoid unnecessary duplication of programs, efforts and administration. ' C. The Cities and County shall support any opportunities to strengthen markets for recycled and composted materials, including participation in the Sonoma-Mendocino- Lake Recycling Market Development Zone. D. Household hazardous waste collection service shall be available to all households and small business generators on a regular and convenient basis. Prevention and Final Draft Summary Plan - 5/8/98- PAGE -. Laytonvme (~) t C Source: Idendoclflo Counfy Depor~meflf of Plonnlng & Building Servicel Carlogrophi¢ Dlvlelon, November. 1992. LEGEND: A-Ukiah Landfill; B-South Coast Dandfill; C-Covelo transfer station; D-Potter ~/aiiey' transfer station; E-Boonville transfer station; F-Albion transfer station; G-Caspar transfer station; H-Willits Recycling & Transfer; I-Fort Bragg Disposal field container facility; J-Laytonville Recycling Center & transfer; K-Cold Creek Compost facility; L-Biowastes compost facility. :~ lol .. % \. Le.flonvme ~ ( :. -. .~ wu. ts I~ "~, ,.~...--:' "'" ~', -I Mendo~lno ·:"'"--. Mendocino " ....... : ..... , ~""~, ^ County .~ -.-~ , '... ,-'., '~ ~ ~ '%. ,~ '. ,.. ,,., ~,~-.. ,. _. ,..,~ { ~ ~,,.m, '~ ..".~.'"' ',~ /~}~ t-. %'"' Hopland - ~- ~ .. ,,,; _0My __ ~TS-...'L ~')~ '.. u.-" ...... :-;,:'--! '~ :- '..,~ x,... I ~' -.. ~ ':.. ' Fob ar.n, ~.. "- ..... B " "',. A Norlh 0 2 4 6 Mi. Source: Mendoelflo County [}el~sflmefl! of PJonniflg k lulidlflj Services Cerlo0rophi¢ DivfoLo~. November. liS2. LEG~: A-Ukiah !andfiH; B-South Coast landfill; C-Covelo transfer station; D-Potter '~a~ey' transfer station; F_,-B~nville transfer station; F-Albion Iraflsfer station; G-Caspar transfer staff(m; ~e,:y,:ting Cent=,~ ~~ ,--,.,o,o,.:~: ,.:ompo~, ~,::i~io,; U-~iowa~te~,::ompo~t f~itity. :~ p. zl UNINCORPO~R'ATED COUNTY O~'-MENDOciN-~ SOLID WASTE REFUSE COLLECTION AREAS HU~B(X.01' ¢0. L' RCY _ 'I'R~N~T¥ .------- CO. WESTPOR1 ~LEGGETT Round Volley COVELO .. Lo~ iRANSCOM DOS RIOS ~ LAYTON~IL~ £ 1 T F.,.I"IAM A co. FORT BRAGG MENOOCI~ MANCHESTER pOINT AF 4 MOUNT&IN NAVARRO PHILO WiLLITS POTTER VALLEY 'L I UKIAH HOPLAND' reuse of hazardous products shall be encouraged. Hazardous materials which are collected shall be recycled to the greatest extent feasible, or otherwise disposed of in an environmentally safe manner. 1.2 Policies A. The Source Reduction & Recycling Element embodies the following policies to promote waste diversion: 1. Public information and promotion will be provided for all waste diversion programs and opportunities. 2. Full recycling and composting opportunities will be provided at the point of waste disposal for all waste generators--households, businesses, and self-haulers. 3. Processing facilities will be provided to maximize the scope of recycling and composting collection and to reduce costs. B. The Household Hazardous Waste Element is based on the policy that the Cities and County will cooperate to provide a multi-jurisdictional mobile household hazardous waste collection program serving all the jurisdictions. 1.3 Objectives Each jurisdiction shall divert at least 50% of the base year materials from disposal by the year 2000. The programs necessary to achieve this objective are listed in Part 4 below, "Summary of SRRE, HHWE, and NDFE," together with implementation notes. PART 2 -- County Profile & Plan Administration CCR Section 18757.3 2.1 County description Mendocino County is a rugged, rural area covering 3,510 square miles along the north coast of California. The terrain is mostly forested, and includes rangeland, orchards Final Draft Summary Plan - 5/8/98- PAGE reuse of hazardous products shall be encouraged. Hazardous materials which are collected shall be recycled to the greatest extent feasible, or otherwise disposed of in an environmentally safe manner. 1.2 Policies A. The Source Reduction & Recycling Element embodies the following policies to promote waste diversion: 1. Public information and promotion will be provided for all waste diversion programs and opportunities. 2. Full recycling and composting opportunities will be provided at the point of waste disposal for all waste generators--households, businesses, and self-haulers. 3. Processing facilities will be provided to maximize the scope of recycling and composting collection and to reduce costs. B. The Household Hazardous Waste Element is based on the policy that the Cities and County will cooperate to provide a multi-jurisdictional mobile household hazardous waste collection program serving all the jurisdictions. 1.3 Objectives Each jurisdiction shall divert at least 50% of the base year materials from disposal by the year 2000. The programs necessary to achieve this objective are listed in Part 4 below, "Summary of SRRE, HHWE, and NDFE," together with implementation notes. PART 2 -- County Profile & Plan Administration CCR Section 18757.3 2.1 County description Mendocino County is a rugged, rural area covering 3,510 square miles along the north coast of California. The terrain is mostly forested, and includes rangeland, orchards Final Draft Summary Plan - 5/8/98- PAGE 2 =:[ and vineyards. Two distinct climate zones exist--coastal and inland. The coastal zone has generally mild temperatures and heavy winter rainfall. The inland zone has greater temperature extremes, particularly hot summers, with more moderate rainfall. The County's population in 1996 was 84,500. The populations of the four incorporated cities were: Ukiah, 14,700; Fort Bragg, 6,200; Willits, 5,100; and Point Arena, 420. Ukiah is the county seat and principal commercial center. County population growth has been moderate in the 1990's, with an average increase of less than 1% since 1990. Virtually all the population growth has occurred in the unincorporated area. The County planning department assumes that population growth will continue at the same rate. State highway 1 (coastal) and 101 (inland) are the principal north-south roadways. With recent improvements, Highway 101 is now a freeway for most of its length from Willits south. State highways 128 and 20 are the east-west links between the coastal and inland areas. The Northwestern Pacific Railroad parallels Highway 101 in the inland valleys and links the county to Humboldt County in the north and Sonoma County to the south, where it connects to the nationwide rail network at Schellville. The California Western Railroad connects Fort Bragg to Willits. Sizable airports exists at Ukiah and Little River. Daily air freight service is provided at Ukiah. Smaller airports are located at Willits, Covelo and Boonville. Although Mendocino County is somewhat remote from the principal urban centers of California, these transportation links provide easy access. Average per capita income was $12,776 in the 1990 census. The median age in Mendocino County in 1990 was 35.6 years. The 1990 census showed racial distribution of white, 89.6 percent; Native American, 4.1 percent; Black, .6 percent; Asian or Pacific Islander, 1.2 percent. As a separate ethnic designation, 10.3 percent of residents identified themselves as Hispanic. The Hispanic population is concentrated primarily in the southern part of the County. There is significant seasonal fluctuation in population with an increase in summer due to agricultural employment and vacation residents. Total county employment was estimated at 39,180 in 1996, up from 33,180 in 1989. The 1990 census showed private sector employees as 67 percent of the labor force; government workers as 18 percent; and self-employed as 15 percent. The traditional Final Draft Summary Plan - 5/8/98- PAGE economic base of the county has been timber production, with associated industrial activities such as Masonite's hardboard factory. As the timber sector has declined, employment has grown in diversified manufacturing companies in the Willits and Ukiah areas. Vineyards and wineries are also a growing sector, along with tourism. The County planning department projects a continued moderate growth in employment. Current population and housing data as estimated by the California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, as of January 1, 1997, appears in Table 1. 2.2 Governmental Solid Waste Management Infrastructure A. Garbage and recycling collection Collection is provided by private company franchise contracts which are administered by each local government jurisdiction--the County (for the unincorporated area), and the cities of Ukiah, Fort Bragg, Willits and Point Arena. The local government jurisdictions separately negotiate and administer these contracts. Implementation of elements of the Integrated Waste Management Plan that pertain to collection are the responsibility of the local government jurisdictions. B. Solid Waste Disposal The county has a mix of public and private disposal facilities. The City of Ukiah owns and operates the Ukiah landfill, which provided disposal in 1998 for Ukiah, Willits, a portion of the unincorporated county, and a portion of the Fort Bragg waste. Waste is directed to the Ukiah landfill by a privately owned transfer station in Willits and county- owned transfer stations in Albion, Caspar, Boonviile, Covelo and Potter Valley. The County of Mendocino owns and operates the South Coast landfill near Gualala, which provides disposal for Point Arena and a portion of the unincorporated county. A portion of the solid wastestream of the unincorporated county and Fort Bragg is directly hauled to the Potrero Hills landfill near Suisun. This includes most waste received at the County's Caspar transfer station. Implementation of the elements of the Integrated Waste Management Plan that pertain to disposal are the responsibility of the local government jurisdictions. Final Draft Summary Plan - 5/8/98- PAGE 4 economic base of the county has been timber production, with associated industrial activities such as Masonite's hardboard factory. As the timber sector has declined, employment has grown in diversified manufacturing companies in the Willits and Ukiah areas. Vineyards and wineries are also a growing sector, along with tourism. The County planning department projects a continued moderate growth in employment. Current population and housing data as estimated by the California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, as of January 1, 1997, appears in Table 1. 2.2 Governmental Solid Waste Management Infrastructure A. Garbage and recycling collection Collection is provided by private company franchise contracts which are administered by each local government jurisdiction--the County (for the unincorporated area), and the cities of Ukiah, Fort Bragg, Willits and Point Arena. The local government jurisdictions separately negotiate and administer these contracts. Implementation of elements of the Integrated Waste Management Plan that pertain to collection are the responsibility of the local government jurisdictions. B. Solid Waste Disposal The county has a mix of public and private disposal facilities. The City of Ukiah owns and operates the Ukiah landfill, which provided disposal in 1998 for Ukiah, Willits, a portion of the unincorporated county, and a portion of the Fort Bragg waste. Waste is directed to the Ukiah landfill by a privately owned transfer station in Willits and county- owned transfer stations in Albion, Caspar, Boonville, Covelo and Potter Valley. The County of Mendocino owns and operates the South Coast landfill near Gualala, which provides disposal for Point Arena and a portion of the unincorporated county. A portion of the solid wastestream of the unincorporated county and Fort Bragg is directly hauled to .the Potrero Hills landfill near Suisun. This includes most waste received at the County's Caspar transfer station. Implementation of the elements of the Integrated Waste Management Plan that pertain to disposal are the responsibility of the local government jurisdictions. Rnal Draft Summary Plan - 5/8/98- PAGE 4 C. Other functions The County and the cities of Ukiah, Fort Bragg and Willits established a joint powers agency in 1990 to carry out certain mutual activities in solid waste. This agency, the Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority, operates a mobile household hazardous waste collection program, provides recycling information and promotion, provides illegal dumping cleanup and abatement, administration of the Mendocino portion of the Sonoma-Mendocino-Lake Recycling Market Development Zone, and prepares AB 939 reports and the elements of the County Integrated Waste Management Plan. The Mendocino Solid Waste Local Task Force (LTF) supervises solid waste planning as required by state law. The County environmental health division is the Local Enforcement Agent countywide. Implementation of certain public information and planning functions relating to the Integrated Waste Management Plan are the responsibility of the Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority. PART 3 -- Description of Current Solid Waste Management Practices CCR 18757.5 3.1 Solid Waste collection & recycling service areas Each section of Mendocino County receives garbage & recycling collection service from an exclusive hauler designated by local government franchise contract or permit. The service areas are shown in Table 2 below: Table 2. Garbac, Service Area City of Ukiah City of Fort Brag{} City of Wii~s City of Point Arena Brooktrails Community Service Distr~ County Refuse Collection Area #1 County Refuse Collection Area #2 County Refuse · Collection Area #3 County Refuse Collection Area #4 recycling service areas Physical Description u~ c~y I~n~s Fort Bragg c~-i-y limits Willits city (ii~its Point Arer~ ~-~y ii. its Brook~raJls Community Service District northern Hauler Solid W~stes Systems Fort Braog Solid W~__~es of Willits unincorporated area Unincorporated area around Fort Bragg & Uldah Anderson Valley South Coast Empire Waste Management ~reat Am~ric~.n Waste Regulating Jurisdiction C~y of UkJah C~7 of Fort Brago City of Point Arena Brook'trab Community S&wice I:)~ County of Mendocino County of Mendocino County of Mendocino County of Mendocino Final Draft Summary Plan - 5/8/98- PAGE 3.2 Quantity of waste collected Table 3 below shows the quantities of solid waste collected from each local government jurisdiction in 1996. Table 3. Solid waste collected in 1996 Jurisdiction TONS CUBIC YARDS Dally Annual Dally Annual Unincorporated County (includes Brooktralls CSD) 81 25~ 214 539 168,093 City of Ukiah 41 12,696 271 84,640 City of Fort Bragg 1 9 5,873 125 39,153 City of Willits 1 4 4,234 90 28,227 City of Point Arena · 6 181 4 1,207 TOTAL 155 48~ 198 321 ~320 NOTES: Assume collection 312 days per year (6 days per week) Waste is generally measured in tons. Conversion to loose cubic yards is 300 lbs/cubic yard. 3.3 Destination of solid wastes The disposal method used for solid waste in Mendocino County is landfilling. solid waste was landfilled at three landfills in the following quantities: In 1996, Ukiah Landfill SWIS #23-AA-0019 27,025 tons (180,167 cubic yds.) Willits Landfill SWlS #23-AA-0021 20,343 tons (135,620 cubic yds.) South Coast Landfill SWIS #23-AA-0018 830 tons (5,533 cubic yds.) The Willits Landfill closed in November, 1997. Its wastestream was mostly redirected to the Ukiah Landfill, with a portion going to the Potrero Hills Landfill near Suisun, California. Both the Ukiah Landfill and South Coast Landfill are projected to close in 1999. Final Draft Summary Plan - 5/8/98- PAGE 15 3.4 Handling of recyclables ' The franchised garbage collection haulers also serve as the primary collectors of recyclables in each service area. Each hauler makes its own arrangements for collection, processing, storage and transportation of recyclables to market. As of January, 1998, there were no facilities for sorting of mixed recyclables in operation in Mendocino County. Solid Wastes Systems had a plan to build a simple sorting line at its recycling center in Ukiah. 3.5 Permitted solid waste facilities The landfills, transfer stations, and composting facilities that hold solid waste facility permits from the California Integrated Waste Management Board are shown in Table 4. Table 4. Facility Name Ukiah Landfill South Coast Landfill Covelo transfer station Potter Valley transfer station Boonville transfer station Albion transfer station Caspar transfer station Willits Recycling & Transfer Fort Bragg Disposal field container facility. Laytonville Recycling Center limited volume transfer Cold Creek Compost facility Biowastes Compost facility Permitted solid waste facilities (1998) Location Vichy Springs Road, Ukiah F~sh Rock Road, GuaJala Covelo Refuse Road, Covelo Main Stree~r Potter VaJley Mountain View Roadf Boonville Albion Ridge Road, Albion Prairie Way, Caspar Franklin Avenue~ Willits 219 Pudding Creek Road, Fort Bragg 41825 Branscomb Road, Laytonville Potter Valley Road, Potter Valley East Side Talmage Road, Uldah Operator c~y of Uk~ah i County of Mendocino Solid Wastes of Willits 'County of Mendocino County of Mendocino County of Mendocino County of Mendocino Solid Wastes of Willits Fort Bragg Disposal Solid Wastes of Willits Cold Creek Compost, Inc. Solid Wastes of Willits Note: There are also 3 industrial wood waste landfill permits. Final Draft Summary Plan - 5/8/98- PAGE 7 Table 5 below shows recycling drop-off and buy-back facilities that are not permitted solid waste facilities. Table 5. Other recyclir Facility Name Mendocino Recycling Center Laytonville Auto Wreckers Redwood Valley Recycling Center Lightel's Food & Fuel Mendocino Auto Wreckers Fort Bragg Disposal Westport Recycling Center South Coast Redemption Center T&T Salvage Point Arena Pier ~1 centers (1998) Location 3151 Taylor Drive, Ukiah 201 Branscomb Road, Laytonville 950 School Way, Redwood Valley 3201 North State Street~ Ukiah 1650 Lovers Lanet Ukiah 219 Pudding Creek Road, Fort Bragg Highway 1, Wes~ort 39~)~)5 S. Highway I t Gual~a 277 N. Lenore Street~ Willits 810 Port Road, Point Arena Operator Solid Wa~e Systems Laytonville Auto Wreckers Solid Wastes of Willits Lightel's Food & Fuel Mendocino Auto Wreckers Fort Bragg Disposal Solid Wastes of Willits Pacific Coast DisposaJ T&T Salvage City of Point Arena 3.6 Recycling markets & Recycling Market Development Zone Mendocino County benefits from its proximity to the San Francisco Bay Area, which is both a major industrial center and an export terminal. This has helped maintain recycling markets, especially for difficult items like mixed plastics. Local jurisdictions have relied on their franchised haulers to secure markets for recycled materials and there have been no situations where collected recyclables could not find a market. Mendocino County is included in the Sonoma-Mendocino-Lake Recycling Market Development Zone established by the California Integrated Waste Management Board. This designation makes recycling businesses eligible for Iow-interest loans for projects that utilize post-consumer waste as feedstock for new products. Compost and wood products loans have been obtained by Mendocino County businesses under this program. The Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority serves as administrator of the local Recycling Market Development Zone. Extensive outreach was done in 1995 to inform local businesses of the availability of loans and other incentives. The Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority is available as an information resource to assist any interested business in obtaining recycled feedstock. Final Draft Summary Plan - 5/8/98- PAGE PART 4 -- Summary of SRRE, HHWE and NDFE CCR Section 18757.7 4.1 Diversion Programs The following materials are diverted from disposal in at least one program in Mendocino County: aluminum cans aluminum foil glass bottles plastic bottles plastic tubs plastic film tin cans newspaper corrugated cardboard boxboard magazines office paper telephone books milk & juice cartons wood yard waste scrap metal appliances foam & carpet padding tires reusable items reusable wine bottles clothing Tables 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 summarize the waste diversion programs adopted by each local government jurisdiction in Mendocino County, including the materials included in the program and any contingency measures that are planned to increase effectiveness. Final Draft Summary Plan - 5/8/98- PAGE Table 6. Unincorporated County of Mendocino diversion rams I -- --ill ....... ~w ~k,ffwvw W WIII~ Diversion Program Materials included implement.. ,.u. Contingency tatJon measures Residential single-family Cans, glass, newsPap~, plastic Introduced See Note 2 curbside collection bottles, plastic tubs, corrugated, 1989-1994, boxboard, office paper, except magazines, telephone books Anderson Ya~y & far North County. Yard waste collection to be added in selected urban-density routes by January 1, 1999. See Note 3. Multifamily collection cans, glass, newspaper, plastic Introduced See Note 2 bottles, plastic tubs, corrugated, 1993-95, boxboard, office paper, except magazines, telephone books Anderson vale, & far North County. See Notes 3 &4 Commercial curbside Generally: corrugated, boxboard. Introduced in See Note 2 collection -. Some areas: cans, glass, plastic most areas in bottles & tubs, office paper, 1994. See magazines~ telephone books Notes 3 & 4. Industrial & drop-box Generally: corrugated. Some Introduced in See Note 2 collection areas: wood, yard waste most areas in 1994. See Notes 3 & 4. Disposal site drop-off Generally: cans, glass, Introduced See Note 2 newspaper, plastic bottles, 1990. See corrugated, boxboard, office Notes 3 & 4 paper, magazines, telephone books, scrap metal, appliances, tires, yard waste, wood waste. Some locations: plastic tubs, milk cartons, foam padding, clothing, reusable items Recycling buy-back service CA Redemption Items Introduced Add buy-back 1989-92, in Leggett except and Westport. Anderson Valley, Albion area, Leggett Backyard composting Yard waste Introduced I None promotion Food waste 1994 I Final Draft Summary Plan - 5/8/98- PAGE ]0 Diversion Program (continued) Materials Included Implementa. Contingency tion measures to increase diversion Public information on All materials Introduced See Note 2 recycling 1990; to be intensified in 1998--See Note 2. Promotion of recycling at All materials covered in particularIntroduced by Require as sign-up for garbage program 1998. condition of service hauler franchise and monitor compliance Require recycling space in All materials To be None new developments implemented by January 1, 1999. Garbage rate incentiVes to All materials Introdu'ced in None encourage diversion 1992. Adopt source reduction All materials ' Implemented None procurement policy for in 1998 County operations Note 1: Milestones. The County of Mendocino has the objective of maximizing waste diversion and pursuing all available opportunities to reach the 50% diversion mandate by 2000. The County does not have specific milestones for each diversion program, although the County is participating in a waste characterization study in 1998 that hopefully will identify additional opportunities for increasing diversion and allow specific milestones to be set. The SRRE programs will be reevaluated at that time. Note 2: Contingency measures. The primary strategy for increasing diversion is to increase participation in existing source separation recycling programs. The general contingency measure, if existing plans fall short, is to consider making a larger investment in recycling equipment and service and providing greater financial incentives for the public to use recycling instead of disposal. To implement such contingency measures, financial support out of the forthcoming'savings from the switch from landfills to transfer stations will be considered. Note 3: Intensifying public information. Beginning in 1998, there will be cooperative effort by the County's trash haulers to identify customers who should recycle more. In addition to outreach by the hauler, this information will be provided to the Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority, which will undertake outreach and waste auditing targeted to the specific waste generator. The County will monitor this effort to ensure the hauler's active participation. In addition, the disposal site operators will ensure that personnel are available who can communicate basic recycling information in Spanish. Final Draft Summary Plan - 5/8/98- PAGE ! ! P, Note 4: Multifamily recycling. Special attention will be given to increasing recycling at multifamily residential units because the County has identified these as a more challenging sector that has more room for improvement. Note 5: New materials for recycling. The franchised waste haulers, with support of the Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority, will continuously consider and evaluate the potential for setting up recycling programs for new materials and will propose to the County that materials be added if a viable market and collection technology exist. Note 6: Regulatory barriers. The County of Mendocino shares the concern of the Local Task Force that to avoid creating regulatory barriers to diversion, the ClWMB should refrain from regulations that create those barriers. Furthermore, the State should fund programs that give incentives to recycling of difficult-to-recycle items. Final Dralt Summary Plan - 5/8/~ PAGE Table 7. City of Ukiah diversion programs Diversion Program Materials in~ed Implemen. ContingenCy tation measures to increase diversion Residential single-family Cans, glass, newspaper, plastic Introduced See Note 2 curbside collection bottles, plastic tubs, ' corrugated, 1990 boxboard, office paper, magazines, telephone books, yard waste Multifamily collection Cans, glass, newspaper, plastic Introduced See Note 2 bottles, plastic tubs, corrugated, 1992 boxboard, office paper, magazines, telephone books, yard waste Commercial curbside ' Cans, glass, newspaper, plastic Corrugated See Note 2 collection bottles, plastic tubs, corrugated, cardboard boxboard, office paper, introduced in magazines, telephone books, yard 1980's; other waste materials added 1990 Industrial & drop-box Corrugated, wood, yard waste Introduced See Note 2 collection 1992 Disposal site drop-off Cans, glass, newspaper, plastic Introduced Increase bottles, corrugated, boxboard, 1992 financial office paper, magazines, incentive for telephone books, scrap metal, self-haulers to appliances, tires, plastic tubs, milk separate out cartons, foam padding, yard waste, recyclables wood waste Recycling buy-back service CA Redemption Items Introduced None 1990 Backyard composting Yard waste Introduced None promotion Food waste 1994 Public information on All materials Introduced Greater recyc I i n g 1990, expenditure expanded 1998. See Note 3 Promotion of recycling at Ail materiaJs covered in particularIntroduced None sign-up for garbage program 1998 service Require recycling space in All materials Introduced None new developments 1993 Garbage rate incentives to All materials Introduced Adopt weight encourage diversion 1992 based collection fee . system at curb Community Pride Week All materials 1994 None with city-wide garage sale and free dump day for recyclables only , Final Draft Summary Plan - 5/8/98- PAGE ,,, Diversion programs (continued) Materials included Implernenta.Contingency tion measures to increase diversion Adopt source reduction All materials Introduced None procurement policy for City 1993 operations Improved litter-recycling Cans, bottles, plastic bottles Juhj, 1998 None l containers in parks , Note 1: Milestones. The City of Ukiah has the objective of maximizing waste diversion and pursuing all available opportunities to reach the 50% diversion mandate by 2000. The City does not have specific milestones for each diversion program, although the City is participating in a waste characterization study in 1998 that hopefully will identify additional opportunities for increasing diversion and allow specific milestones to be set. The SRRE programs will be reevaluated at that time. Note 2: Contingency measures. The primary strategy for increasing diversion is to increase participation in existing source separation recycling programs. The general contingency measure, if existing plans fall short, is to consider making a larger investment in recycling equipment and service and providing greater financial incentives for the public to use recycling instead of disposal. To implement such contingency measures, it will be necessary to increase garbage rate fees. Note 3' Intensifying public information. The City is undertaking extensive new measures for public education on recycling. These include: Activity Newspaper articles discussing recycling options, etc.; encouraging community participation Radio public service announcements Reprinting city recycling information with emphasis on 50% mandate, and Spanish translation Recycling information in utility bill mailings Franchise hauler identification of commercial customers who are not recycling Franchised hauler and MSWMA outreach and waste audits to commercial customers which can improve recycling Implementation Date April, 1998 April, 1998 July, 1998 May, 1998 April, 1998 May, 1998 Note 4: Multifamily recycling. Special attention will be given to increasing recycling at multifamily residential units because the City has identified these as a Final Draft Summary Plan - 5/8/98- PAGE !4 more challenging sector that has more room for improvement. Outreach to multifamily is included in franchised hauler and MSWMA commercial sector efforts. Note 5: New materials for recycling. The franchised waste hauler, with support of the Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority, will continuously consider and evaluate the potential for setting up recycling programs for new materials and will propose to the City that materials be added if a viable market and collection technology exist. Note 6: Regulatory barriers. The City shares the concern of the Local Task Force that to avoid creating regulatory barriers to diversion, the CIWMB should refrain from regulations that create those barriers. Furthermore, the State should fund programs that give incentives to recycling of difficult-to-recycle items. Final Draft Summary Plan - 5/8/98- PAGE Table 8. City of Fort Bragg diversion rams tation measures to increase diversion Residential single-family Cans, glass, newspaper, plastic Implemented See Note 2 curbside collection bottles, corrugated, boxboard, 1992, with office paper, magazines, yard waste telephone books, yard waste added in 1996 Multifamily collection Cans, glass, newspaper, plastic Implemented See Note 2 bottles, corrugated, boxboard, 1992 telephone books~ yard w~-~te Commercial curbside Cans, glass, newspaper, plastic Implemented See Note 2 collection bottles, corrugated, boxboard, 1992 office paper, magazines, telephone books~ yard waste 'industrial & drop-box Corrugated, wood. yard waste Implemented See' Note 2 collection 1992 Disposal site drop-off Cans, glass, newspaper, plastic Implemented See Note 2 bottles, corrugated, boxboard, 1992 office paper, magazines, telephone books, scrap metal, appliances, tires, plastic tubs, milk cartons, foam padding, yard waste, wood w~-~te Recycling buy-back service CA Redemption Items Implemented None 1989 Back'yard composting Yard waste Implemented None .promotion Food waste 1994 Public information on All materials Implemented See Note 2 recycling 1990 Promotion of recycling at Ail materials covered in particular- Implemented None sign-up for garbage program 1992 service Require recycling space in All materials Implemented None new developments 1994 Garbage rate incentives to All materials Implemented None encourage diversion 1992 Adopt source reduction All materials Implemented None procurement policy for City 1994 operations Note 1' Milestones. The City of Fort Bragg has the objective of maximizing waste diversion and pursuing all available opportunities to reach the 50% diversion mandate by 2000. The City does not have specific milestones for each diversion program. The SRRE programs will be reevaluated as part-of the mandated SRRE review. Note 2: Contingency measures. The primary strategy for increasing diversion is to increase participation in existing source separation recycling programs. The general Final Draft Summary Plan - 5/8/98- PAGE contingency measure, if existing plans fall short, is to consider making a larger investment in recycling equipment and service and providing greater financial incentives for the public to use recycling instead of disposal. To implement such contingency measures, financial support out of the forthcoming savings from the switch from landfills to transfer stations will be considered. Note 3: Intensifying public'information. There is an ongoing effort by the City's trash hauler to identify customers who should recycle more. The Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority is available to provide additional public outreach as needed. In addition, the disposal site(transfer station) operator will ensure that personnel are available who can communicate basic recycling information in Spanish. Note 4: Multifamily recycling. Special attention will be given to increasing recycling at multifamily residential units because the City has identified these as a more challenging sector that has more room for improvement. Note 5: New materials for recycling. The franchised waste hauler, with support of the Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority, will continuously consider and evaluate the potential for setting up recycling programs for new materials and will propose to the City that materials be added if a viable market and collection technology exist. Note 6: Regulatory barriers. Additionally, the City of Fort Bragg shares the concern of the Local Task Force that to avoid creating regulatory barriers to diversion, the ClWMB should refrain from regulation at the state level of recycling and salvage activities and leave those responsibilities to the local level. Final Draft Summary Plan - 518/98- PAGE ! 7 Table 9. City of Willits diversion programs Diversion Program Materials included Implemen. ContJ'ngency tation measures to increase diversion Residential single-family Cans, glass, newspaper, plastic Introduced See Note 2 curbside cOllection bottles, plastic tubs, corrugated, 1989; boxboard, office paper, program to magazines, telephone books, yard increase waste, participation to be implemented 1998. See Note 3. Multifamily collection Cans, glass, newspaper, plastic Introduced See Note 2 bottles, plastic tubs, corrugated, 1990; boxboard, off'~e paper, program to magazines, telephone books, yard increase waste, participation to be implemented 1998. See Notes 3 &4. Commercial curbside Cans, glass, newspaper, plastic Introduced See Note 2 collection bottles, plastic tubs, corrugated, 1994; boxboard, office paper, program to magazines, telephone book~, yard increase waste participation to be implemented -. 1998. See Note 3. Industrial & drop-box Corrugated, wood, yard waste Introduced See Note 2 collection 1994; program to increase participation to be implemented 1998. See Note 3. Disposal site drop-off Cans, glass, newspaper, plastic Introduced See Note 2 bottles, plastic tubs, corrugated, 1990; boxboard, office paper, program to magazines, telephone books, increase scrap metal, al~l~, tires, participation plastic tubs, milk cartons, clothing, to be yard waste, wood waste implemented 1998. See Note 3. Recycling buy-back service CA Redemption Items Introduced None 1992 Ba. ckyard composting Yard waste Introduced None promotion. Food waste 1994 Rnal Draft Summary Plan - 5/8/~ PAGE ] 8 Diversion programs (continued) Materials included Implementa- Contingency tion measures to increase diversion Public information on All maIerials Introduced See Note 2 recycling 1990; to be intensified in 1998 -- see Note 3 Promotion of recycling at All materiaJs covered in particularIntroduced None sign-up for garbage program 1998 service Require recycling space in All materials Introduced None new developments 1990 Garbage rate incentives to All materials Introduced None encourage diversion 1989 Identify new materials for All materials Introduced None recycling 1998. See Note 5. Adopt source reduction All materials Introduced None procurement policy for City 1993 operations Note 1: Milestones. The City of Willits has the objective of maximizing waste diversion and pursuing all available opportunities to reach the 50% diversion mandate by 2000. The City does not have specific milestones for each diversion program, although the City is participating in a waste characterization study in 1998 that hopefully will identify additional opportunities for increasing diversion and allow specific milestones to be set. The SRRE programs will be reevaluated at that time. Note 2: Contingency measures. The primary strategy for increasing diversion is to increase participation in eXisting source separation recycling programs. The general contingency measure, if existing plans fall short, is to consider making a larger investment in recycling equipment and service and providing greater financial incentives for the public to use recycling instead of disposal. To implement such contingency measures, financial support out of the forthcoming savings from the switch from landfills to transfer stations will be considered. Note 3: Intensifying public information. Beginning in 1998, there will be cooperative effort by the City's trash hauler to identify customers who should recycle more. In addition to outreach by the hauler, this information will be provided to the Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority, which will undertake outreach and waste auditing targeted to the specific waste generator. The City will monitor this effort to ensure the hauler's active participation. In addition, the disposal site(transfer station) operator will ensure that personnel are available who can communicate basic recycling information in Spanish. Note 4: Multifamily recycling. Special attention will be given to increasing recycling at multifamily residential units because the City has identified these as a more challenging sector that has more room for improvement. A report will be prepared by the franchised hauler in 1998 with support of the Mendocino Solid Waste Final Draft Summary Plan - 5/8/98- PAGE ]0 Management Authority to identify obstacles in multifamily recycling and implement steps to overcome them. Note 5: New materials for recycling. The franchised waste hauler, with 'support of the Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority, will continuously consider and evaluate the potential for setting up recycling programs for new materials and will propose to the City that materials be added if a viable market and collection technology exist. Note 6: Regulatory barriers. Additionally, the City of Willits shares the concern of the Local Task Force that to avoid creating regulatory barriers to diversion, the CIWMB should refrain from regulation at the state level of recycling and salvage activities and leave those responsibilities to the local level. I=inaJ Draft Summary Plan - 5/8/~ PAGE 20 Table 10. City of Point Arena diversion programs · ! V · Diversion Program Materials included Implemen- Contingency tation measures to increase diversion Residential single-family Cans, glass, newspaper, plastic Implemented See Note 2 curbside collection bottles, corrugated, boxboard, 1993 office paper, telephone books, magazines Commercial curbside Gass, cans, plastic bottles, Implemented See Note 2 collection newspaper, office paper, 1993 magazines, corrugated, boxboard, telephone books Recycling center drop-off Cans glass, plastic bottles, Implemented See Note 2 -, magazines, office paper, milk 1991 cartons, telephone books, cork, corrugated, newspaper, wine bottles (reuse) Disposal site drop-off Cans, glass, newspaper, plastic Implemented See Note 2 bottles, plastic tubs, corrugated, 1993 boxboard, office paper, magazines, telephone books, scrap metal, appliances, tires, yard waste, wood waste Recycling buy-back Service CA Redemption Items Implemented See Note 2 1993 Backya'rd composting Yardwaste ' Implemented None promotion Food waste 1994 public information on All materials Implemented Increased' recycling ,, 1990 expenditure , ,, Note 1' Milestones. The City of Point Arena has the objective of maximizing waste diversion and pursuing all available opportunities to reach the 50% diversion mandate by 2000. The City does not have specific milestones for each diversion program. Note 2: Contingency measures. The primary strategy for increasing diversion is to increase participation in existing source separation recycling programs. The general contingency measure, if existing plans fall short, is to consider making a larger investment in recycling equipment and service and providing greater financial incentives for the public to use recycling instead of disposal. To implement such contingency measures, financial support out of the forthcoming savings from the switch from landfills to transfer stations will be considered. Note 3: Intensifying public information. Beginning in 1998, there will be cooperative effort by the City's trash hauler to identify customers who should recycle more. In addition to outreach by the hauler, this information will be provided to the Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority, which will undertake outreach and waste auditing targeted to the specific waste generator. The City will monitor this effort to ensure the hauler's active participation. In addition, the disposal site(transfer Final Draft Summanj Plan - 5/8/98- PAGE station) operator will ensure that personnel are available who can communicate basic recycling information in Spanish. Note 4' Multifamily recycling. Special attention will be given to increasing recycling at multifamily residential units because the City has identified these as a more challenging sector that has more room for improvement. A report will be prepared by the franchised hauler in 1998 with support of the Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority to identify obstacles in multifamily recycling and implement steps to overcome them. Note 5: New materials for recycling. The franchised waste hauler, with support of the Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority, will continuously consider and evaluate the potential for setting up recycling programs for new materials and will propose to the City that materials be added if a viable market and collection technology exist. Note 6: Regulatory barriers. Additionally, the City of Point Arena shares the concern of the Local Task Force that to avoid creating regulatory barriers to diversion, the ClWMB should refrain from regulation at the state level of recycling and salvage activities and leave those responsibilities to the local level. 'Final Draft Summary Plan - 5/8/98- PAGE 22 P. z:/- 4.2 Household hazardous waste diversion program All Mendocino County jurisdictions received household hazardous waste collection service from the "HazMobile" mobile unit operated by the Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority. Small quantity commercial generators are also served. Materials collected include: motor oil oil fleers antifreeze oil-based paint latex paint. vehicle batteries household batteries fuels solvents pesticides herbicides poisons acids bases toxic cleaners photo chemicals fluorescent light tubes chloroflorocarbon refrigerants No contingency measures are planned for household hazardous waste collection because the HazMobile program has succeeded in fully realizing the objectives of the interjurisdictional Household Hazardous Waste Element. Drop-off recycling of certain household hazardous waste items is available at the following recycling centers: Final Draft Summary Plan - 5/8/98- PAGE Table 11. Drop-off recycling of household hazardou,, ' Facil Mot Oil · -v ................ Oil Filters Antifreeze Vehicle Batteries Mendocino X X X Recycling Center, Ukiah Solid Wastes of X X X X Willits Recycling & Transfer i Laytonville X X Recycling Center Fort Bragg X X Disposal Pirate's Cove X Restaurant Point Arena Covelo X ' X Transfer Station items 4.3 Additional nondisposal facilities With the projected closing of the Ukiah and South Coast landfills, transfer stations are planned to replace them in those areas. The Ukiah transfer station will potentially serve all jurisdictions in Mendocino County except the City of Point Arena. The South Coast transfer station will serve a portion of the unincorporated County and the City of Point Arena. A recycling processing facility is planned for Ukiah by Solid Wastes Systems to sort and bale recyclables. This facility will serve the City of Ukiah and a portion of the unincorporated County. Funding for this facility is provided by Solid Wastes Systems, pursuant to a franchise contract extension agreed to by the City of Ukiah. 4.4 Coordination or consolidation of programs The following coordination or consolidation of programs has occurred: The mobile household hazardous waste collection service, backyard composting promotion, and general recycling education and information are provided for all jurisdictions by the Mendocino Solid Waste Management. Authority. F'mal Dralt Summary Plan - 5/8/98- PAGE Some cooperation occurs between franchise haulers in the processing of recyclables. However, this occurs at the discretion of the individual haulers and may change at any time. In the Fort Bragg, Willits and Point Arena areas, a consolidated recycling collection program is run for the city and surrounding unincorporated area because the same hauler serves both. Each jurisdiction has assigned the principal responsibility for recycling to a franchised hauler, subject to terms of the franchise contract. As of 1998, four different haulers provided service to portions of Mendocino County. This limits the potential for coordination or consolidation of programs. PART 5-- Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan Financing CCR Section 18758 5.1 Costs of Countywide programs The estimated costs for the countywide services of the Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority in 1997-98 are: Household Hazardous Waste Program $180,000 Recycling Education & Promotion $21,6OO Backyard Composting Promotion $0 (bins resold at cost by recycling centers) Funding sources for these programs were a surcharge on solid waste disposal which is collected at solid waste disposal sites and paid to the Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority. In 1997, the surcharge totalled $290,000 for all of Mendocino County. Final Draft Summary Plan - 5/8/98- PAGE 5.2 Funding sources for recycling diversion programs Recycling collection is carried out principally by franchise haulers under contract to local government jurisdictions. The costs of providing recycling, including any subsidies if required, are paid through the garbage collection revenues of the haulers. In a few situations, local government jurisdictions incur direct costs for waste diversion services. These include: 1. Payment of processing costs for tires and yard & wood waste received at Ukiah Landfill. These costs are paid through tipping fees on these items charged at the landfill gate. 2. Payment of processing costs for tires, scrap metal, appliances, yard waste and wood waste received at County transfer stations and the South Coast landfill. These costs are paid through tipping fees on these items charged at the facility gate. General Integrated Waste Management Plan preparation for all jurisdictions, including Local Task Force support, is provided by the Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority, which is funded by a surcharge on disposal at landfills. Final Draft Summary Plan - 5/8/98- PAGE Ukiah Daily Journal May 3, 1998 PUBUC NOTICE 325-98 5-3/98 NOTICE OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, July 22, 1998, at 9 a.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the Board of the Directors of the Mendodno Soled Waste Management Authority will conduct a public hearing at the Willits City Council Chambers, 111 E. Commercial Street, Willits, California in a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for the Mendocino County Summary Plan (AB 939), and will thereafter decide whether to adopt the negative Declaration. A copy of the Negative Declaration, of the Summary Plan, and other information may be obtained from the Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority, 101 W. Church Street #9, Ukiah, Ca 95482, (707)-468-9710, and written comments should be sent to P.O.. Box 123, Uidah, Ca 95482. All interested persons are invited to appear and present testimony in this matter. Mike Sweeney Manager NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PROJECT NAME Final Draft of Mendocino County Summary Plan, a planning document required to be prepared pursuant to State Law A.B. 939, on behalf of the County of Mendocino, City of Ukiah, City of Fort Bragg, City of Willits and City of Point Arena. LEAD AGENCY Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority, P.O. Box 123, Ukiah, CA 95482, (707) 468-9710. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Summary Plan describes overall solid waste and household hazardous waste circumstances in Mendocino County and summarizes the programs adopted by the County and the Cities to comply with A.B. 939 mandates. The Summary Plan is available for inspection at the Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority, 101 West Church Street, #9, Ukiah, CA 95482. PROJECT EVALUATION The Summary Plan is primarily descriptive in nature and is not in itself a project that directly incorporates changes in the physical environment. The Summary Plan refers to local government policies and private action that will protect the environment and conserve natural resources. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The Summary Plan will have no significant adverse impact on the environment. INITIAL STUDY The recommended environmental checklist was reviewed and "No Impact" answers applied to all questions. Date: May 1, 1998 ~,~~~ Michael E. Sweene General Manager Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION De Minimis Impact Finding Project Title: Mendocino County Summary Plan (AB 939) (No specific address) Project Description: A plan that describes solid waste and recycling conditions and the plans adopted by local governments to meet the year 2000 recycling mandate. Findings of Exemption: 1. An Initial Study has been conducted by the Lead Agency on the project so as to evalue the potential for adverse environmental impact. 2. In consideration of the record as a whole on the subject project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. 3. Therefore, based on substantial evidence in the record, the Lead Agency has declared that the proposed project will not have an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends as stipulated in Section 753.5(d), Title 14, CCR. Certification: I hereby certify that the lead agency has made the above findings of fact and that based upon the Initial Study and hearing record the project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish & Game Code. I E. Sweer~ey 1 Manager Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority May 1, 1998 SuPplementary Document Initial Study and Checklist (To be completed by Lead Agency) Dam Checklist Submitted:_ _/~./O~//_ ~ tl / '~ ~ : Agency Requiring Checklist: Agency Addre,~: Agency Contact: DETERMINATION (To be complete, d by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of thk initial evaluation: a) I find that tho proposed project could not have a significant effect on the envitmunent, and A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be ~ ............... .. ................................................. ~ b) I find that although the proposed project could I~ve a signiFwant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measm~s described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. c) A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be ~ .......... ,. .............. l~ I rmd ~e proposed project may have n si~nmcant effect on the envtnmment, and An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required ........... . .............................. [-! Signature -' / Print Name " b~JI'~A~/NfrORMAT/OA~ · ~19 CI~(~Af C. AX~ORNIA I~NVlRONMSN'I'AL ~VJALrFY AC'n' ENVIRONMENTAL OHEOKLIST FORM PROJECT LOCATION: PROJECT County DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: ENViRoNMENTAL IMPACTS.. (CEQA requlre~ that an e~lanatlon of all "yes" and "maybe" answers be provided along ~ith this checklist, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. You may attach separate sheets with the explanations on them.) I, EARTH. Will iht propoMI result in: b) Di~~, ~h~en~, com~fion or overcovefing of ~e mil? · c) Ch~g~ ~ ~~phy or ~nd s~a~ ~lief featu~? 'd) :-~ ~i~U~, ~O~g ~ ~lfl~fion of afiy ~}qu~ g~g~ or'~ysi~l' · ..-~t~,~ .,,.. e) 0 Any lnctenM It~ wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off Ihe site? Cluml}~ Iff delmMtlon or erosion of beachsands, Or changes in siltation, detxmlfl~ tm etmlmt whlchmny modify the channel of a river or sueam or the bed ot tl~ oeeC, ot {fly bay, l,let bt lake? Expoa~ 0f'lX~ople ts property to geologic hazards, such as:earthquakes,., la.dslt~, mudsiides, ground t'.ll.re, or similar hazards? AIR. a) b) c) Wilt iht #Wpo:MI result M: · Subst~thl ~ ~l~lms ~ d~om~on of ambler a~ quality7 ~'e~fl~ of ~~able ~7 AI~~ ~t Mt MOg~t, ~m~, or ~m~m~, or anY ch~ge in c~2, el~ ~ly ~ ~gi~lly? a) Changes bt ~t~uts, tn ~co~rse of direction of water movemenls, ; ~" .... "'-' ,--in ellbet $~M ts fi~eshwaters? Yes Maybe No D' D D D t-1 D O D D ID' D D Changes In nbsorption rates, drainage pntterns, or the rate and amount of surt'ac~ tuno~ C) 0 c) Alterations Io the course or flow of flood waters7 I-1 I-i d) Chnnges in the ntnount of surfnce water In any water body? ["i D e) Discharge into surfnce waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including, but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or tud~idity7 D D 0 Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground writers7 D [='1 g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct ndditions or wlthdrawnis, or through interception of an nquifer by cuts or excnvations? D ~ h) Substantial reduction in the nmount of water otherwise available for public· water supplies? D 1='1 i) Exposure of people or property to water feinted hazards such ns flooding or tidal waves? O . I-'i IV. PLANT LIFE. Will 'the proposal result in: n) Change In the diversity of species, or number or any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? D I"i b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants? D [-] c) Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in n barrier Io the normal replenishment of existing species7 ['"] ['"1 d) Reduction In ncreage of any agricultural crop? f"i F"I V. ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal result in: n) Change In the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds: land animals, including reptiles; fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)7 I-I ' I-'! b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species or animals? ['=l ["] c) Introduction of new species of animals into an area, er result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? D D d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habilnt? ['-I f'"l VI. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? VH. LIGHT and GLARE. Will the proposal: n) Produce new light or glare? VIII. LAND USE. Will the proposal r~ult in: a). Substantial alteration of the .print or planned land use of an area? · . 'IX. NATURAL RF~OURCF~. Will the proposa! rezult In: a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? · X. RiSK OF Ut~ET. Will the proposal inwlve: n) A risk Of nn explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? o o o ~UPPLEM~VTARI'/NFOItAfAT/ON *. $$1 CIQAI CU,I~ORNIA ItNVIRONIR~NTAL QUAI,IT~ ACT b) Possible'ltttefference with an emergency response plan or an emergency ~vacuatlo. plan? E] XI, POPULA'Jl0N, Will t~e proposal: a) Alter Ihe Iocaflott, distxtbuflon, density or growth rate ot the human population of an t~ea? ' a) Affect ~tbUnli housing, or create a demand for additional housing? r-I a) Generation Ot substantial additional vehicular movement? f"l b) Effec~ o~ existing parking facilities, or demand for new pm'king? r=l c) Substnht[al impact upon existing transportation systems? E] d) AlteratioM Io piresent patterns of circulation or movement of people .. e) AlternUoflS I0 waterborne, mil or air traffic? r-'l , 0 IncreaSe In ~fflc hnznnts to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? I-'l · XI¥. PUBLIC SER¥1CF_,S, Will t~e proposal/mue an t,~ect ~p~n, or result ~a a need /'or nm~ ~ dlttred Sovernrr~nt~t services in any o/' the /.ollowins ~reas: .,, S) FirepmteCtion? r-1 Police protection? E] Schools? ?a~ks et other recreational facilities7 f'-I Mainte.ance of public facilities, Including roads7 E] Other governmental services? r-! X¥, ENERGY~ Will t~ prol~sal res~h in: 'a) Use o(~ubstantlaj Ilmount~ of fuel or energy? E] b) Substallttal increase In demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development ot new sources of energy? ' X¥1. ,UTXLITI~q Mid SERVICE SYSTEMS. Will the proposal result in a need /.or n~ ~t!t~, ~ t~'~tanaal ~tteraaoa~ to the/'ollo.~ln! b) c) d) e) · 0 -, a) Power ot mitural gas? b) Communications systems7 c) Warn? d) Sewer et ~b ~? e) S~,~ ~n~e? 0 Sol~ W~ ~d di~? .. b) D D D D D D Creati~ Ot any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding menial health)? 1,1 Exposure of people to potential health hazards? E] · ' D D D RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE FINAL DRAFT SUMMARY PLAN OF THE MENDOCINO COUNTY INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, Public Resources Code Section 41751 of the State of Califomia requires that each county adopt a Summary Plan that sets forth the measures that will be taken by local jurisdictions to divert solid waste from disposal; and WHEREAS, the Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority prepared a Preliminary Draft Summary Plan and circulated it to the California Integrated Waste Management Board, Local Task Force, and the local jurisdictions for comment and revision; and WHEREAS, the Preliminary Draft of the Summary Plan was revised into the Final Draft to reflect those comments; and WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was conducted to allow testimony on the Final Draft of the Summary Plan; and WHEREAS, the Final Draft describes the waste diversion programs and objectives of the City of Ukiah; and WHEREAS, Public Resources Code Section 41760 requires that the Summary Plan be approved or disapproved by the county and each city within the county; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council for the City of Ukiah approves the Final Draft of the Summary Plan for Mendocino County and establishes it as a part of the City of Ukiah's Solid Waste Management Plan. PASSED AND ADOPTED this th day of ,1998, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Sheridan Malone Mayor ATTEST: Marie Ulvila, City Clerk T Z_ PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MENDOClNO I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the a~ove- entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of the Ukiah Oaily Journal, a newspaper of general circulation, printed anti publishe(~ daily excep[ Saturday in the city of Uklah, County of Mendo¢ino and which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Mendocino, State of Ce, lifomia, under the date of September 22, 1952, Case Number 9267; that the notice, of which the annexed.ls a printed copy (set in type not smaller than non.parell), has been published In each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following de. tee, to wit: JULY 2 ali in the year 1998. I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Uklah, California, this . . day of LEGAL CLERK This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp II II Proof of Publication of: PUBLIC, NOTICE ' PUBLIC NO'~~'~ 499-98 NOTICE OF PUBLIC . HF--ARING NOTICE .15 HEREBY GIVEN that the Council of [he City Of Ukiah, California, hold a public hearing r,~gar~lng: ADOPTION OF THE SUMMARY PLAN OF THE MF. NDOClNO COUNTY INTEGRATED WASTE MANA(~EM'~NT dated May 8, 1998 as prepared by 'the Mendoclno Solid Waste Management Authority '(MSWMA) pursuant to Public Resources 'Code Section 41751ot the, Summary Plan available for review in the Office of the City czerk, CMo Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Uldah, California. Said hearing ts to be held on 'August 5. 19.98 at 7:00' p.m., 'or as soon thereafter as the same may 'require, in the~! Cou .r~. '1 Chambers. 300 ..Reminary Ave., Uklah, .CA.. at which time andj place all persons interested may appear and be heard. Anyone .. wishing ll~e C~ty to consider a document exceecllng ~50 wo~s must submi( the original document and seven (7) legible c~es to the City ClerY, not la3s than slx (~) calendar d~ys priori to ~he scheduledI meeting date. If you challenge the above: ma?.er In court, you may be §mired to raising only those issues you or someone else raised ~t the public hearing oescfibed In this notice,. or in written correspondence; delivered to the Council · at the time of the heating. You are encouraged to this Informational document with, express any view you may have, or request additional informati~-~ ~rom the Deputy Director of Public Wo~a at 'the Civic Center, Seminary Avenue, 463- 62,96. s/Ma~e Ulvila, City Clerk' Publish: July 2, 1998 , .. PROOF OF PUBLICATION Title 14 - Regulations - Chapter 9 - P,-u't 6 Page 13 of 22. Sections 40051., 40970,40975, 41700, 41701, 41702, 41703, 41704, 41750, 41750.1, 41751, and 4! 7.91, P_ublic Resources Code. 18777. Role of thc Local Task Force. (a) The role of the Local Task Force (LTF) shall be to assist and advise the agcncy(ies) responsible -.for preparation of the Siting Element and the Summary Plan. The LTF shall guide the preparation and review of .these documents prior to their circulation 'to reviewing _.agencies and to the Board, to aid J.n ensuring that the county or regional agency adequately plans for meeting.future solid wastc handling :and disposal needs. .Cb) Within 30 days of its establishment, the LTF shall determine and verity, the remaining permitted combined disposal capacity of existing solid waste disposal facJ. lities in the county or regional - agency. Cc) If the .county and the cities within the county determine that the representation of the current L:TF -is not adequately addressing the needs of the cc~unty, cities, or public, a new LTF may be established. The new LTF membership shall be approved as described in Public Resources Code section 40950. 'Within 30 days of the establishment of the new LTF, a members}tip roster containing the names, phone numbers, and member representation shall be'sent to tl~e Bo'ard. Note Authority cited: Section 40502, gublic Resources Code. Reference: Sections "dO001, 409'30, 4I 751,' and 41791, ~. ublic Resources Code. 18778. Public Participation in the Preparation of the Preliminary Draft Siting Element and Summary Plan. Ca) Thc general public, affected governmental entities, and private industries shall be given an opporturrity to comment on the development and implementation of the preliminary Siting Element. and Summary Plan at informative meetings and public hearings. (1) The agency(les) responsible for preparing the preliminary. Siting Element and Summary Plan. , shall hold at least one public meeting to receive public comment on these preliminary draft documents. Notice of the public meeting shall be prcvid.ed pursum~t to section 18782 of this-article. Note Authority cited: Section 40502, .public Resource.~ Code. ReferenCe: Sections :40900, and 41793, lPublic Resource.~ Code. 18779. Procedures for (he P~'eparafion and Review of the Preliminary Draft Siting Element and Summary Plan. Ca) Preparation of the Preliminary Draft Siting Element m~d Summary Plan. Each cotmtv and regional agency shall prepare a preliminary trait of its Siting Element and Summary PlUm. The agency(les) responsible for preparation of the preliminary draft(s) shall consider LTF recommendations and public input during the development and revision phases. The preliminars, http://www.ciwmb.ca.go¥/graJolraJregs/14newrcgs/ch09d.htm 10/14/1997 T-T rCH r,,J T 4 Title 14 - Regulations - Chapter 9 - Part 6 Page .14 of 22 draft(s) shall be sent to the LTF, incorporated cities within the county, member agencies with/n the regional agency, and the Board. (by Review by LTF.. The preliminary draft Siting Element and Summary Plaa~ shall be reviewed by the LTF. Within 45 days of receipt of each preliminau draft, the LTF shaI! send written conunents to the Board and to thg agency preparing each preliminary draft document.' (c) Review by Incorporated Cities. Within 45 days of receipt of the preliminary draft Siting Element and Summa~ Plan, each incorporated city within the cotmty and regtonaI agency, shall review each preliminary drai~ and send written comments to the agency responsible for preparing each preliminary draft document. (dy Review by Member Agencies. Within 45 days of receipt of the preliminary draft Siting Element and Summary Plan, each member agency within the regional agency, shall review each preliminary draft and send written comments to the agency responsible for preparing each preliminary drat=t document. ' (e) Review by the Board. Three hardcopies of the pretiminary draft Siting Element and Sunmam'y Plan or two hard¢opies and two magnetically coded disks in a Board approved format shall be submitted to the Board. Within 45 days of receipt of the required copies of ihe preliminary, draft Siting Element and Summary. Plan, the Board shall send'written comments on the a?equacv of each preliminary draft to meet the requirements of the Integrated Waste Management Ac, of 19~9, as amended, to the agency responsible for preparing each draft document. A copy of the Board's preliminary, draft Siting Element and Summary Plan comments shall be simultaneously sent to the LTF. (f') Other Agencies. A copy of the preliminary draft Siting Element and Summary Plan shall be submitted to all associations of governments and to any Local Enforcement Agency located within the boundaries of the county or regional agency. Within 45 days of receipt of tl~,e preliminary draft Siting Element and Summary Plan, each of those agencies receiving a copy may send twitten comments to the agency responsible for preparing the preliminary, draft document. [Note Authority cited: Section 40502. Public Resources. Code. Sections 409'00, 40950, 41700, 41701, 41703, 41704. 41710. 41730, 41751, and41791. Publi~. Resources Code. 18780. Procedures for the Preparation of the Final Draft Siting Element and Summary Plan. No later than 105 days alter the close of the 45 day review period for the preliminary dra~ Siting Element and Sm'nmary Plan, the agency responsible for preparing each draft document shall respond in wa'king to each comment received on each preliminary draft, and prepare a the final dra~ Siting Element and SUmmary Plan.' (ay A copy of the final draft countywide Siting Element and Summary Plan, including a copy' of the written responses to: comments received, shall be sent to the LTF, each incorporated city in the county, each Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) in the county, applicable associations of governments, and any regional agencies in the county. (by A copy of the final draft regionwide Siting Element and Summary Plan, including a copy of the written responses to comment~ received, shall be sent to each member agency of the regional agency formed pursuant to section 18776(b)(3) of this chapter, each LTF and LEA in the regional agency, http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/gra/olra/regs/t 4newregs/chO9d.htm 10/14/t997 Title 14 - Regulations - Chapter 9 - Part 6 and. applicable associations of govermnents. Note Authority cited: Section 40502, .Public Resources Code. Page 15 of 22 Sections 40900, 40P30, 41700, 41701, 41703. 417Od, $1710 417.50. and d~ 73I. Public Resources (?ode. ' .... 18781. Local Task Force Review Process. (a) Within 45 days of receipt of the final draft Siting Element and Summal3~ Plan, the LTF shall submit written comments to the following: (I) the county or regional agency responsible for the preparation of the final draft Siting Element and Summary Plan; (2) each incorporated city within the county or each member agency within thc regional agency; (3) each regional agency within the county; and (4.) lhe Board. Note : Authority cited: Section d0502, Public Resources Code. ReJ&rence : Sections 40950 and 417.52, ..Public' Resources Code. -- 18782. Notice Requirements for Public Heatings. (al) At least 30 days in advance of the scheduled public hearing to take comments on the preliminary draft Siting Element and Smnmary Plan as specified in CCR section 18778 of this m~cle, the county shaI1 publish a notice of the public hearing in a local newspaper of general circulation. (b) At least 30 days in advance of the scheduled public hearing for the purpose of adopting the final draft Siting Element and Summary Plan, as specified in CCR section 1878.3 of this article, each incorporated city within the county and the county or designee shall publish a notice of the public hearing in a local newspaper of general circulation. {c') At least 30 days i.n advance of the scheduled public hearing to take comments on the preliminary draft Siting Element:and Summary Plan, as specified in CCR section 18778 of this article, the regional agency formed pm'suant to section 18776(b)(3) of this article shall publish a notice of the public heating in a local newspaper of general circulation. (d) At least 30 days in advance of the scheduled public hearing for the purpose of adopting the final draft Siting Element and Smnmary Plan, as specified in CCR section 18783 of this article, each member agency within tile regional agency and the regional agency shall publish a notice of the public hearing in a local newspaper of general circulation. Note ,4 uthority cited: Section 40502, .P..ublic Resources Code. http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/gradolradregsdl 4newregs/ch09d. htm 0/14/1997 P, 2-'-'-5 Title 14 - Regulations - Chapter 9 - Part 6 Reference: Section 41793, Public Resources. Code. -__ Page 16 of 22 18783. Local Adoption of the Final Draft Siting Element and Summary Plan, and the Count)~ide and Regional Agency Integrated Waste Management Plans. (a) Local adoption of the CIWMP will occur when the final draft Siting Element and Summary Plan are adopted by the county and. the cities within the county' as described, in Public Resources Code section 41721 anti 4.1760. A final draf~ Siting Element and Surrunary Plan submitted for local adoption shall be accompanied by environmental documentation verifying compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Public Resources Code sections 21000 et Seq. (1) Each incorporated city in the county, and the county, shall conduct a public heating for the purpose of adoptir~g the final draR Siting Element and the Summary Plan. After considering all public comment& the count), and each city within the county shall, by resolution, either approve or disapprove the final 'draft Siting Element and Sununary Plan. Failure by a city- to take action on the Siting Element or Summary Plan shall be deemed an approval of'the Siting Element or Summary Plan by that city. . (2) If the final draft Siting Element and Summary Plan are not approved by the county and the ciiies within the county, pursuant to PRC sections 41721 and 4I 760, then the county shall revise the deficient area~ within 90 days of the close of the local jurisdiction review peri'od specified in PRC section 41721 and recirculate them for local approval, pursuant to sections 18780 through 18785 of this article. These revised documents shall be approved as described in Public Resources Code sections 4172 i and 41760. (b) Local adoption of the RAIWMP for a regional agency preparing documents pursuant to section 18776(b)(3)(A) and (5) of this article will occur when tk, e final dral~ Siting Element and Summary Plan from each county that makes up the regional agency have been adopted by the c. ounty and cities within the county'. These revised documents shall be approved as described in Public Resources Code sections 41721 and 41760. A final draft Siting Element and SummaD. Plan shall be accompanied by environmental documentation verifying compliance with CEQA. pursum~t to Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq. ' ( 1 ) Each incorporated city in the county, and each county, shall conduct a public hearing for the purpose of'adopting the final draft Siting Element and Summary Plan. After considering all public comments, each county and each city within the county shall, by resolution, either approve of' disapprove the final draft Siting Element and Summary Plan. (2) If the final draft Siting Element and Summary Plan are not approved by each county and the cities within each county as described in Public Resources Code sections 41721 and 41760, then the count>.- responsible for preparing the final draft Siting Element and the Summary Plan shall' revise the deficient areas within 90 days of the close of the local jurisdiction review period specified in PRC section 41721 and recircutate them for local approval, pursuant to sections 18780 through 18785 of this arxicle. ' (c) Local .adoption of the RAI WMP for a regional agency preparing documents pursuant to section 18776(b)(3)(B) of this article will occur when'the final draft Siting Element and Summary Plan have been approved by the regional agency and by a majority of the member agencies within the regional agency except in those regional agencies which have only two member agencies, in which cas~ the Siting Element and Summary Plan are subject to approval of the member agency which contains a majority' of the population of the member agencies of the county. Each member agency shalI act upon the Siting Element and the Summary Plan within 90 days after receipt of the documents. If a http ://w~'. ciwmb.ca.gov/gra/olra/regs/14newreg s/ch09d.htm 10/14/1997 P.4 Response to comments of California Integated Waste Management Board dated April 2, 1998 on Preliminary Draft Summary Plan for Mendocino County 1.3. Please include milestones/dates for reaching your goal of 50% by year 2O00. The jurisdictions have stated the objective to "divert at least 50% of the base year materials from disposal by the year'2000." (1.3). More detail on the different programs, implementation dates, and contingency measures have been added (Tables 6-10). The jurisdictions are unable to state more detailed "milestones/dates" at this time, although the waste generation study in progress may help identify priorities for increased diversion. 3.6 Please include a discussion of marketing options outside the jurisdiction. This was added. 4.1. Please include dates/milestones for each'jurisdiction. See answer to 1.3 above. 4.2 Please include contingency programs or measures for your HHW diversion programs. The reason for lack of any contingency program has been added..that the HazMobile constitutes full implementation. 4.3 Your Summary Plan discusses a planned recycling processing facility for Ukiah, please expand your discussion to include financing for this facility. This was added. 5.2 Your have included sOme discussion of funding sources, please include actual dollar amount estimates. This was added. Mike Sweeney MSWMA May 7, 1998 Mendocino Solid Waste Local Task Force (AB 939) c/o Anne Crowder, Secretary P.O. Box 1413, Willits, California 95490 Comments on Preliminary Draft Summary Plan The Local Task Force met on March 26, 1998 and considered the Preliminary Draft Summary Plan. The following co~nments were adopted: The Summary Plan should provide that bilingual employees or community service workers be at disposal sites for the purpose of communicating recycling information. Ayes: Beebe, Cayler, Crowder, Galli, Goodrick, Morley, Orth, Steffen, Ward. Noes: none. Abstain: none. There should be a cooperative effort 1) by haulers to identify customers who should recycle more; 2) by jurisdictions to direct and monitor hauler follow through; and 3) by MSWMA to provide waste audits to inform and encourage participation; with the overall goal of increasing participation in source separation programs. Ayes: Beebo, Cayler, Crowder, Galli, Goodrick, Morley, Orth, Stcffcn, Ward Noes: none. Abstain: none. The LTF recommends that the jurisdictions identify new market opportunities for materials not now being recycled as identified in the Waste Characterization Study. Ayes: Beebc, Cayler, Crowder, Galli, Goodrick, Morley, Orth, Steffen. Ward. Noes: none. Abstain: none. Multi-family collection should receive special attention. Ayes: Beebc, Cayler, Crowder, Galli, Goodrick, Morley, Orth, Steffen, Ward. Noes: none. Abstain: none. To make significant progress in diversion, the financial impact on garbage collection franchises needs to be recognized and financial support out of the forthcoming savings from the switch from landfills to transfer stations should be considered. Ayes: Beebe, Crowder, Galli, Morley, Orth, Steffen. Noes: Cayler, Goodrick, Ward. Abstain: none. To avoid creating regulatory barriers to diversion, the CIWMB should refrain from regulation at the state level of recycling and salvage activities and leave those responsibilities at the local level. Ayes: Bccbc, Cayler, Crowder, Galli, Goodric~ Morley, Orth, Stcffcn, Ward. Noes: none. Abstain: none. hame Crowder, Secretary Mendocino Solid Waste Local Task Force (AB 939) c/o Anne Crowder, Secretary P.O. Box 1413 Willits, CA 95490 Januaty 27, 1998 To: Mendocit~o Solid Waste Mangement Authority County of Mendocino City of Ukiah City of Willits City of Fort Bragg City of Point Arena California Integrated Waste Management Board The Local Task Force ~net on January 22, 1998 and reviewed the status of AB 939 colnpliance in Mcndocino County aod discussed the drafting of thc Summ,'u-y Plan. The following motions were passed; 1. The LTF reco~n~nends tha~ MSWMA develop a maximum. diversion program fi~r I.l~e Summary Plan to meet l.he 50% diversio~ goal will~ a co~l.ingcncy for mandatory divcrsioi~. AYES: Goodrick, Ward, Galli, McFarland, Madrigal, Beebe, Steffen, Skezas, Altaras, Crowder and Gridley. NOES: None. ABSENT: Cayler, Healy, Morley 2. A maximum diversion progrmn shall include, but shall not be limited to: A. Recycling available at every point of disposal; g. Recycling opportunities for every material for which viable market exists; and C. Haulers will be required to promote the use of recycling. AYES: Goodrick, Galli, McFarland, Madrigal, Beebe, Steffen, Skezas, Altaras, Crowder and Gridley. NOES: Ward. ABSENT: Uayler, Healy, Morley 3. The LTF recommends t.hat a substantial portion of the savi~gs realized in ll~e switcl~ l'rom landt'ills t.o transfer station,s I)e availal>le I~)i~nl)rove rccycli~g syste~ns where needed to ~nect the 50% ma~dale. AYES: Ward, Galli, McFarland, Madrigal, Beebe, Steffen, Skezas, Altaras, Crowder and Gridley. NOES: Goodrick. · ABSENT: Cayler, Healy, Morley .. Anne Crowder, Secretary Merdoclno Solid Waste Local Task Force (AB 939) ,o · (2) Eric Sunswheat, 707-466-6548 California Health Security Catalyst, Humus Third Compost Issues~ewslette~-- Box 363 Potter Valley, California 95469-0363 July 30, 1998 OUt 5 ' 1998 Mayor and City Council of the City of Ukiah c/o Marie Ulvila, City Clerk, (original 50 pages plus 7 legi~l~Y~~s~ 300 S~minary Avenue Ukiah, California 95482 Public Hearing cc~ments regarding: ADOPTION OF THE SUMMARY PLAN OF THE ME NO COUNTY INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGf~f~V~ PLAN, to be held in the Council Chambers on August 5, 1998 at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter. Honorable Mayor Malone and City Council members, The Mission Statement of the City of Ukiah, adopted June, 1991, expresses some intent for ideal principles, in the process of fair local governance. I salute you for such admirable goals, and hope that the City of Ukiah will keep them balanced with full spectrum lighting, when considering public comments on the Summary Plan, and my request for the City Council to disapprove of the Final Draft, and send it back to MSWMA. The City of Ukiah received a May 8, 1998 letter on the subject of Transmittal of Final Draft Sunm~ Plan, from Mike Sweeney, General Manager of the Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority (MSWMA), stating, "Each jurisdiction.., may then either approve or disapprove of the Final Draft by resolution." My opinion is that the Sunm~ Plan is factually inaccurate on the description of loans obtained by Mendocino County businesses from the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). Furthermore I conclude that the Sunm~ Plan does not meet the mission of the City of Ukiah, is environmentally irresponsible for the goals of protection of the topsoil environment and interrelationship with the economic climate and ccmmunity health, as well as significant inpacts on the watershed, fisheries, and Ukiah's right to extract river water in the future. The MSWMA public hearing Negative Declaration, scheduled to be concluded on July 22, was conditioned by a specious claim in Mr. Sweeney's above letter purporting that: "This provides C~QA ccmpliance for the document." I allege that there is a number of significant errors in the Sunm~ Plan germane to the City of Ukiah's special interests, including Final Draft Sun~ Plan - 5/8/98- PAGE 8, section 3.6 Recycling markets & Recycling Market Development Zone, inaccurate in the following sentence: "Cc~st and wood products loans have been obtained by Mendocino County businesses under this program." I suggest that a revised sentence should read: 'Wood product loans have been obtained by Mendocino County businesses under this program.' Mr. Sweeney stated in a personal phone conversation two weeks ago that the compost loan was for Cold Creek Compost, Incorporated (CCC), and that he disagrees with my assessment that CCC did not receive a compost loan, that I maintain is supported by the public record at the CIWMB. Furthermore this relevant information was presented to Planning Matters with the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors on May 11, 1998 in a 423 page document titled Humus Third ~st Issues Newsletter Supplement 5/11/98 (HU3S) prior to the Public Hearing on the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #U 26-93. Unfortunately only Supervisor Charles Peterson conveyed the appearance of being a full time supervisor in the boardroom by reviewing relevant printed information, filed on the day of the hearing as appropriate, according to the Notice of Public Hearing. Thus supervisor representatives on MSWMA and possibly the MSWMA General Manager also, neglected their elected or appointed duties to the voters and ratepayers of Mendocino County. HU3S details on page 243, that the CIWMB Board Action Record shows a CCC loan resolution adoption was approved on 1/24/96. HU3S page 247, in a document titled "Augmentation to Agenda Item #4" for the 1/19/96 meeting of the Market Development Committee, states that the 1/10/96 meeting of the Loan ~ttee r~ded that the purpose of the loan would be: "Aquisition of machinery/equipment, working capital, and refinancing of onerous debt." HU3S page 249, shows a 1/19/96 MARKET DEVELO~ ~TI~E ACTION Pd~/)RD AND TRANSMITTAL FORM with a "Su~m~ry of Action/Motion" describes in part, "The Committeee approved the loan application for Cold Creek ~st, Inc. in the amount of $565,000. This green waste grinding operation will be placed in the notification tier with the following requirements..." HU3S page 251, is a 1/4/96 CIWMB Memorandum to Robert Caputi of the Recycling Market Development Zone Administration Branch on the subject of Cold Creek Compost, that consists of gathered "information concerning grinding of green waste at the following facilities." HU3S page 257, is the staff report for the 1/19/96 Market Development Committee Agenda Item (Attachment 4) that discusses the APPLICANT'S REVISED PROJECT. "Because of the uncertain status of local and Board permits as a result of the court order that an EIR be prepared, staff is recc~mer~ng funding only the mobile green waste mulching component of Cold Creek's request." HU3S pages 185 thru 218 is a portion of the official transcript of verbal testimony presented at the 1/19/96 meeting of the CIWMB Market Development Co~m~ittee. HU3S page 187-188, describes the changed loan, according to Mr. Caputi of the Zone Administration Branch. In part: "The Cold Creek project originally submitted to the Loan Program as greenwaste ccmposting operation in 1994. Because of permiting problems, the project was revised and resubmitted. The revised project submitted to the January 10, 1996 Loan Co~nittee had four main operating components. The first cc~ponent is new greenwaste grinding operation, which is the subject of the Board's loan request." HU3S page 1 96, includes the following co~x~ts of Mr. Caputi. "But the project, as we describe it here, will stand alone and will repay the loan based on projections and the credit that we reviewed... If anything happens, because there is uncertainty with the greenwaste composting operation, that value added piece to this, we did not consider that." Furthermore, HU3S page 206, contains further information from Mr. Caputi and Committee Chairman Retis (who resigned in January 1 998 from the CIWMB Board as environmental member, after confirmation reappointment). Mr. Caputi: "...there is no precedent, because it was a composting project with value added. The evolution caused by outside forces has brought the project to this point." Committee Chairman Relis: "Is that evolution or de-evolution?" Ukiah City Council members and staff may have read newspaper accounts last month in the Ukiah Daily Journal and The Press Democrat describing the new nuisance and C~QA lawsuit filed against ~CC, in order to shut down the operation in Potter Valley. CCC General Manager Eric Anderson allegedly made misstatements that were quoted. HU3S pages 208 and 209 exposes the truth and the flaw of the EIR that was upheld by the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors on 5/11/98 (4-1, Supervisor Peterson voting no). Mr. Anderson states on the record, to the CIWMB on 1/19/96: "As I said a few moments ago, we have already started the process of putting together the RFP for our EIR. It's a limited -- it's a focused EIR on a limited number of issues as identified by the judge." Subsequent to approval of the loan, Mendocino County Planner Pamela Townsend conducted a Scoping Session for the EIR and bowed to political pressure from Mr. Anderson to have the EIR only consider the focused issues as identified by the judge, allegedly in violation of C~QA guidelines. Ukiah City Council member Ashiku may choose to recuse himself from input and vote, because of conflict of interest in his past or continuing personal relationship with Ms. Townsend. I recc~mer~ that references to Cold Creek, other than mobile green waste and wood products grinding, be stricken from the Sun, nary Plan. I also recommend sentence changes to Final Draft Sumary Plan - 5/8/98- Page 1- 1.1 Goals- A. and C. In Goal A.: "Those materials which cannot be recycled or composted shall be landfilled in an environmentally safe and effective manner." R~ded change is: Those materials which cannot be recycled or ccmposted in an environmentally superior, safe and effective manner, shall be landfilled in accordance with local, state and federal regulations. In Goal C.: "The Cities and County shall support any opportunities to strengthen markets for recycled and ccmposted materials, including participation in the SoDx~ma-MendocinD-Lake Receycling Market Development Zone." R~ded change is: The Cities and County shall support any opportunities to strengthen markets for recycled and composted materials, processed with environmentally superior best management practices, in a safe and effective manner to enhance a sustainable economy and conservation of natural resources, including participation in the Sonoma-Mendocino-Lake Receycling Market Development Zone. Furthermore, the S~ Plan should not be reconsidered until the City of Ukiah Landfill EIR is approved, as a reduction in Masonite air pollution may allow changes so that composting may occur ~at the landfill. Sincerely, Eric Sunswheat enclosures: 1 page: June 1 991 Mission Statement, City of Ukiah 47 pages: Humus Third Compost Issues Newsletter Supplement 5/11/98 pages 243-244, 247-257, 185-218. CITY OF UICIAIY MISSION STATEM'E~NT The City of Ukiah believes that serving the citizens of' this comrn~mity in the most efficient, effective and responsive manner possible is our primary mission, purpose and value as a public service organization. Therefore, the City of Ukiah is continually striving to improve and to perfect the quality and efficiency of our municipal programs, projects, and services; and to ensure the financial solvency and stability of' those programs and services. The City of' Ukiah is dedicated to the principle of citizen democracy and to the participation and involvement of all citizens in the governing process of our City and community. We view the open exchange of ideas, opinions, and perspectives as enriching our community and the development of public policy. We believe that the openness, accessibility and responsiveness of' our public officials, staff and employees is directly related to guaranteeing that government in a free society serves rather than dictates to our citizens, and that our citizens are treated with the respect they deserve. The City of Ukiah is a public service organization that takes pride in the team spirit and atmosphere of mutual respect that exists between the Mayor and City Council, and the City Council, staff and employees. We believe these characteristics of` our organization are fundamental to the proactive, progressive, and results- oriented nature of this City government. The City of Ukiah believes that experienced, well-trained, well-informed, and service-oriented employees are fundamental to our mission and purpose as a public service organization. We view all of our employees, both full and part-time, and volunteers, as our most important resource in the quality and effectiveness of' the services we provide. As such, they deserve our continuous respect, admiration, and support as public service professionals making government work for our citizens. '%VE ARE HERE TO SERVE YOU" is more than a simple phrase or slogan. It represents the very core of everything we stand for, represent, and strive to achieve, in carrying out our mission on behalf of the citizens of Ukiah. CITY OF UKIAH Adopted June, 1991 · ! CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD BOARD ACTION RECORD Date: January 24, 1996 Agenda Item: #28 Item Title' CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RECYCLING MARKET DEVELOPMENT ZONE PROGRAM LOAN APPLICATIONS FOR THE FALL QUARTER, 1995: B. C. D. E. APPAREL MANUFACTURERS SUPPLY CO. COLD CREEK COMPOST, INC. GOLDEN BEAR PACKAGING, INC. JACOBSON PLASTICS, INC. OAK PAPER PRODUCTS CO INC., DBA ACORN PAPER PRODUCTS CO. Summary of Action/Motion: Items, A, C, D, and E approved as part of the Consent Agenda. ROLL CALL VOTE Ay.e. N_9o Abstain Board Member Chesbro Board Member Egigian Board Member Frazee Board Member Gotch Board Member Rolls Chairman Pennington Item B. COLD CREEK COMPOST INC. Board Member Paul Relis moved adoption of Resolution 96-77 approving a loan to Cold Creek Compost, Inc. from the Recycling Market Development Revolviing Loan Fund in the principal amount of $565,000. - ~,1-.-4-i_.6 ¢J4:5?PH FF~Cr"i CA IHTEGPATED I,.!ASTE BD TO '91707743'1~T5 P.02 Board Member Wesley Chesbro seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE Aye No Abstain Board Member Chesbro Board Member Egigian Board Member Frazee Board Member Gotch Board Member Relis Chairman Pennington Board SecretiVe'~ CALiFORk~ZA I}~EGP~ATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD ~'~a~'k~ Development ~ ~-~ .... ~omm~ee January !S, 1996 · . . ._AUGMENTATION TO ' ~SElrS~'~--#4 ............ ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVA. L OF REcYCLiNG NLARKET DEVELOPME}[T ZONE PROGR3~M LOAN APPLICATIONS FOR THE FOURTH QUARTER, i995: A o B. C. D. E. APPAREL M3L~FACTURERS SUPPLY CO. COLD CREEK COMPOST, INC. GOLDEN BEAR PACKAGING ~ ~ JACOBSON PLASTICS, iNC. OAK PAPER PRODUCTS CO. iNC., DBA ACORN PAPER PRODUCTS CO. i. LOAN COM/~ITTEE ACTION A~ i~s meeting cf January ~0, ~c~96 the · ~ ' - - -- , ~oa.. Committee recommended approval cf a loan to Cold Creek Compost, Inc. a~ a funding level tha5 was greater than recommended by staff. The Loan Committee recommended ~he loan amount be inc~-uased by $315,000 from $250,000 50 $565,000. The difference represents the Loan Committee's · recomenda~icn to include refinancing of onerous debt as part of the loan amount. The Loan Committee gcncluded that refinancing exissing "onerous" deb%, in this instance, was consistent wi=h its prior assessmen~ of the Cold Creek credit. The Loan Committee's recommendation, including changes to security required by ~he increased loan amount, is as follows- Loan Amount: $565,000 Purpose- Acquis~t~on o~ machinery/equipment, %orking cap~ta!, and refinancing of onerous debt Ra~e- 4.£%, fixed Ter~: Security. 6 months interest cnty, 6.5 years sel'f amoruizinc I. Purchase Money Security Interest in machinery/equiument to be acquired. 2. General Security Agreement and UCC Financing Statement on all businems assets of Cold Creek Ccmpos~, Inc. now owned or hereafter acquired. ',1: /-2 :-- '.. 9'_:6 n2:2OF'H FF:OH ,]..~ II.ITEI3F'ATED [.,.tF~STE ED TO ?170774.U',197.-=:, F'.D2 Marke~ De ~ - v_.cpmen~ Committee January 19, !996 Age da ' Guaran~or£. !. Unlimited personal .:uarantee_ of Margrethe Sohio!er secured by a mhird deed of trust cn commerci~i proper-v commonly referred to as 74540 Hil~ Road, Covelo, CA (M&M Ranch), subordinate only Jo a firs: deed of trust with Sari= _..gs Bank in an amount not to exceed $37,340 and a second deed of trust wi~h Laurence Landa in an amoun= no= ~o exceed $58,404. 2. Unlimited personal guarantee of Martin and Marie Louise Mileck secured by a third Deed cf Trust on commercial property commonly referred tc as 74~40 Hill Road, Coveio, CA (M&M Ranch), subcrdinate only to a first Deed of Trust with Savings Bank in an amount not to exceed $37,340 and a second Deed of Trust with Laur~nc~ Landa in an amount not to exceed $58,404. 3. Un!im~ted p~-~cnai cu=rantee of Jos~mh ui~eck secured by = second Deed o= Trust on r ~ ...... a urcper-v commonly referred to as i525 wa!nut S-tee-, ~erke~ey, CA, subordinate only ::- s f~rs: i. eeh~f Trus~- with American_ Savings Loan ~- ar. nm~"n- not to exceed ............ =~ re':':':'.:'= e cuarantee cf M&M R--nob a Ca' ~ ~ ..... c=-,~~ ' .... ' = a partnership = Unilmi:e~ cc"z,-rare i ~ tee .... uaran of M&M Feud and Supp!v, £n.r.~ a Ca~==~nia corporat.ion. Loan aD, rove! is sub]e-- =c. 5~= .. ........ p~ogramma%lc covenants and ~" ' - ........... ~ .... e~rommendat~on ~o the Loan Commi5~ e ~e~. II. REVISED STAFF RECO~L~ENDAT!ON Sta== recommend~ adco=:on -.f the Cold '~=~k =DDlication as recommended by 5he Loan Ccmmituee, increasing nba loan amount to $565,000 and modifying security reuuirementso as no=ed in Section I above. The total amoun= recommended for fundinc with this agenda item is $2,665,000. - - U 1 22 i'_.:L.~.. U": '.-'41 'M i i.~tJ[l'] (_i~;I I r'll ! LGI I. ~ H I LD I.,.IlI;'"~L; I L Ui3 I U MARKET DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE ACTION RECORD AbID TRANSMITTAL FOP3< Committee: Market Development Committee Date: january 19, 1996 Committee Members: Paul M. Re!is, Chair wesley Chesbro Dan Pennington Agenda Item #4 ~,~e of Item: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RECYCLING M3d{KET DEVELOPMENT ZONE ~ROGRA2,I LO~ APPLICATIONS FOR THE FALL QUARTER, 1995: B. COLD CREEK COMPOST, INC. Summary of Action/Motion: The Committee approved the loan application for Cold Creek Compost, Inc in the amount of $565,000. This green waste grinding operation will be placed in the notification tier, with the following requirements: !) staff be directed to include in the loan documents a covenant requiring the borrower to comply with the r~]avam~ agronomic ra~es f~r land spreading as' se~ by 5he control agency 2) there will be receipt of a Notification letter to the LEA confirming that p. ermit requirements have been met, a copy will be sent to the Board, and 3) the loan rate will be set at 4.5% simple interest. Record cf Vote: Aye ( s ) Che sbro X (m) Pennington X Relis X No Abstain Recommend Consent: Yes No X Date of Board Meeting: January 24, 1996 Refer To Other Committee: Yes No X ,., Committee Referral: Other Dispensation: In the upcoming loan priority discussions staff should bring forward loan priority discussion and recommendations about how we can deal with the question of land spreading operati~ tha~ are proposed for loans. January 19, 19~6 Market Development Committee Agenda Item (A~achment 4) Page 5 Re~ul%tory Compliance: According to Cold Creek, the proposed green waste, g_~inding or mulching part of their proposea' pro~ect' is' not subDect' to the Board's regu!a~ory jurisdiction. The applicant has cer%ified that the mulching project is in compliance with all local, state, and federal laws, regulations, recuirements and rules, including the California Environmental Qualfty Act found in Public Resources Code sections 21000 er seq. The status of Cold Creek's regulatory compliance is under review by staff of the Board's Permitting and Enf0rcemen= Division. This review will be completed prior ~o the consideration of this loan by the Marke= Development Committee. Concern has been expressed by s~aff tha~ if the fly a~h were to be stockpiled at 5he Guntly Ranch or M&M Ranch i~ could constitute a "nontraditiona! facility.,, Cold Creek has stated that the fly ash is not being stockpiled at either site. Approximately 500 tons currently on site is being mixed with manure at the rate of 20%. Projections indicaue approximately 3,000 tons per year of ash will be either land applied or mixed with approximately 6,300 tons of manure compost. In approving this loan, the Board puts the applicant cn notice that it will have =o continue to comply with the Board's compos~ regulations, as well as with any other regulations promulgated for nontraditionai facilities that may, in the future, apply to its operations. S~aff will make every effort to advise and assis't the applicant with regard to these matters. C. GOLDEN BEAR PACKAGING, INC. RMDZ (City): San Jose Loan Amount: $300,000 Purpose: Machinery & Equipment and Working Capital Market Impact: CLLTr en ~ Pro~ e~ted To,al Toms Diver~ed 3,000 i,000 4,000 Jobs Created 54 10 ~4 211-i:--:-!99,-i, O/:-=,6F'H FP. OI1 CA i~'iTEGF'ATED I..;.:-=_.TE E',P :,,, ~ M 0 R A ND U M To: Robert Capu:i Zone Administra~ TI-I 9170774'3' ..v-'= . _ ~._. ,. .... P 01 Post-it'" brand fax transmittal memo 767,1,I ,¢ pt pac,5 ,, 'g .,, Be~t ....... ~hene~- ~ -, Date. janua%:' , ~ 6 p. uS~ J. / Kanz ,//i~S Permits' Braneh CALIFORNIA IR"ZEGKATED WASTE MA_NAGEI~ENT- BOARD subject: COLD CREEK " ~ c~ In --~=~-,,'-,,-,~e to our meeUinu earlier today we have ga5hered ~-~ .... i.._l _ = ~_n waste z~ uhe f~,~ ~cwing info ~ ticn concerning gr~nc cf ~r-= facilities: = St~t~ This 6aci~ ~Ey is permitted to accept a Caspar Tr=~s er _on ..... maximum 19 tons of ~asne per day. The =mc~i~nY .~_. c~e=~ waste and crind it on si~e. / Ukiah Lan~ii~ - ~his facility is ooerating in vio!aticn cf a permit issued in iaTP. The facility is currentLY cperatin9 under a Suipula*ed A9reemenu due to ccnuinuin~ violations cf the permit. The facility accepts 9teen was%e which is stored and removed ~cm the s~%e. I5 Zs not clear what tonnage can be accepted, and it does nou appear tc be accep'-' ~ grind preen wagte at =his site. /-- l~ -' .... ~ce -nd 0~d~ Th~ comDos~ uaczz- ~per day. · . . . ~ ~ '1i i~ ~~5~ec to acceDE Lakeport Transze~ Stauicn - ~h.s _acm- ~y a maximum of 200 ~ons cf waste per day. They can store green waste for composting off si~e. The ReDor~ cf Station Information ' :-' ~eria! on does not clearly sta=e i~ the f~ciiity can site. East!ake Sanitary Landfill - This facility is the only landfill in Lake County, ~ is permitted up accept up to 200 tons of waste Der day. They can not grind material cn site, however they do accept green waste for shipment of site = For: Bragg - Thi= is not a facility. City o~ - C.:.-!S-1'-~'96 Oi:~$Pr.I .--F'.J-Ir-.] C¢~ IHTEGRATE5 I..,..I¢4'FTE :' '9!70774~1975 P,02 i spoke To she'5~endocino County LEA today, and she?' were not aware o~ the Cold Creek Compost proposal to ~r;na ~reen wasSe ~ these faci!~ies. They also were not aware o~ the prcposa! to lan5 spread the qreen wasze, ash, and manure az ~he Gun,fy Ranch and Cove!o site. They did indicate that they would want to have r ,n any land tke Regional Ware Qualizy Control Board involved ~ spreadin~ activities. In addition, ~hey were no5 aware of an), app2ica~ions from %hese faciii~ies for grindin~ ~reen waste. The L~. also stated that Cold Creek Compost requested a copy of a Ee~is~ra~ion Per%~i% app!ica%ion ~oday for the Guntly Ranch compost operation. I hope this answers your questions concernin~ Zhese ~ites. As we stated in the meezin9 it is not always possible to determine from the permits how much qreen was%e a facilizy may accep~ on a daily basis. Please contac~ me if you have any additional questions. Attachment 3 RMDZ Loan Progra~ Priority Criteria Priority "The highest priority for funding shall be given to projects which demonstrate that the project will increase market demand for recycling the project's type cf post-consumer material." (PRO Sec. 42010 (d) (3)) Regulatoz-y Priority "Priority con~iders, ticn shall be given to projects which... demonstrate the greatest use of other funds in the project and/or the highest degree of effort by the borrower to obtain other funds." (14 CCR 17933 (2)) Board-Adopted Priority Priority consideration shall be given to projects which satisfy the following !994 RMDZ Loan Program Objectives: !) 2) Maximize the effectiveness of the RMDZ Loan Program as a market development tool by restricting funding to projects which manufacture recycled-content end-products, or otherwise increase demand for secondary materials which directly support achievement of local waste diversion goals. Support the Board's Market Development Plan by giving priority consideration to projects which utilize the Board's priority materials, and which utilize the greatest diverted. tonnage. The Board's priority materials are mixed waste paper,' composuable materials, high-density polyethylene and mixed plastics. · Support the integrated waste management hier~rc~ by promoting in order of priority: 1) source reuucumon; 2) recycling and comDos=ing; 3) environmentally safe transformation an~ environmenzal!y safe.land disposal ' (PRC Sec. 40051 (a)) To achieve .this objective, the Board shall: a. Give priority lending consideration to source reduction projects which satisfy objectives I and 2 above; and 01-1S-1'9'96, Ol: ..=..SFr.1 FF':'OH CA i~ ;TEGRATEE, t.,,IA!E;TE £:l:, TI] b · Give.lowest lending priority to transformation projects, and !imit funding of suck projects to those which: i. Produce va!ue-added products. ii. Are not detrimental to currenz or future efforts to increase source reduction, recycling or compos~in~ of the project's ma~eria! type. iii. Do nob, in the aggrega%e, exceed 10% of all loan funds tc be awarded durin~ any annual loan fundin~ cycle. 01-1S-!9'_-36, 01: ='"" ' _ .... _-,Ff'] FRO[I CR IHTEGPATED I,,,IA'tTE ~D Tel S17877~31975 P.05 January 19, 1996 Market Development Co=mittee Agenda Item (A6=ach~ent 4) Page 2 In December !994, the Board adopted a policy for the ~Z loans regarding the eligibility of paper projects. The policy adopted determined that paper manufacturers and converters are eligible for PJ~DZ loans. However, funding for paper converters is limited to businesses that use recycled paper for at least 75 percent of their converting feedstock. Recycled paper is defined as that containing a minimum of 50 percent secondary material, of which at least 20 percent is postconsumer materials. These amounts were dete~mined to be consistent with the curren~ state and federal procurement suandards. The loan applicant is aware of these requirements, which will be included as a program covenan~ in the loan agreement. B. COLD CREEK COMPOST, INC. RFZDZ (City): Sonoma/Mendocino County (Ukiah) Loan Amount: $250,000 Purpose: Machinery & Equipment and Working Capital Market ImlDact: · . -, · , ~ ,, I u' Increase · Ton~ Divertect gOO 'Ib,DU0 17,000_ · , ,·.. Jobs C:~eated 3.5 1.5 5 be !andfilled. Company: · On September !, !995, Cold Creek Compos=, Inc., (Cold Creek), a - start-up company, assumed the sales and composting uperaticns begu~ in 1978 by its predecessor, M&M Ranch, a California general partnership. Cold Creek is owned 67% by Margrethe Schioler, 23% by Joseph Mi!eck, and 10% by Martin and Marie-Louise Mileck. Also on September I, i99~, an affiliated entity, M&M Feed and Supply, Inc., assumed the activities of a retail farm supply/hardware store and a farming operation from M&M Ranch. Currently, M&M Ranch is a shell operation owning only the 400 acre M&M Ranch property at Cove!o. 917077451~75 P.06 January 19, 1996 Market Development Committee Agenda Item (Attachment 4) Page 3 Project History: On September 6, !994, the Loan Committee recommended approval of a $650,000 loan to cold Creek, Inc., for a green waste compost operation in Mendocino County. The loan request was not considered by the Market Development Committee because at that time, the company lacked a Board required permit. On June 9, 1995, the Loan Committee recommended approval of a revised loan request for $565,000 to Cold Creek, Inc. The recommendation was ccnditiona! upon, among other things, concurrence by the Board at its June 28, 1995, meeting of a solid waste facility permit for Cold Creek, Inc. At the Loan Committee meeting mention was made of a newspaper article which stated that a lawsuit was filed against the company. A representative from the company dismissed the importance of the lawsuit, referring to it as frivolous. SubseTaent to the Loan Committee meeting, but prior to the Market Development Committee meeting, additional information on several issues raised concerns r~garding the project. Specifically, staff was concerned about the impact of ~he pending lawsuit, the ability of the company to obtain a re.cfuired permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and possible changes to the operation which could affect the project cost and, potentially, the ability of the company to adequately serx~ice the proposed debt. Of particular concern was a Petition for Writ of Mandate and a Complaint for Injunctive Relief that were filed in the Mendocino County Superior Court on April 5, 1995. The Petition alleged that the Mendocino County Board of Supe~¢isors should have required an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prior to issuing a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the proposed composting facility. Reiying on the Negative Declaration adopted by the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors, the Board, on June 28, 1995, concurred in the issuance of Solid Waste Facilities Permit NO. 23-AA-0029 (issued on October 18, 1995), for the Cold Creek project. On December 8, 1995, a Superior Court judge in Mendocino County r~led that an EIR must be prepared for the Guntly Ranch composting site. Preparation o£ the EIR is expected to take between five and nine months, but could take longer. Januaz-y 19, 1996 Market Development Committee Agenda Item (Attachment 4) Page 4 The Board's legal counsel has advised that the court's action, in effect, nullified the previously approved County CUP and Solid Waste Facilities Permit; and that a new Solid Waste Facilities Permit will have to be considered by the Board once an EIR has been certified and necessary County approvals have been obtained. At %ha~ point, th~ financial viabi!i~y of the green waste composting operation at the leased lz acre Guntly Ranch site can be reevaluated. APPLICANT'S REVISED PROJECT Cold Creek has requested that the $555,000 request for both the green waste composting at the Ount!y Ranch site and the mobile green waste mulching operation be considered. Because of the Iuncertain status of local and Board permits as a result of the · court order that an' EIR be prepared, staff is recommending funding only the mobile green waste'mu~ching component of Cold Crook's request. Cold Creek currently composts and sells grape pomace, animal waste (chicken and dairy manure), and collects a tip fee for fl}, ash used as an amendment to the manure compost blend, or applied directly to the soil at the M&M Ranch site. The proceeds from the loan amount recommended by staff will be used to purchase mobile equipment and provide working capital to enable Cold Creek to grind green waste (for a tip fee) into mulch at landfills and transfer stations sites. Planned locations at which Cold Creek will grind green waste include: Ukiah Landfil.l, C4'ty of Fort Bragg, and Caspar transfer station. A possible additional location is the Lake County (Lakeport) Landfill. The resulting mulch from ~he grinding operation will be spread (without compensation) on approximately 600 acres of the Gunt!y Ranch (a 4,000 acre ranch) and 200 acres of the M&M Ranch. The addition of mulch is in~ended ~o reclaim ~he subject acreage, based on a 10 to 20 ton application rate per acre, per year. cold Crook's application projects 27% of its total operating revenue from tip fees from green waste and 10% from fly. ash contract fees, both of which will be diverted from landfills. The / sale cf manure compost (containing fly ash), and gypsum/lime sales represents 51% and 12% of the projected total revenue stream, respectively. MEETING STATE OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD MARKET DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE --o0o-- BOARD ROOM 8800 CAL CENTER DRIVE SACR3LMENTO, CALIFORNIA --o0o-- FRIDAY, JANUARY 19, 1996 9:30 A.M. --o0o-- Vicki L. Medeiros, C.S.R. License No. 7871 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION 3336 BRADS}lAW ROAD. SUITE 240. SACRAMENTO. CA 95827 / (916) 362-2345 INDEX --o0o-- Proceedings Call to order and roll call Agenda Item 1 Agenda Item 2 Agenda Item 3 Agenda Item 4 Agenda Item 5 Agenda Item 6 Adjournment Certificate of Reporter --o0o-- iii Paae 11 13 53 63 98 99 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION 3336 BRADSHA~V ROAD. SUrrE 240. SACRAN~ENTO. CA 95827 / (9]6) 362-2345 10 !1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 Committee recommend to the Board approval of items A, C, D and E. COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN RELIS: Okay. COMMITTEE MEMBER PENNINGTON: With the understanding that the covenant should say 40 percent with their approval, with the applicant's approval. COMMITTEE MEMBER CHESBRO: I second. MS. CARR-MORRISON: Point of clarification. If there isn't approval of the 40 percent, it will be 30 percent. COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN RELIS: Correct. Okay. We will substitute the prior roll call. Consent. Okay. Good. Now, let's hear about the Cold Creek loan. MR. CAPUTI: Cold Creek is located in the Sonoma-Mendocino County. The amount of the loan is $565,000. It"Yefinances owner's debt, provides funds for the purchase of machinery and equipment and working capital. The Cold Creek project was originally submitted to the Loan Program as greenwaste composting operation in 1994. Because of permitting problems, the project was revised and resubmitted. The revised project submitted to the January 10, 1996 Loan Committee had four main operating components. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION 3336 B~DS~W ROAD. SUrE 240. SAC~MENTO. CA 95827 / (916) 362-2345 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 22 The first component is new greenwaste grinding operation, which is the subject of the Board's loan request. The application requests the purchase of mobile grinding equipment which will be taken to landfill, MRF and other sites to grind greenwaste into mulch. The mulch will be sold by Cold Creek as a soil amendment. Any mulch not sold as a soil amendment will be taken to the applicant's M and M Ranch, or the Guntly Ranch, and spread at agronomic rates on designated acreage. The greenwaste ground by this project will be diverted from landfills. The second revenue source is derived from the tip fees for the disposal of fly ash under a contract with Masonite Corporation. The fly ash will be sold by Cold Creek as a soil amendment either separately or as a component of manure, compost or greenwaste mulch. Any fly ash not sold will be applied at'%gronomic rates at the applicant's M and M Ranch. The fly ash would be landfilled if not for this project. The third revenue source is the sale of lime and gypsum as soil additives, and the final and major revenue source representing approximately 50 percent of the company's projected revenue is a manure composting operation located on a 12-acre leased site on the Guntly Ranch. The manure composting operation will consist of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION 3336 B~DS~W ROAD. SUrE 240. SAC~~O, CA 95827 / (916) 362-2~5 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 23 various animal manure, grape pumice, and a variety of soil amendments, including the masonite fly ash. Board counsel has advised staff that the composting of manure and grape pumice can be accomplished under a Notification Permit. It is unclear from the documentation submit%ed by Cold Creek if the manure composting operation will be limited to these feedstocks. The LEA has informed Loan staff that Cold Creek has applied for a Registration Permit for the manure composting operation. At this time, I would like to ask Chairman Relis to request that a represen%a~ive from Cold Creek state for the record exactly what feedstocks will be involved in the manure composting operation and under what type of permit, Registration or Notification, Cold Creek intends to operate the manure composting site. COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN RELIS: Let's just ba~k-traCk a second here. We have a number of issues that have come up regarding this loan request. One of them concerns the description of the project and that becomes important for our understanding what our permitting framework is here. So, that is why the request is being made, as I understand it. That's part of the reason we want to know what materials will be processed in the compost or grinding PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION 3336 B~DS~W ROAD, SUITE 240. SAC~MENTO. CA 95827 / (916) 362-2345 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 operation. 24 So, perhaps, Eric Anderson, if you could explain to this Committee what specifically the project is. MR. ANDERSON: Sure. I would note that, of course, as you probably are aware, a very specified, specific and detailed project description and business plan was provided to Loan staff. So, I believe that they are very clear as to what this project is. Firs~ of all -- COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN RELIS: Actually they are not. MR. ANDERSON: We are in some wonderment regarding that. MS. CARR-MORRISON: Could you just identify for the record your position with Cold Creek? MR. ANDERSON: I'm General Manager of Cold Creek Compost incorporated, located in Covelo, Californi%. My office is in Santa Rosa, California. The project as presented is a project, and I want to make it clear that we are proceeding with the environmental documentation, and then we will, of course, reapply for our full permit, probably sometime later this year. So, we consider this an interim project, and that is how it was described to staff and to the Loan Committee. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION 3336 B~DS~W ROAD. SUTrE 240, SAC~NOSNTO, CA 95827 / (916) 362-2345 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 The project during this interim period will consist of a manure-only composting operation at the Cold Creek facility, in Potter Valley, near Ukiah, California. The feedstocks we will use will be a variety of agricultural manures, dairy, turkey, chicken. We will compost those manures on-site. Those manures will be custom blended, depending on customer specifications, with various agricultural minerals for spreading on farm land. In addition, we are adding to the compos~, the wood ash, and I want to make that very clear, we have been explaining this for almost a year now, this is wood ash from the Masonite facility. They buy clean wood chips to fire their production facility there. to~~the COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN RELIS: That's been referenced fly ash. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. "- 'm not sure what fly ash is. We are accepting wood ash, which has been examined by the Water Quality Control Board, local Public Health Department, the State Department of Public Health and received all regulatory approvals. It's a wonderful, wonderful agricultural soil amendment of high nutrient values and trace minerals and so on. So, we are very pleased to have this product available PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION 3336 B~DS~W ROAD. SUITE 240. SAC~MENTO, CA 95827 / (916) 362-2345 !0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 for our agricultural customers. In addition to the composting operation, we are purchasing a grinder and, as described by staff, that grinder will be used at a variety of locations to grind greenwaste, which we will then, as described, sell to various markets, whether those be agricultural or to CalTrans for erosion control, landscaping, so on and so forth and will also be used one again as a soil amendment for agricultural enterprises. I would also note that it has always been our inten5 to grind off-site. We have estimated -- we have always projected that something in the neighborhood of 90 percent of our grinding will take place off-site. So, it really isn't a major change in that regard in terms of the project as it has been approved previously by the Loan Committee. In terms of the permitting, I spent about 45 minutes on the phone on Tuesday morning with Kathryn Tobias and Elliot and Deb, your legal counsel. We went very carefully over the Board's position regarding permitting. We have discussed it extensively with our LEA, particularly since this is an interim measure. We felt it just didn't make sense, and there was no need to go through the registration process. We spoke with our LEA again yesterday. We are PETERS SHORTHAi~D REPORTING CORPORATION 3336 B~DS~W ROAD. SUT~E 240. SAC~M52~ro. CA 95827 / (916) 362-2~5 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 notifying him pursuant to Title 14 that we will be conducting an animal material composting operation on the Guntly Ranch, and so we are ready to go. I hope you do all understand that we are currently under full operation. We currently have a full and valid permit both from the County of Mendocino, a CUP, and a full permit from this Board. So, our status as of today is we are a fully permitted operation. We are composting. We are selling compost. As we sit here, we are turning compost in Potter Valley, and we will continue until the final order has been issued by the court. For your information, the EIR process is underway. We have paid the initial fees to the county, and all of that is moving forward. We deeply appreciate all the work that staff and the Loan Committee has done on the project. And o~ course, as you well-know, this project is essential to the waste diversion goals of Mendocino County. Those communications have been forwarded to you, I believe, and we would really like to get to work composting. We have spent a lot of time dealing with other issues, and we would just like to make some compost and divert some solid waste from the local landfills. COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN RELIS: Before we go further, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION 3336 B~DS}~W ROAD. SUrE 240. SAC~MENTO. CA 95827 / (916) 362-2345 i0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 let's review then what we have heard regarding what the activities are. As you presented it, it's a manure-only composting operation, apparently with the amendments, being agricultural manures, chicken, turkey and wood ash? MR. ANDERSON: Currently we are composting in addition to that grape pumice. COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN RELIS: Do you want to add that to the mix? MR. ANDERSON: No. Because we are permitted by right, okay, under the Mendocino County Zoning Ordinance, we are permitted by right to do manure compcsting. If we bring other feedstocks onto the site, we trigger the need for CEQA review and a use permit. So, this was the course that was suggested to us, and pursuant to County Counsel's opinion and determinations made 'bT the Department of Planning and Building Services, this is the course we are pursuing. COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN RELIS: Okay. So, then we have the grinding operation, as you describe, it is mostly mobile in nature, and that is to grind greenwaste for a variety of markets, which would include land applications and other erosion control, other activities. MR. ANDERSON: Correct. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION 3336 B~DS~W ROAD. SUITE 240. SAC~MI~q'ro. CA 95827 / (916) 362-2345 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 COM/~ITTEE CHAIRMAN RELIS: Now, let's just stop. Counsel, do you have any questions at this point regarding the description of the project? MS. CARR-MORRISON: I would defer to Elliot Block who is very familiar with all the composting regulations, and I think that from his nod it seems he's comfortable with their description. MR. BLOCK: Just for the record, I'll say that having heard the description and some discussion, I'm very comfor%abie that this operation fits in the Notification. COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN RELIS: Notification, okay. MR. BLOCK: I guess I should say for the record that Notification tier is actually not considered a Solid Waste Facility Permit. It's what is referred to as a Notification Permit, and it's somewhat lesser than that in terms of the tiering scheme. -~- COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN RELIS: Okay. Then I would ask you to sit down at this point, because we are going to have some testimony or discussion, and then we will probably have you back up here, not very long. MR. CAPUTI: I did want to make a point. They are talking about this project as interim financing or interim project. The Loan Committee and the staff did not look at this as an interim project because PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION 3336 B~DSI~W ROAD. SU1TE 240. SAC~MENTO, CA 95827 / (916) 362-2345 10 1t 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 we're looking at a seven-year term loan. This is a project that will stand on its own. The greenwaste composting component that is tied up with their full permit application is a value added. It will add value. Instead of mulch, they will be selling the compost. But the project, as we describe it here, will stand alone and will repay the loan based on projections and the credit that we reviewed. COMEITTEE CHAIR3LAN RELIS: Let's stop there. What we are talking about is that we had -- a special meeting actually was convened of our Loan Committee because of complications regarding this and scheduling wkere we had our Loan Committee review this application specifically for its normal credit worthiness, and you are saying that in that review that the project as just described to us as an interim project would be th~ basis'for the fiscal security for the loan? MR. CAPUTI: For the loan. Right. If anything happens, because there is uncertainty with the greenwaste composting operation, that value added piece to this, we did not consider that. We are only considering this as an ongoing operation. COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN RELIS: So, what Mr. Anderson is referring to as an interim, for purposes of our loan PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION 3336 B~DS~W ROAD, SUITE 240. SAC~MENTO, CA 95827 / (916) 362-2345 !0 1i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 31 making, it's permanent. MR. CAPUTI: Right, and it's self-sustaining. MS. CARR-MORRISON: The entire valuation. MR. CAPUTI: Right. Their long-term objective, they are considering this an interim project, but from our standpoint, it's a self-sustained project. COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN RELIS: We need to look beyond it. MR. CAPUTI: Right, and when we do look beyond it, then we get into the credit uncertaint~ that stopped this process before. COMMITTEE MEMBER CHESBRO: But it stands on its own as an interim project. MR. CAPUTI: If they did not get the full permit, they could not go the extra step, and the value added, that would not effect this project or the repayment ability of this project as has been reviewed by staff. COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN RELIS: Mr. Anderson, do you have anything to add on that? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, just briefly. I'm not sure how much you all know about this process, but when we appeared before the Loan Committee in December, that was their concern. They said that what they wanted to see was a cash flow analysis and credit analysis PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION 3336 B~DS~W ROAD. SUrE 240. SAC~MEHTO. CA 95827 / (916) 362-2345 !0 I! 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 32 based on our company never receiving a permit to do greenwaste composting. So, I apologize for the confusion. I said interim because that's how we view it. In other words, we feel very confident that over the next few months we are going to complete our CEQA process, get our use permit, we will be doing that project as originally proposed. ~ But this project stands alone and was recommended by the Loan Committee on that basis and a review of the f~nancials on that basis. COM~4ITTEE CHAIR/~AN RELIS: So, I'm just going to look to staff right now and say we all understand this. There is no confusion on this point? MR. ANDERSON: Right. COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN RELIS: Okay. Well, we don't have anyone signed up to speak against this project. We do have a letter which I feel I should summarize at least. This is from Eric Sunsweet. I referred to it at the opening, and he has concerns about this loan related to the composting side of it, the registration -- whether this is a Registration permit, whether it is a permit. The status of that is whether mulching is consistent with our objectives, which this project would grind up grain material and directly land-apply it as opposed to going directly through a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION 3336 B~DS~W ROAD. SUrE 240. SAC~MENTO. CA 95827 / (916) 362-2345 10 1! 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 33 composting operation. He had questions about whether this fits high in our priority list. So, that's just a rough summary of the letter. I guess the maker of the letter is not here. So, I will leave it at that. Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak to this item? Okay. Hearing none, we will have discussion. COM}4ITTEE ~!EMBER CHESBRO: There is another issue I wanted to raise, and before you get too excited, let me tell you that it's no~ one that I see as preventing us from approving this. But I do have some questions about it, and it relates to not just this project but also precedents and our upcoming loan priority discussion. The project, as it's being considered'h~e, is a project to essentially do a lower value activity than what I know the operator wants to attain if all the other hurdles can be cleared, and I want to make it clear that I have great confidence in this company and the individuals involved and their intention to do the maximum value activity and are committed to high quality composting.~ So, my question in no way undermines their credibility in that regard. But we are faced with a project PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION 3336 B~DS~W ROAD. surrE 240. SAC~MENTO, CA 95827 / (916) 362-2345 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 34 that's before us right now, which is essentially a low value land spreading type of activity that we are being told is market development that we are loaning money in order to divert. The questions came up during the compost permitting discussions and a number of people raised over the years, I guess Mr. Sunsweet touches on the question of the borderline essentially between segregated disposal and land spreading that has some value to the soil. We have been told in the past is defined by what's called agronomic rates, in other words, when are you applying materials that actually are creating a benefit to the soil and when are you -- where is the line drawn between that and essentially disposal of a segregated material that really doesn't create any benefit, so it's just another form of disposal, and so is it really recycling. I guess that's the question. So, I have a question first for Mr. Anderson, or someone from Cold Creek about to ask you how you looked at that from the standpoint of assuring us that the land that this would be applied to, that you've taken into account the question not just of -- since you are dependent on tipping fees essentially rather than revenue from high value product, how you take into account the question of making · sure that these materials are used in a beneficial way so PETERS SHORTHAi~D REPORTING CORPORATION 3336 B~DS~W ROAD. suTrE 240. SAC~N~TO. CA 9~827 / (916) 362-2345 !0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 35 that we can say that we have used this loan money to create recycling, and then after I've asked you that, I'm going to ask the staff about how we've looked at it from that standpoint and how this might fit into our loan priority discussion, because I do think we ought to -- and I'm more concerned, I want to say, about the potential precedent than -- like I said, I have a great deal of confidence in this operation and this proposal, but if someone comes in next month and says we're going to land spread, and you didn't put any criteria on those people as to value that is created for the soil, so why are you doing it to us -- CO~4ITTEE CHAIRMAN RELIS: If I could just go on from what Wesley just said, this whole discussion of land application of greenwaste was front and center in our compost regulations. So, this was not a small matter, we had months of discussion and debate over what constituted proper controls over greenwaste directly applied to land. So, we are not singling you out. This is a very fundamental issue in our regulatory system, and the Board has a strong interest in successful land application and no confusion between land enrichment and enhancement and dumping, so to speak, of greenwaste. I just want you to understand that it is broad interest. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION 3336 B~DS~W ROAD. S~E 240. SAC~MENTO, CA 95827 / (916) 362-2345 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 36 MR. ANDERSON: First of all, I do understand, and I appreciate it. This is the first time that it's been presented to us in this way, and it is an important issue. I will go ahead and respond, and then if Martin would like to say a few words, because Martin is the farmer in the company, but let me say a few things about it. First of all, I think you all know that Mr. Millick has been and is a farmer and has been selling his products to farmers for many years. We have a great interest. We don't view ourselves as a waste disposal company. We view ourselves as an agricultural soil amendments supplier and fertilizer supplier, and we are very involved in field testing and all sorts of activities, and we want to produce products that add value to the soil. Certainly in our area we have seen situations where greenwaste programs are simply land spreading, and we don't necessarily think that's appropriate. So, yes, it is our intent -- first of all, it is our intent to market this product to land spread. We felt it was necessary to have, if you will, a fallback if we couldn't sell it all, but we are located on a 4,000-acre ranch, approximately 4,000 acres. Mr. Jim Guntly, who is the son of the owner of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION 3336 B~DS~W ROAD. SUTrE 240. SAC~MENTO. CA 95827 / (916) 362-2345 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 37 ranch, is our facility operator, and when this discussion of greenwaste came up, he expressed a great deal of interest. They have approximately 600 acres on their ranch that they are very interested in improving the organic contents of the soil. So, we are looking at -- we are not looking at this in terms of just finding a place to put it. Mr. Millick -- COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN RELIS: Is that grazing land, or do they do something else? MR. MILLICK: The Guntly Ranch has grazing land. For the record, I'm Martin Millick, Cold Creek Compost. They have approximately 600 acres of farm land, and they would love to put it on there. But what I want you to understand is I've been in the compost business for a long time. "- I've been producing this for 10 or 15 years, and I farm, too. I know the value of it. I don't get enough compost for my place, because it always gets sold. Some day I will have enough to spread on my own place. So, if you are concerned about spreading compost on land or spreading greenwaste on land as a form of disposal, I don't think you see this project the way that it PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION 3336 B~DS~W ROAD. SUITE 240. SAC~MENTO. CA 95827 / (916) 362-2345 i0 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 iS. 38 I anticipate being able to sell it. I've always sold my compost, and ther_____e has n~ver been enough for me, and it would be nice if I had some. COMMITTEE CHAIKMAN RELIS: You are describing it as compost. MR. MILLICK: Compost to greenwaste. What we are talking about right now is ground greenwaste. COMMITTEE MEMBER CHESBRO: That's what the quession is. It isn't so much that the compost, which clearly has a -- MR. MILLICK: I would like to have ground greenwaste to put on my farm land, as would the Guntlys, but like I say, if sales go the way they are going -- COMMITTEE MEMBER CHESBRO: Let me go ba~k and Say that the purpose of my raising this question wasn't because I have stronger doubts about your particular project, but our previous Board Chairman used to use the term, Lucky Acres, referring to the next person to come along who will say, yes, I'm a composter or a recycler or a farmer, buys a piece of land and puts themselves in the business of spreading segregated material with no intention of creating a value. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION 3336 B~DS~W ROAD. SUrE 240. SAC~MENTO, CA 95827 / (916) 362-2345 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 39 So, it's more of a precedential question, the idea that we approve you, and then we have a loan application that comes in next month that doesn't have the same kind of reputation and history that you have had. That's why I am asking the question. It's not like create some doubt about what you are intending to do so much as -- we are going to be having a loan priority discussion to establish our loan priorities coming up, and I'm looking at it more from the broader implica%ions if we go ahead and loan whether we have raised this ques%ion and figured out how we are going to deal with it in the future. That's more my concern. MR. ANDERSON: Can I just add that, I think I speak for the company when I say this, that we really support what you are doing. We support -- what I think I'm hearing'i~ that'you are insistent that this does add value to land. It certainly isn't going to do us any good to have people competing for greenwaste feedstock who are just going to go out and in essence dump it somewhere. It certainly doesn't do any good for our company, and I don't think it does any good in terms of developing markets for recycled product. So, we certainly support the course you seem to be taking in regard to that issue. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION 3336 B~DSI~W ROAD. SUITE 240, SAC~fENTO. CA 95827 / (916) 362-2345 !0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 40 COM~ITTEE MEMBER CHESBRO: Thanks. Let me ask staff next, I guess this is the second loan that we have had that involves some land spreading. I think there is one in San Luis Obispo County. MR. CAPUTI: Rossi. COMMITTEE MEMBER CHESBRO: Rossi, that does some spreading of lawn composted organic materials. MR. CAPUTI: Right. They grind on the farm site itself. They intercept it, then i~'s spread back on the same farmer's land. The intake on this loan a year and a half ago, thi£ is the third time through to the Loan Committee. If -- there is no precedent, because it was a composting project with value added. The evolution caused by outside forces has brought the project to this point. COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN RELIS: Is that evolution or de-evolution? MR. CAPUTI: I would like to use the word, but I can't. Consequently, it wasn't the original intake, wasn't and decision was not based on the spreading operation. COMMITTEE MEMBER CHESBRO: Understood. COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN RELIS: Okay. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION 3336 B~DS~W ROAD. SUITE 240. $AC~MENTO, CA 95827 / (916) 362-2345 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 41 MR. CAPUTI: Had this project as it is now come in and been evaluated, it would have been under a different evaluation consistent with what the Board's policy is. COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN RELIS: But the point is the project before us is the project as understood now by our staff and by the Loan Committee in making its recommendation. MR. CAPUTI: Yes, and the spreading and the value added question is legitimate. COMMITTEE MEMBER CHESBRO: Well, there are two things I would like to see grow out of this. One would be, and I'm not interested in us setting up some kind of bureaucratic measurement where we are out there trying to monitor what they are doing, but I would like some kind of language in the loan that refers to agronomic rates just as a general agreement that that's the intention. Then secondly, if the rest of the Committee agrees to just direct staff in the upcoming loan priority discussions to bring that issue forward about how we might with recommendations about how we might deal with it in the future for land spreading operations that are proposed for loans. So, that would be two suggestions that I would make. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION 3336 B~DS~W ROAD, SUrE 240. SAC~MENTO, CA 95827 / (916) 362-2345 !0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 o~e? COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN RELIS: What was the second 42 COMMITTEE MEMBER CHESBRO: The second one was that we ask staff to prepare a discussion during our loan priority discussion about how we take into account the question of land spreading operations. COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN RELIS: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chesbro. Mr. Gorfain, do you have anything? MR. GORFAIN: I don't have anything to add. COMMITTEE CHAIR/~AN RELIS: Mr. Pennington? COMMITTEE MEMBER PENNINGTON: I think I'm okay. COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN RELIS: Okay. I have -- COMMITTEE MEMBER PENNINGTON: What is the situation on the lawsuit? COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN RELIS: The lawsuit, well, there is an existing lawsuit. ~- Go ahead. Identify yourself again for the record. MR. ANDERSON: Eric Anderson, Cold Creek Composting. We are expecting the judge's final order to be issued probably around the end of this month. The order as drafted and presented by the petitioner simply asks that our use permit be rescinded. As I said a few moments ago, we have already PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION 3336 B~DS~W ROAD, SUTTE 240. SAC~MENTO. CA 95827 / (916) 362-2345 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 43 started the process of putting together the RFP for our EIR. It's a limited -- it's a focused EIR on a limited number of ] s~_~ues as identified by the judge. We have come to the end of that legal process, and we have been directed to do an EIR, which we will do and take that through the process. COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN RELIS: I would like to comment and maybe clarify a little further. Mr. Chesbro, you mentioned this reference ~o agronomic rates, and I'm wondering, would this be in %he form of like a covenant we do with the, let's just say, the matter that we heard earlier, we wouldn't prescribe a number, per se, because we don't know what that number is as opposed to post-consumer 40 percent with paper? We are looking at an agronomic measure that's going to depend on the site -- but would that be the nature of the -- MS. CARR-MORRISON: That's correct. We could put that in the loan agreements that required the borrower to operate within the ag rates established by an agency. COMMITTEE MEMBER CHESBRO: We have to write it as a statement of a general intent. COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN RELIS: We are not the experts in agronomics. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION 3336 B~DSI~W ROAD. SUrE 240. SAC~MENTO. CA 95827 / (916) 362-2345 !0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 44 COMMITTEE MEMBER CHESBRO: No. I want to stay away from that. I just want a general agreement from the operator that that's their intent. MS. CARR-MORRISON: I think we could identify that as parameters set by the relevant control agencies. COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN RELIS: Then on the matter of -- the earlier matter of the relevant permitting requirements, we have cleared that up, I believe. Was there anything further? MS. CARR-MORRISON: Well, we would need to know that that notification letter was received by the LEA. That's s confirmation that needs to be made. COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN RELIS: Okay. So, there are two points that I hear related to a motion. One is a covenant, and one is a formal, not a verbal, but a formal receipt of the notification 'I%tter. All right. Would someone wish to -- MR. CAPUTI: There are two other items that we need to clarify on the loan. One, the Loan Committee at its meeting thought or recommended that the Cold Creek interest rate be set at 4.5 percent, that's based on when Cold Creek's original application was made. At its request, Cold Creek was notified by staff, in writing in September of 1995, that on PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION 3336 B~DS~W ROAD. SUTrE 240. SAC~MENTO, CA 95827 / (916~ 362-2345 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 45 advice of counsel the interest rate would be 4.5 percent if the loan was approved prior to December 31, 1995. Thereafter, the rate would reflect the rate in force at the time the loan was approved by the Board. Staff recommends that the interest rate be set at the same rate of six percent as the other four loans contained in the Agenda Item. COM~4ITTEE CHAIRMAN RELIS: So, 5.25 versus 6? MR. CAPUTI: 4.5 versus 6. CO~ITTEE ~!EMBER PENNINGTON: So, you are talking a point, a point and a half simple interest? MR. CAPUTI: Correct. COMMITTEE MEMBER CHESBRO: Rr. Chairman, we haven't talked about this, but one of my concerns about this whole situation is that the CEQA process can be used essentially to scare off the Board as a lending agency, and that's been one of my fears. '~- There are legitimate CEQA issues, and I'm not criticizing or undermining CEQA, but the question of how we respond to that, and I'm not in favor of penalizing an applicant because of a CEQA lawsuit, I think probably the Loan Committee was thinking that when they recommended that they be allowed to proceed with the previous loan rate. COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN RELIS: Could you convey what the Loan Committee understood? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION 3336 B~DS~W ROAD. SUITE 240, SAC~MENTO. CA 95827 / (916) 362-2345 !0 1i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 46 MR. CAPUTI: It would be hard to say. I don't know if they tied it to that reason. I think what they were looking at in their recommendation, as they were with adopting the 565 versa staff's 250 funding level, is that it was consistent with what they had seen in prior submissions of this package, and they didn't feel that the applicant should be penalized by the length of the process. was 4.5? COMMITTEE MEMBER PENNINGTON: Sounds like he is. Let me ask you this, when they applied our rate MR. CAPUTI: Correct. COMMITTEE MEMBER PENNINGTON: When the other applicants that we just approved, what was the rate when they applied? MR. CAPUTI: 6 percent. COMMITTEE MEMBER PENNINGTON: It seems "lbgical that the rate should apply when they applied. MR. ANDERSON: It could be a strong argument. A lot of what has happened to the company has been outside of their control. There would be no negligence of ~ their own in this process. COMMITTEE MEMBER CHESBRO: Do we have any pre-existing policy about when there is a change in the loan rate which loan rate is supposed to apply? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION 3336 B~DS~W ROAD. SUrE 240. SAC~MENTO. CA 95827 / (916) 362-2345 10 !t 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 to 5.8. 47 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN RELIS: I don't think we do. COMMITTEE MEMBER PENNINGTON: We have lowered the We could though -- MR. YOUNG: This is Calvin Young. If I could interject for a moment. The idea, for those who have been around for awhile, you may remember that for the longest time the interest rate didn't change. It was 4.5 for a year and a half time period there, and then we decided to change the in%erest rate as things went along. There had been discussions in the Agenda Item back, I do belJLeve, in May or June of '95, when they were talking about changing the interest rate instead of annually to do it semi-annually. There was in there discussion of when the interest rate would be set, but that portion was never adopted formally by the Committee or the BOard. So, it left a gray area. This again will be coming forward next month, or in one of the coming months, as additional discussion when the interest rate is determined. The Loan Committee does not approve loans. They recommend approval to the Committee and Board. The Board is the only body that makes any formal approval. We have several applicants that have applied over PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION 3336 B~DS~W ROAD. SUrE 240. SAC~MENTO. CA 95827 / (916) 362-2345 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 48 the last six months, year or two years. The concern would be when is that interes% ra%e picked? Is it when they first talk to us? Is it when they first apply, back in '94 or '95, and when -- how long do we hold an interest rate, and is that fair to newer borrowers or newer applicants that maybe applied sometime in '95 that they be charged six percent while somebody that happened to have an application in two years earlier is 4.5 percent? No decision has been made on that. I want to make that clear, so that is a gray area at this point. But there is also no formal commitment one way or the other, be it 4.5 or be it 6. COMMITTEE MEMBER CHESBRO: What is the private lending industry practice in terms of when a loan is locked, a rate that's locked in? MR. YOUNG: Typically in the private sector applications don't go on for a year and a half or'~wo years. Typically there is not a big difference between a discussion with the potential borrower and when a rate is committed, subject to when it may be changed by further loan review. There may be a difference of a quarter point or something of that nature, but typically it will be what is discussed. But that's also typically taking place over a two- or three-month time frame not a year and a half to two PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION 3336 B~DS~W ROAD. SUTF£ 240. SAC~MENTO, CA 95827 / (916) 362-2345 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 years. 49 But there is no commitment of the rate until the Board approves. COMMITTEE MEMBER PENNINGTON: As you know, I just got my car totalled, and I'm about to buy another car, and I went a week ago and got a preapproved loan at a specific rate, and it's set. I haven't gotten the money or signed anything, but when I go to get it, I expect to get the rate that I talked about a week and a half ago. Of course, he's right that it was not two years ago. I would be for setting it at 4.5. COMMITTEE MEMBER CHESBRO: I think we need to remember that we are in the business of trying to help these businesses get going and divert materials. So, we are not trying to be unnecessarily rigid. Although, I can also imagine situations about whe~ the responsibility for dragging out the loan might be at least in part the applicant's fault in terms of not meeting criteria that have been approved for their loan and dragging things out over a long period of time. That might be a little harder for us to decide in favor of the applicant than this one where it seems like the factors are things that have been beyond the control of the applicant, the things that have delayed the project. I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION 3336 B~DS~W ROAD. SUTTE 240. SAC~MIgNTO. CA 95827 / (916) 362-2345 I0 i! 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5O mean, if it were up to the applicant, he would have had the loan and be operating a long time ago. COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN RELIS: I think we have probably spent enough time on the interest rate issue. We will hear how it comes out in the mo%ion. MR. CAPUTI: There is one more provision that needs to be -- COM/~ITTEE CHAIRMAN RELIS: Yes, you have one more point. MR. CAPUTI: I'm going to let Calvin address it. MR. YOUNG: In the original credit write-up back in August of '94, when we were looking at taking the M and M Ranch property as collateral, consistent with Board adopted policy, when we take commercial or industrial or agricultural properties, we also require a Phase 1 Environmental Report. Because the proposal before the Loan com~nittee this last week or two ago was looking at the reduced dollar amount and not taking the M and M property, that basically was omitted at the time, I just wanted for clarification sake that, since we are looking at the higher dollar amount of $565, and they are looking at taking agricultural property that the Board previously adopted Board policy of requiring Phase 1 Environmental Reports satisfactory to the Board would be in place in this particular situation. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION 3336 B~DS~W ROAD. SUrE 240. SAC~MENTO. CA 95827 / (916) 362-2345 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that. COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN RELIS: I think I understand 51 COMMITTEE MEMBER PENNINGTON: That doesn't have to be a part of the motion. COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN RELIS: Right. Any other points? MR. CAPUTI: Thankfully, no. COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN RELIS: Okay. We have three qualifiers or clarifiers. We have the covenant, the notification letter and %he relevant interes5 rate. So, if we could hear a motion. COMMITTEE MEMBER PENNINGTON: I move that we approve the Cold Creek Compost loan and that staff be directed to include in the loan documents a covenant requiring the borrower to comply with the relevant agronomic rates for land spreading as set by the control agency, and two, a provision that the loan will not go forward to the full Board for approval until the borrower's demonstrate that his project is in compliance with the relevant permit and that the loan rate be set 4.5 percent simple interest. COMMITTEE MEMBER CHESBRO: I'll second. COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN RELIS: We will call the roll on this one. MS. WADDELL: Board Members Chesbro. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION 3336 B~DS~W ROAD. SUrE 240. SAC~MENTO. CA 95827 / (916) 362-2345 52 COMMITTEE MEMBER CHESBRO: Aye. MS. WADDELL: Pennington. COMMITTEE MEMBER PENNINGTON: Aye. MS. WADDELL: Chairman Relis. COMMITTEE CHAIR3~N RELIS: Aye. This will be on the Board Agenda because there has 7 been some controversy. 8 It will not be a Consent item. COMMITTEE MEMBER CHESBRO: Can we, by either !0 motion or consensus of the Committee or direction of the I1 Chair or something, ask s~aff to examine the question of 12 land spreading and agronomic rates as a part of their 13 analysis for the upcoming loan priority discussion? 14 MR. GORFAIN: it's on the Agenda. 15 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN RELIS: Okay. That completes 16 the loan business. 17 MR. ANDERSON: Just one quick question'fegarding 18 the confirmation of our notification, and that's all been 19 clarified. 20 You just want a communication from our LEA that 21 that has been met? 22 MS. CARR-MORRISON: Yes. 23 The LEA will probably just fax us a copy of 24 whatever you give them. 25 MR. ANDERSON: Thank you for your time. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION 3336 B~DS~W ROAD. SUITE 240. SAC~MENTO. CA 95827 / (916) 362-2345 AGENDA SUMMARY 7b ITEM NO. DATE: AUGUST 5, 1998 REPORT SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A PROPOSED REDUCTION TO THE LANDFILL TIPPING FEE AND THE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION SETTING FORTH THE FEES AND CHARGES, HOURS OF OPERATION, POLICY AND PROCEDURES AT THE UKIAH LANDFILL Submitted for the City Council's consideration and adoption is a resolution which would, if adopted, reduce the landfill tipping fee charged for each compacted ton of solid waste. Affected by this change are the commercial garbage collectors franchised or permitted by the County of Mendocino to serve the waste customers within the County environs of Ukiah valley, Redwood Valley, Potter Valley, Boonville, and Hopland, designated as the "old'' service area. The tipping fee charged for solid waste delivered in compacted form in a vehicle or container having a compaction device or compacted and transferred to another vehicle is also reduced. This resolution further consolidates the various rates, charges, hours of operation, and policy and procedures set forth in Resolution Nos. 95-8, 97-52, and 98-06 and upon adoption, will replace and void these resolutions. The proposed adjustment in the above noted tipping fee reflects a recent adjustment in the Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority (MSWMA) surcharge which is charged for each ton or cubic yard of solid waste designated for landfilling. There are no other changes proposed. CONTINUED ON PAGE 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: After conducting the public hearing and receiving public testimony, adopt the attached resolution "Setting Forth the Fees and Charges, Hours and Operations, and Policy and Procedures at the Ukiah Municipal Solid Waste Facility all to be Effective August 6, 1998, and Replacing Resolution Nos. 95-8, 97-52, and 98-06." ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Refer matter back to Staff for other recommendations. Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Rick H. Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Rick H. Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Resolution submitted for adoption. 2. City Manager's Report. 3. Public Notice. Candace Horsley, C~y Manager R: 1 \LANDFILL:kk ATIPPING.g8 Public Hearing to Consider a Proposed Reduction to the Landfill Tipping Fee and the Adoption of a Resolution setting forth the Fees and Charges, Hours of Operation, Policy and Procedures at the Ukiah Landfill August 5, 1998 Page 2 The compacted rate currently charged to Empire Waste, American Waste, and Solid Waste Systems, Inc., who currently serve the "old" service area and those self-haulers and/or retailers who own compacting devices (Fetzers, Kohn, Mervyn's, Wal-Mart, Raleys, and Safeway) which are either delivered by the owner or by the franchised or permitted commercial haulers is $72.00 per ton. This tipping fee includes the MSWMA surcharge. It is proposed that the tipping fee be reduced to $71.50 per ton whereby the adjustment would equal the reduction in the surcharge approved by the MSWMA Board of Directors on May 22, 1998. Effective July 1, 1998, the surcharge rate was changed from $6.00 per ton to $5.50 per ton of refuse landfilled. This 90.50 reduction in the per ton surcharge is equivalent to a 90.06 reduction in the volume based surcharge rate of 90.75 per cubic yard. The compacted tipping fee charged to the "new" service area consisting of the Cities of Fort Bragg and Willits and the County environs of Caspar, Albion, Laytonville, and Covelo is 964.50 per ton plus the adopted MSWMA surcharge. Therefore, a reduction in the MSWMA surcharge was immediately reflected in the total tipping fee charged to the commercial haulers who serve the waste customers within the "new" service area since no public hearing was necessary to change the fee. Because of the pending rate hearing for the annual adjustment in the garbage collection fees charged to Ukiah City residents, it is proposed that the current tipping fee of 963.00 per ton charged to the City of Ukiah's commercial garbage collector not be changed at this time. The current volume based tipping fee of 912.65 charged to self-haulers and other loose solid waste delivered by Solid Waste Systems, Inc., and Empire Waste is not proposed to be changed. It is proposed that any additional revenue generated at the Landfill by reason of the reduction in the MSWMA surcharge be deposited in the Post-closure Maintenance Fund. Post-closure maintenance is a 30-year obligation which is currently underfunded and is a potential financial liability to the Ukiah garbage rate payers. Pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, a City Manager's Report (Attachment No. 2 to this Report) of the proposed landfill tipping fee change has been available for review at the public counter located in the Administration Office of the Civic Center since July 27, and the Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Daily Journal 10 days prior to the date for the public hearing. Included in the City Manager's Report are five different fee reduction scenarios with estimates of the additional landfill revenue that could result for each scenario if the fees were not adjusted in relation to the reduction in the MSWMA surcharge. The City Manager's recommendation is reflected in Scenario No. 2. R: 1 \LANDFILL ATIPPING.98 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH SETTING FORTH THE FEES AND CHARGES, HOURS OF OPERATIONS, AND POLICY AND PROCEDURES AT THE UKIAH MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE FACILITY (LANDFILL) ALL TO BE EFFECTIVE AUGUST 6. 1998 AND REPLACING RESOLUTIONS 95-8, 8?-52 AND 98-06 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ukiah from time to time establishes new fees and charges pursuant to Article 1, Chapter 6, Division 4, of the Ukiah Municipal Code, and establishes hours of operation, policy and procedures to be observed at the Ukiah Landfill and such fees, charges, hours of operation, policy and procedures are to be adopted by resolution by the Ukiah City Council; and WHEREAS, many changes have been made with the adoption of Resolutions 95-8, 97-52, and 98-06; and WHEREAS. it is proposed that revisions be made to certain fees and charges; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to combine all current provisions established by the adoption of Resolutions 95-8, 97-52, and 98-06 into one resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the following fees, charges, hours of operations, policy and procedures are hereby adopted and/or readopted for the Ukiah Solid Waste Disposal Facility and Resolution Numbers 95-8, 97-52, and 98-06 are hereby replaced and voided: A. The Ukiah Landfill Service Area 1. The Ukiah Landfill service area includes the entire County of Mendocino excluding the service area of the South Coast Landfill which is generally defined as the City of Point Arena and its County environs. 2.When reference is made to the "old" service area it shall mean that service Resolution No. 98- Page 1 of 7 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 Bo . area from which solid waste was generated and delivered to the Ukiah Landfill prior to September 1, 1997. The "old" service area includes the City of Ukiah and the County environs of Ukiah valley, Redwood Valley, Potter Valley, Boonville, and Hopland. When reference is made to the "new" service area it shall mean that portion of the County of Mendocino not belonging to the "old" service area from which waste was generated and delivered to the Ukiah Landfill after September 1, 1997. The "new" service area includes the Cities of Willits and Fort Bragg, and the County environs of Caspar, Albion, Laytonville, and Covelo. Prior to September 1, 1997, waste from the "new" service area was delivered to the Willits Landfill. Fees and Char.qes 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Minimum gate fee .................................. $6.35 Compacted waste delivered by the City of Ukiah's Franchised Garbage Collector. Fee includes the Mendocino Solid WasteManagement Authority (MSWMA) surcharge ................... $63.00 per ton Compacted waste delivered by franchised or permitted garbage collectors serving those portions of the County of Mendocino within the "old" service area. Fee includes the MSWMA surcharge ........................... $71.50 per ton Compacted waste delivered by the franchise or permitted garbage collectors serving the waste customers within the "new" service area. Fee does not include MSWMA surcharge which will be added to stated fee ........................ $64.50 per ton Solid Waste delivered in compacted form in a vehicle or container having a compaction device or has been compacted and transferred to another vehicle. Fee includes the MSWMA surcharge ........ $71.50 per ton Resolution No. 98-, Page 2 of 7 6) 7) 8) Solid waste delivered in a loose uncompacted state by self-haulers, City of Ukiah's Franchised Garbage Collector, County of Mendocino franchise or permitted garbage collectors serving the "old" service area, and the City of Ukiah City Departments. Fee includes the MSWMA surcharge .................. $12.65 per cubic yard Solid waste delivered in a loose uncompacted state by the franchised or permitted garbage collectors serving customers within the "new" service area. Fee does not include MSWMA surcharge which will be added to stated fee ........................... $64.50 per ton Solid waste diverted from disposal and recyclable materials. An MSWMA surcharge is not applied to these items. Fees are as follows: a. TIRES I . . . Automobile, pickup and motorcycle tires, 18 inch wheel size or less in lots of five (5) or less .............. $ 3.10 per tire Truck tires greater than 18 inch in wheel size in lots of five (5) or less .............. $10.25 per tire Farm and light construction/ tractor tires ..................... $52.00 per tire b. . Large earthmover (loaders and scrapers) tires ................. $150.00 per tire . Bulk delivery of tires six (6) or more, automobile pickup and motorcycle .......... $25.75 per cubic yard Si Bulk delivery of sliced/ shredded or split tires .......... $25.75 per cubic yard Major appliances. These items are accepted only if the compressor systems, lubrication lines and/or freon systems are completely removed. Resolution No. 98- Page 3 of 7 · Refrigerators, freezers and other similar refrigeration appliances ............... $15.75 each 2. Washers (clothes or dishes) ........... $15.75 each 3. Dryer (clothes) ..................... $15.75 each 4. Kitchen ranges .................... $15.75 each 5. Water heaters ...................... $15.75 each 6. Appliances similar to above ............ $15.75 each c. Miscellaneous metals ............... $12.65 per cubic yard d. Yardwaste . so Generated within the Ukiah City limits, and delivered by the City of Ukiah's Franchised Garbage Collector ............................. No Fee 2. Delivered by all others ........... $3.75 per cubic yard Woodwaste. Must be clean, unpainted, unprocessed ....................... $3.75 per cubic yard Miscellaneous recyclables, for which bins have been provided in front of the Gate House ................................. No Fee Hours of Operation o . Open to the public from be 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., five (5) days per week, Tuesday through Saturday and closed on nationally recognized holidays observed at the Ukiah Landfill. Open to franchised or permitted haulers serving the "old" service area: a. Mondays from 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. b. Tuesdays through Fridays from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. c. Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. d. Days following Holidays observed at the Landfill - 6:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Resolution No. 98- Page 4 of 7 3. Open to franchised or permitted haulers serving the "new" service area. D, . Policv I . . . . 5. . e. Mondays from 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Tuesdays through Fridays from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Landfill Maintenance Hours (maintenance work by City Crews or hired contractors and consultants). Mondays from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Tuesdays through Fridays from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Emergency hours may be extended due to emergency. As permitted by the current Solid Waste Facilities Permit and Procedure An annual fee of $3,500 shall be charged to the Cities of Fort Bragg and Willits to help offset additional expenses that are occurred by reason of Monday openings. This fee shall be due on September 1 for 1997 and 1998. The permitted or franchised garbage collectors/haulers serving waste customers within the "new" service area shall be prohibited from utilizing the Ukiah Landfill prior to 8:00 a.m. Monday through Saturday. Self-haulers shall be charged a "mixed rate" of $19.00 per cubic yard for loose loads containing non-separated recyclable materials or other materials specified for diversion from landfilling mixed with solid waste which is to be landfilled. Self-haulers are defined as haulers other than franchised or permitted commercial garbage collector/haulers serving the "old" and "new" service areas. Materials classified as recyclable or designated for diversion from the Landfill will be those specified from time to time by the City Manager, and posted at the entrance to the Landfill facility, and for which appropriate collection bins and/or specific drop-off areas are designated ahead of the Landfill dumping pad. The City Manager reserves the right to add, delete, or otherwise modify at any time the list of materials designated as recyclable or to be diverted. Fees charged are subject to appeal by the payor to the City Manager and City Council on the condition that the payor immediately registers a protest with the Disposal Site Gate Attendant. Fees thus paid shall be received under protest and shall be upheld pending a decision on the merit of the Resolution No. 98- Page 5 of 7 . appeal· Any landfill customer may protest the calculation of the fee charged at the gate and appeal the amount of the fee by taking the following steps: I · Complete and sign a fee protest form available from the Gate Attendant· 2. Pay the amount of the fee. Any fee paid after a protest form is properly completed and filed with the Gate Attendant shall be deemed to have been paid under protest and will be refunded without interest, if the protest is upheld on appeal. The City will send all notices to the customer's mailing address as stated on the form, unless the customer furnishes the City Clerk with written notice of an address change· Reference herein to the City Manager includes his or her designee, if any. The City Manager shall review the protest form and make a decision concerning the protest within 1 5 working days from the date on the form. The City Manager may, but is not required to, consult with the landfill customer and/or the Gate Attendant. The City Manager shall notify customer of the decision. If the protest is denied in whole or in part, the City Manager shall provide the customer with a written explanation and a notice that the customer may appeal the City Manager's decision to the City Council by filing a request for appeal with the City Clerk within 10 days of the date on the City Manager's decision. The City Council shall hear the customer's protest at its next regularly scheduled meeting that occurs not sooner than 10 days from the date of the request is filed with the City Clerk. The City Clerk shall notify the customer of the time and date of the hearing. The customer may appear personally or submit written comments to the City Council. At its meeting, the City Council shall hear from the customer or consider his or her written submission and from the Director of Public Works, or any of his or her Staff as he shall deem appropriate. The City Council shall make a final decision for the City after conducting its hearing and shall record its decision in its minutes· The City Clerk shall provide the customer with a copy of the portion of the approved minutes containing the City Clerk's decision within 10 days after the City Council has approved the minutes. The City shall make any refund awarded by the City Manager or the City Council to the customer within 10 working days from the date of the decision· All volumes computed in cubic yards will be rounded to 1/10 cubic yard Resolution No. 98- Page 6 of 7 increments. . The Landfill shall be closed for business for the following recognized Holidays: a. New Year's Day b. President's Day c. Memorial Day d. Labor Day e. Independence Day f. Columbus Day g. Veterans Day h. Thanksgiving Day i. Christmas Day nationally BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all fees, charges, hours of operation, and policy and procedures adopted or readopted herein shall be effective August 6, 1998. PASSED AND ADOPTED this . .,, .... of August, 1998, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Sheridan Malone, Mayor Marie Ulvila, City Clerk B:I~ES1 TIPPING3.FEE Resolution No. 98- Page 7 of 7 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF TIPPING FEES WHICH ARE CHARGED COMMERCIAL REFUSE COLLECTORS/HAULERS FOR THE DISPOSAL OF COMPACTED WASTE OR OTHER WASTE WHICH IS CHARGED BY WEIGHT AT THE UKIAH LANDFILL Executive Summ~ry This report has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Article 1, Chapter 6, Division 4 of the Ukiah Municipal Code. The City Manager proposes that an adjustment to the landfill tipping fee charged for compacted waste which is delivered to the Ukiah Landfill by the commercial garbage collectors who service a portion of the County of Mendocino designated as the "old" service be made to reflect the reduction in the Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority (MSWMA) surcharge. Included in the "old" service area are the County environs of Ukiah valley, Redwood Valley, Potter Valley, Boonville, Anderson Valley, and Hopland. The compacted rate currently charged to Empire Waste, American Waste, and Solid Waste Systems, Inc., who currently serve the waste customers within the "old" service area is $72.00 per ton. This tipping fee includes the MSWMA surcharge charged to the landfill customer for all solid waste which is landfilled. It is proposed that this tipping fee be reduced to $71.50 per ton of compacted refuse. The adjustment or change will equal the reduction in the MSWMA surcharge approved by the MSWMA Board of Directors on May 27, 1998. Effective July 1, 1998, the surcharge rate will be changed from $6.00 per ton to $5.50 per ton of refuse landfilled. This $0.50 reduction in the per ton surcharge is equivalent to a $0.06 reduction in the volume based surcharge rate of $0.75 per cubic yard charged for waste which is measured by volume. The compacted tipping fee charged to the "new" service area consisting of the Cities of Fort Bragg and Willits and the County environs of Caspar, AlbiOn, Laytonville, and Covelo is $64.50 per ton plus the adopted MSWMA surcharge. Therefore, a reduction in the MSWMA surcharge is immediately reflected in the total tipping fee charged to the commercial haulers who serve the waste customers within the "new" service area. Because of the pending rate hearing for the annual adjustment in the garbage collection fees charged to Ukiah City residents, it is proposed that the current tipping fee of $63.00 per ton charged to the City of Ukiah's commercial garbage collector not be changed at this time. A change in the current volume based tipping fee of $12.65 charged to self-haulers and other loose solid waste delivered by Solid Waste Systems, Inc., and Empire Waste is not proposed to be changed. It is proposed that any additional revenue generated at the Landfill by reason of the reduction in the MSWMA surcharge be deposited in the Post-closure Maintenance Fund. Post-closure maintenance is a 30-year obligation which is currently underfunded and is a potential financial liability to the Ukiah garbage rate payers. General Information The City of Ukiah owns and operates the Ukiah Solid Waste Disposal Facility (Landfill) which is located at the terminus of Vichy Springs Road. The Landfill service area has been expanded to include the entire County of Mendocino excluding the south coast area of Point Arena and its County Environs. The City of Fort Bragg has elected to long-haul their compacted waste to the Potrero Hills Landfill in Suisun City, however, they continue to direct their loose waste to the Ukiah Landfill. During the Landfill's peak season which occurs during the late spring, summer, and early fall months, the daily average of waste accepted ranges from 140 to 1§0 tons per day. Of this amount, approximately 10 to 12 tons per day are diverted from landfilling. The Landfill is open five (5) days a week to the public from Tuesday to Saturday, and six (6) days a week to commercial waste haulers from Monday to Saturday. The Landfill is closed on Sundays and nine (9) holidays a year. Compacted waste delivered to the Landfill in commercial refuse collection trucks are weighed at the Landfill gate and charged a tipping fee based on weight. Waste delivered to the Landfill in a loose state is charged a tipping fee based on volume except loose waste delivered in drop boxes by Fort Bragg Disposal and Solid Waste of Willits which is charged on a weight basis. Those customers delivering loose waste are generally private citizens and contractors (both termed self-haulers) and commercial haulers delivering drop boxes. With the adoption of Resolution No. 98-06 on July 16, 1997, and in conjunction with those provisions of Resolution No. 95-8 which remain unchanged, solid waste customers are charged the following tipping fees: Compacted Waste Commercial hauler for the City of Ukiah $63.00 per ton including MSWMA surcharge Commercial haulers for County of Mendocino from old service area $72.00 per ton including MSWMA surcharge Commercial haulers for cities of Fort Bragg and Willits, and County of Mendocino from new service area. $64.50 per tons plus adopted MSWMA surcharge Retailers with compactors $72.00 per ton including MSWMA surcharge ,.,Loose or Uncompacted Waste Commercial haulers serving Fort Bragg, Willits, and portions of Mendocino County within the new service area.- $64.50 per ton plus adopted MSWMA surcharge Commercial haulers serving Ukiah and portions of Mendocino County within the old service area and self-haulers $12.65 per cubic yard including the adopted MSWMA surcharge Various rates have been established for special wastes that can be diverted or recycled such as tires, woodwaste, yardwaste, appliances, and metals. Reduction in MSWMA Surcharge The MSWMA surcharge is applied to every ton of waste which is landfilled and it is included or added to the tipping fee charged to each landfill customer. At the conclusion of each month, City Staff reports how much waste was landfilled for the expired month and calculates the monetary amount due MSWMA as a result of the surcharge. For the months of September and October 1997 when all waste generated within the County of Mendocino, except from the south coast, was being directed to the Ukiah Landfill for disposal, the monthly MSWMA surcharge payments were $23,355 and $25,702 respectively. Subsequent to Fort Bragg's election to direct its compacted waste to Potrero Hills for disposal which began November 1, 1997, the monthly surcharge payments have ranged from $16,172 (February) to $20,762 (June). For the last eight (8) months of the 1997/98 fiscal year (November to June) the monthly average payment was $18,683. Summaries of the monthly surcharge amounts and the corresponding waste quantities are provided at the end of this report as Exhibit "A". Since its inception, the MSWMA surcharge has been established at $6.00 per ton of refuse disposed. The MSWMA surcharge applied to solid waste which is measured and charged by volume and designated for disposal is $0.75 per cubic yard. On May 27, 1998, the MSWMA Board of Directors approved a reduction in the MSWMA surcharge to $5.50 per ton which would become effective on July 1, 1998. This reduction would also reduce the cubic yard surcharge rate by $0.06 to $0.69. Because of program efficiencies in the Hazmobile operation and the apparent increase in waste being disposed which is subject to the surcharge, MSWMA has been receiving revenue in excess of its expenditure needs. This excess in revenue made the reduction in the surcharge possible. As soon as the reduction of the surcharge becomes effective, the cities of Fort Bragg and Willits, and portion of the County of Mendocino (new service area) will immediately benefit from a corresponding reduction in the Landfill Tipping Fee charged to their franchised or permitted haulers. As previously mentioned, the tipping fee charged to the haulers for these entities is _$64.50 Dlus the adopted MSWMA surcharge. Effective July 1, the haulers for these agencies will be paying $70.00 per ton total. An immediate reduction in the tipping fees charged to self-haulers, and the franchised or permitted haulers for the City of Ukiah, and the County of Mendocino designated as the old service area, is not available because of the manner in which these rates have been established. The tipping fee for loose refuse is $12.65 including the MSWMA surcharge while the fee for compacted refuse is $63.00 (Ukiah) and $72.00 (County) including the MSWMA surcharge. These tipping fees can only be changed pursuant to the provisions of Article 1, "Procedure for Amending Utility Rates", of Chapter 6, Division 4, Section 3950 et. seq., of the Ukiah Municipal Code. The provisions of Article 1 require the holding of a public hearing prior to adopting any change in the Landfill fees. Proposed Reductions in Landfill Tipping Fees In consideration of the additional work and expenses being incurred by the Landfill such as the preparation of a Supplemental EIR related to a pending permit revision and in light of underfunded obligations such as the 30-year post-closure maintenance period, the Ukiah City Manager is recommending that an adjustment in the compacted tipping fee of $ 72.00 per ton charged to the County's franchised or permitted haulers be made to reflect the reduction in the MSWMA surcharge and that the current tipping fees charged to self-haulers ($12.65 per cubic yard) and the City's franchised hauler ($63.00 per ton and $12.65 per .cubic yard) remain unchanged. If this recommendation is adopted by the City Council, an estimated additional $8,595 would be realized in the Landfill's annual revenue or an estimated additional $14,326 would be realized over the remaining life of the Landfill (20 months). These estimates are based on monthly waste quantities averaged over the last eight (8) months (November 1997 to June 1998). Attached to this report as Exhibit "B" is a comparison of five (5) scenarios reflecting different rate adjustment possibilities. Scenario No. I provides no reduction in the current tipping fees. This scenario would produce an estimated increase of $12,795 in annual revenue or an estimated increase of $21,326 in revenue over the remaining life of the Landfill. Scenario No. 2 reflects the City Manager's recommendation. Scenario No. 3 provides a $0.05 reduction the loose rate of $12.65, a $0.50 reduction in the County's compacted rate of $72.00, and no reduction in the City's compacted rate of $63.00. Under Scenario No. 3 an estimated increase of $5,633 in revenue or an estimated increase of $9,099 in revenue over the remaining life of the Landfill would be realized. Scenario No. 4 assumes a reduction in the compacted rates for the City's and County's franchised haulers equal to the reduction in the MSWMA surcharge and no change in the loose tipping fee. Under Scenario No. 4 an estimated additional $3,555 in annual revenue or an estimated increase of $5,926 in revenue over the remaining life of the Landfill would be realized. Scenario No. 5 provides a reduction in the compacted rates charged to the City's and County's franchised haulers equal to the MSWMA surcharge reduction and a $0.05 reduction in the loose rate. Although the reduction in the MSWMA surcharge for volume charged waste is $0.06, Staff recommends maintaining all Landfill tipping fees rounded to the nearest nickel. Because of the $0.01 difference for loose waste in Scenario No. 5, an estimated increase of $593 in annual revenue or an estimated increase of $988 in revenue Over the remaining life of the Landfill would result. Mr. Paul Caylor, Director of the County's Solid Waste Division, supports the City Manager's recommendation (Scenario 2). Pending Rate Hearing for Garbage Collection Rate8 within the City of Ukiah Pursuant to the provisions of the Garbage Collection Franchise Agreement, garbage collection rates are adjusted annually to reflect increases in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) (inflation based rate). Every third year of the contract, the annual audits prepared on behalf of the Garbage Collector are reviewed by City staff to ensure that the annual automatic adjustments in garbage collection fees by reason of adjustments in the annual CPI are equitable to both parties to the contract and that the fees appropriately covers the collection expenses and costs, and provides a fair profit to the Collector. If needed, further adjustments by reason of the third year review are presented to the City Council for consideration. A third year review is due this summer and any adjustments made to the fees would be effective July 1. The results of the review will be presented to the City Council after Staff receives the pending audit from the Collector and has an opportunity to review them. Staff is not recommending any reduction in the compacted tipping fee charged the City's hauler because of the pending garbage collection rate review for 1998. The surcharge differential in the City of Ukiah's compacted rate is estimated to create an additional $5,040 in annual revenue. If the City Council elected, this differential could help offset a potential increase in the tipping fees that may arise from the pending garbage collection rate audit and review. Based on the collectors reported expenses of $1,910,915 for 1996, the estimated additional $5,040 available to offset any rate increases, represents 0.26% of the total annual operational expenses. The last two annual increases in the CPI was 2.8% for both 1997 and 1996. The Franchise Agreement provides for an adjustment equal to 75% of the CPI increase allowing for a 2.1% total increase for each of the two last years. Additional Landfill Expenses, Recommended Pr~)iect/Potential Remediation Allowances. and Underfunded Obligation~ A Supplemental EIR has been completed and it is currently available to the public for review and comment. This Supplemental EIR has been prepared in anticipation of the City's proposal to submit an application for a Revised Solid Waste Facilities Permit which would permit an increase to the currently permitted 190 tons daily maximum input. Approximately 4 to 5 times a month the City exceeds the current limit and is, therefore, in violation of its permit. The Landfill account has incurred an additional $18,000 expense for this Supplemental EIR. As presented to the City Council on July 16, 1997, during the proposed Landfill tipping fee adjustment for the new service area, and changes to the days and hours of operation, projected expenditures for the remaining 1.7 year of the Landfill was estimated to be $4,885,000. These projected expenditures included $1,270,370 for pre-closure project allowances which included the Landfill buffer zone buyout, final pavement surface for Vichy Springs Road, permanent site fencing, allowance for benzene remediation along the east side of the Landfill, and allowance for gas extraction along the east side of the Landfill. Not included in the projected expenditures, is the City's financial liability for the 30-year post-closure maintenance period and the capital cost for closure. As estimated in the preliminary post-closure plan prepared by EBA Wastechnologies in August 1994, the annual cost in 1994 dollars for yearly maintenance of the Landfill after closure is $73,687 including an allowance for a 20% contingency. As required by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), this amount is adjusted annually for inflation by a percentage provided by the CIWMB. As of June 1, 1998, the annual estimate for post-closure maintenance has been adjusted to $80,074. Over a 30-year period the total estimated liability is $2,402,232 in 1998 dollars. Until recently, funds have not been available to deposit into an Enterprise Fund account from which the annual expenses for post-closure maintenance could be taken because of tremendous expenses for mandatory projects such as gas extraction, the modification to the leachate containment and disposal system, and the construction of the gas monitoring system, and additions to the groundwater monitoring network. Because of Iow waste volumes received at the Landfill, it has been necessary to establish very high tipping fees to cover the expenses for operation and the cost for the mandatory projects and engineering studies. These high tipping fees precluded further adjustments in the tipping fees for generating additional revenue for deposit into an account reserved for future expenditures. It was, therefore, necessary that the City pledge future garbage collection fees in order to demonstrate financial assurance for post-closure maintenance to the CIWMB. This financial liability will be born completely by future City of Ukiah rate payers if provisions are not made to capture available "excess" revenue prior to the Landfill closing. Recently, an opportunity arose to set.aside funds in the amount of $1 §0,000 for the Post-closure Maintenance Fund (666) as well as needed makeup payments to the Self- insurance Trust Fund (pollution liability) and the Pre-closure Project Fund (Fund No. 661 ). These set asides were taken from excess revenue from the 1997/98 fiscal year ending. Expenditures for last fiscal year were below what was projected and budgeted, and revenue was greater than what was anticipated by reason of a greater amount of refuse received at the Landfill. A transfer of $175,000 into the post- closure fund has been estimated for the 1998/99 fiscal year. If realized, the total amount of monies on account for post-closure maintenance will be $325,000. As estimated in the Preliminary Closure Plan prepared by EBA Wastechnologies in August of 1994, the cost for closure is $1,459,686 in 1994 dollars including an allowance for a 20% contingency. As required by the CIWMB, this amount is adjusted annually for inflation by a percentage provided by the CIWMB. As of June 1, 1998, the estimate for closure in 1998 dollars is $1,586,207. Based on conversations with other consultants familiar with closure costs, Staff is preparing for a closure cost of $2,000,000. As of May 31, 1998, $1,664,917 was on account in the Closure Fund (664) and $230,000 has been budgeted for transfer into the fund for the 1998/99 fiscal year. It is foreseeable that the remaining $100,000 needed can be transferred into the Closure Fund in the last year of operation (1999/2000). Given the future financial liability for the 30-year post-closure maintenance and a situation where the post-closure fund is underfunded as explained above, every opportunity should be taken to direct "excess" revenue to the Post-closure Fund No. 666. R: 1 ~LANDFILL FEES.CMR ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit "A" Page 1 Page 2 Exhibit "B" Page 1 Page 2 Exhibit "C" Page 1 Exhibit "D" Exhibit "E" Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Exhibit "F" Page 1 Page 2 Exhibit "G" Exhibit "H" Exhibit "1" Exhibit "J" Summary of Monthly MSWMA Surcharge Payments. Summary of Refuse Disposed on a Monthly Basis. Landfill Tipping Fee Reduction Scenarios. Comparison of Rate Adjustment Scenarios. Quantity of Solid Waste received at the Landfill by Jurisdiction for Calendar Year 1998. Quantity of diverted Materials for Calendar Year 1998. Quantity of Solid Waste received at the Landfill by Jurisdiction for Calendar Year 1997. Quantity of Diverted Materials for Calendar Year 1997. Pre-closure Projects for Landfill. Annual Inflation Factor 1997 to be applied to Closure and Post-closure Estimates. Revised Schedule of Transfers for Fiscal Year 1997/98. Schedule of Transfer for Fiscal Year 1998/99 Correspondence from MSWMA Regarding Reduction in Tipping Fee. Resolution No. 95-8. Resolution No. 97-52. Resolution No, 98-06. R:I~ANDFILL FEES.CMR City of Ukiah Summary of Monthly MSWMA Surcharge Payments CITY OF UKIAH , :. Summary of Monthly MSWMA Surcharge Payments September 1997 through June 1998, ~repared By: Rick Seanor ' Month Special Loose Program Waste Subtotal Subtotal ~$0.25/CY CY @$0.75/CY i Compacted Waste Ton ~$6.00/Ton Total Monthly Payment Sep-97 $60.00 7,106.55 $5,329.91 ' 3,138.07 $18 828.42 $24,218.33 Oct-97 __6,904.04 $5,178.03 3,420.58 $25,701.51 N ov-97 5,077.57 $3,808.18 2,246.85 $17,289.28 Dec-97 5,214.78 $3,911.09 2 583.56 $19,412.45 Jan-98 5,936.53 $4,452.40 2 498.29 2 268.83 2 485.34 2 601.99 2 513.33 2 774.69 Feb-98 3,411.47 $2,558.60 $20 523.48 $13481.10 $15.501.36 $14 989.74 $13 612.98 $14 912.04 $15 611.94 $15 O79.98 $16648.14 $19,442.14 $16,171.58 Mar-98 4,743.97 $3,557.98 $18,470.02 Apr-98 4,758.40 $3,568.80 $19,180.74 May-98 4,876.84 $3,657.63 $18,737.61 Jun-98 5,484.78 $4,113.59 $20,761.73 SubtotalforlastSmonths ~39,504.34 $29,628.27 19,972.88 $119,837.28 $149,465.55 !Average forlast 8 months 4,938.04 $3,703.53 2,496.61 $14,979.66 $18,683.19 Date/Time Printed: 7/20/98 at 9:43 AM Page 1 of I Filename: MSWMASUM.XLS City of Ukiah Refuse Disposal on a Monthly Basis by Jurisdiction From November 1997 through June 1998 CITY OF UKIAH Summary of Refuse Disposed on Monthly Basis by Jurisdiction from November 1997 through June 1998 prepared By: Rick Seanor Month Nov-97 I Old Service Area New Service Area City of Ukiah County City + County Loose ~ Cornpacted Loose Weighed CY I Compacted 648.49 733.71 ~ Ton CY Ton I · 1.739.47 ! 809.46 3,338.10 788.90 Dec-97 1 909.86 ' 920.95 3,304.92 ~ 928.90 r Jan-98 2 333.72 I 890.12 3,602.81 ~ 718.04 890.13 Feb-98 1 082.98 833.98 2,328.49 675.92 758.93 Mar-98 ~ 2 112.17 861.24 2,631.80 682.79 941.31 Apr-98 1 338.19 769.73 3,420.21 714.22 1,118.04 May-98 1 383.69 818.60 3,493.15 685.22 1,009.51 Jun-98 1732.99 812.23 3,751.79 741.05 1,221.41 Subtotal 13,633.07 6,716.31 25,871.27 5,599.44 , 7,657.13 Average 1,704.13 839.54 3,233.91 699.93 957.14 Old Service Area: Ukiah Valley, Redwood Valley, Potter Valley, Hopland, Booneville New Service Area: Cities of Willits and Fort Bra~, Caspar, Albion, Laytonville, Covelo Date/Time Printed: 7/20/98 at 11:34 AM // L.) Page 1 of 1 Filename: RFUSESUM.XLS LANDFILL TIPPING FEE REDUCTION SCENARIOS Scenario NO. I No Reduction in Tipping Fees. Scenario N0.2 A. Reduction in the compaction tipping fee paid by County's franchised or permitted haulers, equal to reduction in MSWMA surcharge. B, No changes to tipping fees charged to City of Ukiah's hauler and self- haulers or loose rate for County haulers. Scenario No. 3 A, Reduction in the compacted tipping fee paid by County franchised or permitted haulers. a. Reduction in the tipping fee paid by self-haulers and commercial haulers equal to $0.05 cents. C. No change to the compacted tipping fee charged to City of Ukiah's hauler. Scenario No. 4 A. Reduction in the compacted tipping fees paid by the County's and City's franchised or permitted haulers. a. No reduction in tipping fee for self-haulers or loose tipping rate for commercial haulers. Scenario No. 5 A. Reduction in all tipping fees. City of Ukiah Comparison of Rate Adjustment Scenarios CITY OF UKIAH Comparison of Rate Adjustment Scenarios Prepared By: Rick Seanor ' , I Cost ~ Differential Additional I by reason Total Additional Revenue : of MSWMA Monthly ~ Waste I Surcharge (S mo. ave.) ; Reduction Scenario Component I City of Ukiah loose Monthly Cost Annual Life of Revenue Landfill Differential (12 months) 1,704 ! $0.06 ~ $102.24 $1,226.88 $2,044.80 ~ $0.06 ' $194.04 $2,328.48 $3,880.80 County loose 3,234 City compacted 840 i $0.50 ' $420.00 $5,040.00 $8,400.00 County Compacted 700 i $0.50 '.$350.00 $4,200.00 $7,0(30.00 subtotal ~ $1,066.28 $12,795.36 $21,325.60 2 City of Ukiah loose 1,704 $0.06 I $102.24 $1,226.88 $2,04.4.80 County loose 3,234 $0.06 $194.04 $2,328.48 $3,880.80 City compacted 840 $0.50 , $420.00 $5,040.00 $8,400.00 County Compacted 700 0 ,, $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 subtotal $716.28 $8,595.36 $14,325.60 3 City of Ukiah loose 1,704 $0.01 : $17.04 $204.48 $340.80 County loose 3,234 :. $0.01 $32.34 $388.08 $646.80 City compacted 840 i $0.50 , $420.00 $5,040.00 $8,400.00 ~ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 County Compacted 700 subtotal ! $469.38 $5,632.56 $9,387.60 4 City of Ukiah loose 1,704 $0.06 $102.24 $1,226.88 $2,044.80 County loose 3,234 $0.06 $194.04 $2,328.48 $3,880.80 City compacted 840 0 (20 months) County Compacted $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 700 0 $0.00 ~ $0.00 $0.00 subtotal $296.28 $3,555.36 $5,925.60 5 City of Ukiah loose 1,704 I $0.01 ~ $17.04 $204.48 ' $340.80 County loose 3,234 I $0.01 $32.34 $388.08 , $646.80 City compacted 840 t 0 $0.00 $0.00 . County Compacted 700 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 subtotal $49.38 $592.56 $987.60 Date/Time Printed: 7/21/98 at 10:02 AM Page 1 of 1 Filename: COMPRATE.XLS oo [-., > PRE-CLOSURE PROJECTS TO BE INCLUDED IN ACCOUNT NO. 661, "PRE-CLOSURE PROJECT RESERVE, FOR UKIAH LANDFILL , , . , , , , Landfill buffer zone buy-out (Gun Club property) Final pavement surface for Vichy Springs Road Permanent site fencing Allowance for surface drainage improvements Allowance for benzene remediation Allowance for gas extraction along east side of landfill Allowance for gas O & M east side $441,570 84,000 $100, 8OO 50,000 $200,000 $284,000 $ 10,000 TOTAL FOR RESERVE ACCOUNT $1,270,370 R:LANDFILL PRECLOSURE.RE$ FACILITY NAME: / ~ 2. ANNUAL INFLATION FACTOR 1997 0,~ ~--,/',,~"/,,,¢',~' ~""~;/,~"~~ACILI~ NO.: Multiply each cost estimate by the inflation factor to determine the new adjusted cost estimates as illustrated below. The ABC Landfill's COST ESTIMATE for CLOSURE in 1997 was $2,000,000. Using the 1997 inflation factor of 1.02, they recalculated their ADJUSTED CLOSURE COST for 1998 to $2,040,000. Their 30-year COST ESTIMATE for POSTCLOSURE MAINTENANCE in 1997 was $1,500,000. Using the 1997 inflation factor of 1.020, their ADJUSTED POSTCL. OSURE MAINTENANCE COST for 1998 is $1,530,000. Their cost estimate for corrective action in 1997 was $1,000,000. Using the 1997 inflation factor of 1.020, they recalculated their ADJUSTED CORRECTIVE ACTION COST for 1998 to $1,020,000. Closure estimate 30-year Postclosure estimate Corrective Action $2,000,000 X 1.020 = $2,040,000 $1,500,000 X 1.020 = $1,530,000 $1,000,000 X 1.020 = $1,020,000 Using the inflation factor for 1997, calculate the following: Closure Costs Annual Postclosure Costs X 30 years X 1.020 estimate in 1998 dollars estimate in 1998 dollars $ ~ X 1.020 Corrective Action Costs Title of Person Signing (Area Code) Phone Number Operator~O'wner Signatu~ Printed Name of Person Signing For the facility named above, please provide the total permitted capacity and the remaining permitted capacity as of the date of this report. Identify the capacity information as either cubic yards (c.y.) or tons, and whether or not "cover material" is included in the calculation. You may wish to reference the CIWMB's publication entitled "Determining Remaining Capacity of Sanitary Landfills," Publication No. 210-97-009. You may obtain a copy of this document by phoning the CIWMB's Hotline at (800) 553-2962 or by opening the Publication Catalog on the CIWMI~'s webs~te twww.ciwmD.ca.gov). T.otal permitted capacity IE~ c.y. ~ tons Compaction Rate (Please provide cubic yards per ton) Remaining capacity [~'"~c.y. [] tons [~,~es oveDo figures represent a demonstration of like considerations (i.e., capacity including cover material)? ~.,'~'~ ate of Repo~ Thank you for providing this information. CIWMB I I4A (2/98) Cai/EPA California Environmental Protection Agency Integrated I! 'aste Management Board 8800 Cai Center Drtve Sacrantento, C.4 95826 (916~ 255-2200 www. ciwmb, ca. gov May 8, 1998 TO ALL OPERATORS/OWNERS OF SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS Title 27, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Division 2, Subdivision 1, Chapter 6, Subchapter 3, Article 1, section 22236, requires you to submit a report to the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). The report calculates the inflationary increase in the closure and/or postclosure maintenance and/or corrective action cost estimates for the previous calendar year. Based on information obtained from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Tables 7.3 and 8.1, dated April 1998, the inflation factor for 1997 is 1.020 (2%). Please complete the form on the reverse side of this letter for each active landfill you own and/or operate, and return it to the Financial Assurances Section at the above address by June 1, 1998. VVe are providin9 this form for your conver, ience. Following are previous years' inflation factors: 1989--1.041 1990--1.054 1991--1.036 1992--1.033 1993---1.026 1994---1.020 1995---1.024 1996--1.020 If you have not made the previous years adjustments, please do so before calculating the 1997 adjusted total cost estimates. Apply the inflation factor for 1989 to your 1988 initial certified total closure and postclosure maintenance cost estimates. Apply subsequent inflation factors to the previous year's total cost estimate. Disregard the cost estimate information in this notice, if you recently revised your estimates due to changes in your closure and/or postclosure maintenance plans and/or corrective action plan, and the revised estimates reflect 1998 dollars. In addition, we are requesting information regarding total and remaining permitted capacity at your landfill(s). This information will be used to update our databases. Please complete the appropriate spaces provided on the reverse side of this letter. If you have any questions regar, ding this report, please call the Financial Assurances Section at (916) 255-2330. Thank you for your cooperation. Cincc."el,.,,, ~ (.¢arth r,..;., dams, Manager Financial Assurances Section Facilities Operations Branch Permitting and. Enforcement Division cc: Local Enforcement Agencies Regional Water Quality Control Boards Pete Wilson Governor Peter M. Roonev Secretary.for Environmental Protection ! i ! i 'o-3' ~ ~ ~= .~ - Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority A Joint Powers Public Agency Michael E. Sweeney General Manager P.O. Box 123 Ukiah, CA 95482 Telephone (707) 468-9710 Fax (707) 468-3877 May 28, 1998 To: From: RE: Candace Horsley, Ukiah City Manager Paul Cayler, County Solid Waste Division James Landa, Empire Waste Management Mike Sweeney, MSWMA Manager ~ MSWMA surcharge On May 27, 1998, the Board of Directors of the Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority voted to reduce the MSWMA surcharge per ton of landfill solid waste to $5.50, for solid waste landfilled on or after July 1, 1998. This action was taken with the consent of the MSWMA member jurisdictions. CC: Jim Murphey, City of Fort Bragg Gordon Logan, City of Willits 1 9_ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 9.4 25 26 27 RESOLUTION NO. 95-8 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKI~H ADJUSTING FEES AND CHARGES, ESTABLISHING A WEIGHT MEASUREMENT FOR DETERMINING FEES AND CP~RGES FOR COMMERCIAL HAULERS AND CHANGING HOURS OF OPERATION AND MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURES AT THE UKIAH ~UN~CIPAL SOLID WASTE SITE · · · o WHEREAS, it is the CitX'iCouncilts intent to actively promote recycling, source reduction and composting and to extend the life of the City Landfill to its maximum~ and WHEREAS, the City budget anticipates sufficient revenue from the Solid Waste Disposal. site to make the operation self- supporting, build reserve~ for closure and post-closure maintenance, provide financial capability for meeting responsibilities in case of environmental emergencies, provide adequate funding for future capital .improvements, comply with new and changing state and local regulations and fees, and conduct environmental investigations and assessments in connection with the Facility Permit Revision~ and WHEREAS, in order to meet budgeted goals and mandated objectives a rate adjustment is .necessary~ and WHEREAS, the City Clerk has provided the legally required notice and the City Council has conducted a hearing as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the following fees and · charges, hours of operation and procedural changes are hereby adopted and established at the Solid Waste Site. · a) Minimum gate fee, (1/2 Cubic Yard) .............. $ 6.35 /// 1 $ ? 9 i0 11 15 14 15 16 19 90 9.6 III III b) c) d) e) compacted fo~ in a vehicle having an operating compaction device and enclosed body will be charged according to the ~ated capacity of the. body (Per Ton or at ah.eq~uivalent of 945 pounds pgr~,~ubic yard) .............. $72.00 Material delivered', in loose uncompacted state (Per Cubic Yard) ........................... $12.65 Material in the opinion of the Gate Attendant that has been compacted and transferred to another vehicle for the purpose of avoiding the compacted charge, shall be charged at the rate of (Per Ton or at an equivalent of 945 pounds per cubic yard ) ............. $72.00 Tires 1. Automobile, pickup and motorcycle tires, 18 inch wheel size or less in lots of five (5) or less ......... $ 3.10 per tire . Truck tires greater than 18 inch in wheel size in lots of five (5) or less ......... $10.25 per tire . Farm and light construction/ tractor tires .................... $52.00 per tire . Large earthmover (loaders and scrapers) tires ............... $150.00 per tire . Bulk delivery of tires six (6) or more, automobile pickup and motorcycle (Per Cubic Yard) ....................... $25.75 · Bulk delivery of sliced/ shredded or split tires (Per Cubic Yard) ....................... '$25.75 1 9. 6 7 8 9 10 11 19. 13 15 16 17 18 19 :~0 9.1 9.3 25 9.6 27 ~8 f) g) h) i) J) k) Major appliances (accepted only if compressor systems, lubrication lines and freon systems completely removed.) . . . Refrigerators, freezers and other similar refrigeration'.appliances (accepted ogly with certificate.indicating legal refrigerant removal) ........... ,. , o, Washer (clothe~ or dishes) ........... Dryers (clothes) ..................... $15.75 each $15.75 each $15.75 each 4. Kitchen ranges ....................... $15.75 each 5. Water heaters ............. , .......... $15.75 each . Appliances similar to above ................................ $15.75 each City of Ukiah inter-departmental rates. Loose Loads (Per Cubic Yard) .......................... $12.65 Compostibles ( y a rdwa s t e ) . .~~ .~. ~./.~.~. · .~//.~W~-C:{~n%~'~ City of Ukiah franchised ~' ~ refuse collector - inside ~ ~-~ City accounts only. Loose Loads (Per Cubic Yard) .............. $12.65 Compacted. Loads (Per Ton or an equivalent of 755 pounds per Cubic Yard) ............... $63.00 Compostibles (yardwaste) .................. NO CHARGE Tires will be charged as set forth in Section e. Ail volumes computed in cubic yards will be charged in 1/10 cubic yard increments. Compostibles (yardwaste) (Per Cubic Yard) .......................... $ 3.75 At the option of the hauler, disposal fee '.or !~^ ar,~ compacted refuse may be determined from certified weight t a g s. /(-/~ ~;-~'~ ~/~_~ ~ _ ~_~~_/~,/~ ~_/ ~ .2 5 7 8 9 10 11 19. 13 15 16 17 18 9.0 9.1 9.9. 25 26 :~7 9.8 1) Clean woodwaste (unpainted, unprocessed) (Per Cubic Yard) ............. $ 3.75 m) Dumping rate for self-haulers (as hereafter defined) with loads containing. Don-separated recyclable materials or other materials specif~.e~for diversion from th~'landfill mixed with ordina~ refuse or garbage. Loose (Per Cubic Yard) .................... $19.00 Compacted (Per Cubic Yard) ................ $47.50 (or an equivalent of 945 pounds per Cubic Yard) Self-haulers are defined as haulers other than City of Ukiah and County of Mendocino franchised or licensed commercial garbage haulers. Materials classified as recyclable or designated for diversion from the landfill will be those specified from time to time by the City Manager, and posted at the entrance to the landfill facility, and for which appropriate collection bins and/or specific drop-off areas are designated ahead of the landfill dumping pad. The City Manager reserves the right to add, delete or otherwise modify the list of designated recyclable or diverted materials at anYtime. Fees charged are subject to appeal by the payor to the City Manager and City Council on the condition that the payor immediately register a protest with the Disposal Site Gate Attendant. Fees thus paid shall be received under protest and shall be upheld pending a decision on the merit of the appeal. 2. Modification of Hours of Operation of the Ukiah Landfill. Effective August 6, 1994, Regular Business Hours of Operation (open to public) shall be 8100 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., from April 1 to September 30, and 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. October 1 to March 31, Tuesday through Saturday, and closed on nationally recognized holidays. · Early Morning Dumping by Commercial Garbage Collectors PASSED AND ADOPTED this following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: day of ~, 1994, by the ABSTAIN: None Councilmembers ~astin, Malone, Wattenburger and Mayor Schneiter Councilmember Shoemaker · None · 10 11 ATT~. ~ ~ .. ~3 y M .~y, Cit/.~Clerk 14 15 B: i\RES1 FEES. 2 10 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 20 27 · . 28 Fred Schn Mayor 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 18 19 ~0 9.1 9.2 23 9.4 9.5 ~7 9.8 Beginning August 6, 1994, the Ukiah Landfill will be available by special arrangement with the City for early morning dumping by the City of Ukiah Franchise Garbage Collector and Mendocino..Cgunty Licensed or Franchised Garbage · Collectors operating . n the Ukiah landfill servi6e area Dumping prior to re~i~lar business hours shall be in accordance with the following schedule: Tuesdays and days following designated Holidays - 6:00 a.m. to opening for regular business. Wednesdays, Thursdays, and F~idays - 7:00 a.m. to opening for regular business. Saturdays - No earll~ dumping. Sundays and Mondays - Site closed to all dumping. Collectors using the early morning dumping schedules shall reimburse the City of Ukiah for their pro-rata share of hourly costs incurred by City to provide Gate A~tendant/load checking coverage. Pro-rata share will be based upon the City's costs divided by the number of participating collectors. For the period August 6, 1994 to June 30, 1995, the cost is hereby established at $9.38 per hour. Participating haulers shall be billed quarterly in advance for their share of the costs. Beginning July 1, 1995, and prior to each succeeding fiscal year, the City Manager shall review and revise as necessary the hourly rate to be charged during the~ following fiscal year. · BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all fees and charges contained herein shall be effective August 6, 1994. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 97-52 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH MODIFYING RESOLUTION 95-8 REGARDING FEES, CHARGES, AND POLICY CHANGES AT THE UKIAH MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE FACILITY WHEREAS, the Ukiah City Council adopted Resolution 95-28 declaring a solid waste policy that supports the use of the Ukiah Solid Waste Disposal Facility as a regional disposal site for all jurisdictions within Mendocino County during the interim period wherein a Regional Transfer Facility is being sited and constructed; and WHEREAS, the City of Ukiah has obtained a Revised Solid Waste Facility Permit which allows the disposal of up to 190 tons per day of solid waste at the Ukiah Landfill and which will accommodate the entire waste stream within Mendocino County until February 1999; and WHEREAS, the City of Ukiah acknowledges that a team approach is needed to solve and meet our future solid waste needs and that a unified waste stream is needed to achieve reasonable and affordable transportation and tipping fees which all jurisdictions within Mendocino County can enjoy; and WHEREAS, the City of Ukiah desires to offer a competitive tipping fee to commercial refuse collectors/haulers who dispose of refuse for the cities of Willits and Fort Bragg and the County of Mendocino under franchise or permit to encourage these jurisdictions to utilize the Ukiah Landfill; and WHEREAS, the competitive rate is to be applicable only if all the waste stream generated within the County of Mendocino under the control of the cities of Wiilits and Fort Bragg, and the County of Mendocino, excepting the current waste stream of approximately 1,200 tons per year disposed at the South Coast Landfill, is diverted to the Ukiah Landfill for disposal; and WHEREAS, it is proper and just that Ukiah inter-City Departments be charged the same fee which is charged to the public for the disposal of yardwaste and Page 1 of 3 ,_._~?~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 untreated/unpainted woodwaste and that said. fee offsets the expense for the removal and recycling of yardwaste and woodwaste; and WHEREAS, the option currently provided to haulers pursuant to Paragraph K of Resolution No. 95-8 whereby the disposal fee for loose refuse may be determined from certified weight tags is inappropriate and inconsistent with the justification and practice that loose refuse be charged by the cubic yard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council for the City of Ukiah that the following fees, charges, and procedural changes are hereby, adopted and established at the Ukiah Solid Waste Disposal Facility: 1. Should the cities of Fort Bragg and Willits and the County of Mendocino collectively agree that the refuse collected within their jurisdiction by their franchised or permitted collectors/haulers be directed to the Ukiah Landfill for disposal, excluding refuse currently being disposed of at the South Coast Landfill, approximately 1,200 tons per year, after the Willits Landfill closes on or about June 1997, the tipping fee for compacted refuse shall be $63.00 per compacted ton plus the adopted Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority (MSWMA) surcharge. Should any one of the three jurisdictions not elect to have their refuse disposed of at the Ukiah Landfill, the tipping fee shall be $72.00 per compacted ton including a $6.00 MSWMA surcharge pursuant to the provisions of Paragraph b of Resolution No. 95-8. The tipping fee charged to the City of Ukiah's franchised hauler for compacted refuse collected within the City of Ukiah, shall remain at $63.00 per ton of compacted refuse including the $6.00 MSWMA surcharge pursuant to the provisions of Paragraph h of Resolution No. 95-8. · . 2. City of Ukiah inter-Departments shall be charged $3.75 per cubic yard for disposing yardwaste and untreated/unpainted woodwaste effective July 1, 1997. Page 2 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 .10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 '28 . . This provision modifies the provisions of Paragraph g of Resolution No. 95-8. Haulers shall no longer have the option whereby the disposal fee for loose refuse may be determined from certified weight tags. This provision modifies the provisions of Paragraph k of Resolution No. 95-8. A fee of $12.65 per cubic yard shall be charged for disposing loose refuse in ali cases pursuant to the provisions of Paragraphs c, g, an'd h of Resolution No. 95-8. Ali other fees, charges, and provisions established under Resolution No. 95-8 shall remain unchanged. · PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of February, 1997, by the following roll call vote' AYES' Councilmembers Chavez, Ashiku, Kelly, Mastin, and Mayor Malone. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:None. ~ ~1/~~:~ SJ~wl'~lan Malone, Mayor./ ATTEST: Coffeen B. Henderson, City Clerk Page 3 of 3 5 ? 8 9 10 11 14 15 16 17 18 19 9,O 21 9.5 RESOLUTION NO. 98-06 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH MODIFYING RESOLUTION NOS. 95-8 AND 97-52 REGARDING LANDFILL TIPPING FEES AND CHARGES AND DAYS AND HOURS OF OPERATION AT THE UKIAH LANDFILL WHEREAS, the Ukiah City Council adopted Resolution No. 97-52 establishing new tipping fees for 'compacted and loose refuse which would be effective should the cities of Fort Bragg and Willits and the County of Mendocino collectively agree that the refuse collected within their jurisdiction by their franchised or permitted collectors/haulers be directed to the Ukiah Landfill for disposal after the Willits Landfill closed on or about June 1997; and WHEREAS, exceptions where taken to Ukiah's method ., and practice of charging loose refuse on a volume basis for commercial loads and such rate basis and method of charge would substantially increase the disposal costs for the cities of Fort Bragg and Willits; and WHEREAS, a compromise proposal was submitted that would produce an equivalent amount of revenue needed to operate the Ukiah Landfill over the remaining life of the landfill; and WHEREAS, the permitted haulers for the cities of Willits and Fort Bragg and the Count of Mendocino requested that the landfill be opened on Mondays to accommodate their disposal needs; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk has provided the legally required notice and the City Council has conducted a public hearing as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the following tipping fees and charges, and days and hours of operation are hereby adopted and established at the Resolution No. 98-06 Page I of 4 - 1 $ 5 6 ? 9 10 11 12 15 17 19 2O 21 Ukiah Landfill. 1. Should the cities of Fort Bragg and Willits and those portions of the County of Mendocino not currently utilizing the Ukiah Landfill as of the date of this resolution collectively agree that the refuse collected within their jurisdictions by their franchised or permitted collectors/haulers be directed to the Ukiah Landfill for disposal, excluding refuse currently being disposed of at the South Coast Landfill (approximately 1,200 tons per year), after the Willits Landfill closes on or about September 1, 1997, the tipping fee for compacted and loose refuse delivered by the commercial haulers shall be $64.50 per ton plus the adopted Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority (MSWMA) surcharge. Should any one of the three jurisdictions not elect to have their refuse disposed of at the Ukiah Landfill, the · ~ ~ ~O(''''~' ~, ~.~' tipping fees shall be $72.00 per compacted ton i'plu~the..~ adopted $6.00 per ton MSWMA surcharge and $12.65 per cubic yard for loose refuse including the adopted 90.75 per cubic yard MSWMA surcharge pursuant to the provisions of Paragraphs b and c of Resolution No. 95-8. 2. The tipping fees to be charged to those commercial haulers serving the County of Mendocino and currently utilizing the Ukiah Landfill at the time of adoption of this resolution shall be $72.00 per compacted ton including the $6.00 per ton MSWMA surcharge and $12.65 per cubic yard for loose refuse including the 90.75 per cubic yard MSWMA surcharge pursuant to the provisions of Paragraphs b and c of Resolution No. 95-8. 3. The following days and hours of operation for the Ukiah Landfill shall be established to accommodate the needs of the new commercial users and shall be effective when needed and as determined by the Director of Public Works: Reeolution No. 98-06 :~ .~ Page 2 of 4 ;~.-? 1 $ 5 6 ? 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 25 ~.? Open to the public from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. five (5) days per week, Tuesday through Saturday and closed on nationally recognized holidays. Open to permitted or franchised commercial refuse haulers who serve the cities of Ukiah, Fort Bragg, Willits, and the County of Mendocino as follows' Mondays from 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Tuesdays through Fridays 7:00 a.m. to closure of regular business hOurs. Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Days following designated Holidays recognized at the Landfill - 6:00 a.m. to closure of regular business hours. 4. An annual fee of $3,500 shall be charged to the cities of Fort Bragg and Willits to help offset additional expenses that will be incurred by reason of Monday openings. This fee shall be due on September I for 1997 and 1998. 5. The early morning dumping fee as set forth in Paragraph 3 of Resolution No. 95-8 shall be voided only if the conditions as set forth in Paragraph I of this resolution are met. 6. All other fees, charges, and provisions established under Resolution Nos. 95-8 and 97-52 not modified by this Resolution shall remain in effect and unchanged. /// III III III III Resolution No. 98-06 Page 3 of 4 1 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16t;h day of July, 1997, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES' Councilmembers Ashiku, Kelly, Mastin, and Mayor Malone. None. ABSTAIN' None. ABSENT: Councilmember Chavez S he'e~'rid~a n Malone Mayor ATTEST: Col(een B. Hen~lerson City Clerk TIPP[NG2.FEE Resolution No. 98-06 ~ .... Page 4 of 4 .-/ / NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Ukiah City Council will conduct a Public Hearing at their regular meeting of Wednesday, August 5, 1998, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in the Council Chambers located at 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California, to consider a proposal from the City Manager for the adjustment of the Landfill Tipping Fees charged for compacted refuse delivered to the Ukiah Landfill by the commercial garbage collectors serving a portion of the County of Mendocino designated as the "old" service area. Included in "old" service areas are the County environs of Ukiah Valley, Redwood Valley, Potter Valley, Boonville, Anderson Valley, and Hopland. The compacted rate currently charged to Empire Waste, American Waste, and Solid Waste Systems, Inc., who currently serve the waste customers within the "old" service area is $72.00 per ton. This tipping fee includes the Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority (MSWMA) surcharge charged to all solid waste which is landfilled. It is proposed that this tipping fee be changed to $71.50 per ton of compacted refuse. The adjustment will reflect a reduction in the MSWMA surcharge approved by the MSWMA Board of Directors on May 27, 1998. Effective July 1, 1998, the surcharge rate will be changed from $6.00 per ton to $5.50 per ton of refuse landfilled. The $0.50 reduction in the per ton surcharge is equivalent to a $0.06 reduction in the volume based surcharge rate of $0.75 per cubic yard charged to waste which is measured by volume. The compacted tipping fee charged to the "new" service area consisting of the cities of Fort Bragg and Willits and the County Environs of Caspar, Albion, Laytonville, and Covelo is $64.50 per ton plus the adopted MSWMA surcharge. Therefore, a reduction in the MSWMA surcharge is immediately reflected in the total tipping fee charged to the commercial haulers who serve the waste customers within the "new" service area. Because of the pending rate hearing for the annual adjustment in the garbage collection fees charged to Ukiah City residents, it is proposed that the current tipping fee of $63.00 per ton charged to the City of Ukiah's commercial garbage collector not be changed at this time. A change in the current volume based tipping fee of $12.65 charged to self-haulers and other loose solid waste delivered by Solid Waste Systems, Inc., and Empire Waste is .not proposed to be changed. It is proposed that any additional revenue generated at the Landfill by reason of the reduction in the MSWMA surcharge be deposited in the Post-closure Maintenance Fund. The City Manager's Report and Recommendation is available for review by all interested persons in the Office of the City Clerk, Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California, during normal office hours, the City Council encourages customer input and will consider comments received prior to or during the Public Hearing in making their decision in these matters. Anyone wishing the City Council to consider a document exceeding 250 words must submit the original document and seven (7) legible copies to the City Clerk not less than six (6) calendar days prior to the scheduled meeting date. If you challenge the above matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing described in this Notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Council at the time of the Hearing. Please pass this Notice on to your neighbors, friends, or other interested parties. You are encouraged to discuss the project with, express any view you may have, or request additional information from Staff at the Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, 463- 6200. PUBLISHED: JULY 26, 1998 AGENDA SUMMARY ga ITEM NO. DATE: AUGUST 5, 1998 REPORT SUBJECT: APPROVE AMENDMENT TO SOLID WASTE COLLECTION FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS, INC. Submitted for the City Council's approval is an amendment to the Collection Franchise Agreement with Solid Waste Systems, Inc., that was executed on March 23, 1992, and entitled "Collection, Transportation, and Disposal of Garbage, Refuse, and Rubbish, and Recycling of Recyclable Materials from within the City of Ukiah", (Franchise Agreement). This amendment modifies the term of the Franchise Agreement whereby its term runs concurrently with the term of the contract executed by the City and Solid Waste Systems, Inc., on May 7, 1998, and entitled "Transfer Station Contract between City of Ukiah and Solid Waste Systems, Inc." (Transfer Station Contract). Pursuant to the provisions of Article 15 of the Transfer Station Contract the City agreed to amend the Franchise Agreement whereby the date for the termination of the Franchise Agreement shall be extended to the date for the termination of the Transfer Station Contract. These provisions will not prohibit the contractor and the City from extending the Franchise Agreement beyond the termination of the Transfer Station Contract. The amendment submitted for approval modifies Article 2 of the Franchise Agreement. It establishes a term of 10 years from the date of start of operation of the Transfer Station and provides an extension of another 10 years if the Transfer Station Contract is extended an additional 10 years pursuant to the provisions of the Transfer Station Contract. The Contract can be terminated earlier pursuant to the provisions of Paragraph 20 of the Franchise Agreement. This Amendment also voids Section I of the Amendment executed on May 9, 1997, which provided a five (5) year extension to the Franchise Agreement if the construction of a recycling facility and redemption center was constructed by the contractor at their Taylor Drive site within one year from the date of approval of the Amendment. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the Amendment to the Agreement entitled "Contract for Collection, Transportation, and Disposal of Garbage, Refuse, and Rubbish, and Recycling of Recyclable Materials from within the City of Ukiah", executed on March 23, 1992, and authorize the Mayor to execute the Amendment. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: None. The extension of the term of the Franchise Agreement to coincide with the term of the Transfer Station Contract is a contractual obligation. Requested by: Rick H. Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Prepared by: Rick H. Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: 1. Amendment for approval. 2. Portions of the Transfer Station Contract. 3. Portions of the Franchise Agreement. 4. Amendment executed May 9, 1997. APPROVED: '~{~) ~t ,-~-- R:I\LANDFILL:kkAFRANCHiSE.AGR Candace Horsley, City ~anager AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT ENTITLED "CONTRACT FOR COLLECTION, TRANSPORTATION AND DISPOSAL OF GARBAGE, REFUSE, AND RUBBISH, AND RECYCLING OF RECYCLABLE MATERIALS FROM WITHIN THE CITY OF UKIAH", EXECUTED ON MARCH 23, 1992. RECITALS: 1. Solid Waste Systems, Inc. ("Contractor"), and the City of Ukiah ("City"), have executed an agreement dated March 23, 1992 and entitled "Contract for Collection, Transportation and Disposal of Garbage, Refuse and Rubbish and Recycling of Recyclable Materials from Within the City of Ukiah" (the "Franchise Agreement"); 2. The Contractor and the City also have entered a contract executed on May 7, 1998, and entitled "Transfer Station Contract Between City of Ukiah and Solid Waste Systems, Inc." ("Transfer Station Contract"); 3. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 15 of the Transfer Station Contract the City has agreed to amend the Franchise Agreement whereby the date for the termination of the Franchise Agreement shall be extended to the date for the termination of the Transfer Station Contract; provided, however, that nothing in Article 15 shall prohibit the contractor and City from extending the Franchise Agreement beyond the termination of the Transfer Station Contract. 4. On May 9, 1997, the parties amended the Franchise Agreement by executing the Amendment to the Agreement entitled "Contract for Collection, Transportation and Disposal of Garbage, Refuse and Rubbish, and Recycling of Recyclable Materials from within the City of Ukiah, executed on March 23, 1992 ("Amendment"). AGREEMENT: Now, therefore, in consideration of the above recited facts, the City and the contractor hereby agree to the following: 1. Section I of Amendment is hereby voided. 2. Article 2, "Term of the Contract", of the Franchise Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: "The term of this Agreement shall be for a period of 10 years from the date of the start of operation of the Transfer Station pursuant to Section 2.02 of the "Transfer Station Contract" between the City of Ukiah and Solid Waste Systems, Inc., executed on May 7, 1998, unless terminated earlier pursuant to Paragraph 20 of this Agreement. The term of this Agreement shall be extended an additional 10 years on the same terms and conditions if the Transfer Station Contract is extended an additional 10 years pursuant to the provisions of Article 14 of the Transfer Station Contract. Nothing in this Agreement shall prohibit the parties from extending this Agreement beyond the termination of the Transfer Station Contract. Upon the mutual written agreement of the parties, this Agreement may be extended for such additional term or terms as the parties shall agree." 3. Upon execution of this Agreement, the provisions of this second amendment to the Franchise Agreement shall become effective and shall supersede and replace the provisions in Section I of the Amendment and Article 2 of the Franchise Agreement. Unless expressly modified by this Agreement all other provisions of the Franchise Agreement and the Amendment shall remain in full force and effect. 4. This Agreement may be executed in one or more duplicate originals, each bearing the original signatures of the parties. When so executed, each such duplicate original shall be admissible to prove the existence and terms of this Agreement. In witness whereof, the City and the Contractor have executed this Amendment this day of , 1998, in Ukiah, California. SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS, INC. CITY OF UKIAH Jim Salyers, President ATTEST: Secretary Marie Ulvila, City Clerk B: 1 ~,GREEM ENT.2 SOLIDWASTE.2 TRANSFER STATION CONTRACT BETWEEN CITY OF UKIAH SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS, INC. are not intended to define or limit the scope of any provision of this Contract. 13.10. A~ndment or Waiver. Neither this Contract nor any provision hereof may be changed, modified, amended or waived except by written instrument signed by the Parties. 13.11. InteGration. This Contract and the Franchise AGreement contain the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the transactions contemplated hereby. This Contract shall completely and fully supersede all prior understandings and agreements between the Parties with respect to such transactions, includinG those contained in the "Offer for Construction and Operation and Solid Waste Transportation and Disposal" previously signed by Contractor and approved by the City Council of the City. 13.12. Execution in Counterparts. This Contract may be executed in any number of original counterparts. All such counterparts shall constitute but one and the same Contract. 13.13 No Third Party Beneficiaries Intended. The terms of this Contract are intended for the benefit of Contractor, City and Owner only and not for the benefit of any third parties. Third party beneficiaries are not created or intended. ARTICLE 14. TERM 14.01. Term Qf Contract. The term of the Contract shall continue for ten (10) years beginning on the date of the start of operation of the Transfer Station pursuant to Section 2.02, unless terminated earlier pursuant to terms of the Contract. The term of the Contract shall be automatically extended for an additional term of ten (10) years on the same terms and conditions unless, at least one hundred eighty (180) days prior to the end of the initial ten (10) year term, the City gives Contractor written notice of its intent that the Contract not be so extended; provided, however, that the Contract shall not automatically be extended for an additional term of ten (10) years, unless Contractor provides written notice of the Contract termination date to City not earlier than 280 days and not later than 220 prior to the end of the initial ten (10) year term. If the City.Gives such notice, the Contract shall terminate at the end of the initial ten year term. ARTICLE 15. CONDITION TO CONTRACT In entering this Contract, City agrees to amend the Franchise Agreement extending the date for the termination of the Franchise Agreement to the date on which the term of this Contract terminates; provided, however, that nothing in this Article 15,shall prohibit the parties from extending the Franchise Agreement beyond the termination of this Contract. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Contract was executed by the parties as of the date first written in above. Date: ~/~'~ ~ , 199~ "City" THE CITY OF UKIAH, a municipal corpor~ . ~~ I t s: Mayo r Date: ~ ~ , 199~ _ DaSe: ~ay 7 , 1998 Jim S~%~ei~s, P~sident Date: .... · -)';,' /~ , 1998 / F: \U\Agrr, t s98 \TransS.wpd May 4, 1 996 "Contractor,, SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS, INC., a California corporation , Secretary "Owner', NORTH BAY CORPORATION, a California corpprat_ion President 46 CONTRACT V 3R COLLECTION, TRANSPORTATION AND DISPOSAL OF C,~AGE, REFUSE, AND RUBBISH, AND RECYCLING OF RECYCLABLE MATERIALS FROM WITHIN THE CITY OF UKIAH This Agreement is entered into on ~arch 23 , 1992, in Ukiah, California by and between the City of Ukiah, a municipal corporation with its principal place of business located at 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California 95482 ("City"), and Solid Wastes Sys- terns, Inc., a California corporation with its principal place of business located at 940 Waugh Lane, Ukiah, California 95482 ("Contractor"). In consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. FRANCHISE Contractor is hereby granted the sole Nasd exclusive right and franchise to collect, transport and dispose of refuse, garbage and rubbish, and to recycle recyclable materials generated by all sources within the corporate limits of the City of Ukiah, in accordance with the provisions of the. Ukiah Municipal Code and state law for the term specified in Ar- ticle 2 hereof. Enforcement of such exclusive right, where requested by the Contractor, shall be at Contractor's expense. 2. TERM OF THE CONTRACT · The term of this agreement, shall be for ten (10) years commencing on April 1 , 1992, and terminating at mid-ight on Y~arch 31 ,2002, unless terminated earlier pur- suant to paragraph 20 herein; provided, however, that at the end of said ten year term, the agreement shall be extended for an additional term of five (5) years on the same terms and conditions, unless either part./gives notice of termination ninety (90) days prior to midnight ~Xlarch 31, 2002. At the election of Contractor and with the concurrence in writing of City, this Agreement can be extended for such additional term or terms as the parties shall agree. 3. AGREEMENT TO PERFORM WQRK - Contractor agrees to perform the work of collecting, transporting and disposing of all refuse, garbage and rubbish generated by all sources within the corporate City limits of the City of Ukiah, said collection being mandatory as to residential units, all in the manner, at the times and under the rules and conditions set forth in the Specification dated Septem- ber 14, 1974, a copy of which is attached hereto, designated Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. Contractor further agrees to comply with the condi- tions of Chapter 5 of Division 5 of the Municipal Code. Section 15 of the aforementioned specifications is modified hereby to provide that the rates shall be as set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference or as may be modified in accor- dance with this Agreement hereafter. 4. PAYMENT Contractor just received a rate adjustment expected to be effective until June 1993. Beginning July 1, 1993, Contractor shall be paid based on rates that will increase each year for the next two years by an amount equivalent to 75% of the percentage change from the previous year in the U.S. Department of Labor ("DOL"), Bureau of Statistics, Consumer Price Index ("CPI"), U.S. Cities Average, March to March ("Contract CPI"). In addition, the City shall add to the garbage rate any amounts necessary to fully compensate the Con- tractor for any increase in the gate fee charged to the ContraCtor for disposing of refuse at the City owned landfill. Prior to the third year, commencing on July 1, 1995, the City Coun- cil shall conduct a rate hearing pursuant to UCC sections 3950-3957 to determine what, if any, adjustment should be made to the garbage collection rates in the third or subsequent years, taking into consideration the annual audits of the Contra. ctor's operations and all other factors deemed relevant by the City Council. Thereafter, unless the City Council should determine otherwise at any rate hearing conducted pursuav, t to Ukiah City Code (UCC) sections 3950-3957, the rates shall automatically increase annually every two years by the Contract CPI and any ix~crease in the gate fees charged to the COntractor at the landfill. The City Council shall conduct a rate hcaying in every third year pursuant to UCC sections 3950-3957. 5. FRANCHISE PAYMENTS Contractor agrees to pay to City as and for the fights granted hereunder an amount equal to fifteen percent (15%) of the Contractor's annual gross revenue from Contractor's operation under this Contract. Section 13 of Exhibit "A" is incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 6. GARBAGE COLLECTION BILLING City has responsibility for all residential and commercial garbage collection billing. The City shall receive a fee of three percent (3%) of the said amounts billed and collected for this service, all in accordance with Section 12 of Exhibit "A". 7. COLLECTION OF STREET CONTAINERS A. Contractor shall make regular collections from all City-owned street refuse con- tainers in the downtown area located on public streets or sidewalks without charge to City. The City shall maintain all its refuse containers in the downtown area. B. Contractor shall provide collection and recycling services and recycling con- tainers to the City and all properties owned by the City free of charge. Contractor shall maintain in good condition all recycling containers provided to the City without charge to the City. 8. SCOPE OF RECYCLING SERVICES A. C~. rbside Recycling. Under a Recycling Service Manager, Contractor shall per- form curbside recycling services in the City of Ukiah as follows: (i) Collection. From all residential units that receive individual can garbage service Contractor shall collect and remove all Recyclable Materials, which are segregated arid placed in or adjacent to recycling containers at the curbside on public streets and from commercial and multi-family residential customer shall collect and remove all Recyclable Materials which are segregated and placed in recycling containers at a location mutually acceptable to the City and Contractor. In addition, Contractor shall separately collect all yard waste set out for collection by residential or commercial customers on the usual col- lection day, provided that the yard waste is placed in a container clearly identifiable as con- taining yard waste, or, in the case of branches, cut to lengths of four feet or less and neatly bound together. (ii) Recyclable Materials Defined. For the purposes of this Agreement, Recyclable Materials has the meaning provided in UCC Section 4480 K, 1-6 and includes yard waste. "Yard waste" means yard waste which consists of discarded natural vegetative substances suitable for decomposition into a usable agricultural soil amendment, as deter- mined by the City Manager or his or her designee, not including household food waste. (iii) Time of Collection. Contractor shall collect the Recyclable Materials placed at the curbside for collection once each week, regardless of weather conditions. To the extent possible, collection will be on the same day of the week as garbage collection service. Collection schedules need not be maintained on the following holidays: January 1, Thanksgiving, and December 25. Collection which would normally occur on such holidays shall be rescheduled as mutually agreed upon by Contractor and City's Recycling Coor- dinator. (iv) Container Purcha3e and Distribution. (1) Residential containers. Contractor shall purchase, at 'Contractor's sole cost and expense, and shall distribute one set of recycling containers to all residential units. Residential containers are described in Exhibit C entitled "Recycling Containers", at- tached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, or other similar containers mutually agreed upon by Contractor and City's Recycling Coordinator. Follbwing the dis- tribution of containers as provided herein, Contractor shall not be required to purchase or provide additional recycling containers unless requested to do so by the City's Recycling Coordinator. The ownership of the recycling containers purchased by Contractor ugder this Agreement shall be and remain with Contractor, unless this Agreement is terminated 4 as provided in paragraph 20. (2) Commercial and multi-family unit containers. Contractor shall provide suitable recycling containers for all commercial, roll-off box and multi-family gar- bage customers to accomodate all Recyclable Materials as further provided herein. (a) Small quantity containers. For small quantities of Recycl- able Materials, the commercial recycling containers may be the same as those used for single-family residences and shall be provided to commercial customers on the same terms as they are provided to residential customers under subsection 8.A (iv)(1). (b) Large quantity co.ntainers. For larger quantities of Recycl- able Materials, including yard waste, the commercial or multi-family recycling containers shall be wheeled plastic containers, dedicated recycling dumpster-type containers, sec- tioned dumpster-type containers, or other container systems approved by the City Recy- cling Coordinator. For these types of containers, the Contractor may charge a monthly rental fee not to exceed the actual cost of providing and maintaining the container. The Contractor shall provide the City with a current list of such rental charges. After the An- nual Audit due March 15, 1993, the City Council may consider whether and shall have the right to require the Contractor to use all or part of the income received from the sale of Recycled Materials collected from commercial customers to reduce the rental charge for large quantity commercial recycling containers. (v) Replacement of Containers. The parties acknowledge that from time to time a customer .may damage or destroy the small quantity recycling containers supplied by Contractor. City agrees that it will encourage the customer to replace said recycling con- tainers at the expense of the customer. To this end, Contractor shall make sets of three (3) such recycling containers available for purchase by any customer at a price not to exceed Contractor's actual cost for such containers. The parties also acknowledge that from time to time containers may be stolen from the curb. When notified of such occurrence, Con- tractor shall replace up to one set of three (3) containers per year for any one customer, at no charge to the customer. (vi) Transportation of Materials. Contractor shall transport recyclable materials to a central location approved by the City Recycling Coordinator for sorting and preparation for sale or recycling. Unless approved by the Recycling Coordinator, it shall constitute a material breach and grounds for termination of this Agreement for Contractor to dispose of any recyclable materials at a landfill or in any other fashion that does not guarantee the recycling of the collected materials. (vii) Labor and Costs. Contractor shall, at its sole cost and expense, except as otherwise provided herein, furnish all labor and equipment required to perform curbside collection pursuant to this Agreement. (viii) Missed Pick-ops. In case of a missed pick-up called in by a resident, Contractor shall collect the Recyclable Materials from such resident within twenty-four (24) hours. All calls relating to missed pick-ups shall be logged in by Contractor and such log shall be available for inspection by City. If the missed pick-up was caused by the cus- tomer, the cost of the subsequent collection may be charged to the customer. B. Public Awareness Program. Contractor shall develop and implement that por- tion of the Public Awareness Program designated "Contractor's Responsibilities" described in Exhibit D, entitled "Public Awareness Program", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. C. Reports. Contractor shall file with the City written reports of Contractor's per- formance under this Agreement as more particularly set forth in Exhibit E, entitled "Reports", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. D. Sale of Recyclable Materials. Contractor shall sell all Recyclable Materials col- lected from the curbside by Contractor pursuant to this Agreement at fair market value. Revenue obtained from such sales shall be retained by Contractor but shall be considered by the City Council as off-setting income, when the City Council conducts rate hearings as provided in paragraph 4 of this Agreement and sets rates for refuse collection and recy- cling. E. Expansion of Program. Contractor and the City shall continue developing and implementing plans and schedules for expanding the recycling program in connection with the development of a waste management plan under Chapter 1095 of the Statutes of 1989 ("AB 939"). 9. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE Contractor shall perform those services set forth in Section 8 of this Agreement in accordance with a schedule to be established by the City Manager or his designee after consultation with the Contractor. In the event unforeseen circumstances arise which would cause a delay in performance, said Schedule of Performance may be modified accordingly by the mutual written agreement of City and Contractor. City's Recycling Coordinator is authorized to modify said Schedule of Performance on behalf of City. 10. CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES A. Public Awareness Program. City shall participate in the Public Awareness Program as provided in Exhibit D of this Agreement. B. Protection of Materials. City agrees to take such steps as it deems necessary to protect Contractor's ownership of all Recyclable Materials placed at the curbside for col- lection by Contractor under the terms of this Agreement, including enforcement of its anti-scavenging ordinance (Ordinance No. 893). Any enforcement at Contractor's request shall be at Contractor's expense. ..MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 11. PERSONAL EQUIPMENT Contractor shall acquire, provide, maintain and repair at its sole cost and expense such equipment, materials, supplies, etc. as Contractor needs for its use for the proper con- duct of the aforesaid services which are not simply tools and other instrumentalities provided customarily by employees. 12. COMPLIANCE Contractor, in the conduct of the services contemplated hereunder, shall comply with all statutes, State or Federal, and all ordinances, rules and regulations enacted or issued by the City Council of the City of Ukiah. 13. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR Both parties hereto in the performance of this agreement will be acting in an inde- pendent capacity and not as agents, employees, partners, or joint ventures of one another. Neither Contractor nor its employees are employees of City and are not entitled to any of the rights, benefits or privileges of City employees including, but not limited to, medical or workers' compensation insurance furnished by City. The parties intend to and have en- tered into a bona fide independent contract and nothing herein is a subterfuge to avoid making the Contractor an employee of the City. Contractor agrees to provide its employees with all legally required benefits and to withhold from their wages all taxes as required by law. Contractor agrees to indemnify and hold City harmless from and against any claim for unpaid taxes or benefits which are based in whole or in part on a claim that Contractor's employees are City's employees. 14. HOLD HARMLESS To the maximum extent permitted by law Contractor shall assume the defense of, and indemnify and save harmless, thc City and each and every officer, employee and agent thereof from all suits, actions, damages, claims, or loss of every name and description to which thc City may be subjected or put because of or arising out of Contractor's perfor- mance under this Agreement. Contractor shall have no duty to indemnify City for claims of damage caused by the active and sole negligence of City and its officers or employees. In providing the indemnification of City provided in this Agreement, Contractor agrees to provide for all costs of any necessary legal defense including, but not limited to, expert wit- ness fees and other litigation expenses, and all attorneys' fees incurred in defending or deemed by City necessary to defend any claim, whether actually filed in any court or not. 15. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS 8 Contractor shall comply with the insurance requirements contained in the attached Exhibit F which is incorporated herein by reference. 16. AUDIT Contractor shall maintain full and accurate books of account for its operations un- der this Agreement in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, at its principal office located at 940 Waugh Lane, Ukiah, California, and the City, its officers, agents or employees shall have the right to inspect and examine all such books and support- ing records during normal business hours. Contractor shall provide the City with an annual audit of Contractor's books and records pertaining to all the operations covered by this Agreement, on or before March 15 of each year. The audit shall cover the audit period January ! to December 31. The audit shall be prepared by an independent Certified Public Accountant satisfactory to both parties, and shall be paid for by Contractor. The auditor shall prepare a report with opinions showing the income, expenses, liabilities, and assets of the operations covered by this Agreement in accordance with generally accepted account- ing principles. Each year's audit and report shall be submitted to the City Manager or other person designated by him or her for his/her review. The report shall include a separate schedule of all income and expenses of the recycling operations. 17. ASSIGNMENT The Contractor shall not directly or indirectly, voluntarily or involuntarily assign, mortgage, pledge, or encumber any interest in all or part of this contract and shall not transfer any controlling stock or ownership interest in Solid Wastes Systems, Inc. or take any other action which would result in any individual or entity other than Contractor as it existed on the effective date of this Agreement providing services hereunder without the prior written consent of the City Council. The City Council shall have the right to deter- mine in its sole discretion whether to approve, conditionally approve or deny any request by Contractor for approval under this paragraph. Any action requiring City Council ap- proval under this paragraph that occurs without such approval shall give City the right to terminate this Agreement without prior notice to Contractor or its successors or assigns. 18. INSOLVENCY OF CO~CTOR-TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT Either the appointment of a receiver to take possession of all or substantially all of the assets of Contractor, or a general assignment by Contractor for the benefit of creditors, or any action taken by or suffered by Contractor under any insolvency or bankruptcy act shall constitute a breach of this Agreement by Contractor and shall, at the option of City, provide it with the right to terminate this Agreement without prior notice to Contractor or its successors or assigns. 19. PERMITS AND LICENSES Contractor, at its sole expense, shall obtain and maintain throughout the term of this Agreement all permits, licenses and approvals necessary or required for Contractor to per- form the work and services described herein, including, but not limited to, a business license from the City. 20. TERMINATION A. Except as otherwise specifically provided elsewhere in this Agreement, in the event Contractor materially defaults in the performance of any of the material covenants or agreements to be kept, done or performed by it under the terms of this Agreement, City shall notify Contractor in writing of the nature of such default. Within thirty (30) days fol- lowing such notice: (i) Contractor shall correct the default; or (ii) In the case of a default not capable of being corrected within thirty (30) days, Contractor shall commence correcting the default within thirty (30) days of City's notification thereof, and thereafter correct the default with diligence. B. If Contractor fails to correct the default as provided above, City, without further notice, shall have all of the following rights and remedies which City may exercise singly or in combination: (i) The right to declare that this Agreement together with all rights granted 10 -~~ Contractor hereunder are terminated, effective upon such date as City shall designate; (ii) The right to license others to perform the services otherwise to be per- formed by Contractor hereunder, or to perform such services itself; and (iii) The right to rent or lease the equipment from Contractor for the pur- pose of collecting, transporting and processing garbage and/or recyclables which Contrac- tor is obligated to collect, transport and process pursuant to this Agreement, for a period not to exceed eighteen (18) months. In the case of equipment not owned by Contractor, Contractor shall assign the City, to the extent Contractor is permitted to do so under the in- strument pursuant to which Contractor possesses such equipment, the fight to possess the equipment. If City exercises its fights under this subsection B, City shall pay the Contractor the reasonable rental value of the equipment so taken for the period of the City's posses- sion thereof. (iv) The fight to immediate possession and ownership of all containers furnished by Contractor under paragraph 8A(iv). The City shall pay Contractor for such containers the lesser of fair market value or an amount computed as follows: divide the purchase price of the containers by 144 and multiply the result by the number of full months that have elapsed since February 15, 1990, at the date Contractor's fight to perform under this Agreement is terminated. C. In the event City materially defaults in the performance of any of the material covenants or agreements to be kept, done or performed by it under the terms of this Agree- ment, Contractor shall notify City in writing of the nature of such default. Within thirty (30) days following such notice: (i) City shall correct the default; or (ii) In the case of a default not capable of being corrected within thirty (30) days, City shall commence correcting the default within thirty (30) days of Contractor's notification thereof, and thereafter correct the default with diligence. D. If City fails to correct the default as provided above, Contractor, without further notice, shall have all of the following fights and remedies which Contractor may exercise singly or in combination: (i) The right to declare that this Agreement together with all fights granted City hereunder terminated; and (ii) The fight to bring suit against the City for breach of contract. 21. PERFORMANCE BOND The Contractor shall provide and continue in force throughout the life of the agree- ment the bond of a surety company or its equivalent approved by City in the amount of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) conditioned upon the faithful performance by Con- tractor of each and every term covenant and condition of this Contract by Contractor agreed to bc performed. 22. WORKER'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE Before beginning the work the Contractor shall furnish to the City satisfactory proof that it has secured, for the period covered by the work under this contract, full payment of compensation to all persons whom it may employ directly or through subcontractors, in car- tying out the work contemplated under this contract, in accordance with the "Worker's Compensation and Insurance Act," Division IV of the Labor Code of the State of Califor- nia and any acts amendatory thereof. Such insurance shall be maintained in full force and effect, during the period covered by this contract. The Contractor shall sign and file with the City a Worker's Compensation Certifi- cate prior to performing any work. 23. INSPECTION The City, its officers, agents or employees shall at all times have the right to inspect and observe every aspect of Contractor's business operation to determine whether the serv- ices being provided by Contractor are being performed in a workmanlike and professional manner. In exercising this right, Contractor shall provide the City with access to all of its business facilities so that the City, its officers, agents or employees can observe every aspect 12 of Contractor's business operation. 24. PATENTS The Contractor shall assume all responsibilities arising from the use of patented materials, equipment, devices, or processes used on or incorporated in performing the work or providing the services required under this Agreement. 25. SUBCONTRACTING Contractor shall not subcontract with any independent Contractor to perform the work or services required under this Agreement without the express written consent of City. If the City authorizes a subcontractor to perform any work or services under this Agreement and said subcontractor does not perform said work or services to the satisfac- tion of the City Manager, the subcontractor shall immediately be removed from performing said work or services upon receipt by Contractor of the City Manager's written request to do so and said subcontractor shall not be employed again by Contractor to perform any work under this Agreement. 26. PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY The Contractor shall so conduct its operations so as to cause the least possible obstruction and inconvenience to the public and to traffic. 27. LAWS The Contractor shall keep itself fully informed of all existing and future State, Federal and Municipal laws and regulations which in any manner affect those engaged or employed in the work, or the materials used in the work, or which in any way affect the conduct of the work, and of all such orders and decrees of administrative bodies or courts having any jurisdiction or authority over the same, and adhere thereto. 28. WAIVER OR MODIFICATION No waiver, alteration, or modification of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be binding unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of both parties to this Agreement. 13 29. GOVERNING LAW This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. 30. PREVIOUS AGREEMENT Any and all existing statement or agreements, whether oral or written, or renewals thereof, between the parties hereto, covering the same subject matter, are hereby canceled and superseded by this Agreement and such prior agreement shall have no further force or effect. 31. PARAGRAPH HEADINGS The paragraph headings contained herein are for convenience and reference only and are not intended to define or limit the scope of this Agreement. 32. NOTICE Whenever notice to a party is required by this Agreement, it shall be deemed given when deposited with proper address and postage affixed thereto in the U.S. Mail or when personally delivered as follows: CITY: UKIAH CIVIC CENTER 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 ATI'N: City Manager CONTRACTOR: JAMES SALYERS, President Solid Wastes Systems, Inc. 940 Waugh Lane Ukiah, CA 95482 33. DUPLICATE ORIGINALS This Agreement may be executed in one or more duplicate originals bearing the original signature of both parties and when so executed any such duplicate original shall be admissible as proof of the existence and terms of the Agreement between the parties. 34. FORUM SELECTION Contractor and City stipulate and agree that any litigation relating to the enforce- ment or interpretation of this Agreement, arising out of Contractor's performance or relat- lng in any way to the work shall be brought in Mendocino County and that venue will lie in Mendocino County. 35. ALrITIO~ Contractor warrants that James Salyers has been duly authorized by Contractor to enter into this contract on behalf of Contractor. 15 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City of Ukiah and Contractor have executed this Agree- ment this 23 day of lvlarch ,1992 in Ukiah, California. SOLID WASTES SYSTEMS, INC. 'JAM~Y ERS,' President (S:\FROMLISA\U\CONT~RECYCLE) CITY OF UKIAH /~ I er Date: ~,~//o~- _~// ~ ~ C--A~HY ICKAY,~~y Clerk 16 AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT ENTITLED "CONTRACT FOR COLLECTION, TRANSPORTATION, AND DISPOSAL OF GARBAGE, REFUSE, AND RUBBISH, AND RECYCLING OF RECYCLABLE MATERIALS FROM WITHIN THE CITY OF UKIAH", EXECUTED ON MARCH 23, 1992 WHEREAS, Solid Waste Systems, Inc., (the "Contractor"), has been granted the sole and exclusive right and franchise to collect, transport, and dispose of refuse, garbage and rubbish, and to collect and recycle for market recyclable materials, generated by all sources within the corporate limits of the City of Ukiah (the "City"), pursuant to the provisions of an agreement executed on March 23, 1992, and entitled "Contract for Collection, Transportation and Disposal of Garbage, Refuse and Rubbish and Recycling of Recyclable Materials from Within the City of Ukiah" (the "Agreement"); WHEREAS, the Contractor desires that the terms of the Agreement be extended five (5) years thereby permitting the Contractor to amortize the cost of contemplated improvements at the Contractor's place of business from which he provides service to Ukiah, and WHEREAS, the contemplated improvements will enhance recycling programs that benefit the City of ukiah. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the facts as recited above, the City and the Contractor hereby agree to amend the Agreement by incorporating the following amendments' ' AMENDMENTS , In the event the Contractor, within one (1) year from the date of this Agreement is executed, obtains all required permits and approvals and commences construction of a recycling facility and redemption center at the Contractor's Taylor Drive site in substantial conformance to ti ~e 'facility depicted in Exhibit "A", attached and incorporated herein by reference, and completes construction within 180 days thereafter the five (5) year term stated in Article 2 of the Agreement shall be changed to a ten (10) year term and the date stated in Article 2 of the Agreement as the date the term of the Agreement terminates shall be changed from Midnight, March 31, 2002, to Midnight, March 31, 2007. , Section 16 of the Agreement is amended to provide that the Contractor shall also be obligated to maintain books of account and to provide the audit described in that Section for any other entity which is legally controlled by the Contractor and which performs any of the obligations of the Contractor under the Agreement. The Contractor warrants that ~-/z~4~-~< ~., ~./(/Ef2-.¢ has been duly authorized by the Contractor to execute this Amer)/dment on behalf of the Contractor. Upon execution of this Amendment, the provisions of this Amendment shall become binding upon both parties of the Agreement and shall modify any conflicting provisions of the Agreement, pursuant to the provisions of Paragraph 28 of the Agreement. In w,:~ness w~, the City and the Contractor have executed this Amendment this ~'¢~/" day of ,/¢-~7 , 1997, in Ukiah California. SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS, INC. CITY OF UKIAH ATTEST: Colleen B. Henderson City Clerk Candace Horsley, City ager B:TRANSFER.2 AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 8b DATE: AUGUST 5, 1998 REPORT SUBJECT: PRESENTATION OF RESIDENT SURVEY AND RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION OPENING MARLENE STREET TO TWO-WAY TRAFFIC Presented for the City Council's consideration are the results of a survey submitted to the residents within the Marlene, Lorraine, and Betty Streets neighborhood. The survey canvassed the residents' opinions regarding the effectiveness of the one-way opening on Marlene Street at Orchard Avenue, and the speed humps on Betty and Lorraine Streets. The survey included several options for each traffic calming measure such as leaving the installation as is or modifying it in some manner. The results of the survey are presented in Attachment No. 3. This survey was conducted at the request of the City Manager. Concerning the speed humps on Lorraine and Betty Streets, the majority of respondents preferred that the speed humps remain in place. Of the 131 questionnaires distributed, 61 responded concerning the speed humps on Lorraine and 56 responded concerning the speed humps on Betty Street. The options listed were: A) leave the speed humps as is; B) remove all speed humps; C) remove specified speed humps; and D) other. Seventy-nine percent (79%) of the respondents preferred that the speed humps remain on Lorraine Street, and eighty-eight percent (88%) of the respondents preferred that the speed humps remain on Betty Street. CONTINUED ON PAGE 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution reopening Marlene Street at Orchard Avenue to two-way traffic and direct Staff to construct two speed humps on Marlene Street between Orchard Avenue and Lorraine Street. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Take other action deemed appropriate by the City Council. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Marlene, Betty, and Lorraine Streets neighborhood. Traffic Engineering Committee Rick H. Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Candace Horsley, City Manager I . 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Resolution. Questionnaire. Survey results. Correspondence to survey participants. Correspondence from residents subsequent to survey. Staff memorandum. APPROVED: R: 1 ~PVV:kk AMARLENE Candace Horsley, G~ity Manager Presentation of Resident Survey and Recommendation to Adopt Resolution Opening Marlene Street to Two-way Traffic August 5, 1998 Page 2 The survey results regarding the one-way opening on Marlene Street at Orchard Avenue are not as conclusive as the results for the speed humps. The options listed in the questionnaire were: A) leave half barricade as is; B) install full barricade across Marlene Street; C) remove the barricade and reopen Marlene to two-way traffic; D) remove the barricade as in C and install speed humps on Marlene Street between Orchard Avenue and Lorraine Street; or E) other. No one option carried a majority of the respondents, however, Options C (21.5% in favor) and D (35.4% in favor) are similar and, when combining the results for these two options, approximately 57% of the respondents supported the reopening of Marlene Street to two-way traffic. Approximately 29% of the respondents prefer that the one-way opening remain. In consideration of several reports received by Staff that some motorists are intentionally ignoring the posted one-way entrance and entering the intersection in front of opposing traffic, and given the results of the survey and the combined support for options C and D, the Traffic Engineering Committee recommends that Marlene Street at Orchard Avenue be reopened to two-way traffic and that two speed humps be constructed on Marlene Street between Orchard Avenue and Lorraine Street. Attached to this report is a resolution which would, if adopted, reopen Marlene Street at Orchard Avenue to two-way traffic. Also, attached to this report are copies of correspondence received subsequent to the survey. RHK:kk R: 1 \PVV AM ARLENE RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH REOPENING MARLENE STREET AT ORCHARD AVENUE TO TWO-WAY TRAFFIC WHEREAS, the City Council may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution regulating vehicular movement on highways and streets within the City's jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of Article 3, Chapter 1, Division 11, of the State Vehicle Code; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 97-75 adopted on May 21, 1997, established the opening of Marlene Street at Orchard Avenue as one-way for eastbound traffic and said resolution was adopted for the purpose of mitigating traffic impacts resulting from the commercial development in the Airport Industrial Park; and WHEREAS, a majority of residents responding to a survey support the reopening of Marlene Street at Orchard Avenue to two-way traffic and the Traffic Engineering Committee (Traffic Engineer) concurs with the majority of the survey respondents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Ukiah City Council that Resolution No. 97-75 is hereby voided and the opening of Marlene Street at Orchard Avenue is reopened to two-way traffic. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of August, 1998, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Sheridan Malone, Mayor Marie Ulvila, City Clerk B:I\RES1 MARLENE Resolution No. 98- Page 1 of 1 June 8, 1998 RE' ,;. · Dear Resident: 300 SEMJNARYAVE., UKIAH, CA 95482-5400 · /kDMIN. 707/463-6200 · PUBLIC SAFETY 463-6;242/6274 · FAX # 707/46:J-6204 · Marlene Street Closure at Orchard Avenue Speed Humps on Betty Street and Lorraine Street Last year, as a result of traffic safety concerns expressed by many citizens and after several public hearings concerning the traffic issues and resident's preferences, the barricade on Marlene Street at Orchard Avenue, the speed humps on Lorraine Street, and the speed humps on Betty Street were installed and have been in place for several months ROW. We would like to receive your opinion regarding the effectiveness of these measures. Please complete the attached questionnaire regarding these traffic calming devices and send it back to us. We have provided for your convenience a self-addressed, stamped form. Thank you for your assistance through this process. Please do not hesitate to contact Rick Seanor of my staff at (707) 463-6296 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file "We Are Here To Serve" /' CITY OF UKIAH DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS QUESTIONNAIRE Marlene Street, Betty Street, & Lorraine Street Traffic Calming Measures June 8, 1998 Please circle your response for each topic. Marlene Street closure to westbound traffic A) leave barricade; it is effective at discouraging traffic from our neighborhood B) install full barricade across Marlene St. at Orchard Ave. C) remove the barricade and re-open Marlene St. D) remove the barricade and install speed hump(s) on Marlene St. between Orchard Ave. and Lorraine St. to slow down traffic E) other- please specify: Betty Street Speed Humps A) leave speed humps alone, they are effective at slowing traffic B) remove all of the speed humps C) remove the following speed hump(s) (specify location) D) other- please specify: Lorraine Street Speed Humps A) leave speed humps alone, they are effective at slowing traffic B) remove all of the speed humps C) remove the following speed hump(s) (specify location) D) other- please specify: Other Comments: Name and Address: Please fold and return this self-addressed, stamped form no later than June 26, 1998. Thank you for participating in this survey. You may also fax this form to (707) 463-6204. City of Ukiah Summary Report for Betty Street Questionnaire Betty Street Survey of Traffic Calming Measures, June 1998 Prepared By: l'~ich Seanor S_u_ry_.__ey___O_.ptions regarding speed humps on Betty Street "A" = leave speed humps alone, they are effective at slowing traffic "C" = remove the following speed, hump(s)(specify.lo.cat_ion). . "D" = other - please specify Selection-" I Respon-~es .....Percentage A 49 87.5% .......... B ........................ 7; ........... 12.5% C 0 0.0% ............. D .......................... 0 ................. -0.-6~/o- -- ~_o_t~a_l ___R_e_~pg~_s e~: .... 56 100.0% ..... TOtal Number of QUeStion-n-air~S'DiS-trib~Jte~ii Percent Response to this section of the Questionnaire: 42.7% Date/Time Printed: 7/29/98 at 1:36 PM Page 1 of i Filename: BETTY.XLS City of Ukiah Summary Report for Lorraine Street Questionnaire C!T___Y_O~F? K!AH .......................... L_orra_i_n__e_Str__e_e_t_sH_r~_e~y of _T_raffiC__Ca_lming __Me_a?_u_r_es_,.__ju~ _n_e__ 1__9_9_8~ ...... 1 "A" = leave speed humps alone, they are effective at slowing traffic ~B'~- ='"rem(~e 'a JJ-ofihe-spe-ed ........ I{u-~nP "c" = remove the following speed hump(s) (specify location) "D" = other - please specify ......................................... '~-f .............................. ] ............. .................................................... ......... S?le_c_ t_i.o_~ ............... R_e_.s p..0.n~e_s_ ..... Percentage A 48 78:7'% B 10 16.4% C 0 0.0% ............................... D 3 4.9% ........................................... ........................ T_O t_a_ I _R~sp0_n_s e_: ............... 6_1_ .............. 100.0% .... TOtal Number of QueStionnaires gistribUte~ii ....................... i3i- ................ L ....................... ............................ Percent Response to this section of Questionnaire: 46.6% Date/Time Printed: 7/29/98 at 1:36 PM Page 1 of 1 Filename: LORRAINE.XLS City of Ukiah Summary Report for Marlene Street Questionnaire _CI~ _T~__ _O_F _U__K!AH ..... f Marlene Street Survey of Traffic Calming Measures, June 1998 _S_u__rv_e~ Opt_!.o_n~_r~g_a_r_di_ng___t~e_in_te__rsec!!.o_p_of__M__a_rl_en__e_S_ t:_a~_d~OO_rg.~ar~ i~,~._-~_ 7 "A" = leave barricade; it is effective at discouraging traffic from our neighborhood "B~' = install fUli barricade across Mari'ene-§t~--ai (~rci~rd-iA~e:---,t---i ...... ! "c" = remove the barricade and re-open Mar!ehe st.. ..... ] ........ "D" = remove the barricade and install sp~ed_hu___m_p(s) on Marlene St. between ' orChard Ave. and Lorraine St. to slow down traffic "E" = other - please specify i ....... , ......... , .... , ..... ......... T ............. ~ .................... ~ ............ ~ ................. Number of __.". ......... Se.!e_c_!i°n~._~_ .... ii._ [.._i__?esP_o_n._s-e-s'_-i_'-i~ Perc%t~'g-~ .... .-~_.i~---_~_-'_~-'_~__-_-~.ii-i'~_--_~.~-_--~'.'_--~-_-~i_-~_-_-~'-_'i'-~ .__ A 19 B 7 C 14 D 23 E 2 Total Response: 65 29.2% 10.8% 21.5% 35.4% 3.1% 100.0% Total Number of Questionnaires Distributed: Percent Response to this section of Questionnaire: 131 49.6% Date/Time Printed: 7/29/98 at 1:36 PM Page 1 of 1 Filename: MARLENE.XLS of lgkiah 300 SEMINARY,AVE., UKIAH, CA 95482-5400 · ADMIN. 707/463-6200 · PUBLJC .~,AFETY 463-6242/6274 · Y,'aO( # 707/463-6204 · July 20, 1998 RE' Cml, VIVI IUIU Speed Humps on Betty Street and Lorraine Street Dear Resident: Thank you for your response to the City's survey on traffic calming measures in your neighborhood. The results of the survey are enclosed. The survey results were discussed at the Traffic Engineering Committee meeting on July 14, 1998 and based on these results, the Committee will be recommending to the City Council that the barricade on Marlene Street at Orchard Avenue be removed and that the street be re-opened to two way traffic. In addition, the Committee recommends the installation of two speed humps on Marlene Street between Orchard Avenue and Lorraine Street. These items will be heard at the City Council meeting of Wednesday, August 5, 1998 beginning at 6:30 PM. A majority of those responding to the survey requested that the speed humps on both Lorraine Street (78.7%) and Betty Street (87.5%) remain in place. The Traffic Engineering Committee is recommending that no changes be made for these two streets. , ,, .... , ~,~-, ,-,,,:oo,o-~,,,,~ ~h,uu~j,, ~,,,~ process. Please do not '"" ~,~,L,~t~ i.u cof'~.~ct Rick Seanor of my staff at (707) 463-6296 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Director of Public Works/Ci~~ngineer cc: file enc. 'We Are Here To Serve" /' · i . Uklah, Ca. 95482 · June 17, 1998 Rick ]{ennedy City of Ukiah, Dept. of Public Works 300 Seminary Ave. Uklah, ca. 95482 We are requesting a traffic counter on the south end of Lorraine St. It should be left in place for at least a week. Lets have a more accurate count of cars using our street° Our traffic has increased and we have noticed more people walking. We have a dangerous situation. We want Marlene St. completely blocked. The road humps have not deterred cars and trucks from using this street, and they do not obey the posted speed limit of 15 M.P.H.- T:hey speed inbetween humps~ The One-Way Marlene St. is an on going problem (cars going wrong way). Police have been down numerous times. This is a residential area, with a very narrow street and as more stores are being built in the Airport B~si- ness Park, we will have more traffic, and you must take some action very soon. Sincerely, :1.8 Lorraine St. CITY OF UKIAH DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORK5 Marty and Laura Pinches 3 Lorraine Street Ukiah, CA 95482 I I I July 24, 1998 Mr. Rick Seanor City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482 RE: Marlene Street J U L g ? 199 -- CITY OF UKIAH DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS Dear Mr. Seanor: I would like to first thank you and Mr. Rick Kennedy for your time and attention to the problems that face Marlene Street. However, I am very concerned with regards to Mr. Kennedy's letter dated July 20, 1998. It is apparent from my front room window that the present barricade has greatly decreased the amount of traffic using Marlene Street as a through shot to Talmage Road. The speed humps as well have somewhat slowed the traff~c. I feel that again the children and residents of Marlene Street, as well as Orchard Avenue will be put into jeopardy with the removal of the barricade. It is my understanding that a Food For Less grocery store will be opening on Airport Boulevard. With the opening of yet another store in the area, the amount of traffic will again increase. I do not believe that speed humps are that much of a deterrent to using Marlene Street. It is somewhat of an inconvenience to slow for the humps; but a majority of the traffic will only speed up until the next hump. Many drivers will go around the humps altogether. When this is done, traffic that is headed north will practically hit my mailbox. There has been a homeowner that had actually put logs in his front yard to deter cars from dodging the hump in front of his house, as they were driving onto his lawn. In my opinion, you are only exchanging one danger for another. The majority of decreased traffic is the result of the barricade. In your survey and efforts to calm the traffic, it seems that the effort is for the speed of traffic. This neighborhood is well over thirty years old. We have no sidewalks and very narrow streets. The width of Marlene Street does not allow for parked cars on each side of the street and two cars to meet in opposite directions. It would seem that the efforts should be on the amount of traffic as well as the speed. In which the barricade combined with the humps are doing nicely. At a previous City Council meeting, Mr. Kennedy brought up the possibility of changing the traffic lights on Talmage Road to prevent the thru traffic from crossing Talmage into our neighborhood. With the approval of more businesses to the Redwood Business Park, the amount oftraffc will continue to increase. At the same time the efforts to calm the traffic will be taken away. This simply does not make sense. In the best interest of the residents, especially the children playing in the area, it would only seem appropriate to leave the barricade. If indeed the barricade is to come down, there must be something done to protect our children from the amount of traffic that uses Marlene and Orchard Streets as a shortcut. That would be the changing of the traffic lights. Phone: (707) 462-2174 pinches@saber.net The inconvenience is minor when using an alternate route to this neighborhood. There should be no compromise when it comes to the safety of the residents. If the barricade comes down, it will only be a matter of time before there will be an accident. Unfortunately, it will more than likely be at the expense of one of the children in the neighborhood. If you should have any questions please feel free to contact me at the telephone listed below. . Cc: Ukiah City Council City of Ukiah Summary Report for Marlene Street Questionnaire CITY OF UKIAH I I Marlene Street Survey of Traffic Calming Measures, June 1998 _Pr_[~_arecl By: ~ch 8eanor Survey_ Options regarding the intersection of Marlene St. and Orchard Ave. "A" = leave barricade; it is effective at discouraging traffic from our neighborhood "Bi'= install full barricade across Marlene St. at Orchard Ave. "C" = reni~-ve ~e i~arricacie'~-n(j ~:e--o~en Marlene st. ,, ,, .... ; ............... ; ........... J D = remove the bar.cade and install speed hump(s) on Marlene St. betv~een "E" = other - please specif7 Number of Selection Responses Percentage A 19 29.2% B 7 10.8% C 14 21.5% D 23 35.4% E 2 3.1% Total Response: 65 100.0% Total Number of Questionnaires Distributed: 131 Percent Response to this section of Questionnaire: 49.6% 7/22/98 Thank you for your analysis. However, it solves no problem for my Situation. I want the speed bump at 26 lorraine St. moved. It is totally ridiculus to place such an obstacle in front of a residence If you ~nust have a 3rd speed bump, move it farther north, or south just get i~i'out"of in front of [ny garage. It creates an invasion of my privacy each and every time a car passes over it. This is causing .~ rne much distress. Please move it. Dale Hartley . 26 lorraine St Date/Time Printed: 7/8/98 at 10:18 AM Page 1 of 1 Filename: MARLENE.XLS DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF UKIAH MEMORANDUM July 8, 1998 Rick Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works ~~ Report of Marlene Street, Lorraine Street, and Betty Street At your request ! have conducted a survey and a field inspection of the traffic calming devices in the Marlene Street, Lorraine Street, Betty Street neighborhood. EXISTING FACILITIES Marlene Street Marlene Street is a residential street which is 38 feet in width. The opening at the barricade on Marlene Street at Orchard Avenue is open for one-way traffic, eastbound only. There have been several reports from residents of traffic driving the wrong way around the barricade. Lorraine Street Lorraine Street is a residential street which is 24 feet in width south of Marlene Street and 38 feet wide north of Marlene Street. There are currently three speed humps on the street which have been placed in attempt to slow down traffic. Betty Street Betty Street is a residential street which is 24 feet in width south of Marlene Street and 38 feet wide north of Marlene St'reet. There are currently three speed humps on the street which have been placed in attempt to slow down traffic. There have been isolated reports of cars bottoming out on the speed humps on this street. SIGNING There are no speed limit signs posted on either Marlene Street or Betty Street. Lorraine Street is posted with 15 mph speed limit signs between Talmage Road and Marlene Street. The speed humps on Betty Street are posted with 15 mph warning signs. The opening at the barricade on Marlene Street at Orchard Avenue is posted for one-way traffic, eastbound only. ACCIDENTS Within the last three years through December of 1997 there has been only one traffic accident Page 2 Rick Kennedy July 8, 1998 related to the traffic calming measures. On December 23, 1996 a hit and run driver intentionally struck, pushed over and moved the barricade on Marlene Street at Orchard Avenue. This action occurred when there was a full barricade in place closing Marlene Street at Orchard Avenue. On February 6, 1997, one-half of the barricade was removed opening Marlene Street at Orchard Avenue to one-way eastbound traffic. SUMMARY A written survey of all residents on Marlene Street, Lorraine Street, Betty Street, and Deborah Court was conducted in June 1998. Please refer to Attachment I which summarizes the survey responses for each respective street. A total of 66 survey responses (50.4%) were received out of 131 surveys delivered. However, not all of the respondents answered all of the survey questions. City Manager Candace Horsley has reviewed the survey results and recommends that the Marlene Street barricade be removed based on a total response of 56.9% indicating their wish to have the barricade removed. A total of 21.5% indicated their wish to have the barricade removed with a total of 35.4% indicated that the barricade should be removed and speed humps should be installed on Marlene Street between Orchard Avenue and Lorraine Street. RECOMMENDATION Based on the survey results it is staff's recommendation that the barricade on Marlene Street at Orchard Avenue be removed and that two way traffic be restored on Marlene Street between Orchard Avenue and Lorraine Street. As a further traffic calming measure one or two speed humps are recommended for installation on Marlene Street between Orchard Avenue and Lorraine Street. No action is recommended for either Lorraine Street or Betty Street since 78.7% and 87.5% of the survey responses indicated that the speed humps should be left as is. ATTACHMENTS cc: file ITEM NO. DATE: 8c August 5, 1998 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A PRODUCT AND SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH FIRSTPOINT UTILITY SOLUTIONS, INC. AND APPROVAL OF A BUDGET AMENDMENT. Background: On May 20, 1998, the City Council approved a letter of intent with FirstPoint Utility Solutions, Inc. (FirstPoint) to negotiate for various services, including a customer information system (CIS), billing and mailing services, metering, collection and customer service. FirstPoint sent a team to interview City employees and to observe the methods employed by the City in processing billings and providing customer service. On July 16, 1998, FirstPoint representatives presented their recommendation to City staff. Proposal: -- FirstPoint proposed a multi-phase approach to improving various tasks related to utility billing and customer service. Phase I features a comprehensive evaluation of the City's current business practices to identify areas of possible improvement. After the Phase I Business Practice improvements are implemented, FirstPoint will determine if the City's needs can be met with its current Customer Information System (CIS) or if a new system should be considered. If a new system is indicated, Phase II would include determining improvements to be part of the new system and identifying a short list of recommended CISs that will meet future needs of the (Continued on page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Authorize the City Manager to sign the Agreement with FirstPoint Utility Solutions, Inc. not to exceed $26,700. 2) Amend the Billing and Collection budget, 697.1305.250.000 by $26,700 to cover the cost of this agreement. ALTERNATE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Revise the Agreement and authorize the City Manager to sign it. 2. Determine the Agreement should not signed. Prepared by: Gordon Elton, Finance Directo _. Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manger; Patsy Archibald, Customer Service Supervisor. Attachments: Product and Services Agreement, Product and Service Schedule, and Budget Amendment Worksheet. The General Terms and Conditions are still under legal review and will be submitted separately. APPROVED: ~a~'ce Hors ley~ G E: 1STPOIN2.AGN City Manager City. The additional service of Customer Statement Printing and Mailing is included in Phase II even though it is neither a required element of Phase II nor is it necessary for Phases II or III. The proposed Agreement does not obligate the City to utilize FirstPoint for these Phase II services. Phase III would include reviewing and evaluating CIS demonstrations and proposals, selection of a new system and systems integration services needed to implement the new CIS. Implementation of Phase III services would require an additional contract with the specific scope of services to be determined at that future time. The proposed Agreement does not obligate the City to utilize FirstPoint for these Phase III services. Discussion: Business Practices Evaluation: During their initial discussions with staff and review of the City's processes, FirstPoint staff identified several areas for potential improvement. FirstPoint will thoroughly investigate various processes and procedures to specify the revisions to be made. The proposal identifies six areas that will be focused on: 1) The elapsed time between meter read and customer billing; 2) Accuracy and redundancy in the billing process; 3) Meter reader involvement in downloading and uploading data on the portable devices; 4) Computer generated work orders replacing handwritten forms; 5) Redundant entry process and report generation; and, 6) Requirements for customers to appear in person when opening or closing an account. Implementing the anticipated changes are expected to free up a significant amount of staff time which can be utilized for other tasks and provide significant improvements in customer service. There is sufficient fund balance available in the Billing and Collection Fund to offset the cost of this evaluation without increasing the charges to other funds. Implementation of any changes identified is not included in the proposed scope of services in the Agreement with FirstPoint. Statement Printing and Mailing Services This alternative was previously reviewed by staff with other vendors. While there are potential benefits from this service, a more thorough evaluation is possible after any changes in other business practices are made. Staff believes an evaluation made today may not result in the same recommendation as an evaluation made after other process and procedures are changed. Therefore staff recommends deferring a decision on bill printing and mailing until after the Business Practices analysis is completed and implemented. Phase II It is anticipated that Phase II will be necessary. With the recent revolutionary changes in the electric industry, further modifications are still likely before this new environment stabilizes. There are decisions yet to be made by the City Council that may affect the billing requirements of the City system. Waiting to consider a new system until Phase II will extend the implementation date of any new system. The benefit of the wait is that requirements are more likely G E: 1STPOIN2.AGN to be firmed up and more vendors will have had more time to develop or adapt their solutions to meet the billing requirements. This may mean a larger number of potential vendors to choose between when the decision time arrives. Phase III If Phase II results in identifying products and services that will improve the billing and collection processes, Phase III is the process of analyzing, selecting and implementing the new system. If we arrive at this point, the Phase III process will be the final step in determining the specific solution that will best serve the customers of the City Utility System. As noted earlier, this phase requires a new agreement. Alternatives: 1) Determine that the City's current business practices are sufficient and the proposed analysis is unnecessary. Staff believes there is always room for improvement. During their initial review of our process, FirstPoint identified several areas in which improvements can be made. Based on their list of focus areas, staff concurs that improvements can be made. 2) Charge staff with preparing a business practices analysis. This project is of significant size and complexity. Staff is inherently concerned with day-to-day processes making them less likely to consider "why" something is done a certain way. When the primary mission is to get the job done, the opportunity to step back and ask if there is a "better way" is minimized. An outsider's perspective without a vested interest in the status quo has the maximum objectivity. Staff does not have the time necessary to take an in- depth look at how processes work when at the same time they must complete the tasks at hand. 3) Proceed with acquiring a new Customer Information System. Determine that the City should proceed with identification of alternative billing and collection systems or services with the goal of replacing the current software and/or hardware or contracting services to an outside firm. Such an action, without benefit of changed practices and procedures, is likely to minimize the benefits received from an updated CIS. Summary: Making changes to operating practices, before changing the billing system to either an outside vendor or a new in-house system, makes sense. Changes in business practices are likely to change the way we will define the City's needs. Therefore staff supports the phased approach proposed by FirstPoint and recommends approval of the Phase I agreement with FirstPoint to provide a Business Practices analysis. This recommendation is made with the understanding that additional costs may be incurred if the recommendations are to be implemented. GE:ISTPOIN2. AGN FIRSTPOINT UTILITY SOLUTIONS, INC. PRODUCT AND SERVICES AGREEMENT This Product and Service Agreement (the "Agreement") is made by and between FirstPoint Utility Solutions, Inc., located in Portland, Oregon ("FirstPoint") and the customer identified below ("Customer"). The Agreement covers the purchase of products and services from FirstPoint described in the attached Product and Services Schedule. This Agreement includes the following attachments, which are incorporated herein by this reference: Product and Services Schedule, revised, July 29, 1998 General Terms and Conditions, revised July 29, 1998 Any notice required or permitted under this Agreement will be in writing, delivered personally or sent by prepaid mail to the other party's notice address set forth below, or to such other notice address as the other party has provided by written notice. This Agreement allocates the risks of obtaining the products and services from FirstPoint by Customer. Customer recognizes and acknowledges that this allocation is fair and adequately reflected in the price payable, the limited warranties provided the limited remedies, and the limitation of liability herein. THIS AGREEMENT, INCLUDING THE ATTACHMENTS LISTED ABOVE, CONSTITUTES THE COMPLETE AND EXCLUSIVE UNDERSTANDING OF THE PARTIES WITH REFERENCE TO THE SUBJECT MATTER HEREOF, AND SUPERSEDES ALL PRIOR SALES PROPOSALS, NEGOTIATIONS, AGREEMENTS AND OTHER REPRESENTATIONS OR COMMUNICATIONS, WHETHER ORAL OR WRITTEN. IF CUSTOMER REQUIRES A PURCHASE ORDER TO BE ISSUED, NO PREPRiNTED TERMS AND CONDITIONS ON THE PURCHASE ORDER OR ANY ATTACHMENT TO IT WILL BECOME PART OF THIS AGREEMENT. THIS AGREEMENT MAY BE MODIFIED, REPLACED OR RESCINDED ONLY IN WRITING, AND SIGNED BY A DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF EACH PARTY. Effective date of this Agreement: August 20, 1998 upon approval by the Ukiah City Council IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed. AGREED: CUSTOMER FIRSTPOINT UTILITY SOLUTIONS The City of Ukiah 300 Seminary_ Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482 FirstPoint Utility Solutions, Inc. 1001 SW Salmon Street, Suite 500 Portland, Oregon 97204 By: Name: Title: Name: Title: IPS2-15325 Rev. 7/29/80 Products and Services Schedule FirstPomt Utility Solutions, Inc. (FirstPoint) would like to offer a two-phase approach to revenue-cycle services for The City of Ukiah (City). Phase I features a comprehensive evaluation of the City's business practices to identify areas of possible improvement. The areas of business practices that have been identified for improvement are significant enough to capture large savings over current business practices. It is the recommendation of FirstPoint that the City implement these suggested changes prior to installing a new Customer Information System (CIS). FirstPoint will make recommendations and work with the City to determine if their needs can be met with their current CIS system or should the City install a new system. If the current CIS system fits the City's needs best, FirstPomt will determine if there are improvements that can be made to better meet the needs of the City. As a separate body of work under a separate Agreement, FirstPomt is prepared to work with the City in Phase II m evaluating its future CIS system. If it is determined that a new system would be best, FirstPomt will provide the city with a short list of recommended CIS systems and develop an RFP to solicit bids from these venders that will meet the future needs of the City. In Phase II, FirstPomt will work with the City to provide Customer Statement Printing and Mailing Services, if the City requests such services from FirstPomt. Fees for these services are not included with the pricing listed below and would need to be determined if we were to move forward with Phase II. There also could be a Phase III if it was determined that a new CIS system was the best answer for the City. In Phase III FirstPomt would work with the city in reviewing and evaluating CIS demonstrations and proposals. Once a system was selected FirstPomt could provide the systems integration services needed to implement the new CIS system. Fees for these services are not included with the pricing listed below and would need to be determined if we were to move forward with Phase III. Business Practices Evaluation FirstPomt proposes to identify significant inefficiencies m the following work processes. FirstPoint will detail the current approach to the City's processes and present an alternative solution. This deliverable will be presented to the City and be accompamed by a detailed document outlining the gamed efficiencies. The following estimate has been derived from our previous on site evaluation and interviews with the City's customer service representatives (CSRs), and represents a preliminary view of the intended areas of oppommity for improvements. This work activity does not include the implementation of the improved processes. This work will be completed within 30 days from execution of an Agreement between FirstPomt and the City. Rev. 7/29/98 Areas of focus include: Reduce window of time between meter read and customer billing. One-time float cost reduction is estimated to be $15,000 for 8,000 customers. Design billing process to improve accuracy and reduce redundancy. Annual hours saved is approximately 1,000 to 1,500. Have meter readers more involved with downloading and uploading data from meter reading devices. Estimated annual hour savings to billing CSRs is 150 - 300 hours. Utilize online work order vs. handwritten form. Estimated annual hours saved is 100 - 300 hours. Results in more accurate information. Reduce redundant entry process and report generation. Estimated annual hours saved is 500-800 hours. Consider different move in/move out process that does not necessitate the customer visiting the office. This will represent a significant improvement in customer service and convenience to the customer. PRICE FirstPoint's price to the City of Ukiah for the above services is not to exceed $26,700.00. This includes all time and materials necessary to deliver to the City of Ukiah a detailed solution identifying current business practices and proposed changes, with estimates to potential savings if implemented. A retainer fee of 20%, or $5,340.00, will be payable upon the acceptance of this proposal. The balance will be due and payable upon completion of work and presentation of an invoice to the City. Bill Printing and Mailing Services FirstPoint will provide the City with cost-effective bill print and mailing services that leverage off its economies of scale, and that provide accurate, informative, quick and cost-effective billing services. Bill Printing and Mailing Services will be provided upon completion of the Business Practices Evaluation, if requested by the City. Services include: · Materials design and production · All mailing services, including capturing all postage discounts · Customized statement with the City=s logo and usage graphs · Insertion of supplemental materials, including retail marketing Rev. 7/29/98 PRODUCTION DESCRIPTION 1) FirstPoint will custom design an 8.5 x 11 customer billing statement per the City's specifications, to include utility, sewer, garbage and parking charges as separate line items. The customer billing statement will include a perforated remittance card, messaging and usage graph capability. 2) FirstPoint will provide a # 10 window envelope and # 9 reply envelope. 3) On a weekly basis, FirstPoint will correctly format data and create a customized customer billing statement on a pre-printed form. 4) FirstPoint will run addresses through its postal software to capture all applicable postal discounts, and generate file for laser printing statement. FirstPoint will generate Address Verification Reports and return reports to the City of Ukiah. 5) FirstPoint will print billing statements on pre-printed 8.5 x 11 forms, and fold and insert the forms into # 10 window envelope with # 9 reply envelope. FirstPoint will then seal the envelopes and meter the mail at first class, pre-sort postage rates. 6) FirstPoint will provide an 8.5 x 11-reminder notice, printed in black ink plus one PMS color on one side. FirstPoint will print, fold and insert into a # 10 window envelope and mail at first class postage rates. PRICE FirstPoint will provide the above materials and services at a cost of $0.16 for each billing statement package or each reminder notice package described above with each additional statement page to be billed at $0.08 each. Each additional insert will be billed at $0.05 each. FirstPoint's invoice amount to The City of Ukiah shall be determined by the number of billing statements or reminder notices generated by FirstPoint in accordance with the data provided by the City. The City of Ukiah will be responsible for transmitting a data file to FirstPoint in an agreed-upon format on a weekly basis. FirstPoint will treat postage as a pass-through charge, and the City will be responsible for all postage incurred by FirstPoint in providing the above-mentioned services. A one-time set- up fee of $5,000.00 will be payable to FirstPoint upon a decision by the City to proceed with Bill Printing and Mailing Services. FirstPoint looks forward to providing services to the City of Ukiah and working as a member of your team. We would like to help you meet the needs of your customers and help the City meet the challenges of the utility marketplace. Rev. 7/29/98 BILLING & COLLECTION - FUND #697 Bud,qeted amounts: Beginning fund balance 7/1/98 Revenue budgeted Transfers budgeted Expense Budgeted ending fund balance 6/30/99 $ 273,991 $ 530,836 $ (524,063) $ 280,764 Adjustments made durinq the fiscal year: Date Approved 7/1/98 Change in beginning fund balance per audit 8/5/98 Business Practices Analysis Account No. 697.1305.250.000 $ (26,700) Revised ending fund balance 6/30/99 $ 254,064 RESERV99.XLS 7/30/98 Page 2 Funds 696;697;698 m ITEM NO, 9a DATE: August 5. 1998 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING REGARDING POSSIBLE ADDITION OF A SKATEPARK FACILITY IN TODD GROVE PARK AND AUTHORIZATION OF MAYOR TO SIGN LE']-I'ER ANNOUNCING PUBLIC MEETING. As the Council is aware, City staff has been cooperating with the Ukiah Skatepark Committee to locate a site for the construction of a skatepark in Ukiah. The Committee is comprised of parents, youth, business owners, and educators and was conceived as a result of a community wide meeting held in 1996 to determine the need for such a facility in Ukiah. Since that meeting the Committee has organized several fundraisers and identified potential sites which would be appropriate for a skatepark. Low Gap and Todd Grove Parks have been identified by the Committee as the two most desirable locations, due in large part to their proximity to other youth activities. The Committee has subsequently requested input from the City as to the appropriateness of these two locations. In an effort to assist the Committee, staff recommends a public meeting be conducted at Todd Grove to determine neighborhood support for a skatepark in this area. The tentative time and date for the meeting, pending Council approval, is August 25, 1998, 5:00 p.m., at Todd Grove Park. Attached to this report is a draft letter, identifying the proposed time, date, and location of the meeting, which upon authorization by Council, will be circulated to the neighborhood prior to the meeting. Staff is recommending the Council determine if the proposed date is appropriate, and if not select an alternative date, and authorize the Mayor to sign and issue the letter. RECOMMENDED ACTION' Authorize Mayor to sign letter announcing skatepark meeting for August 25, 1998, 5:00 p.m., at Todd Grove Park. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS' 1. Determine meeting time and date is inappropriate and set alternative time and date. 2. Determine meeting is inappropriate at this time and do not move to authorize Mayor's signature Citizen Advised: Yes Requested by' Skatepark Committee Prepared by' Larry W. DeKnoblough, Community Services Director J--~ Coordinated with' Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: 1. Draft Letter Candace Horsley, Ci~ LD2 SKATE.ASR Manager 300 SEMINARY AVE., UKIAH, CA 95482-5400 · ~~7i~7/463-6200 · PUBLIC C~ETY 463-6242/6274 · F:~ ~ 707/463-6204 · Dear Neighbor: As a park and recreation provider, the City has been cooperating with a privately sponsored committee of citizens whose purpose is to provide a skateboard park for our community's youth. One of the sites which the skate park group has identified as a possible location is Todd Grove Park. In order to help us determine community support for such a facility in this area we will be holding a neighborhood meeting on Tuesday, August 25, 1998 at 5:00 p.m. The meeting will be held in Todd Grove Park at the proposed skatepark location, which is on the east side of the pool near the restrooms and the rocket. Your attendance and participation in this meeting is a very important part of the process and would be very much appreciated. Your input will greatly assist both the City and the Skatepark Committee in determining the location of the skate park. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding the park project or wish to discuss the project personally, please call our Community Services Director, Larry DeKnoblough, at 463-6221 or come into the Civic Center at 300 Seminary Avenue. Sincerely, Sheridan Malone Mayor LD2 SKATE.LTR '~9'e Are Here To Serve" 9b ITEM NO. DATE: Auaust 5.'1998 AGENDA SUMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ~ CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF LEASE WITH AMERICAN RED CROSS FOR ~NORTH FIRE STATION. The Mendocino County Chapter of the American Red Cross has approached staff with a request to lease a portion of the North Fire Station at 1800 North State Street. The facility is no longer utilized for full time. staffing but is still used as a fire operations station and currently houses public safety vehicle maintenance activities in the apparatus bay portion of the facility. Over the past few years, staff has explored several options for partnering or shared use of the facility with another public agency or non-profit, which would be of benefit to the community. The Red Cross is just such an agency with the added benefit of providing training and assistance for many of the emergency services provided by our Fire Department. The Red Cross has proposed a shared use arrangement whereby they would occupy the front office and living quarters and the City would continue with maintenance in the Apparatus area. In addition, the Ukiah Fire Department would occasionally conduct classroom and training exercises in the training room. Subsequent to discussions with City staff, a tentative agreement, pending Council approval, has been reached providing for a rent amount of $1,000 per month plus up to $500 monthly for utilities. In addition the City would perform an energy audit of the building to assess the building's energy efficiency and recommendations as to improvements. Continued on page 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve lease with the American Red Cross for 1800 North State Street in the amount of $1,000 per month. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Determine lease requires revision and adopt as revised. 2. Determine lease is inappropriate at this time and move to not approve. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: 1. Yes American Red Cross Board of Directors Larry W. DeKnoblough, Community Services Director Candace Horsley, City Manager Proposed Lease APPROVED: ~ ~ Candace Horsley, Citt Manager The Amedcan Red Cross has been an important element in the Public Safety sector of our community for several years, however, they have suffered from lack of funding, Iow public awareness, and inadequate facilities and staff. In recent years the organization has initiated several steps to invigorate its position in the community. New Board Members, increased volunteers, and a conscious effort to be responsive to public inquiries have helped to revive the organization. In seeking this location, the Red Cross is taking the next big step to increase its profile in the community by moving to a location which can support public instruction of their various programs and enhance public awareness. A draft lease has been prepared and attached for the Council's consideration in the amount of $1,000 per month plus limited utilities. Staff believes leasing this building would be of significant public benefit b.y putting an existing facility to use in order to house a much needed public safety organization in our community. Staff is recommending approval of the lease as proposed. LD2 REDCROSS.ASR LEASE AGREEMENT This Lease, made this 1st day of September, 1998, by and between the City of Ukiah, State of California, acting by and through its City Council, hereinafter referred to as "Lessor" and the Mendocino County Chapter of the American Red Cross, a non-profit corporation organized and existing under and in compliance with the laws of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "Lessee." RECITALS: 1. Lessor has the authority contained in Government Code Sections 37380 and 37395 and does determine that the use of certain property owned by the Lessor is not required for its use at this time and is available for Lease, and 2.~ The use of said property by the Lessee would be and is beneficial for the citizens of the City of Ukiah. LEASE AGREEMENT 1. LEASE. The parties hereto agree that on the terms and conditions hereinafter expressed, Lessor does hereby let to Lessee and Lessee does hereby hire from Lessor a portion of that certain parcel of property commonly referred to as the "North Fire Station", located at 1800 North State Street, more specifically described on the attached "Exhibit A", hereinafter referred to as "the premises", or "the leased premises". 2. TERM. The term of this Lease is for a period of five (5) years coma~ncing on the date set forth above and subject to the terms set forth in Paragraph 7 of this agreement. 3. RENT. As rent for the term hereby demised, Lessee agrees to pay to Lessor the sum of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) per month for the use of the premises. -1- 3.1. Lessee specifically represents that it does not intend to make a profit on the use of the leased premises. All income derived from use of the leased premises shall be used exclusively to sponsor or promote Armrican Red Cross activities on the leased premises or for improvements to the leased premises. 3.2. Lessee shall maintain regular books of account which it shall make available to Lessor upon demand for inspection or audit. 4. USE AND IMPROVEMENTS. 4.1. Lessee shall use the leased premises exclusively for the American Red Cross under the Lessee's sponsorship and supervision and agrees to share use of the premises in accordances with the distribution of space as indicated in Exhibit "A". 4.2. Lessor agrees to perform an energy conservation evaluation of the leased premises prior to occupancy by lessee. Upon completion of that evaluation, Lessor further agrees to prepare and submit to Lessee a schedule for the completion of improvements, if any, which have been recommended by the evaluation, and which lessor has determined, in its sole discretion, to make on the lost energy savings and dependent upon financial resources of Lessor. 4.3. Lessee agrees to keep the premises and all improvements related to Lessee's use in good repair and order and to bear the full cost for maintenance of all landscaping. 4.4. Lessee shall acquire the necessary and required permits from the appropriate regulating body for any development proposed under this lease. 4.5. Lessee shall not make any physical changes to the leased premises without prior written consent of Lessor's City Manager. In the event any such changes are approved Lessee is responsible for the relocation, alteration, removal, construction, reconstruction, involved in making such changes,of any municipal or private facilities, structures or utilities existing on leased premises which are presently in use or abandoned. -2- 4.6. Lessee shall insure that no alcoholic beverages are possessed or consumed on the leased premises at any time. Lessee shall not use or permit the leased premises to be used except in full compliance with all roles, regulations, laws or ordinances of the City of Ukiah and the State of California. 4.7. Lessee shall pay all utilities costs which exceed $600 per month, up to a $500 maximum as well as any possessory interest tax which may resuk due to Lessee's occupancy of the property. 5. ASSIGNMENT. Lessee will not assign this Lease or any interest therein and will not let or underlet the said premises or any part thereof without the prior written consent of the Lessor. 6. INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE. 6.1. Lessor shall not be liable for and is free from the cost of any damages for personal injury or property damage resulting from the use made by Lessee of the demised premises, any defective condition or faulty construction of the demised premises existing at the time of letting or arising thereafter and Lessee covenants and agrees to indemnify and save harmless said Lessor and its officers, agents and employees from and against any and all liability, loss, cost, or other obligation, including reasonable attorney's fee, on account of or arising out of any such injuries or losses however occurring. 6.2. Lessee covenants and agrees during the life of this Lease at Lessee's sole expense to comply with the requirernems of Exhibit B, Insurance Requirements for Lessees (No Auto Risks), attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 6.3 Notwithstanding the provisions of Exhibit B requiring Lessee to procure workmen's compensation insurance, Lessee need not procure such insurance provided all of the fol- lowing conditions are met: a. It maintains its status as a non-profit tax exempt organization; -3- b. It's Board of Directors takes no action to designate any person providing services or work to the organization as its employee; and c. All persons performing services for the organization do so strictly as volunteers without receiving any compensation whatsoever. Lessee shall immediately notify Lessor if it fails to meet all of the conditions of this paragraph 6.3 and shall ~tely thereafter comply with the workmen's compensation provisions of Exhibit B. 7. TERMINATION. 7.1. This Lease or any renewal thereof, may be canceled for any reason by either party on sixty (60) days written notice to the other party. 7.2. Lessor can cancel this Lease immediately for any breach of this lease by Lessee, including, but not limited to, failure to provide insurance, without any prior notice to Lessee. 8. ATTORNEY'S FEES. In any action to enforce the terms of this lease the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable costs and attorney's fees from the other party. 9. TIME OF ESSENCE. Time is of the essence of this agreement~ 10. WAIVER. City's waiver of any default in Lessee's performance of any condition of this Lease, including the obligation to pay rent, shall not constitute a waiver of remedies available for a subsequent breach of the same or a different condition of this Lease. Acceptance of subsequent rental payments from Lessee or its assignees shall not constitute a waiver of the failure of Lessee to pay rent or obtain prior approval to an assignment of this Lease. 11. NOTICES. -4- Any written notice required hereby shall be deemed sufficient when placed in the United States mail, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: TO CITY; TO LESSEE: American Red Cross City Manager Ukiah Civic Center 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 12. PARAGRAPH HEADINGS. Paragraph headings are included for the convenience of the parties and are not intended to def'me or limit the scope of this Lease. 13. PREVIOUS AGREEMENTS. Any and all existing statement or agreements, whether oral or written, or renewals thereof, between the parties hereto, covering the same subject matter, are hereby canceled and superseded by the terms of this Lease, and such prior agreements, statements or understandings shall have no further force or effect. 14. DUPLICATE ORIGINALS. This Lease may be executed in one or more duplicate originals bearing the original signature of both parties and when so executed any such duplicate original shall be admissible as proof of the existence and terms of this Lease. Entered on the date first written above. ATTEST: CITY OF UKIAH By: City Clerk -5- LESSEE LD AGREEMENTS By: Ifs -6- i 0 .,Of · I E×hibit "B" INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR LESSEES (NO AUTO RISKS) Lessee shall procure and maintain for tile duration of tile contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the Lessee's operation and use of tile leased premises. 'rile cost o£ such insurance shail be borne by the Lessee. Minimum Scope of Insurance Coverage shall be at least as broad a,: · 1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage ("occurrence' form CG 0001). 2. Workers' Compensation insurance as r.equired by the State of California and Employer's Liability insurance (for lessees with employees). 3. Property insurance against all risks ..of. loss to any tenant improvemen, ts or betterments. Minimum Limits of Insurance Lessee shail maintain linfits no less than: 1. General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or otl~er form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. 2. Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease. 3. Property Insurance: Full replacement cost with no coinsurance penalty provision. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared, to and approved by tt~e City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or elimdnate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Lessee shall provide a financial guarantee satisfactory to the City guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. · · Other Insurance Provisions The general liability policy ts to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: 1. The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insureds with respect to liability arising out of ownership, maintenance or use of that part of the premises leased to the lessee. 2. Tl~e Lessee's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Lessee's insurance and shall not contribute with it. l.sur~nce Requir~ment~ in Contracts . 3. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be canceled, except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to tile City. Acceptability of Insurers Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.t-]. Best's rating ~f no less than A:VII. Verification of Coverage ' Lessee shall furnish the City with original certificates and amendatory endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements should be on forms provided by the City or on other than the City's forms, provided those endorsements or policies conform to the requirements. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements e[fecting the coverage required by these specifications at any time. .. ., Insurance Requirements in Contracts AGENDA SUMMARY 9c ITEM NO. DATE'.. AUGUST 5, 1998 REPORT SUBJECT: PRESENTATION OF SURVEY AND RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING NO PARKING ZONES ADJACENT TO DRIVEWAYS ON HOSPITAL DRIVE Presented for the City Council's consideration are the results of a survey submitted to the occupants of the medical office complex located on the west side of Hospital Drive. The survey canvassed the occupants' positions concerning a request for the elimination of on-street parking within 20 feet of both sides of the driveways serving the off-street parking lots to their complex. The Traffic Engineering Committee received the request for the elimination of the on-street parking adjacent to one (1) of three (3) driveways along the west side of Hospital Drive from Dr. Geoffrey Rice's office. In recognition that convenient vehicle parking is important to service providers and other businesses, the Committee requested Staff to conduct the survey. The survey included all three (3) driveways on the west side for the purpose of addressing the issue collectively. Staff also contacted the Management of the Hospital concerning the driveways on the east side of Hospital Drive subsequent to receiving correspondence from Mr. ValGene Devitt, CEO of the Ukiah Valley Medical Center expressing similar concerns. CONTINUED ON PAGE 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION' Adopt resolution establishing no parking zones adjacent to driveways on Hospital Drive. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS' Determine that on-street parking is at a premium and deny request. Requested by' Prepared by: Coordinated with' Attachments' Traffic Engineering Committee Rick H. Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Candace Horsley, City Manager I · 2. 3. 4. 5. Resolution. Questionnaire. Survey results. Letters of Requests. Staff memorandum. APPROVED' R: 1 \PVV:kk AHOSPITAL.NP Manager Presentation of Survey and Recommendation to Adopt Resolution Establishing No Parking Zones Adjacent to Driveways on Hospital Drive August 5, 1998 Page 2 The majority of the respondents (71.4%) support the request to remove on-street parking within 20 feet of both sides of all three (3) driveways on the west side of Hospital Drive. The Hospital Management supports the elimination of parking within 20 feet of both sides of the seven (7) driveways on the east side of Hospital Drive which access the various parking lots to the Hospital complex. If this request is approved, five (5) parking spaces would be eliminated on the west side of Hospital Drive and five (5) of the present 15 on-street parking spaces on the east side of Hospital Drive from the southerly service entry driveway to the curb return located north of the Hospital would be lost. Of the 20 questionnaires distributed, 14 were returned. Three (3) respondents wanted to retain all on-street parking on the west side of Hospital Drive and one (1) respondent indicated support for a 10 foot setback adjacent to the driveways with the intent of retaining as much parking as possible. One on-street parking space consumes approximately 23 linear feet. As indicated in the written request from Dr. Rice's office, many of their patients have expressed difficulty in seeing through traffic on Hospital Drive as they pull out of the driveways. Based on the results of the survey, the Traffic Engineering Committee recommends to the City Council that on-street parking be eliminated within 20 feet of both sides of the three (3) driveways serving the medical office complex on the west side of Hospital Drive and within 20 feet of the seven (7) driveways serving the Hospital complex on the east side of Hospital Drive. A resolution establishing the no parking zones adjacent to the referenced driveways is presented for the City Council's consideration and adoption. RHK:kk R:I\PVV AHOSPITAL.NP RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ESTABLISHING NO PARKING ZONES WITHIN 20 FEET OF BOTH SIDES OF DESIGNATED DRIVEWAYS ON HOSPITAL DRIVE WHEREAS, the majority of occupants of the medical office complex located on the west side of Hospital Drive, and the Management of the Ukiah Valley Medical Center support the elimination qf on-street parking within 20 feet of both sides of the three driveways serving the medical office complex on the west side of Hospital Drive and the seven driveways serving the Hospital complex on the east side of Hospital Drive; and WHEREAS, the City Council may by resolution designate portions of streets upon which the standing, parking, or stopping of vehicles is prohibited or restricted pursuant to Article 11, Chapter 1, Division 8, of the Ukiah Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Traffic Engineering Committee recommends that the request for the elimination of on-street parking within 20 feet of both sides of the designated driveways be granted based on the results of a survey which canvassed the opinions of the occupants. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Ukiah City Council that no parking zones are hereby established within 20 feet of both sides of the three commercial driveways serving the medical office complex on the west side of Hospital Drive, and within 20 feet of both sides of the seven commercial driveways serving the Ukiah Valley Medical Center complex on the east side of Hospital Drive. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of August, 1998, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Sheridan Malone, Mayor Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Resolution No. 98- Page 1 of 1 300 SEMINARY AVE., UKIAH, CA 95482-5400 · ADMIN. 707/463-6200 · PUBUC SAFETY 463-6242/6274 · FAX # 707/463-6204 · June 16, 1998 RE: Hospital Drive Parking Dear Office Manager: The City of Ukiah Traffic Engineering Committee (TEC) recently received a request from the office of Dr. Geoffrey Rice to eliminate parking for a length of 20 feet (approximately one car space) on each side of the driveway to the office complex at 248-A and 248-B Hospital Drive. This request was made for the purpose of improving the sight distance for motorists leaving the complex and turning onto Hospital Drive. In recognition that convenient vehicle parking is important to service providers and other businesses, the Committee requested that a survey be taken of the other offices in this complex to determine whether parking should be eliminated within 20 feet of each of the driveways in the complex. We would like to receive your opinion regarding this proposal. Please complete the attached questionnaire regarding the proposed elimination of parking and send it back to us. We have provided for your convenience a self-addressed, stamped form. The survey responses will be evaluated at the next meeting of the TEC at 3:00 PM on July 14, 1998 at the Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue. You are welcome to attend the m~eting. Thank you for your assistance through this process. Please do not hesitate to contact Rick Seanor of my staff at (707) 463-6296 if you have any questions. Director of Public Works/City er cc: file '~Ve Are Here To Serve" CITY OF UKIAH DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS QUESTIONNAIRE Hospital Drive Parking June 16, 1998 Please circle your response. Hospital Drive Parking A) remove parking for 20 feet on either side of the driveways for each office complex on the west side of Hospital Drive B) retain all on street parking on the west side of Hospital Drive C) other- please specify: Other Comments: Name and Address: Please fold and return this self-addressed, stamped form no later than July 7, 1998. Thank you for participating in this survey. You may also fax this form to (707) 463-6204. City of Ukiah Summary Report for Hospital Drive Questionnaire CITY OF UKIAH _Report of Hospital Drive Parking Questionnaire §.u__ry__ey Options Regarding Parking_ Adjacent to Driveways on the west "A" ..... = remove parking for 20 feet on either side of the driveways for each office compJe~-(~r{ "B" =-~etain-ali__ on_stree_t~ p~a_r.ki_n_ng on the west side of Hospital Drive "C" = other Number of Selection Responses Percentage __A 10 71.4% B 3 21.4% _C 1 7.1% :l'~i~'l Response: 14 ' 100.0% Total N~]mber of Questionnaires Distributed: Percent Response to Questionnaire: ' 66.7% side of Hospital Drive , 21 Date/Time Printed: 7/7/98 at 11:39 AM Page 1 of 1 Filename: ~HOSPDRVE.XLS GEOFI:I ,EY L. RICE, M.D. EYE PHYSICIAN & SURGEON Diplomale o1' Ihe American Board of Ophthalmology May 13, 1998 City of Ukiah Traffic Committee 300 Seminary Ukiah, Ca 95482 Attention: Jim Looney I am writing on behalf of our patients who enter and exit_the drive located at 248-A and 248-B Hospital Drive. Due to the automobiles that park so close to the entrance 0f..the.drive.'it.is difficult for them to see either way before leaving-the parking area. Most of our patients cannot see very well because of their various eye conditiOns and I hear from a large number of them that they have to enter the street a ways before they can actually make their turn onto the street. Our office thinks that it would be beneficial for our patients if the areas on both sides of the drive could be extended another 20 feet to indicate no parking zones. We also believe that this would be much safer for people leaving the parking area. Thank you for your consideration Office Manager ' [ 248-B Hospital Drive ! Ukiah, CA 95482 707-462-2924 5150 Hill Dr., Suite C · Lakeport, CA 95453 1-800-499-2924 ./ Ukiah Valley Medical Center ~,~dventist Health 275 Hospital Drive Ukiall, CA 95482 707-462-3111 Fax 707-463-7384 June 12, 1998 Mr. Rick Kennedy, PE Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Dear Mr. Kennedy: This letter is to address a number of concerns regarding traffic issues on Hospital Drive. There is one issue for which we are seeking some type of resolution and support; the others are more informational and may or may not be of value to you for future planning. The most important item has to do with the speed at which traffic travels on Hospital Drive in the area of the hospital. While the limit appears to be 25 M.P.H., the average speed seems to be higher than that. The speed of the vehicles, and the increased parking on Hospital Drive, are causing concerns for our employees who describe a number of "near misses" while attempting to pull out onto Hospital Drive from the parking lots. There is a special problem with cars coming around the corner on Hospital Drive at high rates of speed. We recognize that increased parking on Hospital Drive contributes to the lack of visibility; however, this is a public street on which parking is permitted so there is not much that can be done to restrict parking on such a wide street. The City has been very helpful in the proper marking of curb cuts and driveways onto Hospital Drive. While it would be more desirable to have the red curb markings extend a greater distance than is allowed by code so that visibility for entering the street would be increased, we appreciate what has been done. The specific suggestion and request would be that some type of signage be placed on Hospital Drive between Perkins and the hospital property line, and at the corner of Hospital Drive and Hamilton Street, that could take a number of forms depending on what is allowable and acceptable. While some type of traffic calming measures have been considered for recommendation, the need for trucks to make deliveries and the ambulance traffic to access the hospital would eliminate street barriers and speed bumps from consideration except in a limited area. Some suggestions would be: 1) Signs noting Hospital Zone along with speed limit signs or Congested Area signs with speed limits indicated. 2) 3) 4) Paint Slow and/or some other appropriate wording on the pavement at both suggested locations. Extend red curb markings further back from driveways to allow better visibility of street traffic. Placing the portable speed indicator at the south end of Hospital Drive for a period of timeto ,, remind drivers of how fast they are driving in this more congested area. CITY OF UKIIAH June 12, 1998 Page 2 5) Placing a "speed bump" across the North end of Hospital Drive just beyond the last driveway cut on the east side of the street and just South of the curve in the street. These are the current requests and we would trust your judgement and experience to select the appropriate solution from either these or other ideas. I would also like to share some other concerns for consideration at the time planning activities are taking place. The traffic on Hospital Drive, while increased, would not be a problem if it were not for the speed of the vehicles and the increased big truck traffic since K-Mart has opened and the east end of Hospital Drive was closed. As an illustration as to large truck use of Hospital Drive, one trucking company regularly drops extra trailers on Hospital Drive just East of the corner with Hamilton Street and leaves them there for hours at a time. When these and other trucks leave the area, the calming measures on Clara make it necessary for them to use Hospital Drive to return to Perkins Street and Highway 101. This adds unnecessary traffic to Hospital Drive. Trucks making deliveries to the hospital used to exit via Hospital Drive onto Orchard, however, with what is for all practical purposes a blockage of the east end of Hospital Drive, this is no longer possible. Frankly, we would prefer that truck traffic on Hospital Drive be limited to hospital and local deliveries only. However, we realize that this may not be possible or practical in spite of it being an added safety factor for those who drive to the hospital and doctors' offices on Hospital Drive. The suggestion of a "speed bump" near the corner on Hospital Drive might be of benefit in helping to resolve this problem. Consideration for the addition of a traffic light at Perkins and Hospital Drive should be given. We understand the concerns and limitations that currently exist, but if Leslie Street were to be moved to form a four-corner intersection with Perkins and Hospital Drive, a traffic control li(lht would seem to a reasonable future consideration. Full support for this idea has been communicate~ to me by the Hospital Drive Medical Plaza Association, the owners of the office complex across Hospital Drive from UVMC. One further comment: The added truck traffic on Hospital Drive and the heavy truck and equipment traffic during the construction of the K-Mart store have been very hard on the asphalt surface of Hospital Drive. We are getting concerned that it will give way in the near future and that the deteriorated condition will further complicate the transport of patients to the hospital beyond that currently experienced by the poor condition of Perkins Street. I would be happy to discuss or clarify any of these items with you or your staff if needed, i can be reached at 463-7360. Thank you for your consideration of this request and allowing me to share our additional concerns. Sincerely. President/CEO Cheryl Kier, UVMC Safety Officer Larry Falk, President, Hospital Drive Medical Plaza Association. DATE: TO: FROM' SUBJECT: CITY OF UKIAH MEMORANDUM July 7, 1998 Rick Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works Hospital Drive Parking At your request I have conducted a survey and a field inspection of the parking in the vicinity of the driveway entrances to the medical office complex on the west side of Hospital Drive. This report is a follow-up on the request from Dr. Geoffrey Rice to eliminate parking for a distance of 20 feet (one parking space) on each side of the driveway to his unit of the medical complex. Mr. Val Devitt, Administrator of Ukiah Valley Medical Center (UVMC), is seeking similar action on the east side of Hospital Drive. EXISTING FACILITIES Hospital Drive is a two lane street, 48 feet wide (curb to curb) with parallel parking on both sides of the street. On the west side of the street there are several units with medical offices. The medical office complex is served by three separate driveways which provide access to off-street parking for patients. The UVMC complex is located on the east side of Hospital Drive. The hospital has a large parking lot available for patients who drive their cars. Upon distributing the surveys, I noted that there were a considerable number of cars parking on the street. However, at the same time, there were spaces available in both the hospital parking lot and the medical office complex parking lots. There are three driveways serving the medical office complex. Immediately south of the middle driveway is a crosswalk which ends at a red curb no parking zone (22 feet in length) adjacent to Myers Apothecary Shop. Directly south of the red curb is a green curb, 24-minute parking zone (20 feet in length). There are five parking spaces which would thus be affected by the proposed no parking zones for 20 feet on either side of the driveways to the medical office complex. SIGNING There are no speed limit signs posted on Hospital Drive. The west side of Hospital Drive is posted with a 24-minute parking zone adjacent to Myers Apothecary Shop. ACCIDENTS There have been no reported accidents within the vicinity of the medical complex driveways on Hospital Drive within the last three years. Page 2 Rick Kennedy July 7, 1998 SUMMARY A written survey of the medical offices on the west side of Hospital Drive was conducted in June 1998. Of the 67 percent responding to the survey, 71.4 percent of the respondents requested that parking be removed for 20 feet on either side of the three driveways. Based on a field inspection of the driveways in question, removal of parking spaces at these three locations would improve the sight distance for vehicles departing the medical office complex. Three respondents indicated that their preference is to retain all parking on Hospital Drive. One respondent stated his preference to retain parking with only a 10-foot setback from each driveway. RECOMMENDATION Based on the survey results and the field inspection it is recommended that parking be restricted by painting the curb red for a length of 20 feet on each side of the north and south driveways and for a length of 20 feet on the north side of the middle driveway to improve sight distance for motorists exiting the medical office complex on the west side of Hospital Drive. ATTACHMENTS !. Cover !etter and questionnaire distributed to the medica! o~ce comp!ex ,.-.~-,,, ,,-,, ,, ,~ , ,,.,oF,,,,, .... ': .... ire I,..~1 IYg ~.,J~UgOl. ll,../I II IG cc: file