Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-02-05 PacketMINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING - January 15, 1997 The Ukiah City Council convened in regular adjourned session, which was legally noticed and posted, at 5:37 p.m. in Conference Room No. 3, Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. Roll was taken and the following were PRESENT: Councilmembers Ashiku, Kelly, Mastin and Mayor Malone. ABSENT: None. Staff present: Assistant City Manager Harris, Recording Secretary Giuntoli, Planning Director Sawyer and City Clerk Henderson. 2. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEM:~ Mayor Malone asked for comments from the audience. No one came forward. 3. NEW BUSlNE~ 3a. Interview Candidates for Vacancy on Plannin_= Commission Mike Brown was the first candidate to be interviewed. Mr. Brown chose not to make an opening statement. Councilmembers asked a sedes of questions. In reply, Mr. Brown stated that he felt the Planning Commissioners should represent the people. He also replied that it concerns him that the Redwood Business Park is still in the process of being built. He thinks of himself as an environmentalist and does not want to see projects that environmentally hurt the Ukiah valley. He stated that he is involved in the Rod and Gun Club. As to his employment with a major gravel supplier, he is a vice president at Pamum Paving, however, he would deal with issues project by project. He spoke to his familiarity with the General Plan and his preference to evaluate each project as it came before the Commission, looking at all the issues. As to his thoughts on traffic circulation, he felt traffic congestion was a major problem, but currently had no suggestions as to how to solve the problem. On 'big box" development, he had mixed feelings; he would like to see tax dollars for Ukiah, but realized that "big box" retail stores could also hurt the local business community. His highest priodty for development would be to see the business park finished, his preference there being for light industrial development. He also believes the developers, the City and the Planning Commission should work together on issues and projects. Mr. Brown had no questions of Council. Mike Correll was the next applicant. Mr. Correll gave a bdef biography of himself: a Vietnam veteran, married with two children, works for PacBell, has run a small business, has traveled, and likes Ukiah very much. Responding to questioning by the Council, Mr. Correll stated that he thought the Planning Commission should represent the City in general, that is split between elected officials and the general public. In the same line of questioning, he thought the Planning Staff should represent the City Council and the manner in which they want the City to go forward. As to the Redwood Business Park, Mr. Correll thought the Park was already favodng retail/commercial over light industrial, but that some of the area should be set aside for light industrial development as originally planned. He sees no traffic problems there. A'.~ to pomography shops trying to come to Ukiah, Mr. con'ell would discourage such if one came before the Planning Commission. He would argue for taking such a shop outside the City where it would be less visible. When asked if the Planning Commission should take a larger role in planning, he replied that it is important to do so in order to avoid poor planning and too much building too quickly. The Planning Commissioners' influence could be felt by approaching Councilmembers, talking to the public and actively campaigning for issues. He thought that Planning Commission meetings ran faidy well and were sophisticated and intense. Mr. Correll asked Councilmembers what they were looking for in a Planning Commissioner. The reply-someone flexible. Joe Chiles was the next interviewee. Mr. Chiles stated he was interested in this appointment because he has a background in this area and is interested in the community. He has lived here Regular Adjourned Meeting - January 15, 1997 Page I two and a half years, is married with two children, is a self-employed property manager and a full-time house husband. He voiced his desired not to be involved in politics, but to bring a citizen's point of view to the Commission. In answer to questioning, Mr. Chiles stated a Planning Commissioner should represent the City, primarily to follow the General Plan, City Codes and Ordinances. He felt it was staff's responsibility to provide necessary information. As to traffic, he stated the less there is of it, the better, and felt public transit, bike lanes, and more infill development were the ways to achieve that. He felt that the Vichy Spdngs residential development was our worst example of 'leap frog" development. He stated the further development of the Airport Industrial Park is political at this point. Each application to develop in the Park should be examined. If no one wants to put in light industry, then develop it some other way to provide revenues for the City. As to "big box" development, he would expect the developing retailer to look at the demographics of the area to see if more were warranted. Mr. Chiles spoke to his involvement on the Planning Commission in Gait, California. He felt that a Planning Commissioner occasionally has to deal compassionately and find a way to provide waivers if necessary. He did a lot of subdivision maps in Gait as that city grew seven percent in one year. He also had experience with EIRs and negative declarations. As to his flexibility, he would go to any length to accommodate projects, if that project was not hurting neighbors, and if it were not a hazard or nuisance. He could not support second units in R-1 zones, but would look at the lot size as a factor in such decisions. Paul Eveleth was not available for an interview. 4. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:26 p.m. Colleen B. Henderson, City Clerk Regular Adjourned Meeting - January 15, 1997 Page 2 MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING - January 15, 1997 The Ukiah City Council convened in regular session, the agenda for which was legally noticed and posted, at 6:35 p.m. in the Civic Center council Chambers, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. Roll was taken and the following Councilmembers were PRESENT: Councilmembers Ashiku, Kelly, Mastin and Mayor Malone. ABSENT: None. Staff Present: Customer Service Supervisor Archibald, Public Utilities Director Barnes, Community Services Director DeKnoblough, Finance Director Elton, Recording Secretary Giuntoli, Assistant City Manager Harris, City Manager Horsley, City Attorney Rapport, Planning Director Sawyer, Public Works Deputy Director Seanor, Senior Planner Stump, Senior Civil Engineer Woods, and City Clerk Henderson. 2. Invocation/Pled0e of Alle_aian~. No invocation was given. Councilmember Mastin led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Sdecial Order of Busine}s 3a. Adoption of Resolution Ao_=ointin0 Councilmember to Fill the Unex;~ired Term of Shed;iai- Malone Mayor Malone outlined the process to be used by the council to select the new Councilmember: the Mayor nominates first and then nominations continue by seniority until a candidate is selected. MIS Malone/Ashiku to nominate Roy Smith. The motion failed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmember Ashiku and Mayor Malone. NOES: Councilmembers Kelly and Mastin. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. MI Mastin to nominate Judy Pruden. The motion died for lack of a second. MIS Kelly/Malone to appoint Guadalupe Chavez to fill the unexpired term of Sheridan Malone. The motion to adopt Resolution No. 97-43 Making Appointment to Fill the Unexpired Council Term of Sheddan Malone with Guadalupe Chavez was carded by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Ashiku, Kelly, Mastin and Mayor Malone. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None i. SweaHna in and Seatin_o of New Councilmember City Clerk Henderson administered the oath of office to Guadalupe Chavez. Councilmember Chavez took her seat on the Council dais. 3b. Uodate from Bruce Richards of Mendocinp Transit Authority, Repardinp I, Jkiah Transit Center Since Mr. Richards was not present, the Mayor moved on to the next item. 4. Ar)r)roval pf Minutes i. Reoular Ad_iourned Meetinp - December 18. 1996 MIS Mastin/Ashiku to approve the Minutes of the Regular Adjourned Meeting of December 18, 1996. The motion was carded by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Ashiku, Kelly, Mastin and Mayor Malone. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: CouncilmemberChavez. ABSENT: None. ii. Repular Meetina - December 18. 199.~ MIS Masfin/Ashiku to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 18, 1996 with the following correction: Councilmember Kelly referred to item 10c. At the beginning of the fourth full paragraph, change the spelling of 'Diana Van Phyle" to the correct spelling 'Diana van der Byl". The Minutes were approved as corrected by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Ashiku, Kelly, Mastin and Mayor Malone. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: Councilmember Chavez. ABSENT: None. 5. RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION Mayor Malone explained the appeal process. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Malone announced that Judy Pruden had asked that item 6a. be removed from the Consent Calendar. Item 6a. became item 11g. Regular Meeting - January 15, 1997 Page I MIS AshikulMastin to approve the Consent Calendar as follows: b. Adopted Ordinance No. 985 Amending Articie 2, Chapter 1, Division 8 of the Ukiah Municipal Code Relative to the Composition of the Traffic Engineering Committee; c. Received Report on Purchase Order for Resurfacing Civic Center Facade; d. Received Report on the Acquisition of Heavy Equipment Repair Services; e. Approved Budget Amendment for $2,000 Contribution to Mendocino County Inland Water end Power Commission; f. Received Notification Regarding Purchase of Liquid Polymer; g. Received Notification Regarding the Purchase of a Used Forklift; h. Accepted Resignation of Planning Commissioner John McCowen and Authorized City Clerk to Advertise to Fill Vacancy; and i. Received Report Regarding Award of Bid for 5,000 feet of 750 MCM Aluminum, 600V Single conductor Cable to G.E. Supply in the Amount of $6,810.38. The motion was carded by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Ashiku, Kelly, Mastin and Mayor Malone. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: Councilmember Chavez. ABSENT: None. 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Mayor Malone explained the procedure for audience comments. EHc Sunsweet, Potter Valley, asked the council to speak more loudly as it is often difficult for the audience to hear councilmembers. John McCowen, P.O. Box 454, Ukiah, voiced his disappointment in the Council's choice of the new Councilmember. 9. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS 9a. Consideration of Letter of Sur)_oort to REMIF Board of Directors Ree_uestin_~ Coverage of Skateboard Parks Community Services Director DeKnoblough presented this item. There has been an ongoing dialogue between the Council and citizens interested in the development of a skateboard park in Ukiah. Progress towards the development of a park has been dependent on available property, fund raising and insurance coverage. New avenues for insurance have opened through the Police Activities League (PAL) program. The City's insurance carder, Redwood Empire Municipal Insurance Fund (REMIF), has always exempted skateboard parks from its coverage. However, the REMIF Board of Directors at its January 31, 1997, meeting will be considering a change in this policy to allow liability coverage for skateboard parks in member cities. Mr. Don Dolan, local skateboard park advocate, is asking the City Council to send a letter of support to REMIF backing a proposed change in REMIF policy to allow insurance coverage for skateboard parks. Don Dolan addressed the Council. He explained that the primary obstacle to the development of a skateboard park is the insurance coverage and asked the Council to lend its support by asking REMIF to change its policy. Mr. Dolan passed out information to the council regarding skateboarding, announced the Town Hall Meeting on the subject scheduled for Tuesday, Janua~ 21, 1997, 7:00 p.m. at Ukiah High School and invited the council to attend. councilmember Masfin was concerned that one of the handouts seemed to imply that Ukiah had already given its support. Mr. Dolan replied that was only a reflection of the author's (Cookie Warner) enthusiasm for the proposed skateboard facility in Healdsburg. No one else addressed the council on this matter. MIS Mastin/Kelly to send a letter of support to the REMIF Board of Directors requesting coverage of skateboard parks. The motion was carded by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Chavez, Ashiku, Kelly, Mastin and Mayor Malone. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. PUBLIC HEARIN(~$ Ado_orion of Resolution AD_orovina Ne_oative Declarati~rt I~nd trltrod~c, tion of Qrdinan;~, Amendin_= the City Zonin_a Map to Rezone 49 Lots from C-N fNeiahborhood Commercial) to C-1 ~_Li_eht Commercial) Senior Planner Stump presented this item to the Council. The project involves changing the zoning on 49 lots from 'C-N" (Neighborhood Commercial to 'C-1" (Light Commercial). The changes are being recommended to better reflect the General Plan. The parcels are generally situated along Orchard Avenue from Ford Street to Gobbi Street, and along Gobbi Street between Orchard Avenue and the Northwestern Pacific railroad tracks. The project also involves the parcels comprising the Pear Tree Shopping Center. The subject parcels are cun'ently developed with a wide vadety of high intensity commercial land uses. These types of uses are inconsistent with the new provisions for the 'C-N" district, but are consistent with Regular Meeting - January 15, 1997 Page 2 the spirit and intent, as well as the allowed and permitted uses, of the"C-l" zoning district. The Planning Commission, after considerable discussion and public input, approved this Negative Declaration and rezoning on December 11, 1996. Staff recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration and introduction of the ordinance. Mayor Malone opened the Public Hearing at 7:05 p.m. No one came forward to address this matter. Mayor Malone closed the Public Headng at 7:06 p.m. MIS AshikulMastin to approve Resolution No. 97-44 Adopting a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for the C-N to C-1 Rezoning Project. The motion was camed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Chavez, Ashiku, Kelly, Mastin and Mayor Malone. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. M/S Ashikul Mastin to introduce by title only the Ordinance Amending the City Zoning Map to Rezone 49 Lots from C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) to C-1 (Light Commercial) by title only. The motion passed by a voice vote of all AYE of the Councilmembers present. City Clerk Henderson read the Ordinance by title only. MIS Ashiku/Mastin to introduce the Ordinance Amending the City Zoning Map to Rezone 49 Lots from C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) to C-1 (Light Commercial). Councilmembers had questions of staff regarding specific parcel designations, traffic flow in residential neighborhoods, proximity to Iow income housing areas, and proximity of commercial uses to residential uses. Staff explained the rezoning and emphasized that these changes reflect more closely the dictates of the General Plan than do present designations. The motion to introduce the Ordinance Amending the City Zoning Map to Rezone 49 Lots from C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) to C-1 (Light Commercial) was carded on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Chavez, Ashiku, Kelly, Mastin and Mayor Malone. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 8b. Adoption of Resolution Establishing Capital Improvement Fees to be Imposed on Develor)ment Within the Airport Indvsf;rial Park City Manager Horsley asked that this matter be continued to the next meeting. City Attorney Rapport stated for the record that this item will not be renoticed, but will be moved to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council, February 5, 1997. Mayor Malone reaff~rmed this and emphasized to the audience there would be no renoticing of this matter. 3b. Uodate from ~ruce Richard of Mqndocin~ Transit Authority (MTAI. Regardin~ Ukiah Transit Center Bruce Richard, General Manager of Mendocino Transit Authority, addressed the Council in order to update Councilmembers as to the status of the Transit Center proposed for the railroad station property in UkJah. Mr. Richard explained how such a center would be compatible with the General Plan, how important it is to bdng transit services together in one place, how the community supports this effort and how feasible it is becoming with the recent purchase of the rail line for public use. Mr. PJchard further explained that conceptual drawings have been prepared. He presented several design schemes while emphasizing how good access is important to the site. He also gave cost approximations for each scheme. He stated the next step in the development of the site would be to Master Plan the entire lO-acre parcel. MTA is seeking grant funds to help finance the cost of the Master Plan. On a final note, Mr. Richard spoke to MTA's enthusiasm for the project and that MTA is looking forward to strong City participation. 10. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10a. Adoption of Resolution!s) Makina Apoointment~s) to the Planning Commission City Manager Horsley noted that Paul Eveleth was still interested in this position. He did not come to the interview due to confusion over his interview date. Mayor Malone entertained audience comments. Phil Baldwin, Ukiah, asked if applicants' questionnaires are available to the public. City Manager Horsley stated they were. Regular Meeting - January 15, 1997 Page 3 MIS MalonelAshiku to nominate Mike Con'ell to fill the term vacated by Phillip Ashiku. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Ashiku, Kelly, Mastin and Mayor Malone. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: CouncilmemberChavez. ABSENT: None. Councilmember Masfin nominated Phil Baldwin to fill the term of John McCowen. The motion died for lack of a second. MIS KellylAshiku to nominate Roy Smith. The motion was withdrawn by the maker and the second due to uncertainty by Council of the desire of Mr. Smith to serve in this capacity. Councilmember Kelly passed her right to nominate to Councilmember Ashiku. MIS AshikulMalone to nominate Joe Chiles to fill the unexpired term of John McCowen on the Planning Commission. The motion was carded by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmember Ashiku and Mayor Malone. NOES: Councilmembers Kelly and Mastin. ABSTAIN: Councilmember Chavez. ABSENT: None. MIS MalonelAshiku to adopt Resolution 97-45 Confirming Appointments to the Planning Commission of Mike Con'ell and Joe Chiles. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Chavez, Ashiku, Kelly, and Mayor Malone. NOES: Councilmember Mastin. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 10b. Reconsideration of the Award of Contract to Provide Services for the City of Ukiah'- Yardwaste and Woodwaste Diversion Proorarrt City Manager Horsley explained that the item is being brought back at the request of Edc Anderson, General Manager of Cold Creek Compost, Inc. Mr. Anderson was confused as to why, at its November 20, 1996 meeting, the Council made the award to Rouser, Inc., which was contrary to the staff recommendation at the time. She explained that staff is at this time recommending continuation of the contract with Reuser. She also presented alternative policy options for the Council's consideration. Mayor Malone asked if the Council had any questions of staff. Councilmember Ashiku asked how long it would take to go out for new proposals. City Manager Horsley replied about six weeks. Councilmember Mastin had several questions of staff regarding the permits necessary, and the issue of gdnding yard or woodwaste at the landfill, and a concern that insurance requirements be met. City Attomey Rapport explained that it would be necessary for either firm to have whatever permits that are legally required. Councilmember Kelly had concerns over the timeliness of going out for further bids and wondered about including performance specifications in the contract. City Attorney Rapport assured the Council that a formal written contract would cover such items. Mayor Malone asked for comments from the audience. Eric Anderson, General Manager of Cold Creek Compost, Inc., thanked the Council for the time it has taken on this issue. He stated it has been a long process for Cold Creek Compost and that Cold Creek Compost was ready to provide this service. Cold Creek Compost does not understand how staff came to its conclusion to award to Rouser and although he sympathizes with staff, he would like to convince the Council that Cold Creek Compost can do the job less expensively. He spoke to Cold Creek Compost's position. He outlined the history of its dealings with the City. He hoped he has corrected any misinformation or erroneous perception that the staff and the City have. He reiterated that the issue of their compost permit has nothing to do with their ability to provide this service. Mr. Anderson presented a letter from Richard Kasminian of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) discussing the fact that composting is not disposal. Several articles from Biocycle were also given to council. He outlined the similarities of and differences between his proposal and Reuser's. He felt Cold Creek compost's proposal was supedor and at a lower cost to the City than Reuser's. He spoke to the local connection of Cold Creek Compost. He addressed the staff report and asked for a six - month interim contract, but if he doesn't get one, Cold Creek Compost will bid on the three year contract in July. He also emphasized to the Council that much of the information it had been provided by his opposition was incorrect and that he was sure Council would hear more of the same at this meeting from Cold Creek Compost's opponents. He assured the Council that Cold Creek Compost is regularly monitored by governmental agencies and are in compliance with all regulations. Regular Meeting - January 15, 1997 Page 4 Councilmember Ashiku asked if Cold Creek Compost lost its permit, would it be economically viable for it to mulch and spread. Eric Anderson replied yes, their costs would be covered, even in a three-year contract. Councilmember Ashiku asked that if Cold Creek lost its permit, where would it store mulch in bad weather?. What is the status of the roofed area? Council was told the mulch would be stored in the roofed area which is one third completed at this time. Councilmember Mastin asked when the roof would be completed. Eric Anderson replied that depends on how business goes, but that they are not going to be limited or impacted in terms of handling Ukiah's greenwaste should they get this contract. Mayor Malone had questions regarding the age of the equipment, maintenance thereof, and the effect of the cost of replacement of old equipment on the stability of these rates. Martin Milleck assured Council that they do own and have maintained a large amount of equipment over the years. When it is not cost effective to fix old equipment, it is replaced. He stated that they have replacement equipment. Bruce Reuser, 320 Santana, Santa Rosa, addressed the Council. He wanted to ciadfy some issues. He stated he knew the business and knew how to compete. Ukiah's is the only landfill with which he deals. He appreciated what everyone is going through. If he doesn't get a six-month contract, he will have to procure another source to meet his mix needs. His contract is based on his costs. His concem is that if he looses this contract for six months, he would need to procure waste someplace else. His costs would then increase. Now that his bid numbers are known, he will not be able to submit a lower bid in July. He stated he was concerned that in six months others will beat his price because it is known. John Hawthorne stated he opposed the bid change to Milleck. He stated that Cold Creek Compost's neighbors have problems with its facility. He felt the facility would complicate traffic problems in Potter Valley. He also thought this facility is in conflict with the EIR now in process. He is leery of those who come in with a short term, Iow bid. His position is that the City should continue with Reuser. Francine Long stated that she lives across from Milleck's composting site and that she is one of the litigants in this suit. They are litigating to protect their property values and are upset by the stench from this facility. They will continue to fight this. He stated that her group is still talking to its attorney. She felt that the answers to their questions are evasive and claims Edc ^nderson is a paid professional lobbyist. She stated she stands behind Mary Goodwin's efforts in this regard. Mayor Malone reminded Ms. Long that this law suit is not the issue. Frsncine Long replied that the contract should be given to Reuser. Eric Sunsweet felt that the business ethics of Cold Creek Compost were the issue. He thought Cold Creek compost is deceptive in its practices. He asked the Council to consider its long term objective and he left an article for the Council,' Life in the Soil,'l from Acres USA. Mary Goodwin addressed the Council. She provided Council with a copy of the Water Quality complaint she filed on September 22, 1996. She read a letter that accompanied that complaint. Councilmember Ashiku called a Point of Orde~ i., e., council is not deciding her particular issues, but the contract with the City. Mary Goodwin replied that Water Qual~ restrictions currently prohibit what Cold Creek Compost is now doing. She stated there is the possibility of a complete shutdown of this project. She made other rebuttals to Edc Anderson's remarks. She wanted the council to be truthfully and factually informed. Eric Anderson apologized for any disparagement. Councilmember Mastin asked a question relative to tonnage. Mr. Reuser and Mr. Anderson ciadfied his concerns. Mayor Malone closed the public input on this item. Councilmember Ashiku stated he would like to put this to rest once and for all. He thought Cold Creek compost could process this waste and that the City should start to look at its costs. MIS AshikulMastin to adopt the alternative policy to rescind the award to Reuser, reject all proposals, direct staff to request proposals to provide yardwaste and woodwaste removal for 3 years or until the landfill project is closed, whichever occurs first, and authorize staff to hire Reuser on a month-to-basis until a new proposal is accepted. Regular Meeting - January 15, 1997 Page 5 City Manager Horsley guaranteed that the proposals would go out as soon as possible. Mr. Reuser said he was available to do this on a month-to-month basis. The motion was carded by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Chavez, Ashiku, Kelly, Mastin and Mayor Malone. NOES: None: ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. RECESS: 9:12 p.m. RECONVENE: 9:18 p.m. 10c. Ado_~tion of Resolution Aooointing New Member to the Traffic Engineerina Committee MIS MalonelAshiku to nominate Donna Roberts to the Traffic Engineering Committee. The motion was carded by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Ashiku, Mastin and Mayor Malone. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: Councilmembers Chavez and Kelly. ABSENT: None. MIS AshikulMalone to adopt Resolution No. 97-45 Confirming Appointment to the Traffic Engineering Committee appointing Donna Roberts. The motion was carded by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Chavez, Kelly, Ashiku, Mastin and Mayor Malone. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 11. NEW BUSINES~ 11a. Consideration of Council. Committee. Commission, and Board Assianrltent~ After open discussion, the Council reached agreement on the following committee, commission and board assignments: Chamber of Commerce Liaison, Mayor Malone City County Leadership Group, Mayor Malone and City Manager City Selection Committee, Mayor Malone (required) Council/County Supervisor Committee, Mayor Malone and Councilmember Kelly Economic Development and Financing Corporation, Councilmember Kelly Investment Oversight Committee, Mayor Malone and Councilmember Ashiku League of California Cities Division Delegate, Vice Mayor Mastin League of California Cities Policy Committees, Councilmembers Kelly and Mastin showed interest Local Agency Formation Commission, Councilmember Ashiku Mendocino Transit Authority, Vice Mayor Mastin Main Street Board of Directors, Councilmember Chavez and City Manager or designee Mendocino Council of Governments, Councilmember Kelly Mendocino County Inland Water and Power Commission, Mayor Malone Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority, Vice Mayor Mastin North Coast Rail Authority, Mayor Malone Northern California Power Association, Councilmember Ashiku, Alternate - City Manager or Electdc Utility Director Sun House Guild (ex officio liaison), Councilmember Kelly Transmission Agency of Northern California, Councilmember Ashiku, Alternate - City Manager or Electdc Utility Director Ukiah Valley Sanitation District, Mayor or Councilmember Chavez 11b. Set Date for Budget OHentafion The Council set the date of Wednesday, February 26, 1997 at 7:30 a.m. for the Budget Orientation Session. 11c. Introduction of Ordinance Amending UCC 6430 to Authorize City Engineer to Aoooirlf Desi_enee to Act in His or Her Absence City Manager Horsley outlined the need for Council to appoint someone on staff to act on behalf of the City Engineer in his or her absence. Mayor Malone asked for comments from the audience. No one came forward. MS Kelly/Mastin to introduce by title only the Ordinance Amending UCC ~430 to Authorize City Engineer to Appoint Designee to Act in His or Her Absence. The motion was carded by a voice vote of all AYES of the Councilmembers present. City Clerk Henderson read the Ordinance by title only. MIS Ashiku/Kelly to introduce the Ordinance Amending UCC ~430 to Authorize City Engineer to Appoint Designee to Act in His or Her Absence. The motion was carded by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Chavez, Ashiku, Kelly, Mastin and Mayor Malone. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Regular Meeting - January 15, 1997 Page 6 11d. Ado=tion of Resolution Establishing a Tiered Payment Plan for Electric Utility Customer-, Customer Service Supervisor Archibald and Finance Director Elton presented this item. As a result of the meter replacement program, the Electric Utility Department became aware that certain meters were undercharging electric usage. A number of these meters have been replaced and the resultant charges for some commercial customers have been a significant raise in their utility bills. The three-tiered payment plan is structured to ease that increase on those customers. Councilmembers had several questions of staff regarding the E-7 utility group, the tiered plan and its application to both residential and commercial customers. City Manager Homley explained that P.G. & E. has many different payment plans. The proposed Tiered Payment Plan is an effort by the City of Ukiah to satisfy large electric utility users who switch to new meters and have significant jumps in their monthly utility rates. The City has no way of knowing how long these users have been underpaying for actual usage delivered. Councilmember Kelly stated that it was unfortunate that not everyone's costs would be effected by this plan. Councilmember Ashiku felt those who can pay should be held to do so. Discussion of the program ensued. W~h assurance from staff that updates on the plan would be provided to the Council, Councilmember Ashiku was willing to move adoption of the plan. MIS Ashiku/Malone to adopt Resolution No. 97-47 Establishing a Tiered Payment Plan for Electric Utility Customers. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Chavez, Ashiku, Mastin and Malone. NOES: Councilmember Kelly. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 11e. Consider and Approve an Addendum ~Changes to Proiect Traffic} to the Certified City of Ukiah Landfill Permit Revision Final EIR and Incoroorate Addendum into the EIR Administrativ; Record City Manager Horsley presented this item to the Council. In order to facilitate regional collection of solid waste, it is necessary that the Ukiah Landfill site receive tonnage from other jurisdictions. This addendum allows a proposed revision in the types of vehicles that would bdng additional waste to the Ukiah Landfill from the cities of Fort Bragg and Willits and their environs. City Attorney Rapport explained that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) allows a lead agency to prepare an addendum to a previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) if some changes or additions to it are necessary, provided that none of the conditions that require a subsequent EIR exist. He felt this addendum did not meet the requirements to necessitate a subsequent EIR. The five findings in the staff report are designed to show no subsequent EIR is required. Councilmember Mastin inquired if Point Arena solid waste was factored in to this plan. He also had questions regarding the number of trucks going in and out of the landfill, the effect on the county road, and the effect on Vichy Resort and tourism. City Manager Horsley replied that all Mendocino County waste was factored in this addendum. City Attorney Rapport assured Council that there were overriding considerations here and that this EIR is still within the proper threshold to satisfy CEQA. Mayor Malone asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak to this issue. No one came forward. M/S Malone/Kelly to 1) make text changes to the Addendum as indicated in the agenda report; 2) approve and adopt the Addendum to the certified City of Ukiah Landfill Permit Revision Final EIR and incorporate the Addendum into the EIR Administrative Record with the following findings: 1. No new additional significant environmental effects will occur;, 2. No previously identified significant effects will be substantially more severe than indicated in the Certified EIR; 3. The proposed revision will not substantially affect the circumstances under which the Project is to be undertaken; 4. No new information of substantial importance is available that would affect the conclusions of the EIR; and 5. No previously infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives have become feasible and no appropriate new mitigation measures or alternatives have been identified. and; 3) adopt the revised Mitigation Monitoring Program. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Chavez, Ashiku, Kelly, Mastin and Mayor Malone. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Regular Meeting - January 15, 1997 Page 7 11f. Consideration and Adoption of Resolution Approvina Memorandum of Understanding for Employee Barc=ainino Units: i. Electric. ii. Miscellaneous. iii. Department Head. iv. Mana0ement. v. Police Mayor Malone asked for input from the audience before the Council went into Closed Session.. Denise Barkley, SEIU Representative, stated she disagreed with the furlough program on behalf of employees. She asked to let them be a part of the discussion and to reconsider imposing furloughs on employees. Terry Hyde, Representative of the Employees Miscellaneous Unit, disagreed with the proposals. He felt that these employees are not responsible for the City's financial straights. He explained that the employees are at impasse because they felt furloughs were not fairly applied throughout the City. He proposed one way to make matters fair, would be to put on a hidng freeze with no raises and no promotions. He also stated the problem is in the General Fund, not the Enterprise Funds. Susan Anderson, Department of Social Services, stated she lived through furloughs imposed by the county and that was not a pretty sight, that it creates negative press, and is bad for relations with employees. John McCowan, Ukiah, asked that the Council do this only as a last resort, after all other cuts are made. He also asked the administration to take the same cuts. Phil Montague of the Electric Department, expressed his anger. He explained he took a large cut in pay to live and work in Ukiah and he did not factor in such a large cut in pay when he moved here. He stated that he made those decisions based on finances, and will find it difficult to stay here due to these pay cuts. He thought the proposal was unfair because the employees did not cause this problem. Paul Richey, Bargaining Agent for Operating Engineers, asked if the cuts were equal and if the council was taking an equivalent cut in pay. He said he had an obligation to tell the Council of the frustration in the Unit. Allen Jamison, City Employee, stated he had been with the City for 14 years and has been in impasse before. He felt it did not make sense to give electdc discounts to customers and then turn around and cut employee wages. No one else came forward. This matter was heard in Closed Session at the conclusion of all other business. 11g. Report pf Disbursements for the Month of December 1996 This matter was pulled from the Consent Calendar (items 6a.) by Judy Pruden. City Manager Horsley stated she had addressed Ms. Pruden's concerns on this item. Ms. Pruden was not available to comment. MIS Ashiku/Kelly to approve the Disbursements for the Month of December 1996. The motion was carded by the following roll call vote: AYES:: councilmembers Chavez, Ashiku, Kelly, Mastin and Malone. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 12. CITY COUNClL/REPORT~ Councilmember Chavez gave no report. Councilmember Ashiku gave no report. Councilmember Kelly gave an update of the recreation center project. There is a site selection committee meeting coming up. Local schools are participating, as are the County of Mendocino, local business people and the City. The Skateboard Pad( Town Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, January 21, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. at Ukiah High School. The League of California Cities training session she attended was very valuable. She had a chance to meet with Assemblywoman Virginia Strom-Martin. Councilmember Mastin reported that the Economic Development and Financing corporation (EDFC) has a draft contract with Management Consultant Madeline Holtcamp; she will be working half time for EDFC and half time for the City of Ukiah. She has already started to work. EDFC is combining efforts with Mendocino County for services. EDFC's current contract for services goes to July 1, 1997, the audit is complete and only some minor changes need to be made. Mayor Malone mentioned he attended the Chamber of Commerce installation of Jim Mayfield as its new president. He also reported that the North Coast Railroad Authority (NCRA) met today. NCRA is not cun'ently getting disaster monies. He attended a meeting of the Mendocino Solid Waste Management Regular Meeting - January 15, 1997 Page 8 Authority (MSWMA) and some of the surrounding counties. They were considering the possibility of shipping garbage out of the area by rail. RECESSED TO REDEVELOPMENT 10:45 p.m. 13. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENT HEAD REPORTS There were no reports. RECONVENED: 11:02 p.m. 14. CLOSED SESSION The City Council adjourned to Closed Session to consider the matter of: 14a. G.C. Section 54957.6 - Confer with City_ of Ukiah Labor Neeotiator. City_ Mana;ier Cand;~:. Horsley. Re_eardine City of Ukiah Emoloyee Bamainin_= Units: i. Electric. ii. Miscellaneous. iii. De_oartment Head. iv. Manaaement. and v. Polic_- RECONVENED IN OPEN SESSION: 12:01 a.m. M/S Mastin/Ashiku to approve Resolution No. 97-48 Adopting Memoranda of Understanding Between the City of Ukiah and the Electric, Department Head. and Police Units; Adopting Addendum and Release Time Agreement for the Management Unit, and Unilaterally Implementing the Terms Presented in the Miscellaneous Unit Memorandum of Understanding Due to Impasse. The motion was carded by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Chavez, Ashiku, Kelly, Mastin and Mayor Malone. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 15. ADJOURNMENT At 12:05 a.m. the meeting was adjourned to 8:00 a.m., January 16, 1997 for the Legal Workshop. Colleen B. Henderson, City Clerk Regular Meeting - January 15, 1997 Page 9 MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING - JANUARY 15, 1997 The Ukiah City Council met in a special session, which had been legally noticed and posted, at 7:40 a.m., in the Civic Center, Conference Room No. 3, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. The following Councilmembers were present: Councilmembers Ashiku, Kelly, Mastin and Mayor Malone. Absent: None. Staff present: City Manager Horsley, Recording Secretary Giuntoli, and City Clerk Henderson. 2. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS No one came forward. UNFINISHED BUSlNE~*~ a. Interview Applicants for City_ Council Position Vacated by Sheridan Mialgn," i. Judy Pruden was the first applicant to be interviewed by the Council. Ms. Pruden chose not to present an opening statement. Mayor Malone opened the questioning of Ms. Pruden by asking her whom she thought Councilmembers, staff and Commissioners should represent. She stated that Councilmembers should be responsible to the entire community, staff should carry on the business of City Hall while being responsible to the public, and that Commissioners could be more objective and follow their personal preferences. Councilmembers questioned Ms. Pruden regarding her views of the General Plan as it is today, her ability to compromise, her thoughts on the needs of youth in our community, landfill issues and her involvement with the current lawsuit by the Ashoffs against the City, her views on property rights in conjunction with historic preservation, and the need for a Redevelopment Agency. Ms. Pruden expressed her wide range involvement with the recent General Plan update process, how much she learned from the experience and the need to prioritize the implementation of the General Plan elements. Ms. Pruden spoke to her experience as a youth leader in Ukiah, the importance of letting our youth know what is available to them in the community, and in letting them know that we care about them. As to landfill issues, she was not in favor of increasing the tonnage delivered to the landfill. She felt that there have been many bad practices used by the City at the landfill in the past 30 years, would like to see it closed in two years, realized the expense involved, and stated that she is not a party to the Ashoffs' lawsuit. Ms. Pruden spoke to her interest in history and especially the history of this area. She felt that respecting our history is a popular issue, but that problems adse when butting histodc significance against land use advocacy. On the subject of Redevelopment, she liked the results of Redevelopment, but not the process. She thought the City needs to look at how it spends Redevelopment dollars. Ms. Pruden chose not to make any closing remarks. ii. Guadalupe Chavez was the next candidate to be interview by the Council. Ms. Chavez chose not to make an opening statement. Council queried Ms. Chavez as to her views on to whom the Council, staff and Commissioners should be responsible, if not appointed to Council, her willingness to serve on a commission, her involvement in leadership programs, how she would finance activities for youth, the needs of the Latino community, the best use of Redevelopment Iow and moderate income housing dollars, her perspective on growth and land use issues, and how she would use the General Plan as a planning tool for the City. Ms. Chavez thought Councilmembers, staff and Commissioners should be responsible to the entire community and that outside sources and scholarships should be looked to for funding youth activities. She stated she is presently a participant in Leadership Mendocino and that this experience has helped her get to know the County and to share her culture with others. As to the needs of the Latino community, she believed that the current welfare cuts are a big concern, will cost more in the long run than they will save, and will create a crisis situation and a lot of pressure for the local community. She felt there needs to be collaboration among agencies to meet these needs. Special Meeting - January 15, 1997 Page I As to the Redevelopment Iow and moderate income housing set aside funds, Ms. Chavez stated that spending money on Iow income rental and self-help housing is a pdodty. On growth and land uses, she recognized the need for new businesses and new jobs, felt that job training without jobs was useless, thought that we need to attract new business to this community, but would not like to see a population explosion where the community loses control of development as she witnessed in another city. She would prefer new businesses that create new jobs for local residents, not for companies who would relocate here and bdng their workers with them. Ms. Chavez indicated that she would want to get the community involved in the General Plan process and would want its opinion on priorities. She would encourage Latinos, Native Americans and youth to inform the City of their needs. Ms. Chavez stated in her closing remarks that she thinks the City Council should represent the citizens and that grass roots efforts are important. She has been involved in the Amedcan Cancer Society to give representation to the Latino Community. She wanted to have this Council position to let the entire community have access to the Council. iii. Phil Baldwin was the next candidate interviewed by the Council. He chose not to make an opening statement. The Council presented Mr. Baldwin with an array of questions, which he answered as each was presented. Among these quedes, he was asked whom he thought Councimembers, staff and Commissioners should represent, if not selected, would he serve on a commission, his feeling about the General Plan document and how it should be used, his thoughts on from where new funding should come, his experience as a Supervisor of Santa Cruz County and his views on landfill issues. As to representation, Mr. Baldwin thought that since it was impossible for a Councilmember to represent the entire community, a Councilmember should represent his own supporters and his own conscience. Staff should be responsible to the City Council and should not act alone. As to Commissioners, Mr. Baldwin stated he was not sure of the process there, supposed Council would have to appoint from a limited applicant pool even if none of them shared its view, but was not sure it necessarily should do that. He would be willing to serve on a commission. As to the General Plan, Mr. Baldwin felt that too much money was spent on it, so it should be taken seriously. He thought it was full of 'mays" and "cans", but that overall it was a good document. He felt the problem with it wes that its vision (i.e., for parks, trails, creek restoration), does not have any way to be funded. He also felt it should not be implemented in neighborhoods without consulting the people who live there. He felt that the General Plan is weak in the area of airport issues and that agricultural interests were too strong in the process. He has land use concerns, particularly the allowance of second units in single family neighborhoods. On the issue of funding and new taxes in light of Proposition 218, Mr. Baldwin cited the need to work with the State Legislature and to educate the public to vote for new funds. He did not think raising the sales tax was the answer and thought both the sales tax and the Electric Franchise Fee are regressive taxes. He realized the Council was in a bind over how to replace the Franchise Fee; the Council could look to Redevelopment or to a new form of tax. Mr. Baldwin outlined the successful recall effort against him while he was a Supervisor for Santa Cruz County. As to the issue of the landfill, Mr. Baidwin admitted a degree of ignorance on the siting of a transfer station, thought more recycling should be done, and that we should look to Madn County's transfer station and how it has impacted its neighborhood. He did not know if it was okay to increase tonnage. Mr. Baldwin had no questions of Council. iv. Roy Smith was the final interviewee for the vacant Council position. He stated that the questionnaire spoke sufficiently to his experience and skills. Councimembers asked a number of questions, including whom should Councilmembers, staff and Commissioners represent, they asked him to speak to provisions of the General Plan, what the City's involvement in the railroad should be, and to address landfill and planning issues. Mr. Smith stated be felt that Council should represent the entire community, staff should represent the policies of the City Council and Commissioners should represent the residents of the City. He very possibly would serve on a commission, if not appointed to the City Council. Special Meeting - January 15, 1997 Page 2 As to the General Plan and histodc preservation, Mr. Smith would not use General Fund revenues for histodc preservation, but felt those provisions were important to have. His priorities for use of General Fund monies would be for public safety, fire protection, and streets and lights. He also felt the General Plan should be followed as much as possible. When asked what he would say if asked to describe Ukiah to San Francisco's Mayor Willie Brown, Mr. Smith replied that he would tell Mr. Brown that Ukiah is a great place to raise kids, that it is scenically beautiful, a place where you know almost everyone, that it is a fdendly community, a progressive community, and that efforts are being made to deal with issues as they adse. He would also invite him to come for a visit. Mr. Smith would ask Mr. Brown how he deals with certain issues, particularly economic development and welfare reform. As to the City's involvement in the railroad, Mr. Smith indicated he thought the railroad is important to the community, that it needs to be pursued and that he looks forward to the day that he can take the train to the Bay Area. Also, he looks forward to rail service helping Ukiah to become a toudst destination. On landfill issues, Mr. Smith was concerned about the present proposed site for the transfer station and would await the outcome of the court challenge thereto. He also stated he would stand behind the majority vote of the Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority (MSWMA) on the siting issue. He felt accepting extra tonnage now was permissible, if this would facilitate closing the site earlier and cut down on expenses in the long run. On planning matters, Mr. Smith thought Ukiah is about saturated with the 'big box' development its demographics would allow. He also stated the Council should be involved in any decisions to allow more of this type of development and needed to follow the General Plan as regarding this issue. Mr. Smith spoke to his concern with welfare reform and where the jobs would come from to put these people (one fifth of the county's population) to work. The City needs to get involved. He did not have a preference at this time as to how Redevelopment's Iow and moderate housing funds are used. As a member of the City Council, he would deal with public safety issues surrounding an increase in homelessness due to welfare reform. At 9:15 a.m., Mayor Malone continued the meeting to 5:30 p.m., January 15, 1997, to interview Planning Commission applicants. Colleen B. Henderson, City Clerk Special Meeting - January 15, 1997 Page 3 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF UKIAH - January 16, 1997 The C, ity Council convened in a regular adjourned meeting, of which the agenda was legally noticed and posted, at 8:07 a.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. Roll was taken and the following Councilmembers were PRESENT: Councilmembers Chavez, Ashiku, Kelly, Mastin, and Mayor Malone. ABSENT: None. Staff Present: Public Utilities Director Barnes, Finance Director Elton, Assistant City Manager Harris, City Manager Horsley, City Attorney Rapport, and Recording Secretary Giuntoli. 2. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS No one came forward. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINES*~ a. Lee;al Worksho_= City Attorney Rapport reviewed the Brown Act, stating that both the Brown Act and Public Records ACt are reflections of State policy that the public's business should be conducted in public, and that the public should have access to public information. The main principle of the Brown Act is that all meetings of a legislative body are open to the public, and all deliberations of the body should be conducted in public, unless there is a specific exception written into the law. When courts construe the Brown Act, they narrowly construe the exceptions which allow the body to meet in closed session, and liberally construe the provisions which require the body to conduct the deliberations in public. The Brown Act, which was substantially rewritten two years ago, requires there be an agenda posted at least 72 hours prior to a meeting in a place which is acceptable to the general public, and it must adequately describe every item that will be discussed at that meeting. The Council may not discuss or take action on items not listed on the agenda, and the public present at the meeting must be allowed to comment on both agenda and non-agenda items. Councilmembers are allowed to briefly respond to statements made or questions posed, upon their own initiative ask questions for clarification, make a brief announcement, or offer a report on their own activities. However, any portion of their report that requires action should be agendized for the next meeting. The public may also have the opportunity to comment on or pull an item from the Consent Calendar. councilmembers are allowed to register a vote of no on a single item of the Calendar, but approve the whole if they so desire. Reasonable time limits may be imposed, at the discretion of the presiding officer, on the audience comments for both agenda and non-agenda items. The Brown Act provides that the legislative body can enter into a closed session; however, there are certain narrowly drawn criteda for such. Closed sessions may be held regarding personnel matters relative to employer/employee labor negotiations, or the consideration of charges or disciplinary action against individual employees. In the City of Ukiah there is a Civil Service Board, and a Civil Service Ordinance and a disciplinary Resolution, that determine action relative to such matters and in the event of an appeal. Progress in a disciplinary matter should be held in closed session to protect the employee's pdvacy rights. The Public Records Act states that all information is public unless there is a specific exemption provided in the law. There is a specific exemption for personnel, medical, and similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal pdvacy. A document relating to a specific disciplinary matter, involving a specific employee, would fall within the personnel exemption and could be kept confidential. Preliminary drafts and memoranda which are not intended to become a permanent part of the City record may be excluded from the Public Records Act; however, any memorandum that is retained by the City in the normal course of business could be subject to disclosure if someone requests it, unless it falls under an exception. At any time three Council members are gathered, it constitutes a quorum for a meeting, and is subject to all of the Brown Act requirements of the post!ng of an agenda, the tape-recording of the proceedings, and the public's right to attend. All discussion in any decision-making process must also be public; instances such as staff polling Council's opinion individually on an item to broker a consensus are considered serial meetings and are prohibited. The pending litigation exception allows the legal counsel to meet with the Council within closed session, but only where it is in anticipation of specific litigation, or threat of litigation against the public agency, or actually a pending lawsuit. Circumstances justifying the closed session must be publicly announced at the meeting, and the Regular Adjourned Meeting January 16, 1997 Page 1 legislative body must vote by motion to enter into dosed session for that purpose. None of the other exceptions to the Brown Act require a motion, except for that particular one. Brown Act requirements apply to the goveming body of a local agency and its committees, commissions, or boards, whether permanent or temporary, advisory or decision-making, which have been created by charter, ordinance, resolution, or formal action of the legislative body. Committees or boards which receive funds from the local agency and include a member from the legislative body sifting on its board, appointed to the position by the legislative body, also fall under the Brown Act requirements. Procedures of conduct of City Council meetings are contained in a resolution previously adopted by the Council, which basically states that Robert's Rules of Order shall apply, except where those rules are changed by the procedures adopted by the City council. The council sits primarily in two capacities, for which two different sets of rules apply. One capacity is as a legislative body which makes rules or sets policies that will apply in the future, which is called quasi-legislative action. The other capac.~ is referred to as quasi-judicial, which is similar to a court. In a quasi-legislative action, the Council is acting on a specific permit or application by an individual and resolving an issue peculiar to that specific situation. The most typical examples of a quasi-judicial action are appeals from the Planning Commission on use or site development permits. Any individual entitlements that are being appealed or applied for to the Council necessitate them acting as a court, and due process considerations apply. The proceeding must be fair and impartial, the Council's decision must be based on the evidence presented during the headng, and formal public notice to the affected property owners is required. Site visitation by the Councilmembers is required in a quasi-judicial action. The purest way to conduct the process and make the individual Councilmember's viewing of the site a part of the record is to convene and conduct a portion of the meeting on the site; the public would be invited and could offer their comments. However, the practicing rule is that each individual Councilmember should, on their own, view the site prior to the meeting, but not participate in discussion or receive any evidence while they are there, and disclose for the record at the regular Council meeting that they have viewed the site. With quasi-judicial matters, the council makes their decision based solely on information presented dudng the headng itself, and does not converse outside of the headng with the proponents or opponents of a project after the item is listed on the agenda and pdor to the hearing. Under the City's adopted resolution regarding procedures of conduct, an abstention during voting is counted as a yes vote. If any of the Councilmembers have a conflict relative to an issue, they are required to disclose the nature of the conflict for the record, and then are considered to be absent from the meeting for that issue. In that situation, their vote is not counted. Otherwise, the Councilmembers have a duty to vote, and must not use an abstention as a method to avoid voting on an issue. Conflict of interest is a general term relating solely to financial interests that refers to specific rules created by statute or by the courts, and prohibits Councilmembers from participating in or attempting to influence a decision which could have a foreseeable and material financial effect on a Councilmember that is different from the effect on the public general. The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) has developed a lengthy set of regulations in an attempt to provide guidance and understanding of the conflict of interest statement. Legally, simply being interested in a subject or individual does not constitute a conflict of interest or the necessity for leaving a meeting and refraining from the discussion or vote. City Attorney Rapport referred the Council to the written information he had prepared relative to conflict of interest, suggested they become aware of their reporting obligations, and offered to answer any questions that may adse relating to the Fair Political Practices ACt. Councilmember Ashiku left the meeting at 9:08 a.m. in order to keep a previous appointment. Mr. Rapport continued the workshop by advising that Councilmembers are prohibited from acquiring real property within the Redevelopment Area, with the exception of a principal residence or the acquisition of property to replace business property which they have used for three years. If a Councilmember owns property within the Redevelopment Area pdor to being elected to the Council, they must disclose said interests not only on the proper FPPC reporting forms but also make specific disclosure during the public meeting of both the City Council and Redevelopment Agency so that it is reflected in the Minutes of that meeting. Regular Adjourned Meeting January 16, 1997 Page 2 Any source of income, which provides an amount of $250 or more, that a Councilmember has dedved dudng the previous 12 month pedod prior to considering a decision that affects that source of income, be it person or business entity, must be disclosed. Individual Councilmembers, and the Council as a body, are prohibited from approving a contract in which they have a direct or indirect financial interest. It is not sufficient to "conflict out;" the contract actually cannot be approved. There is also a court-created conflict of interest standard which is broader than the Fair Political Practices Act and looks at any financial interest that might compromise a Councilmember's impartiality or duty of loyalty to the City. City Manager Horsley suggested that since it had been necessary for Councilmember Ashiku to leave the meeting, the workshop be continued to a time when all Councilmembers could again be present. City Attorney Rapport suggested the Council review on their own the materials on Gifts and Liability for Public Entities. Councilmember Mastin applauded City Attorney Rapport's many years of service to the City, and clarified that Mr. Rapport's position was as attorney directly working for the City Council. 4. ADJOURNMENT MIS KellylMastin to adjourn to the regular scheduled meeting of February 5, 1997 at 6:30 p.m., carded by an all AYE voice vote of the Councilmembers present. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:20 a.m. b:meg\cc11697.1eg Marge Giuntoli, Recording Secretary Regular Adjourned Meeting January 16, 1997 Page 3 Comparison of cost factors in Transfer Station Proposals ~' .~ ,~.a~:~ ' OPeration Transporta- Landfill Construction CPI TOTAL tion Disposal Allied Waste 7.1 7 i 3.1'5 22.50 100% 42.82 Industries 7-year contract Alta 9148 17.25" ' 26'16 70°?o 52.89 Environmental 7-year contract Ostrum Road , ,, Alta 9.19 1 7.25 26.05 ' 70% 52.49 Environmental 10- year contract Ostrum Road Alta ' 9.48 15.25 24.06 70% 48.79 Environmental 7-year contract B&J Landfill Alta 9.19 ' 15125 23.95 70% 48.39 Environmental 1 O-year contract B&J Landfill North Coast 12.53 23.89 rail 9.66 85% 46.08 rail Waste Systems 26.89 truck 49.08 truck 7-year contract North Coast 12.03 '' 23.39 rail 9,66 85% 45.08 rail Waste Systems 26.39 truck 48.08 truck 10-year cont. North Coast '9.51 ' 22.39 rail 9.66 8.36 ' 85% ' 49.92 rail waste Systems 25.39 truck 52.92 truck 20-yea, r cont. Solid Waste 7.22 11.78 '32.00 ' ' 100% 51.00 Systems 7-year contr. Solid Waste 6.46 10.54 32.00 100% 49.00 Systems 10-Ye,ar contr. Solid Waste' 5.72 9.33 ' 32.00 8.95 100%, ' 56.00 Systems 20-year, con, tr. Regional 9.99 29.59 19.5'1 ' 85% 59.09 Disposal Co. 7-year contract Regional 9.59' ' 29.59 19.51 85%' 58.69 Disposal Co. 10-year contr. Regional 9.59 29.59 ' 19.5i 8.23 '" 85% 66.92 Disposal Co. 20-year contr., Empire Waste 13.58" 26.09 30128 82.4% 69.95 7 & 1,0 year ECDC Environ. 12.09 17.31 22.50 75'% 51.90 7-year contr. Potrero Hills 'ECDC Environ.' 10-year contr. Potrero Hills EcDC Environ. 11.15 16.71 22.00 11.84 75% 61.70 20-year contr. Potrero Hills ,, ,, Proposing Entity: ALLIED WASTE INDUSTRIES, INC., 7201 Road, Suite 375, Scottsdale, Arizona 85251 E. Camelback Transfer Station Operator: Allied Waste of California, Inc. Long-haul transporter: Mezger Truck, Inc., P.O. Box 220, Yolo, CA 95697 Type of transportation: Truck Landfill destination: Charter Evaporation Resource Recovery Systems Waste Management Facility, 1251 Putnam Road, Arbuckle, California (Colusa County). Owned by Robert Cole, 75 Teloma Drive, Ventura, CA 93003, to be operated by Allied Waste Industries, Inc. Initial year tipping fee per ton: Component 1 Transfer station operation T. ransportation Landfill disposal TOTAL TIPPING FEE (operation and disposal only) 7-year contract term not provided not provided not provided not provided 10-year contract term 7.17 13.15 22.50 42.82 Cost of living adjustment would be "the greater of 3-1/2% or the historical CPI as used by Mendocino County." No Component 2proposal for financing and construction of the transfer station was made. Notes: Proposer is a national solid waste disposal company which states it owns 4'2 collection companies, 23 transfer station facilities, 9 recycling facilities and 20 landfills in 12 states, primarily in the midwest, southwest and southern U.S. Landfill is a Class II facility that is permitted to accept municipal wastes and brines, drilling muds, scrubber waste, contaminated soils, and sewage sludge. Apparently the landfill is not currently operating. Landfill is being repermitted. An EIR has been prepared and is being circulated. · 12/22/96 Proposing Entity: ALTA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., 235 N. First Street, Dixon, CA 95620 (wholly owned subsidiary of Norcal Waste Systems, Inc.) Transfer Station Operator: Alta Environmental Services Long-haul transporter: Button Transportation Inc., 8034 Schroeder Road Dixon CA 95620. ' ' Type of transportation: Truck Landfill destination: Option 1: Ostrum Road Sanitary Landfill, Marysville, CA Owner: Norcal Option 2: B&J Drop Box Sanitary Landfill, 6426 Hay Rd., Vacaville, CA Owner: Norcal Initial year tipping fee per ton: Option 1: Ostrum Road Landfill Transfer station operation Transportation 7-year contract term 9.48 17.25 Landfill disposal 26.16 TOTAL TIPPING FEE 52.89 Option 2: B&J Drop Box Sanitary Landfill 7-year contract term 10-year contract term Transfer station operation 9.48 9.19 Transportation 15.25 15.25 Landfill disposal 24.06 23.95 TOTAL TIPPING FEE 48.79 48.39 10-year contract term 9.19 17.25 26.05 52.49 Cost of living adjustment would be 70% of CPI. No Component 2 proposal for financing and construction of the transfer station was made. Notes: Norcal is franchised collector for San Francisco, Eureka and about 50 other communities in California. Ostrom Road Landfill is described as "first totally lined, permitted Subtitle D landfill in the State of California." It opened in November, 1996, and receives 400 to 500 tons per day from surrounding counties. Current site life is "over 30 years." B&J Drop Box Sanitary Landfill is an older landfill which has operated since the 1960's, and "a portion of the site is unlined." Liners are built over old refuse fill areas and all refuse currently goes into lined cells. Site life is stated as exceeding the 10-year contract term. 12/'22/96 Proposing Entity- REGIONAL DISPOSAL COMPANY, 200 112th Avenue NE, Suite 300, Bellevue, Washington 98004 (a joint venture of Rabanco and others) Transfer Station Operator' Regional Disposal Company Long-haul transporter: Northwestern Pacific Railroad, California Northern Railroad, Union Pacific Railroad, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Type of transportation' Rail Landfill destination' Roosevelt Regional Landfill, 'Roosevelt, Washinton (owned by Regional Disposal Company) Initial year tipping fee per ton' Component 1 (operation & disposal only) Transfer station operation Transportation Landfill disposal 7-year contract term 9.99 10-year contract term 9.59 29.59 29.59 19.51 19.51 TOTAL TIPPING FEE 59.09 58.69 Component 2 (adds financing & construction) A. Utilizing Prevailing Wage Transfer station operation Transportation Landfill disposal Rates for Construction 20-year contract term 9.59 29.59 19.51 Construction 9.07 TOTAL TIPPING FEE 67.76 Capital cost estimate is $3,772,564. B. NOT UtiliZing Prevailing Wage Rates for Construction 20-year contract term 9.59 Transfer station operation Transportation Landfill disposal 29.59 19.51 Construction 8.23 TOTAL TIPPING FEE 66.92 Capital cost estimate is $3,420 ,561. Cost of living adjustment would be 85% of CPI for Component 1 and 80% for Component 2, not inclUding "Construction" portion. Not es: Proposes minor modifications to building design. Regional Disposal Co. operates the Napa County transfer station for rail export to the Roosevelt Landfill, which has site life of at least 40 years. Rail export to be integrated into current designated train from Napa. 12/22/96 Proposing Entity: SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS, INC., 3417 Standish Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95407 (wholly owned by James Ratto) Transfer Station Operator: Solid Waste Systems Long-haul transporter: Solid Waste Systems Type of transportation: Truck Landfill destination: Redwood Landfill, Inc., 8950 Redwood Highway, Novato, CA 94948 (subsidiary of USA Waste Services, Inc., 1011 Fannin, Suite 400, Houston, Texas 77002) Initial year tipping fee per ton: Component 1 (operation & disposal only) 7-year contract term Transfer station operation 7.22 Transportation 11.78 Landfill disposal 32.00 TOTAL TIPPING FEE 51.00 6..46 10.54 32.00 49.00 lO-year contract term Component 2 (adds financing & construction) 20-year contract term Transfer station operation Transportation Landfill disposal 5.72 9.33 32.00 Construction 8.95 TOTAL TIPPING FEE 56.00 Capital investment estimated as $4,100,000 Cost of living adjustment would be 100% of CPI. Proposer requires that "extraordinary cost increases or decreases, such as increases or decreases in fees, taxes, fuel or other costs imposed by law, governmental or regulatory agencies shall be an automatic pass through subject to verification by MSWMA." Notes: Solid Waste Systems is Ukiah's franchised disposal collector. A slightly revised building plan is proposed. Redwood Landfill receives 90 percent of Marin County's solid waste. The landfill also receives sewage sludge. The landfill is not lined. It is surrounded by a perimeter levee and built on bay muds. A 16-acre lined module is scheduled to be built in 2000. Landfill site life is projected at 45 years. 12/22/96 Proposing Entity: EMPIRE WASTE MANAGEMENT, 3400 Standish Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95409 (subsidiary of WMX Technologies, Oak Brook, Illinois) Transfer Station'Operator: Empire Waste Management Long-haul transporter: Denbeste Transportation Inc. 930 Shiloh Road #44, Windsor, CA 95492 ' ' Type of transportation: Truck Landfill destination: Altamont Landfill and Resource Recovery Facility, Livermore, CA (owned by another WMX subsidiary). Initial year tipping fee per ton: Component 1 (operation & disposal only) Transfer station operation~ Transportation Landfill disposal 7-year contract term 13.58 10-year contract term 13.58 26.09 26.09 30.28 30.28 TOTAL TIPPING FEE 69.95 69.95 No proposal made for Component 2 financing and construction. Cost of living adjustment would be 82.4% of CPI, not applying to "host fee" portion of tipping fee, which is identified as currently $12.28 per ton. Increases or decreases in host fees would be passed through to tipping fee. Notes: WMX Technologies is the largest solid waste company in North America. Proposes optional materials sorting line for processing of drop boxes, self haul, and other dry recyclable rich loads, and optional environmental education center. 12/22/96 Proposing Entity: NORTH COAST WASTE SYSTEMS, 1285 Whitehall Lane, St. Helena, CA 94874 (newly formed subsidiary corporation of Clover Flat Landfill, Inc. at the same address.) Transfer Station Operator: North Coast Waste Systems Long-haul transporter: Primary: Northwestern Pacific Railroad, California Northern Railroad, Union Pacific Railroad Back-up: OK Trucking, P.O. Box 2177, San Leandro, CA 94577 Type of transportation' Rail, with back-up truck alternative Landfill destination- Lockwood Regional Landfill, Storey County, Nevada (owned by Caramella-Ballardia, Ltd., Reno.) Back-up landfill: Clover Flat Landfill, Calistoga Initial year tipping fee per ton- (operation & disposal only) 7-year contract term 12.53 23.89(rail) 26.89 (truck) 9.66 46.08(rail) 49.08 (truck) Component 1 Transfer station operation Transportation Landfill disposal TOTAL TIPPING FEE 10,year contract term 12.03 23.39(rail) 26.39 (truck) 9.66 45.08(rail) 48.08(truck) Component 2 (adds financing & construction) 20-year contract term Transfer station operation 9.51 Transportation Landfill disposal Construction 22.39 (rail) 25.39(truck) 9.66 8.36 TOTAL TIPPING FEE Capital investment estimate 49.92(rail) 52.92 (truck) was not provided. Cost of living adjustment would be 85% of CPI (does not apply to construction portion). Notes: Parent company is owned by Bob and Marvin Pestoni and operates Clover Flat Landfill near Calistoga and disposal collection companies in upper Napa Valley and southern Lake County. A substantially different building design and facility layout is proposed, utilizing a baler for all solid waste. The Lockwood landfill has a site life of 44 years. It meets Subtitle D regulations without a liner because of its geology. The Clover Flat Landfill an older landfill which would be used for backup purposes only. ITEM NO. 6a DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 1997 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: DENIAL Of CLAIM FOR DAMAGES RECEIVED FROM DAVID ROWE; AND REFER TO CITY INSURANCE CARRIER, REMIF The claim from David Rowe was received by the City of Ukiah on January 15, 1997 and alleges expenses related to a sewer backup at 811 S. Dora Street on January 1, 1997. Pursuant to City policy it is recommended the City Council deny the claims as stated and refer them to REMIF, the City of Ukiah's insurance carrier. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Deny Claim for Damages received from David Rowe; and Refer it to REMIF, the City's Insurance Carrier. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Alternative action not advised by the City's Risk Manager. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Appropriation Requested: N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Acct. No.' N/A Yes Mic},hael F. Harris, AICP, Assistant City Manager ~J~-~ ~ Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Claim of David Rowe, pages 1-2. APPROVED' L_~ [?.._.[.~ .¢~,....:, candace Horsley, Ciiy~anager mfh:asrcc97 0205CLAIM NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST TI~ CITY OF URIAH, CALIFORNIA This claim must be presented, as prescribed by Parts 3 and 4 of Division 3.6, of Title 1, of the Government Code of the State of California, by the claimant or by a person acting on his/her behalf. ECE VED C;TY OF IJKllH RETURN TO: le · City Clerk's office J~N 15 1997 City of Okiah 300 seminary Avenue CITY CLERK 0E?A~i~MEN'~ Ukiah, California 95482 . Number/Street and Post Office Box City State Home Phone Number Zip Code Work Phone Number · NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON TO WHOM NOTICES REGARDING THIS CLAIM SHOULD BE .SENT (if different than above): · · · DATE OF THE ACCIDENT OR OCCURRENCE: PLACE OF THE ACCIDENT OR OCCURRENCE: GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE ACCIDENT OR OCCURRENCE (Attach a~ditiorLal pa. ges if mor. e slkace is needed): C,'~¥ ~a;n ~Ft~m · NAMES, IF KNOWN, OF ANY PUBLIC EMPLOYEES CAUSING THE INJURY OR LOSS: · · NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF WITNESSES (optional): NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF DOCTORS/HOSPITALS WHERE TREATED: A· NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE Be -- % -- 10. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE LOSS, INJURY, OR DAMAGE SUFFERED: 11. 12. TOTAL AMOUNT CLAIMED: THE BASIS OF COMPUTING THE TOTAL AMOUNT CLAIMED IS AS FOLLOWS: Damages incurred to date: Expenses for medical/hospital care: Loss of earnings: Spgcial damages for: General damages Estimated prospective damages as far as known: Future expenses for medical and hospital care: Future loss of earnings: Other prospective special damages: Prospectiv~ general damages: The claim shall be signed by the claimant or by some person on his/her behalf. A claim relating to a cause of action for death or for injury to the person or to personal property or growing crops shall be presented not later than six (6) calendar months or 182 days after the accrual of the cause of action, whichever is longer. Claims relating to any other causes of action shall be presented not later than one (1) year after accrual of the cause of action. IGNATURE OF CLAIMANT(S) Received in City Clerk's Office this /~'~ day of ~~ 19f_- . TURE ' NOTE: This form of claim is for your convenience only, and any other type of form may be used if desired, so long as it satisfies the requirements of the Government Code. The use of this form is not intended in any way to advise you of your legal rights or to interpret any law. If you are in doubt regarding your legal rights or the interpretation of any law, we suggest that you seek legal counseling of your choice. 3:FORM~CLAIM R:v: 3/10/95 ITEM NO. 6b DATE: February 5, 1997 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY ZONING MAP TO REZONE 49 LOTS FROM C-N (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) TO C-1 (LIGHT COMMERCIAL) SUMMARY: On January 15, 1997, the City Council voted 5-0 to introduce the ordinance amending the City zoning map to rezone 49 lots from "C-N" (Neighborhood Commercial) to "C-1" (Light Commercial) consistent with the recommendations of the City Planning Commission. The ordinance has been prepared in final form for adoption, and is attached to this Agenda Summary Report. The parcels are generally situated along Orchard Avenue from Ford Street to Gobbi Street, and along Gobbi Street between Orchard Avenue and the NWP railroad tracks. The project also involves the parcels comprising the Pear Tree Shopping Center (see map and table attached to the ordinance). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt the ordinance amending the City Zoning Map rezoning 49 lots from C-N to C-1. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: 1. Do not adopt the proposed ordinance, and provide direction to staff. Citizen Advised: All affected and adjoining properties owners duly noticed Requested by: Planning Department Prepared by: Charley Stump, Senior Planner Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager and Bob Sawyer, Planning Director Attachments: 1. Ordinance amending the City Zoning Map APPROVED: Candace Horsley, City M~,ager ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR THE CITY OF UKIAH, CALIFORNIA The City Council of the City of Ukiah does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION ONE Pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 9009 of the Ukiah City Code, the Official Zoning Map for the City of Ukiah is amended to change the zoning on 49 parcels in the C-N to C-1 Rezoning Area of the community generally situated along Orchard Avenue from Ford Street to Gobbi Street, and along Gobbi Street between Orchard Avenue and the NWP railroad tracks. The project also involves the parcels comprising the Pear Tree Shopping Center. The project area is depicted on page 3 of Exhibit "A." The listing of the specific parcels involved in this rezoning action is attached as Exhibit "A." SECTION TWO This ordinance shall be published as required by law in a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ukiah. SECTION THREE This rezoning action and amendment to the Official Zoning Map of the City of Ukiah is necessary to assign the most reasonable and appropriate zoning classification to the subject parcels, and to conform to the provisions of the Ukiah General Plan, adopted on December 6, 1995. SECTION FOUR This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after adoption. Introduced by title only on January 15, 1997, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Chavez, Ashiku, Kelly, Mastin, and Mayor Malone NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Passed and adopted on , by the following role call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Colleen Henderson, City Clerk Sheridan Malone, Mayor EXHIBIT "A" C-N TO C-1 REZONING PROJECT (96-48) AP Number Location Existing Land Use (1) 2-030-6 North of Mervyn's Vacant (2) 2-193-15 400 East Perkins St. Vacant (3) 2-193-45 404 East Perkins St. Mendocino Steak & Salad Restaurant (4) 2-200-39 Orchard Avenue and J.C. Penny's Department Store Hospital Drive and other shops/retail stores (5) 2-247-1 605 East Perkins St Chevron Station (6) 2-247-2 Perkins & Orchard Denny's Restaurant (7) 2-247-3 Orchard Plaza Shopping Center (8) 2-247-4 Orchard Plaza Shopping Center (9) 2-247-5 Orchard Plaza Shopping Center (10) 2-247-6 Orchard Plaza Shopping Center (11) 2-247-7 Orchard Plaza Shopping Center (12) 2-290-48 640 Orchard Avenue Holy Trinity Church (13) 2-290-51 540 Orchard Avenue Dept Motor Vehicles (14) 2-312-9 350 East Gobbi St Professional Offices (15) 2-312-10 376 East Gobbi St Professional Offices (16) 2-312-11 Leslie & Gobbi St Convenience Store (17) 2-312-12 300 East Gobbi St Professional Offices (ptn) (18) 2-320-4 648-652 Orchard Ave Single Family Residence (2?) (19) 2-320-28 696 Orchard Avenue Single Family Residence (20) 2-320-30 654-656 Orchard Ave Acorn Realty Company (21) 2-320-31 668 Orchard Avenue Montessori School / Happy Tails Dog Grooming (22) 2-320-32 676 Orchard Avenue Hometown Shopper (23) 2-320-35 490 East Gobbi Street Single Family Residence (24) 2-320-37, 38 400 East Gobbi Street Professional Offices (25) 2-340-24 Orchard & Peach St. Vacant EXHIBIT "A" - Page 1 of 3 (26) 2-340-25 425 Orchard Avenue Agricultural Service Center (27') 2-340-26 427 Orchard Avenue Kings Office Supply (vacant) (28) 2-340-27 620-630 Kings Court PIC / Professional Offices (29) 2-340-28 655 Kings Court Professional Offices (30) 2-340-29 625 Kings Court Professional Offices ($'1) 2-340-30 601 Kings Court CA State Auto Assoc (32) 2-340-31 545 Orchard Avenue Vacant (33) 2-340-34 No address Vacant (Future Post Office) (34) 2-340-38 551 Orchard Avenue First American Title ($$) 2-340-39 Behind 2-340-38 Vacant (36) 2-340-42 631 Orchard Avenue Blue Shield Building (1) ($7') 2-340-43 631 Orchard Avenue Blue Shield Building (2) (38) 2-340-44 No address Vacant ($9) 2-370-25 Orchard & Hospital Dr Mervyns Department Store (40) 3-581-22 237 East Gobbi Street RCHDC Offices (4'1) 3-581-29 Waugh & Gobbi Kelly Moore Paint Co. (42) 3-582-1 455 East Gobbi Street Professional Offices (43) 3-582-4 (ptn) Gobbi & Orchard Ave Vacant (44) 2-200-35 420 East Perkins St. Savings Bank (45) 2-200-36 410 East Perkins St. Wendy's Restaurant (46) 2-242-17 Orchard Avenue & Beacon Gas Station Perkins Street (SW) (47') 2-200-29, 30 Orchard Avenue & Pear Tree Shopping Center Perkins Street EXHIBIT "A" - Page 2 of 3 C-N~:~ -I:REZONiNG PRO C.t ( /o /? EXHIBIT "A" - Page 3 of 3 ITEM NO. 6c DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 1997 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING UCC §430 TO AUTHORIZE CITY ENGINEER TO APPOINT DESIGNEE TO ACT IN HIS OR HER ABSENCE At the January 15, 1997 City Council meeting the ordinance amending the Municipal Code to allow the City Engineer to appoint a designee to serve in his or her absence was introduced by a unanimous vote of the Council. Adoption of the ordinance is now appropriate. Action on the Consent Calendar has been standard Council practice. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the ordinance. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adoption of Ordinance Amending UCC §430 to Authorize City Engineer to Appoint Designee to Act in His or Her Absence ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Determine this matter need not be addressed in the City Code and do not adopt ordinance. 2. Determine ordinance requires modifications, identify necessary changes, and adopt revised ordinance. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Appropriation Requested: N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Acct. No.: N/A NA ~,Achael F' . .arr,s,' AICP, Ass,stant' C,t'y Mana g e, L~'~~'~.~, David Rapport, City Attorney and Candace Horsley, C~tyM" "~nager 1. Ordinance for adoption, pages 1-2. C~idace Horsley, ~3it~f Manager mfh:asrcc 0205CENG ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH AMENDING SECTION 430 OF THE UKIAH CITY CODE TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY ENGINEER TO APPOINT A DESIGNEE TO SERVE IN HIS OR HER ABSENCE The City Council of the City of Ukiah hereby ordains as follows: SECTION ONE Section 430 of the Ukiah City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: §430: DUTIES OF CITY ENGINEER: The City Engineer, or, in his or her absence, his or her designee, shall perform all of the duties now or hereafter required of the City Engineer by any law of the State of California, ordinance of the City, or order of the City Council. He shall establish, mark and make a record of the grades and locations of all public streets, sidewalks, alleys, parks, sewers, gutters and water ways and do such engineering work on public works and property of the City as may be necessary or required by the City Council. With the approval of the City Council, he shall employ such labor and engage such vehicles, equipment, implements, and facilities as may be necessary in the performance of his duties and direct the operation of the same. (Ord. 346, §1, adopted 1941) The City engineer shall appoint a designee to serve in his or her absence. The person so designated must be a City employee who possesses the necessary qualifications to perform the duties of the City Engineer. SECTION TWO This Ordinance shall be published as required by law and shall become effective thirty (30) days after it is adopted. Introduced by title only on January 15, 1997, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: s:\u\ords97\ce January 9, 1997 Adopted on , 1997, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Sheridan Malone, Mayor Colleen Henderson, City Clerk s:\u\ords97\ce January 9, 1997 AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 6d DATE: February 5, 1997 REPORT SUBJECT: RECEIVE AND FILE 1996 ANNUAL RECYCLING REPORT FROM SOLID WASTES SYSTEMS, INC. As stipulated in the Franchise Agreement with Solid Wastes Systems, Inc., the City of Ukiah's garbage and recycling collection hauler has prepared and submitted an Annual Report identifying recycling activities and efforts for the 1996 calendar year. According to Solid Wastes Systems records, the citizens and businesses of the City have proven their continued commitment and support to our recycling and waste diversion efforts with an average diversion rate of more than 40%. This figure however differs from that presented by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) which indicates a diversion rate of approximately 27%. This difference is the result of changes in measuring solid waste and calculation techniques. The original method of calculating tonnage, based on a predetermined pounds-per-compacted-cubicyard conversion equation, was changed to reflect actual weight when a scale was purchased and installed at the landfill in February, 1995. The CIMWB also changed its method for calculating tonnage. The Board initially determined diversion efforts based on the quantities of rec¥clables collected from year to year. They now calculate diversion efforts based on tonnage of waste generated, using 1992 as a base year and comparing that to the current year's waste disposal. It appears that due to these changes in methods for calculating diversions, the State records indicate the lessor diversion rate than that reported by Solid Wastes Systems Inc. The Recycling Report is available for Public review at the Civic Center. Questions or concerns regarding this Report or the City's recycling efforts should be directed to the Recycling Coordinator, Sue Goodrick, at 463-6286. Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file the report. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file copy of Solid Wastes Systems 1996 Annual Recycling Report for the City of Ukiah. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: None. Appropriation Requested: Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: APPROVED: R:I \COMPLIANCE:kk ARECYCLABLE.RPT N/A N/A Ukiah Solid Wastes Systems, Inc. Sue A. Goodrick, Compliance Officer Candace Horsley, City Manager 1996 Annual Recycling Report from Solid Wastes Systems Inc. Candace Horsley, Cily Manager SOLID WASTES SYSTEMS 1996 ANNUAL RECYCLING REPORT JANUARY 15, 1997 ECDC ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL Proposing Entity: ECDC ENVIRONMENTAL, L.C., 127 South, 500 East, Suite 675, Salt Lake City, Utah 84102(80% subsidiary of Laidlaw Inc. of Canada) Transfer Station Operator: ECDC Long-haul transporter: Northwestern Pacific Railroad, CalifOrnia Northern Railroad Type of transportation: Rail Landfill destination: Potrero Hills Landfill, Inc., Suisun, California (related corporation to Solano Garbage Co. and Richmond Sanitary) Initial year tipping fee per ton: Component 1 (operation & Transfer station operation Transportation Landfill disposal TOTAL TIPPING FEE disposal only) 7-year contract term 10-year contract term 12.09 11.15 17.31 16.71 22.00 22.50 51.90 49.86 Component 2 (adds financing & construction) 20-year contract term Transfer station operation Transportation 11.15 16.71 Landfill disposal 22.00 Construction 11.84 TOTAL TIPPING FEE 61.70 No capital cost estimated was provided. Cost of living adjustment would be 75% of CPI (does not include construction portion). Notes: Potrero Hills Landfill is a lined, Subtitle D compliant facility in operation since 1986. Landfill states that it will guarantee capacity to Mendocino County for 20 years or more. ECDC proposes to rail waste to a point 4 miles from landfill, where containers will be off-loaded and trucked to disposal site. Solid Wastes Systems, Inc. lHm Your P.O. Box 60 · Ukiah, CA 95482 Tel: (707) 462-8621 · Fax: (707) 462-0112 1-14-97 Sue Goodrick City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482 Dear Sue, The enclosed report recaps our recycling activity for the 1996 calender year. This includes all residential, commercial, drop off, and buy back material collected. If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to give me a call at 462-8621. Si/~erelY~c Bruce C. Cracken Solid Waste Systems c. Ukiah City Council Candace Horsley ~ Printed on Recycled Paper City of Ukiah Monthly Diversion Report JANUARY 1996 BUY-BACK COMMERCIAL CURBSIDE TRANSFER NON LANDFILL AFFILIATED TOTAL B I -METAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 ALUM I NUM 6 ,. '709 ~.~. ~.'-'= 139 45 ~.-~ ~ ,~-"~ 840 36, 758 BATTERIES 660 0 0 0 0 660 GLASS .................................... >~-~'~- ............................. ~"~";""~"~:":~ ........................... -~'~";'-~'~-~ .................. ~"~'~-'~-~'~ ................................................... ~ ................. '~"~'~"~'""~-7'i~ .... NEWSPAPER PLASTIC ............................................................... 1,~,~'""~'-7~.~7-~- .............................. ~,'~--T:'"~-J ................. ~-T'~-~, -JbO ............. ~,~- ~.~O ~1-~ ................ ~6~'~ ..... 7~'.~] ~,~ .......... ~'":~ ..... T7~';1~O ..... / 'l SC RAP METAL 0 0 0 41,040 0 41,0~+~ "~"i ............................................................................ RES ~ .......................... -:;~';"--7'~'z~ ................................................................................................................................. O O ~ ................. :~"~"T ~7 ..... ~D~STE ~ ............. ~TS-~. ........ T~'~-':~'~"~ ................................................................................ ~ '~ ............ ~'~'~'"~'~'~. ..... ~-~: ............. ::-~-"':-z ............ ~"~ ...... ."~':'"~ ................... ~.-~- .......... -~'~-'~ ...................... .7'~':z~ .... :~'~"~ ............ 7'"~ ......... ~. .............. :7~ ..... ~z ......... : ......... '~"~ .....::::~: .... REUYCLE FOFNL 17~,a7¢ ~,a4,,¢~ ~=,~(.~. .¢~,6~.0 ,:_~7,~00 1,,z,~8, laO COMMERCIAL 0 0 DROP BOXES 0 12,352 0 0 0 i2, 35::.' ~i- 600 COMPACTORS 0 ~, 600 0 0 0 ~, =i12 561,640 0 0 1 740 152 LANf'~F'ILL TOTAL 0 1, 178, ~ , , DI VERSION% CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLEY JANUARY 1996 BUYBACK RECYCLING REPORT DATE ITEM TAG ~ WE I GH T i:' [.')F' F_' [:;: J an 02 J an 05 Jan 06 Jan 06 Jan 06 Jan 06 J an 06 Jan 06 _lan 06 · ~ an 06 an 06 Jan 07 Jan 08 Jan 08 Jan 08 Jan 08 J an 08 Jan 11 dan 12 Jan 12 Jan 12 Jan 12 Jan 12 Jan 12 Jan 12 Jan 12 Jan 13 Jan 13 Jan 14 Jan 14 Jan 14 Jan 14 Jan 14 Two Load s ~an 15 an 15 Jan 16 Newspaper Newpaper Glass Glass Glass Glass CRV'Plastic Tin CHDPE NHDPE Mix Plastic Mix P~per CRV Plastic Tin · CHDPE· NHDPE Mix pl'astic Newspaper Tin CHDPE NHDPE, Mix Plastic Tin CHDPE NHDPE Mix Plastic Mix Paper Mix Paper CRV Plastic Tin CHDPE NHDPE Mix Plastic of Glass Glass. Glass Newspaper 64152 64323 79753 79753 79753 79753 64340 64340 64340 64340 64340 64355 64356 64356 64356 64356 64356 61137 61163 61163 61163 61163 61177 61177 61177 61177 61202 61198 61204 61204 61204 61204 61204 61216 61221 61251 18, 852 7~212 1, 740 1, 935 2, 520 i , .474 264 297 209 7, 400 60 1, 166 ~214 319 198 8, 124 1 , 089 24~ 352 187 693 154 220 12'1 3592 6592 142 798 8~ 132 138 4420 2267 8.580 CRV Scrap CRV Scrap CRv Sc~aA 45.000 45.00~ 154.6R0 75.288 173.720 66.656 ~, E®. 000 12~.00~ 30.000 1754.050 40.000 S0.000 120.000 0.000 45.000 40.000 B0.000 !20.000 0.000 40.000 30.000 120.000 0.00 30.00 30.000 120.000 7~.720 76.288 48.000 CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLEY RECYCLING REPORT JANUARY 1996 BUYBACK Page 2 DATE ITEM TAG # WEIGHT PD PER TON PAID Jan 18 Pet Plastic 61298 241 Tin 61298 1,408 CHDPE 61298 110 NHDPE 61298 396 Mix Plastic 61298 242 Jan 22 Mix Paper 61366 8,744 Jan 22 Mix Glass 80647 1,800 Mix Glass 80647 1,218 Jan 23 Newspaper 61383 7,980 Jan 25 NewspaPer 61431 12,288 Jan 25 Wax Cartons 61432 ~2,008 Jan 26 Pet Plastic 61454 101 Tin 61454 1,188 CHDPE 61454 182 NHDPE 61454 275 Mix PlaStic 61454 209 Jan 28 Mix Paper 61494 7,352 Jan 31 Mix Paper 61545 5,296 Jan 31 Newspaper 61543 9,768 Jan 01c~ Alum 43448 145,874 $1,754. 050 $208.30 $40. 000 $28. 16 $30. 000 $i. 65 $120. 000 $23.76 $ 0. 000 $ 0.00 $30. 000 $131. 16 CRV $173. 720 $154.89 Scrap $74. 288 $45.24 $48. 000 $191.52 $45. 000 $276.48 $30.000 $30.12 $1,754. 050 ~87.02 $40.000 $23.76 $ 30. 000 $ 2.72 $120.000 $16.50 $0. 000 $0.00 $ 30.000 $110.28 $30.000 $79.44 $45.000 $219.78 J~. ~/ ~0~ $0.6825 ~.,~ ~-. oo $5,641.01 CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLEY RECYCLING JANUARY 1996 CURBSIDE R E I::' 0 R '1" DATE !TEM TAG $~ WE I GHT F:'D PER TI]lq Jan 02 Newspaper 64152 Jan 05 Newspaper 64323 Jan 06 Glass '79753 Jan 06 Glass 79753 Jan 06 Pet Plastic 64340 Jan 06 Tin 64340 Jan 06 CHDPE 64340 Jan 06 HDPE 64340 Jan 06 Mix Plastic 64340 Jan 07 Mix Paper 64355 Jan 08 Pet Plastic 64356 Jan 08 Tin 64356 Jan 08 CHDPE 64356 Jan 08 NHDPE.ii 64356 Jan 08 Mix Plastic 64356 Jan 11 NewsPaper 61i37 Jan 1':'~ Tin · 61163 Jan i©~ CHDPE 61163 Jan 12 CHDPE. 61163 Jan 12 Mix Plastic 61i63 Jan 1©~ Tin 61177 Jan 12 CHDPE 61177 Jan 12 NHDPE 61177 Jan 12 Mix Plastic 61177 Jan 13 Mix Paper 61202 Jan 13 Mix Paper 61198 Jan 14 Pet Plastic 61204 Jan 14 Tin 61204 Jan 14 CHDPE. 61204 Jan 14 NHDPE( 61204 Jan 14 Mix Plastic 6i204 Jan 15 Glass 6122i Two Loads of Glass 61216 Jan 16 Newspaper 61251 Jan 18 Pet Plastic 61298 ~an 18 Tin 61298 Jan 18 CHDPE 61298 Jan 18 NHDPE 61298 Jan 18 Mix Plastic 61298 1'-' 568 4,808 8 ~ 326 116 972 ':'16 243 171. 10~ 175 150 954 175 261 163 5, 416 891 198 288 153 567 126 180 99 4,939 9,~064 ?.57 652 72 i08 112 24., 713 ~-' 720 259 1, 152 90 198 45. 000 4-5. 000 / ff '::, £; 290. 000 40. 000 40. 000 0. 000 30. 000 357. 070 40. 000 30. 000 120. 000 0. 000 45. 000 40.000 30.000 120. 000 0. 000 40. 000 30.000 120. 000 0. 000 30. 000 30. 000 357. 070 4. 0. 000 30. 000 120. 000 0. 000 76. 288 48. 000 357. 070 40. 000 2; O. 0 O0 120. 000 ,:.:. '::, ":.,. 5",': ;i:-.: '7 "/. --+ 74. ,f:, :2 i 5. 44 2;. i ' . :5 12::. ,i'.'; :2: gL-.'-. ~..,,::.. 10i. 7- 1 '::...'. (:: ['it. -, .. O, 00 10 &. 6 3 !-;;' ...'2.2: ;5:'. '3 '7 17'. 28 1 I. :I.. ::5 1 ({,. / .ri;.. U1 [ 3 !!.5. 5 '::, i V -'; 2, t .2. 2":2; CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLEY RECYCLING REPORT ~/u~ 1996 CURBSIDE Page 2 DATE ITEM TAG # WEIGHT PD PER TON PAID Jan 21 Tin 61346 1,134 CHDPE 61346 261 NHDPE 61346 360 Mix Plastic 61346 198 Jan 22 Mix Papep 61366 12,023 Jan 22 Glass 8064? 19,482 Jan 23 Newspaper 61383 5,320 Jan 25 Newspaper 61431 8,192 Jan 25 Wax Cartons 61432 2,510 Jan 26 Pet Plastic 61454 249 Tin 61454 972 CHDPE 61454 148 NHDPE 61454 225 Mix Plastic 61454 171 Jan 28 Mix PaPer 61494 10,109 Jan 31 Mix PaPer 61545 ?,282 Jan 31 Newspaper 61543 6,512 Jan 09 Newspaper 64418 14,180 Jan 02 Tin/Junk TPB?43 4,060 Jan 01 Alum 43448 146 196,475 Journal NOR-CAL $40.000 $30.000 $120.000 $0.000 $30.000 $74.288 $48.000 $45.000 $30.000 $1,357.070 $40.000 $30.000 $120.000 $0.000 $30.000 $30.000 $45.000 $48.000 $55.000 $0.6825 $22.68 $3.91 $21.60 $0.00 $180.34 $723.64 $127.68 $184.32 $37.65 $168.96 $19.44 $2.23 $13.50 $0.00 $151.64 $109.23 $146.52 $340.32 $111.65 $99.78 $5,710.24 CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLEY JANUARY i996 LANDFILL RECYCLING REPORT' DATE I I'EM 'TAG ~ WEIGHT Jan 03 Jan 06 Jan 07 Jan 07 Jan 07 Jan 07 Jan 08 Jan 13 Jan 13 Jan 17 Jan 17 Jan 17 Jan 17 Janl8 Jan 19 Jan 22 Jan 25 Jan 27 :an 28 Jan 29 Glass Junk Metal Mi x Paper Pet Plastic Tin Mix Plastic Ju6k Metal Mi x Paper Mix Paper Junk Metal Pet Plastic Tin '. Mix Plastic Newsgaper Junk :ilMet a 1 Mi x paper Mi lk ¥Cart ons Junk ~Metal Mi x Paper Glass 79604 10, 560 581811 8, 040 64355 925 64352 960 64352 i, 200 64352 220 558136 8, 820 61202 449 61198 824 580693 7, 640 61278 1, 160 61278 1, 460 61278 280 61304 i0, 660 580762 7, 780 61366' i, 093 61432 502 580964 4, 700 61494 919 80892 12~560 98,°989 0. 000 :::>. ~ .... 00 tZ i '-~ .. :... -, '..' 30. 000 ' . . :7:: 0. 000 ~ '::'. 1310. 350 ..... . 40. OOO 2., 0. OOO ,;]. 45. 000 239. 50. 000 ~. 94. 5 ~:.':.~ 30. 000 i 6. ~ ~'~' 30. 000 '7. 50. 000 '"' 5',:.. 30. 000 ":'.". . ~_~,~ -'~..:~::....: .. z.z :::: .'.:: z :::: z:~ z: .. 3 .:, } 3. 3 Soi~d Wastes Systems, inc. Jan Compostiabie Poundage Picked Up - MONTHLY REPORT Week Week Week Week 1 st 2nd 3rd 4th Monday 0 0 0 0 Tuesday 16,840 13,940 11,760 b,200 Wednesday 11,280 9,800 10,360 3,600 Thursday 10,240 9,920 7,260 1,840 Friday 15, 160 7,760 4,820 5, 100 Week Total 5th Pounds 0 0 6,060 54,800 4,820 39,860 0 29,260 0 32,840 Total Pounds 53,520 41,420 34,200 16,740 10,880 156,760 Loose Yard Waste Jan 02 67788 20 Jan 09 3797 3080 Jan 10 3822 2400 Jan 10 3823 6160 Jan 16 68228 20 Jan 17 68278 20 Jan 18 68337 20 Jan 23 68479 20 Jan 27 68684 10 Jan 30 68736 20 44140 Date Receipt Pounds Date Receipt Pounds Jan 02 3396 10600 Jan 17 4021 10360 Jan 02 3404 6240 Jan 18 4739 7260 Jan 03 3411 11280 Jan 19 4730 4820 Jan 04 3418 10240 Jan 23 4767 6200 Jan 05 3533 5060 Jan 24 4780 3600 Jan 05 3522 10100 Jan 25 4794 1840 Jan 09 3798 8340 Jan 26 4801 5100 Jan 09 3811 5600 Jan 30 4819 6060 Jan 10 3850 9800 Jan 31 4833 4820 Jan 11 3950 9920 Jan 12 3993 7760 Jan 16 401i 11760 CITY 0~ ~IAH MONTHEY RE~RT BUYBP~9< ACRDBOARD JANUARY 1996 Date Tag# Weight Paid Pep Pound Paid Non City Weight Weight Paid Jan 01 201001 5, 919 Jan 02 122036 4, 703 Jan 07 122399 1,6~2 Jan 08 122653 5,181 Jan 08 122457 996 Jan 13 2~1~8 5, 862 Jan 14 122737 2,88~ Jan 17 122870 5,555 .lan 20 2011~ 5, 028 Jan 22 123161 4,122 .lan 22 123~69 5,85~ '~n 27 123378 6,135 $251.56 0 $199.~ 0 $81.60 1, ~1 $259.07 4, 751 $a9.8~ 0 $293.10 5, 299 $ IS. ~ 2,059 $277.78 1, ~ $~1. ~ 4, ~ $~. 10 2, ~6 $~2.51 0 $~. ~ ~, 070 5, 919 $251.56 4, 7~ $199. 231 $11.55 43 $21.55 996 $49. 563 $28.13 821 4,075 S203. 75 I, 596 $79. 65 53,863 $2, 613. 55 28,168 25, 695 $1,205.10 CITY OF U~IAH MONTHLY REPORT CURBSIDE CARDBOARD JANUARY 1996 Date Tag# Weight Paid Per Pound Paid Non City Weight Weight Paid Jan 01 L~IMI 31,568 Jan Jan 07 122399 8, ?04 Jan Jan ~ 1~57 5, 312 Jan 13 ~1~8 31,~4 Jan Jan 17 I~87~ ~,6~ Jan ~ ~11~ ~,816 Jan ~ I~3161 Jan ~ I~9 31,~1 m ~7 I~78 $1,341.64 0 $1,~6.~4 0 $4.35. ~ 7, 47P $1, ~1.72 C-'5, 336 $~5.60 0 $1,563. ~ 28, ~4 $768. ~ 10, $I, 481.48 7, 896 $1,340. ~ 24, 437 $I, ~99. ~ 13, 47~ $1,~e.~ $1,6~. ~ ~, 376 31,568 $1,341.64 ~, ~3 $ I, ~66.04 1,23~ $6 I. 60 2, L~8 $114.92 5, 312 $C-'65.60 3,0~ $1~.~ ~, 376 $~18. ~ ~1,7~ ~, 379 $118. 96 8, 51~ $~. 6~ 31,~1 $1,~.~ 3~ $17.~ $13, 93~. 9~ 15~, ~37 137, ~39 $6, ~.7. ~ CITY DF U~IAH MONTHLY REPORT LANDFILL CARDBOARD JANUARY 1996 Date Tag# Weight Paid Per Pound Paid Non City Weight Weight Paid Jan 01 ~1881 1,973 Jan ~ I ~ 1,568 Jan (87 1PP399 544 Jan 08 1~353 1,728 Jan 08 IE~457 Jan 13 ~1668 1,95~ Jan 14 I~737 Jan 17 1~87~ 1 Jan ~ ~11~ 1~676 Jan Jan ~ 1~9 1~9~ lan ~7 1~78 $66.63 $27.20 S86.36 $16.69 $97.79 $92.59 $83.8g S68.70 $192. L5 0 467 1,583 1,767 607 494 1,527 8~. 2, 924 1,973 1,568 77 145 187 273 1,358 149 1,950 21 $83.85 $66.63 $3.85 $7.18 S16.69 $9.3? $13.67 S67.92 $7.43 $i.97 17,956 $871.18 391 8, 565 $491.67 CITY OF UKIAH RECYCLING REPORT BINS, TOTERS AND'CONTAINERS Jan 1996 CUSTOMERS ITEM TOTERS BINS CONTAINER= '~ Hennessey Reporter Cardboard Rob Gattenburger Newspaper Plastic/Tin Glass Dr. Morrison Office Paper E1Somoboro Plastic/Tin T.H.L Newspaper Plastic/Tin Glass Project Sant. Office Paper Redwood Credit Union Office Paper Plastic/Tin Glass Adult Center Office Paper Plastic/Tin Glass Pacific Redwood Project Office Paper Plastic/Tin Glass Hospice Office Paper Sol id Wastes Recycling Curbside Jan Total Possible Customers Weeks During Period 1996 3900 4.33 Curbside Residential Participation Date Mon Tue Wed Jan 02-06 166 251 Jan 09-13 189 267 Jan 16-20 169 257 Jan 23-27 175 246 Jan 30-31 181 255 Totals 880 1276 Thu Fri Weekly Total 349 267 215 355 249 209 333 240 199 340 231 189 358 247 221 1735 1234 1033 Part % 1248 32.00% 1269 32.54% 1198 30.72% 1181 30.28% 1262 32.36% 6158 36.47% CSPARTRP 10-18-91 City of Ukiah Monthly Diversion Report FEBRUARY 1996 BUY-BACK COMMERCIAL CURBSIDE TRANSFER NON LANDFILL AFFILIATED TOTAL B i -METAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 ALUMINUM 7, 291 41 12'7 49 26, 9'?0 34~ 478 BATTER I ES 726 0 0 0 0 7~6 CARDBOARD 65, 07'7 312,372 34, '708 21,692 132,080 565,929 (BLASS 16 ~.~ 4,002 ~1,343 ;-~, 160 '78,920 15~480 ~OTOR OIL 4,485 0 0 0 0 4, 485 NEWSPAPER 58,068 15,237 32,715 9,840 0 115,860 PLASTIC 1'7,488 3,537 11,441 2~ 500 22,646 5'7,612 SCRAP METAL 0 0 0 10,480 0 10,480 T I RES '-'.=. ' , ~b 6 798 0 0 0 7, 054 YARDWASTE 0 48, '750 121,280 0 0 1'70,030 COMMERCIAL 0 980, 740 0 0 0 980, 740 DROP BOXES 0 220,400 0 0 0 220,400 COMPACTORS 0 23,420 0 0 0 23, 420 0 0 473, 910 0 0 473,910 LANDFILL TOTAL 0 1,224, 560 473,910 0 0 1, 698, 470 DI VERSION% CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLEY RECYCLING REPORT BUYBACK DATE ITEM TAG # WEIGHT PD PER TON PAID Feb 01 Tin. 61555 1,056 CHDPE 61555 154 NHDPE 61555 242 Mix 61555 363 Feb 03 Pet Plastic 61617 101 Tin 61617 1,111 CHDPE" 61617 165 NHDPE 61617 242 Mix 61617 360 Feb 04 Newspaper 61632 8,220 =eb 04 Mix Paper 61631 6,512 Feb 05 Tin 61652 1,122 CHDPE 61652 176 CHDPE ::i 61652 253 Mix 61652 385 Feb 05 Glass 81138 3,200 Glass 81138 3,109 Feb 08 Newspaper 60575 9,204 Feb 08 Tin 60564 1,023 CHDPE 60564 231 NHDPE 60564 341 Mix 60564 176 Feb 10 Newspaper 60613 10,920 Feb 10 Pet Plastic 60622 117 Tin 60622 886 CHDPE 60622 110 NHDPE 60622 165 Mix 60622 154 Feb i4 Tin~ 60696 891 CHDPE 60696 198 NHDPE 60696 286 Mix 60696 154 Feb 14 Pet Plastic 60694 160 Tin 60694 891 CHDPE 60694 99 NHDPE 60694 149 Feb i5 Newspaper 60717 7680 Feb 15 Glass 81451 3000 Glass 81451 2306 CRV SCRAP' CRV SCRAP $40.00 $ 30.06, $120.00 $0.00 $1624. 060 $40.00 '~ 12~J. C, 0 i. 0. ~'1 $ 40.00 $ 30.00 $ 40.00 $ 30.00 $120.00 $0.00 $173. 720 $74. 288 ~ 40.00 $ 40.00 $30.00 $120. $0.00 $40.00 $1624. 060 $40.00 $ 30.00 '~, 120.00 '~ 0.00 i, 4 0.00 '~ 30.00 $120.00 $1624. 060 $ 40.00 · ~ 30.00 $120.00 $40. $17S. 720 '~74 2E $21.12 $2.31 $14 ~'-' $0.00 $69.98 $22.22 $2.48 '~14.52 40.00 $164.40 $97.68 $22.44 $2.64 $15.18 $0.00 $275.23 $115.48 $184.08 $20.46 $3.47 $20.46 $0.00 $218.40 $95.01 $17.71 $i. 65 $9.90 '~ 0.00 $17.82 $2.97 $17.16 ~0.00 $1°~ 65 $17.82 $1.49 $8.91 $i=-' 60 ,~ 2= c , , ~,~. ~U~. R5 CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLEY RECYCLING REPORT FEBRUARY 1996 BUYBACK Page 2 DATE ITEM TAG # WEIGHT PD PER TON PAID Feb 16 Tin 60765 1,056 CHDPE 60765 231 NHDPE 60765 352 Mix Plastic 60765 187 Feb 17 Mix Paper 40799 7,064 Feb 18 Newspaper 60800 7,212 Feb 20 Mix Glass 81584 2,700 Mix Glass 81584 628 Feb 21 Pet Plastic 60853 73 Tin 60853 858 CHDPE 60853 165 NHDPE 60853 165 Mix Plastic 60853 154 Feb 22 Newspaper 60705 6,228 Feb 22 Mix Glass 81679 520 Mix Glass 81679 592 Feb 24 Newspaper 60915 8,604 Feb 24 Tin 60918 605 CHDPE 60918 132 NHDPE 60918 198 Mix Plastic 60918 110 Feb 26 Mix Paper 60940 10,576 Feb 28 Tin 60997 836 CHDPE 60997 187 NHDPE 60997 275 Mix Plastic 60997 143 Feb 01 Alum 48982 4,410 Alum 48982 2,881 123,054 CRV Scrap CRV Scrap CRV Scrap $40.000 $30.000 $120.000 $0.000 $15.000 $40.000 $163.720 $64.288 $1,624.060 $40.000 $30.000 $120.000 $0.000 $45.000 $170.720 $71.288 $40.000 $40.000 $30.000 $120.000 $0.000 $5.000 $40.000 $30.000 $120.000 $0.000 $0.500 $0.6825 $21. $3. $21. $0. $52. $144. $219. $20. $59. $17. $1. $9. $0. $140. $43. $21. $172. $12. $1. $11. $0. $26. $18. $2. $16. $0. $2,205. $1,966. $7,309. 12 47 00 98 24 22 19 02 16 65 90 00 13 69 10 08 10 98 88 00 44 81 81 50 00 00 01 45 CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLEY RECYCLING REPORT FEBRUARY 1996 CURBSIDE Page I DATE ITEM TAG # WEIGHT PD PER TON PAID Feb 01 Tin CHDPE NHDPE Mix Feb 03 Pet Plastic Tin CHDPE · NHDPE Nix Feb 04 Newspaper 5, .Feb 04 Mix Paper 8, ;eh 05 Tin CHDPE NHDPE Glass .~. CHDPE NHDPE Feb 10 Newspaper Feb 10 Pet Plastic Tzn CHDPE NHDPE Feb 14 Tin CHDPE NHDPE Feb 14 Pet Plstic Tin CHDPE NHDPE Mix -eh 15 Newspaper Feb 15 Nix Paper Feb 15 Glass Feb 05 Feb 08 Feb 08 61555 864 61555 126 61555 198 61555 297 61617 259 61617 909 61617 135 61617 198 61617 162 61632 480 61631 954 61631 918 61631 144 61631 207 61631 315 81138 9,131 60575 6,136 60564 837 60564 189 60564 279 60564 144 60613 7,280 60622 273 60622 724 60622 90 60622 135 60622 126 60696 729 60696 162 60696 234 60696 126 60694 276 60694 729 60694 81 60694 121 60694 123 60617 5120 60719 7140 81451 7834 JC Penn's $40.00 $30.00 $120.00 $0.00 $1227.060 $40.00 $30.00 $120.00 $0.00 $40.00 $30.00 $40.00 $30.00 $120.00 $0.00 $74.288 $40.00 $40.00 $30.00 $120.00 $0.00 $40.00 $1227.060 $40.00 $30.00 $120.00 $0.00 $40.00 $30.00 $120.00 $0.00 $1227.060 $40.00 $30.00 $120.00 $0.00 $40.00 $30.00 $74.288 $17.28 $1.89 $11.88 $0.00 $158.90 $18.18 $2.03 $11.87 $0.00 $109.60 $134.31 $18.36 $2.16 $12.42 $0.00 $339.16 $122.72 $16.74 $2.84 $16.73 $0.00 $145.60 $167.49 $14.49 $1.35 $8.10 $0.00 $14.58 $2.43 $14.04 $0.00 $169.33 $14.58 $1.22 $7.28 $0.00 $102.40 $107.10 $290.99 CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLEY RECYCLING REPORT FEBRUARY 1996 CURBSIDE Page 2 DATE ITEM TAG # WEIGHT PD PER TON PAID Feb 16 Tin 60765 864 CHDPE 60765 189 NHDPE 60765 288 Mix Plastic 60765 153 Mar 17 Mix Paper 60799 9,713 Mar 18 Newspaper 60800 4,808 Feb 19 Newspaper 60812 9,240 Feb 20 Glass 81854 6,272 Feb 21 Pet Plastic 60853 287 Tin 60853 702 CHDPE 60853 90 NHDPE 60853 135 Mix plastic 60853 126 Feb 22 Newspaper 60705 4,152 Feb 22 Glass 81679 12,108 Feb 24 Newspaper 60915 5,736 Feb 24 Tin · 60918 495 CHDPE 60918 108 NHDPE 60918 162 Mix Plastic 60918 90 Feb 26 Mix Paper 60940 14,542 Feb 28 Tin 60977 684 CHDPE 60977 153 NHDPE 60977 225 Mix ?la~'. 60977 117 Feb 01 Alum 48982 127 138,751 Journal CRV CRV $40.000 $30.000 $120.000 $0.000 $15.000 $40.000 $45.000 $64.288 $1,227.060 $40.000 $30.000 $120.000 $0.000 $45.000 $71.288 $40.000 $40.000 $30.000 $120.000 $0.000 $5.000 $40.000 $30.000 $120.000 $0.000 $0.6825 $17.26 $17.27 $0.00 $72.85 $96.16 $207.90 $201.60 $176.08 $14.04 $1.35 $8.10 $0.00 $93.42 $431.58 $114.72 $9.90 $1.62 $9.72 $0.00 $36.36 $15.38 $2.30 $13.50 $0.00 $82.31 $3,684.33 CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLEY RECYCLING REPORT FEBRUARY 1996 LANDFILL Page DATE ITEM TAG # WEIGHT PD PER TON PAID Feb 02 Newspaper 61609 9,840 Feb 04 Mix Paper 60613 814 Feb 17 Mix Paper 60799 883 Feb 20 Glass 81579 23,160 Feb 22 Pet Plastic 60869 1,000 Tin 60869 1,260 Mix Plastic 60869 240 Feb 26 Tin/Junk 5?6780 10,480 Feb 26 Mix Paper 60940 1,322 Feb 01 Alum 48982 Fee 48,999 $40.000 $30.000 $15.000 $69.288 $1,180.360 $40.000 $0.000 $70.000 $5.000 $0.6825 $196.80 $12.21 $6.62 $802.36 $590.18 $25.20 $0.00 $366.80 $3.30 $15.22 $2,018.69 SoiiO Wastes Systems, inc. Compostiable Poundage Picked Up - MONTHLY REPORT Week Week Week Week Week ist 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Monday 0 0 0 0 Tuesday 0 8,020 16,060 6,860 Wednesday 0 5,360 10, 140 2,380 Thursday 3,420 6, 160 9,960 2,540 Friday 10,460 7,600 10,360 4,300 0 9, 140 3,980 4,540 0 Total Po und s 0 40,080 21,860 26,620 32,720 Total Pounds 13,880 27, 140 46,520 16,080 17,660 i21,280 Date Receipt Pounds Date Feb 01 4752 3420 Feb 02 4177 4900 Loose Yard Waste Feb 02 4183 5560 Feb 06 4195 8020 Feb 02 68918 20 Feb 07 4208 5360 Feb 06 69114 20 Feb 08 4219 6160 Feb 08 69246 20 Feb 09 4843 7600 Feb 08 69243 20 Feb i3 4858 9140 Feb 09 69340 20 Feb 13 4866 6920 Feb 13 69542 20 Feb 14 4877 6640 Feb 13 69~4j~ 20 Feb 14 4878 3500 Feb 21 69963 20 Feb 15 4889 9960 Feb 22 69989 20 Feb 16 4900 10360 Feb 22 70000 14 Receipt Pounds Feb 20 4914 6860 Feb 21 4929 2380 Feb 22 4937 2540 Feb 23 4948 4300 Feb 27 4964 7060 Feb 27 4969 2080 Feb 28 4982 3980 Feb 29 4990 4540 CITY OF ~IAH MONTHLY REPORT ~ARDBOARD FEBUARY 1996 Date Tag# Weight Paid Per Pound Paid Non City Weight Weight Paid Feb 05 123763 5,111 Feb 11 124209 2,634 Feb 11 124213 6,218 Feb 12 588322 3,014 Feb 12 201250 2,409 Feb 19 124510 5, 524 Feb 19 124720 3,534 Feb 23 124682 5,615 Feb 26 124884 4,894 $1~0.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.~ $255.56 4,385 $131.70 2,461 $310.91 1,759 $150.68 447 S120.46 0 $234.77 4,887 $150.20 0 $238.64 5,457 $174.~ 2,397 173 4,459 2,567 2,409 637 3, 534 158 1,697 $40.32 $8.63 $222.97 S128. 36 $120.46 $27.07 $150.20 $6.72 $72.13 153 $1,766.92 21,713 16,440 $776.86 CITY DF UKIAH MONTHLY REPORT CURBSIDE CARDBOARD FEBRUARY 1996 Date Ta§# Weight Paid Per Pound Paid Non City Weight Weight Paid Feb 05 123763 27,259 Feb 11 124209 14,048 Feb 11 124213 33,163 Feb 12 588322 16,072 Feb 12 201250 12,849 Feb 19 124510 29,461 Feb 19 124720 18,848 Feb 23 124682 29,947 Feb 26 124884 21,835 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $1,362.96 $702.40 $1,658.16 $803.60 $642.44 $1,252.(0 $801.04 $1,272.76 $928.00 22, 958 13,128 9,380 2,380 0 26,~64 0 29,104 12, 784 4, 301 920 23, 783 13,692 12, 849 3,397 18, 848 843 9,051 $215.04 $46.00 $1,189.16 $684.60 $642.44 $144.37 $801.04 $35.84 $9,423.44 115,798 87,684 $3,758.49 CITY DF UI<IAH MONTHLY REPORT LANDFILL CARDBDARD FE])UARY 1996 Date Tag# Weight Paid Per Pound Paid Non City Weight Weight Paid Feb 05 123763 1,7~4 Feb 11 124~9 878 Feb II 124~13 2,073 Feb 12 588322 1,~ Feb 12 ~lL~a~ 803 Feb 19 124510 1,841 Feb 19 I~47~ 1,178 Feb ~3 1~ 1, Feb ~6 1~ 1, ~5 $1~.~ $1~.~ $1~.~ $1~.~ $1~.~ $85.~ $85.~ $85.~ $85.18 $43.90 $103.63 $45.15 $5~.~6 S79.55 $58.~ 1,435 821 586 148 1,6~9 1,019 799 269 57 1,487 856 803 212 I, 178 53 566 $13.44 $2.87 $74.32 $42.79 $45.15 S9.02 $50.06 $2.24 $24. ~4 Total 12, 718 $588.95 7, 237 5, 481 $L:58.93 CITY OF UKIAH RECYCLING REPORT BINS, TOTERS AND CONTAINERS Feb 1996 CUSTOMERS ITEMS TOTERS BINS CONTAINERS Main Street Wine & Cheese Wax Cartons 1 Patrice Brint Office Paper 1 Pomolita School Cardboard 1 Fifteen sets of curbside bins delivered in February Solid Wastes Recycling Curbside Feb Total Possible Customers Weeks During Period 1996 3900 4. 33 Curbside Residential Participation Date Mon Tue Wed Feb 01-03 0 0 Feb 06-10 176 227 Feb 13-17 150 198 Feb 20-24 166 220 Feb 27-28 184 237 Totals 676 882 345 354 322 338 0 1359 Thu Fri Weekly Total 249 198 792 236 202 1195 205 180 1055 222 201 1147 0 0 421 912 781 4610 Part % 20.31% 30.64% 27.05% 29.41% 10.80% 27.30% CSPARTRP 10- 18-91 City of Ukiah Monthly Diversion Report MARCH 1996 BUY-BACK COMMERCIAL CURBSIDE TRANSFER NON LANDFILL AFFILIATED T[]TAL BI-METAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 ALUMINUM 7,809 5'7 146 51 31 850 39 913 BATTER I ES 462. 0 0 0 0 462 CARDBOARD 58,286 279,776 31,086 19,429 125, 710 514, 28'7 GLASS 14, .~.~(: 3,832 56 , '754 ~, 120 7'7,500 17o, .~;.-'=' ~IOTOR OIL 5,070 0 0 0 0 5,070 NEWSPAPER '72,804 20,832 41,884 10,660 0 146, 180 PLASTIC 12,688 4, 82'7 8,038 5,280 23, 193 54,026 SCRAg' METAl_ 0 0 0 36,980 0 36,980 Ti RES 496 8, 0'71 0 2,512 0 11,0'79 YARDWASTE 0 27,000 148,080 0 0 1'75,080 REC~YULE TOTAL ~10. ~47 ~9~, b~8 ~91, ~47 1~, ~4~ COMMERCIAL 0 1,034,900 0 0 0 1,034,900 DROP BOXES 0 158,670 0 0 0 158, 6'70 COMPACTORS 0 59, 600 0 0 0 59 600 RESIDENTIAL 0 0 484, 120 0 0 484, 120 LANDFILL TOTAL 0 1,,-,..,o, 170 484, 120 0 0 1,737,290 DI VERSION% CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLEY RECYCLING REPORT MARCH 1996 BUYBACK Page I DATE ITEM TAG # WEIGHT PD PER TON PAID Mar 01 Mar 02 Mar 02 Mar 03 Mar 03 Mar 07 Mar 07 Mar 09 Mar 09 Mar 09 Mar 14 Mar 16 Mar 16 Mar 16 Mar 17 Mar 19 Mar 20 Mar 21 Newspaper 61024 8,052 Mix Glass 81907 1,500 Mix Glass 81907 1,709 Mix Paper 61077 5,120 Mix Paper 61081 3,136 Pet Plastic 61083 184 Tin 61083 1,331 CHDPE 61083 198 NHDPE 61083 286 Mix Plastic 61083 231 Newspaper 62279 6,336 Pet Plastic 62270 106 Tin 62770 1,133 CHDPE 62270 171 NHDPE ~ 62270 253 Mix Plastic 62~70 198 Nix PaPer 62334 6,144 Newspaper 62327 8,364 Tin 62325 1,166 CHDPE 62325 253 NHDPE 62325 385 Mix Plastic 62325 198 Newspaper 56895 9,000 Tin 56930 1,133 CHDPE 56930 253 NHDPE 56930 374 Mix Plastic 56930 198 Pet Plastic 56934 179 Tin 56934 1,265 CHDPE 56934 176 NHDPE 56934 264 Mix Plastic 56934 220 Newspaper 56938 9,288 Mix Paper 56941 5,824 Mix Glass 82502 5,824 Mix Glass 82502 7,000 Wax Cartons 57016 856 Newspaper 57198 6,456 CRV CRV CRV CRV $40.000 ~173.720 $67.659 $5.000 $5.000 $1,584.060 $45.000 $30.000 $120.000 $0.000 $40.000 $1,584.060 $45.000 $30.000 $120.000 $0.000 $30.000 $40.000 $45.000 $30.000 $120.000 $0.000 $40.000 $45.000 $30.000 $120.000 $0.000 $1,584.060 $45.000 $30.000 $120.000 $0.000 $40.000 $30.000 *~173.720 $67.659 $85.000 $40.000 $161.04 $128.91 $57.81 $12.80 $7.84 $142.21 $19.95 $2.97 $21.45 $0.00 $126.72 $82.28 $25.49 $2.56 $18.98 $0.00 $92.16 $167.28 $26.24 $3.80 $28.88 $0.0~ $180.0~ $25.49 $3.80 $28.05 $0.00 $139.83 $28.46 $2.64 $19.80 $0.00 $185.76 $87.36 $607.37 $282.75 $36.38 $129.12 CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLEY RECYCLING REPORT MARCH 1996 BUYBACK Page 2 DATE ITEM TAG # WEIGHT PD PER TON PAID Mar 22 Tin 57216 924 CHDPE 57216 198 NHDPE 57216 308 Mix Plastic 57216 165 Mar 22 Pet Plastic 57220 298 Tin 57220 990 CHDPE 57220 88 NHDPE 57220 143 Mix Plastic 57220 176 Mar 23 Mix Paper 57252 3,712 Mar 23 Mix Paper 57259 2,400 ~ar 23 Alum 49868 4,841 Alum 49868 5,000 Mar 28 Mix Paper 60463 2,384 Mar 28 Mix Glass 82967 5,380 Mix Glass 82967 5,584 Mar 30 Newspaper 60518 6,636 136,525 CRV Scrap CRV Scrap $45.000 $30.000 $120.000 $0.000 $1,584.060 $45.000 $30.000 $120.000 $0.000 $30.000 $30.000 $0.520 $0.6825 $42.000 $173.720 $67.659 $40.000 $20.79 $2.97 $23.10 $0.00 $233.06 $22.28 $1.32 $10.73 $0.00 $55.68 $36.00 $2,600.00 $3,304.04 $50.06 $464.14 $188.90 $132.72 $10,031.97 CITY OF UKIAH MON?HLEY RECYCLING REPORT MARCH 1996 CURBSIDE Page I DATE ITEM TAG # WEIGHT PD PER TON PAID Mar 01 Newspaper 61024 5,368 Mar 02 Mix Glass 81973 7,931 Mar 02 Mix Paper 61077 7,040 Mar 03 Mix Paper 61081 4,312 Mar 03 Pet Plastic 61083 276 Tin 61083 1,089 CHDPE 61083 162 NHDPE 61083 234 Mix Plastic 61083 189 Mar 07 Newspaper 62279 4,224 Mar 07 Pet Plastic 62270 244 Tin 62270 927 CHDPE 62270 139 NHDPE ' 62~70 207 Mix PlaStic 62270 162 Mar 09 Mix Pap*er 62334 8,448 Mar 09 Newspaper 62327 5,576 Mar 09 Tin 62325 954 CHDPE 62325 207 NHDPE 62325 315 Mix Plastic 62325 162 Mar 14 Newspaper 56895 6,000 Mar 16 Tin 56930 927 CHDPE / 56930 207 NHDPE 56930 306 Mix Plastic 56930 162 Mar 16 Pet Plastic 56934 281 Tin ~* 56934 1,035 CHDPE 56934 144 NHDPE 56934 216 Mix Plastic 56934 180 Mar 16 Newspaper 56938 6,192 Mar 17 Mix Paper 56941 8,008 Mar 19 Mix Glass 82502 8,802 Mar 20 Wax Cartons 57016 1,070 Mar 21 Newspaper 57187 9,060 ~ar 21 Newspaper 57198 4,304 CRV CRV CRV JC Penny's $40.000 $67.659 $5.000 $5.000 $1,167.060 $45.000 $30.000 $120.000 $0.000 $40.000 $1,095.400 $45.000 $30.000 $120.000 $0.000 $30.000 $40.000 $45.000 $30.000 $120.000 $0.000 $40.000 $45.000 $30.000 $120.000 $0.000 $1,095.400 $45.000 $30.000 $120.000 $0.000 $40.000 $30.000 $67.659 $85.000 $42.000 $40.000 $107.36 $268.31 $17.60 $10.78 $161.05 $24.50 $2.43 $17.55 $0.00 $84.48 $133.64 $20.86 $2.09 $15.52 $0.00 $126.72 $111.52 $21.47 $3.11 $23.60 $0.00 $120.00 $20.86 $3.10 $22.95 $0.00 $153.90 $23.29 $2.16 $16.20 $0.00 $123.84 $120.12 $297.76 $45.47 $190.26 $86.08 CITY OF UKIAH MONTHL£Y RECYCLING REPORT MARCH 1996 CURBSIDE Page 2 DATE ITEM TAG # WEIGHT PD PER TON PAID Mar 22 Tin/Junk 1165782 19,980 Mar 22 Tin 57216 756 CHDPE 57216 162 NHDPE 57216 252 Mix Plastic 57216 135 Mar 22 Pet Plastic 57220 282 Tin 57220 810 CHDPE 57220 72 NHDPE 57220 117 Mix Plastic 57220 144 .Mar 23 Mix Paper 57252 5,104 ~ar 23 Mix Paper 57259 3,300 Mar 23 Alum 49868 179 Mar 28 Mix Paper 60463 3,278 Mar 28 Mix Glass 82967 11,316 Mar 30 Newspaper 60518 4,424 140, 947 Nor-Cal CRV $65.000 $45.000 $30.000 $120.000 $0.000 $1,095.400 $45.000 $30.000 $120.000 $0.000 $30.000 $30.000 $0.6825 $42.000 $67.659 $40.000 $649.35 $17.01 $2.43 $18.90 $0.00 $154.45 $18.23 $1.06 $8.76 $0.00 $76.56 $49.50 $122.62 $68.84 $382.82 $88.48 $3,949.13 CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLEY RECYCLING REPORT MARCH 1996 LANDFILL Page DATE ITEM TAG # WEIGHT PD PER TON PAID Map 02 Mix Papep 61077 640 Map 03 Mix Papep 61081 392 Map 08 Pet Plastic 62311 1,180 Tin 62311 1,480 Map 09 Mix Papep 62334 768 Map 11 Tin/Junk 578865 6,780 Map 16 Tin/Junk 1164906 9,220 Map 16 Newspapep 56935 8,480 Map 17 Pet Plastic 56942 880 Tin 56942 1,120 Mix Plastic 56942 220 tap 17 Mix Papep 56941 728 Map 20 Wax Captons 57016 214 Map 23 Mix Papep 5725~ 464 Map 23 Mix Pape~ 57~59 300 Map 23 Alum 49868 Fee Map 28 Mix Papep 60463 298 33, 164 CRV CRV $5.000 $5.000 $1,188.600 e45.000 $30.000 $50.000 $45.000 .~40.000 $1,188.600 ~45.000 $0.000 ~30.000 ~85.000 $30.000 $30.000 $0.683 $42.000 $1.60 $0.98 $701.27 $33.3~ $11.52 $169.50 $207.45 $169.60 $522.98 $25.20 $0.00 $10.92 $9.10 $6.96 $4.50 $17.13 $6.26 $1,898.27 Solid Wastes Systems, llnc. ~larch 1996 Compost iabie Poundage Picked Up - M[~NTHLY REPORT Week Week Week Week Week Total 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Yards Monday 0 0 0 0 Tuesday 0 9,280 0 18,060 Wednesday 0 2,260 13,860 5,440 Thursday 0 6,640 10,480 10,500 Friday 5,660 8,220 11,180 11,040 Total Pounds 5,660 26,400 35,520 45,040 0 0 16,940 44,280 0 21,560 9,540 37,160 8,980 45,080 35,460 148,080 Loose Yard Waste Mar 05 70576 20 Mar 05 70565 20 Mar 05 70571 18 Mar 15 70791 20 Mar 22 70948 20 Mar 29 71398 20 108 Date Receipt Pounds Date Mar 01 5002 5660 Mar 05 5018 9280 Mar 06 4040 2260 Mar 07 4051 6640 Mar 08 4153 8220 Mar 13 5043 3760 Mar 13 4460 10100 Mar 14 5060 10480 Mar 15 5117 11180 Mar 19 4467 6020 Mar 19 5128 12040 Mar 20 4475 5440 Mar 21 4489 10500 Mar 22 4500 11040 Receipt Pounds Mar 26 4520 7400 Mar 26 4508 9540 Mar 28 4542 6620 Mar 28 4546 2920 Mar 29 4555 8980 CITY DF U~IAH MONTHLY REPORT BUYBAC~ CARDBDARD MARCH 1996 Date Tag) Weight Paid Per Pound Paid Non City Weight Weight Paid Mar ~ 576877 6,645 Mar ~ 576155 3,143 Mar 13 125656 5, 985 Mar 13 578886 6,111 Mar 16 58~54 4,~I Mar 18 579111 4,853 Mar 23 5791~ 3,531 Mar 24 579127 6,477 Mar 28 579163 3,498 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $05.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $282.41 4, eOB 2, 587 $133.59 0 3,143 $254.36 5, 088 897 $259.71 2, 586 3,525 $171.74 3, 315 726 $206.27 I, 672 3,181 $150. 07 2, 737 794 $275. 27 4, 563 1,914 $148.65 2, 232 1,266 $109.94 $133.59 $38.12 $149.80 $3~.86 $135.19 $33.72 $81.35 $53.79 $1,882.07 26,251 18,033 $766.36 CITY DF LIKIAH I~NI~4LY REPORT CURBSIOE CARDBOARD ~RCH 1996 Date Tag# Weight Paid Per Pound Paid Non City Weight Weight Paid Mar ~ 576877 35,~ Mar 04 574155 16,765 Mar 13 IL:~a656 31,919 Mar 13 578886 32,598 Mar 16 580454 21,552 Mar 18 579111 25, 885 Mar 23 579129 18,832 Mar 2~ 579127 34,544 Mar 28 579163 18,654 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.~ $85.~0 $85.~ $1,506.20 21,644 $712.50 0 $1,356.57 27,136 $1,385.10 13, 792 $915.96 17,680 $1,100.10 8,920 $800. 36 14, 6~ $1,468.12 24,336 $792.78 11,904 13, 796 $586.33 16,765 $712. 50 4,783 $C'~G. 29 18, 798 $798.94 3, 872 $164.5~ 16,965 $721. ~ 4, 232 $179.86 10, 208 $433.83 6,749 $286. ~ 236,181 $10,~7.69 140, e12 96,168 $4, ~87.17 CITY DF L~IAH MONTHLY REPORT LANDFILL CARDBDARD MARCH 1996 Date Tag# Weight Paid Per Pound Paid Non City Weight Weight Paid Mar 82 576877 2, 215 Mar 04 576155 1,048 Mar 13 125656 1,995 Mar 13 57888~ 2,037 Mar 16 580454 1,347 Mar 18 579111 1,618 Mar 23 579129 1,177 Mar 24 579127 2,159 Mar 28 579163 1,165 $85.00 $94.14 1,353 862 $85.00 $44.54 0 1,048 $85.00 $84.78 1,696 299 $85. ~0 $86.56 862 1,175 $85. eB $57.25 1,185 242 $85.00 $68. 76 558 I, 060 $85.00 $50.02 913 264 $85.00 $91.76 1,521 638 $85.00 $49.54 744 422 $36.64 $44.54 $12.70 $49.93 $10.28 $45.06 $11.24 $27.12 $17.92 14, 761 $627.35 8, 752 6,010 $255.43 CITY OF UKIAH RECYCLING REPORT BINS, TOTERS AND CONTAINERS March 1996 CUSTOMERS ITEMS TOTERS BINS CONTAii',.i~S~S North Country Realty Newspaper 1- St. Mary's School Newspaper 1 Juvenile Hall Office Paper 1 .... Skeere Products Office Paper 1 Apria Health Care Office Paper 1 Sol id Wastes Recycling Curbside March Total Possible Customers Weeks During Period 1996 3900 4.33 Curbside Residential Participation Date Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Week 1 y Total Mar 01-03 0 0 344 267 221 832 Mar 06-10 201 287 351 277 219 1335 Mar 13-17 189 271 342 266 205 1273 Mar 20-24 211 269 361 259 214 1314 Mar 27-31 179 242 340 252 200 1213 Totals 780 1069 1738 1321 1059 5967 Part % 21.33% 34.23% 32.64% 33.69% 31.10% 35.34% CSPARTRP 10-18-91 City of Ukiah Monthly Diversion Report APR.'iL 1996 BUY-BACK COMMERC I A~ .... CLIRBS I DE TRANSFER NON L. ANDF I [..L AFF I L I ATED TO"FAL BI-METAL 14, 146 3,472 8, ].02 2,280 16,800 44,800 A L LI M I N U M 6, 020 1._.'-- 100 4 '7 25, '750 3 !, 932 B A T T E R I E S 2, 211 0 0 0 0 i.:2, 2 i i CARDBOARD 32, 85'7 145, i02 36,275 10,952 129,260 354,446 GLASS 26, 122 8,633 20, i45 20,600 '7'7,610 153, 110 MI XED PAPER 2:9,320 ds, 299 ~::, 016 ,_'., 7.-.._ 0 /.~, 360 10TOR OIL '7,644 0 0 0 0 '7,644 NEWSPAPER 60,300 1,324. 30,834 16,400 0 108,858 PLASTIC 8,924 2, 191 5, 111 2,260 4,770 ;::3,256 SCRAP' METAL 0 0 0 38,860 0 38,860 'TI RES 224 25,220 0 1,920 0 i:2'7, 364 YARDWASTE 0 36,250 164, 160 0 0 200, 4i. 0 RECYCLE TOTAL 187, '768 272, 396 266, '743 97,044 254, 190 1, 066, 2.:51 COMMERCIAL 0 1,019, 300 0 0 0 1,019, 300 DR[]P BOXES 0 242, ~ 0 0 0 ;-'4;-', 630 COMPACTORS 0 36,000 0 0 0 36,000 RESIDEN'TIAL 0 0 510, 360 0 0 510, 360 .......................................· o ......... ............ ................... ......................... DIVERSION% CITY OF UKiAH MONTHLY RECYCLING REPORT APRIL i996 BUYBACK Page 1 DATE ITEM TAG # WEIGHT PD PER PD PAID A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A )rii 0i Tin 605i3 792 )ril 01 CHDPE 60513 176 )ril 01 NHDPE 60513 264 )ril 01 Mix Plastic 60513 132 )ril 01 Tin 60515 1, 100 )ril 01 CHDPE 60515 242 )ril 01 NHDPE 60515 374 )ril 01 Mix Plastic 60515 187 )rii 01 Newspaper 60530 8,664 ~ril 01 Tin 6~=.- 946 )ril 01 CHDPE 60522 209 ~ril 01 NHDPE 60522 308 )ril 01 Mix Plastic 60522 165 3ril 03 CRV Plastic 62958 395 3ril 03 Tin 62958 1,540 ~ril 03 CHDPE 62958 121 ~ril 03 NHDPE 62958 187 ~ril 03 Mix Plastic 62958 264 ~ril 06 Tin 63050 1,023 ~ril 06 CHDPE 63050 220 ~ril 06 NHDPE 63050 341 )ril 06 Mix Plastic 63050 176 )ril 06 Newspaper 63048 11,892 )ril 06 Mix Plastic 63056 5,688 )ril 09 CRV Glass 83478 4,040 )ril 09 Scrap Glass 83478 6,340 )ril 09 Tin 63111 1,375 )ril 09 CHDPE 63111 308 )ril 09 NHDPE 63111 451 )ril 09 Mix Plastic 63111 242 )ril 10 Mix Paper 63134 6,640 )ril 11 CRV Plastic 63155 199 )ril 11 Tin 63155 1,056 )ril 11 CHDPE 631==~ 132 )ril 11 NHDPE 63155 198 ~ril 11 Mix Plastic 63155 179 ~ril 13 CRV Glass 83732 1,580 ~ril 13 Scrap Glass 83732 1,860 ~ril 14 Tin 63221 1,199 ~ril 14 CHDPE 63221 264 ~,r i i14 NHDPE 63221 396 $45.000 $I7.82 $30.000 $2.64 $150.000 $19.80 $0.000 $0.00 $45.000 $24.75 $30.000 $3.63 $I50.000 $28.05 $0.000 $0.00 $20.000 $86.40 $45.000 $21.29 $30.000 $3.14 $150.000 $23.10 $0.000 $0.00 $1,584.060 $313.17 $45.000 $34.65 $30.000 $1.82 $150.000 $14.03 $0.000 $0.00 $45.000 $23.02 $30.000 $3.30 $150.000 $25.58 $0.000 $0.00 $40.000 $237.84 $25.000 $71.10 $173.720 $350.91 $8.000 $25.36 $45.000 $30.94 $30.000 $4.62 $150.000 $33.83 $0.000 $0.00 $25.000 $83.00 $1,584.060 $157.96 $45.000 $23.76 $30.000 ~1.98 $150.000 $14.85 $0.000 $0.00 $173.720 $134.80 $67.659 ~62.92 $45.000 $26.98 $30.00~ $3.96 $150.000 $29.70 CiTY OF UKiAH MONTHLY RECYCLING REPORT APRIL 1996 BUYBACK Page 2 DATE ITEM TAG # WEIGHT PD PER PD PAID A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A )ri i 14 ~ri 1 16 ~ri i 16 ori i 16 ~ri 1 16 ~ri 1 16 )ri 1 16 _~ri i 17 )ri i 18 )ri 1 18 )ri 1 19 )ri 1 21 )ri i 21 )ri 1 21 )ri 1 21 )ri 1 21 )ri 1 21 ori 1 21 )ri 1 21 ori 1 21 ~ri 1 21 ~ri 1 23 ~ril 24 ~ri 1 24 )ri 1 24 )ri 1 24 )ri i 25 )ri 1 25 )ri 1 25 )ri 1 25 )ri 1 25 )ril 27 )ri 1 27 )ri 1 27 )ri 1 27 )ri 1 27 )ri 1 27 ~ril 27 ~ri 1 28 Mix Plastic 63221 209 Alum 50933 5,950 CRV Alum 50933 6,019 Tin 63239 693 CHDPE 63239 154 NHDPE 63239 220 Mix Plastic 63239 121 Milk Cartons 63251 920 Mix Paper 63279 6,928 Newspaper 63277 7,476 Mix Paper 63305 5,696 CRV Plastic 57336 202 Tin 57336 803 CHDPE 57336 66 NHDPE 57336 110 Mix Plastic 57336 143 Newspaper 57337 9,156 Tin 57339 770 CHDPE 57339 176 NHDPE 57339 253 Mix Plastic 57339 132 Mix Paper 57383 4,368 Tin 12345 1,100 CHDPE 12345 242 NHDPE 12345 374 Mix Plastic 12345 187 CRV Plastic 23456 169 Tin 23456 935 CHDPE 23456 99 NHDPE 23456 154 Mix Plastic 23456 165 CRV Glass 84397 8,980 Scrap Glass 84397 3,322 Tin 57411 814 CHDPE 57411 176 NHDPE 57411 264 Mix Plastic 57411 143 Newspaper 57420 9,360 Newspaper 57426 8,064 $0.000 $0.500 $0.685 $45.000 $30.000 $150.000 $0.000 $70.000 $25.000 $30.000 $20.000 $1,584.060 $45.000 $30.000 $150.000 $0.000 $30.000 $45.000 $30.000 $150.000 $0.000 $25.000 $45.000 $30.000 $i50.000 $0.000 $1,~4.060 $45.000 $30.000 $150.000 $0.000 $173.720 $67.659 $45.000 $30.000 $150.000 $0.000 $30.000 $30.000 $0.00 $2,975.00 $4, i23.43 $15.59 $2.31 $16.50 $0.00 $32.20 $86.60 $112.14 $56.96 $159.82 $18.07 $0.99 $8.25 $0.00 $137.34 $17.33 $2.64 $18.98 $0.00 $54.60 $24.75 $3.63 $28.05 $0.00 $129.43 $21.04 $1.49 ~11.55 $0.00 $504.77 $i12.38 ~18.32 $2.64 $19.80 $0.00 $140.40 $120.96 $10,918.66 CITY OF IJKIAH MONTHLY RECYCLING REPORT APRIL i996 CURBSIDE ~'ag e DATE ITEM TAG # WEIGHT PD PER F'D PAID A~rii A~ril A)ril A)ril A)ril A)ril Amril Amril Aaril A~ril A~ri 1 ~ril .~pril April April April April April April April April April April April April April April April April April April April April Apr i 1 Apri i Apri 1 Opril April April April 0i Tin 60513 648 01 CHDPE 60513 144 01 NHDPE 60513 216 01 Mix Plastic 60513 108 01 Tin 60515 900 01 CHDPE 60515 198 01 NHDPE 60515 306 01 Mix Plastic 60515 153 0i Newspaper 60530 5,776 01 Tin 60522 774 01 CHDPE 60522 171 01 NHDPE 60522 252 01 Mix Plastic 60522 135 03 Pet Plastic 62958 585 03 Tin 62958 1,260 03 CHDPE 62958 99 03 NHDPE 62958 153 03 Mix Plastic 62958 216 06 Tin 63050 837 06 CHDPE 63050 180 06 NHDPE 63050 279 06 Mix Plastic 63050 144 06 Newspaper 63048 7,928 06 Mix Paper 63056 7,821 09 Tin 63111 1,125 09 CHDPE 63111 252 09 NHDPE 63111 369 09 Mix Plastic 63111 198 09 Scrap Glass 83498 18,620 10 Mix Paper 63134 9,130 11 Pet Plastic 63155 275 11 Tin 63155 864 11 CHDPE 63155 108 11 NHDPE 63155 162 11 Mix Plastic 63155 147 13 Scrap Glass 83732 16,940 14 Newspaper UDJ 63220 7,640 14 Tin 63221 981 14 CHDPE 63221 216 14 NHDPE 63221 324 14 Mix Plastic 63221 171 $45.000 $30.000 $150.000 $0.000 $45.000 $30.000 $150.000 $0.000 $20.000 $45.000 $30.000 $150.000 $0.000 $1,095.400 $45.000 $30.000 $150.000 $0.000 $45.000 $30.000 $150.000 $0.000 $40.000 $25.000 $~.000 $30.000 $150.000 $0.000 $62.659 $25.000 $1,095.400 $45.000 $30.000 $150.000 $0.000 $67.659 $20.000 $45.000 $30.000 $150.000 $0.000 ~14.58 $2.16 $16.20 $0.00 $20.25 $2.97 $22.95 $0.00 $57.60 $17.42 $':'.57= $18.88 $0.00 $320.40 $28.35 $1.49 $11.46 $0.00 $18.83 $2.70 $20.92 $0.00 $158.56 $97.76 $25.30 $3.78 $27.68 $0.00 $,~J. 36 $114.13 $150.62 $19.44 $1.62 $12.15 $0.00 $573.07 $76.40 $49.-~J $7.20 $54.00 $0.00 CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLY RECYCLING REPORT APRIL 1996 CURBS I DE Page 2 DATE ITEM TAG ~ WEIGHT PD PER PD PAID April 16 Alum ~9~ 115 April 16 Tin 63239 567 April 16 CHDPE 63239 126 April 16 NHDPE 63239 180 April 16 Mix Plastic 63239 99 April 17 Milk Cartons 63251 1,150 April 18 Mix Paper 63279 9,526 April 18 Newspaper 63277 4,984 April 19 Mix Paper 63305 7,832 April 21 Pet Plastic 57336 278 April~ °1 Tin 57336 657 April 21 CHDPE 57336 54 April 21 NHDPE 57336 90 April 21 Mix Plastic 57336 117 April 21 Newspaper 57337 6,104 April 21 Tin 57339 630 April 21 CHDPE 57339 144 April 21 NHDPE 57339 207 April 21 Mix Plastic 57339 108 April 23 Mix Paper 57383 6,006 April 24 Tin 12345 900 April 24 CHDPE 12345 198 April 24 NHDPE 12345 306 April 24 Mix Plastic 12345 153 April 25 Pet Plastic 23456 291 April 25 Tin 23456 765 April 25 CHDPE ~-'~ ~ ~4~o 81 April 25 NHDPE 23456 126 April 25 Mix Plastic 23456 135 April 27 Scrap Glass 84397 10,158 April 27 Tin 57441 666 April 27 CHDPE 57441 144 April 27 NHDPE 57441 216 April 27 Mix Plastic 57441 117 April 27 Newspaper 57420 6,240 April 28 Newspaper 57426 5,376 $0.685 $45.000 $30.000 $150.000 $0.000 $70.000 $25.000 $30.000 $20.000 $1,095.400 $45.000 $30.000 $150.000 $0.000 $30.000 $45.000 $30.000 $150.000 $0.000 $25.000 $45.000 $30.000 $150.000 $0.000 $1,095.400 $45.000 $30.000 $150.000 $0.000 $67.659 $45.000 $30.000 $150.000 $0.000 $30.000 $30.000 $78.64 $12.76 $1.89 $13.50 $0.00 $40.25 $i19.08 $74.76 $78.32 $152.26 $14.78 $0.81 $6.75 $0.00 $91.56 $14.18 $2.16 $15.51 $0.00 $75.08 $20.25 $2.97 $22.95 $0.00 $159.38 $17.20 $1.22 $9.45 $0.00 $343.64 $14.98 $2.16 $16.20 $0.00 $93.60 $80.64 $4,110.78 CiTY OF UKiAH MONTHLY RECYCLING REPORT APRIL 1996 LANDF ILL Page DATE iTEM TAG ~ WEIGHT I::'D PER PD PAiD A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A )ril 01 Junk Metal 596787 14, 160 )ril 01 Pet Plastic 60538 860 )ril 01 Tin 60538 1,080 )ril 01 Mix Plastic 60538 200 Dril 02 Scrap Glass 83180 10,540 Dril 05 Junk Metal 184058 7,840 Dril 06 Mix Paper 63056 771 Dril 10 Mix Paper 63134 830 Dril 11 Junk Metal 617176 8,840 Dril 16 Junk Metal 596921 8,020 Dril 16 Scrap Alum 50933 47 Dril 17 Milk Cartons 63251 230 Dril 18 Pet Plastic 63278 920 )ril 18 Tin 63278 1,200 ~ril 18 Mix Plastic 63278 280 ~ril 18 Mix Paper 63279 866 ~ril 19 Mix Paper 63305 712 )ril 21 Newspaper 57187 9,060 ~ril 23 Mix Paper 57383 546 )ril 23 Newspaper 57381 7,340 ~ril 30 Scrap Glass 84510 10,060 $50.000 $1,188.600 $45.000 $0.000 $64.288 $45.000 $25.000 $25.000 $50.000 $~.000 $0.685 $70.000 $1,188.600 $45.000 $0.000 $25.000 $20.000 $40.000 $25.000 $30.000 $67.659 $354.00 $511.10 $24.30 $0.00 $338.80 $176.40 $8.89 $10.37 $221.00 $200.50 $31.85 ~8.05 $546.76 $27.00 $0.00 $10.82 $7.12 $181.20 $6.82 $110.10 $340.~ $3,115.40 Wastes Svstems~ Inc. April 1996 Compost iabie Poundage Picked Up - MONTHLY REPORT Week Week Week Week Week Total i st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Pounds Monday 0 0 0 0 0 0 'Tuesday Ii, i60 16,460 18,860 13,000 27,220 86,700 Wednesday 8, 160 8,000 0 4, 180 0 20,340 Thursday 7,300 6,240 6,080 0 0 19,620 Friday 12,680 13,660 0 11, 160 0 37,500 Total Pounds 39,300 44,360 24,940 28,340 27,220 164, 160 Loose Yard Waste Apr 04 72096 20 Apr 04 72082 20 Apr 09 72421 25 Apr 12 72615 20 Apt- 23 73111 20 Apt- 26 7~ 20 Apr 30 73599 20 145 Date Receipt Pounds Date A ~r 02 A ~r 03 A ~r 03 A ~r 04 A ~r 05 A ~r 09 A ~r 09 A)r 10 A~r 10 Asr 11 A~r 12 A~r 16 4573 11160 Apr 16 4582 3060 Apr i8 4576 5100 Apr 23 4595 7300 Apr 24 4608 12680 Apr 26 4623 13100 Apr 26 4628 3360 Apr 30 4641 4020 Apr 30 4640 3980 4650 6240 4665 13660 4683 5940 Receipt Pounds 4675 12920 4705 6080 5218 13000 5229 4180 5258 5860 5259 5300 5280 13520 5265 13700 CITY DF UKI~ MONTHLY REPDRT BUYBACK CARDBOARD APRIL 1996 Date Tag# Weight Paid Per Pound Paid Non City Weight Weight Paid Apr 01 126871 5,391 Apr 05 127192 5,699 Apr 08 127281 5,180 Apr 08 127303 9,707 Two loads 127298 Apr II 127549 1,425 Apr 13 201645 3, 771 Apr 17 127952 7,805 Two loads 127892 Apr 20 201709 5,583 Apr 29 128567 10,495 ~o loads 1283~4 $70.00 $70.00 $70.00 $70.08 $70.00 S70.00 $70.00 S70.00 $188. 70 433 $199.48 2, 736 $181.29 I, 171 $339.76 0 $49.89 1,134 $131.99 3,441 $245.19 2,059 $195.4I 855 S367.31 9,570 4,958 $173.52 2,963 $103.72 4,009 $140.34 9,707 $339.76 291 $10.20 33~ $11.55 4,946 $173.10 4,728 $165.48 925 $32.36 $1,899.02 21,~9 32,857 $1,150.~ CITY OF L~IAH MONTHLY REPORT LANDFILL CARDBOARD APRIL 1996 Date Tag# Weight Paid Pep Pound Paid Non City Weight Weight Paid Ap~' 01 126871 1,797 Apr 05 127192 1,900 Apr 08 127281 1,726 Apr 08 127303 3,236 Two loads 127298 flpr I1 127549 475 Apr 13 201645 1,257 Apr 17 127952 2, 335 Two loads 127892 AI~' 20 201709 1,861 Apr 29 1285~7 3, 498 "~o loads 128364 $70. ~0 $70.80 $70.00 $70.80 $70. ~0 $70.80 $70.00 $62.89 145 1,652 $66.49 912 988 $60.43 389 1,337 $113.25 0 3,236 $16.62 378 97 $44.00 1,147 110 $81.72 687 I, 648 $65.13 285 1,576 $122. 44 3,190 308 $57.84 $34.57 $46.78 $113.25 $3.39 $3.85 $57.70 S55.16 $10. 79 Total 18,085 $632.97 7,133 10, 9~ CITY OF Ut(IAH )tDNTHLY REPORT CURBSIOE CARDBOARD APRIL 1996 Date Tag# Weight Paid Paid Non City Weight Paid Per Pound Weight Apr 01 126871 28,754 $70.00 $1,006.38 2,312 26,442 $925.46 Apr 05 127192 30, 397 $70.00 $1,063.89 14, 592 15, 805 $553.17 Apr 08 127281 27,625 $70.00 $966.87 6, 2~ 21,385 $748.47 Apr 08 127303 51,773 $70.~0 $1,812.05 0 51,773 $1,812.05 Two loads 127298 Apr 11 127549 7,602 $70.00 $266.06 6,048 1,554 $54.38 Apr 13 201645 20,112 $70.00 $703.91 18,352 1,760 S60.60 Apr 17 127952 37,362 $70.00 $1,307.66 10, 984 26, 378 $923.22 Two loads 127892 Apr 20 201709 29,776 $70.00 $1,~. 16 4,560 25,216 $882.56 Apr 29 128567 55,971 $70.~ $1,958.99 51,0~ 4,931 $172.59 m loads 128364 7~ 7",4L 289,372 $10,127.97 114,128 181,377 $6,132.50 CITY OF UKIAH RECYCLING REPORT BINS, TOTERS AND CONTAINERS April 1996 CUSTOMERS ITEMS TOTERS BINS CONTAINERS No curbside recycling bins deivered in April Solid Wastes Recycling Curbs i d e Apr i 1 Total Possible Customers Weeks During Period 1996 3900 4.33 Curbside Residential Participation Date Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Weekly Total Apr 01-05 159 277 315 266 201 1218 Apr 08-12 137 257 321 251 182 1148 Apr 15-19 170 290 305 278 215 1258 Apr 22-26 144 266 332 245 197 1184 Apr 29-30 182 281 0 0 0 463 Totals 792 1371 1273 1040 795 5271 Part % 31.23% 29.44% 32.26% 30.36% 11.87% 31.~'~1% CSPARTRP 10-18-91 City of Ukiah MAY 1996 Monthly Diversion Report BUY-BACK COMMERCIAL TRANSFER NON CURBSIDE LANDFILL AFFILIATED TOTAL BI-METAL 8, 32'7 i-', ~84 6,029 ~ 160 1'7 230 36,330 ALUMINUM 6, 14'7 14 100 54 28,310 34,625 BATTERIES 1,419 0 0 0 0 1, 419 CARDBOARD 19, i50 81,702 ::'.0,426 6,382 125,340 253,000 MIXED PAPER 24,752 32,332 1,'702 3,094 0 61,880 OIL. 5, 187 0 0 0 0 5, 187 NEWSPAPER 55,992 13,484 31,464 28,460 0 129,400 PLASTIC 5, '724 2, 182 5,090 2, 140 4, 160 19,296 SCRAP METAL 32 780 0 0 82 680 0 115, 460 TIRES 560 19,888 0 6,732 0 27, 180 YARDWASTE 0 RECYCLE TOTAL 180,450 21;'-', 110 327,345 152,482 273, 190 1, 145,5'77 079 560 0 0 COMMERCIAL 0 1, , 0 i, 079, 560 DROP BOXES 0 175,790 0 0 0 175,790 700 0 RESIDENTIAL 0 0 540, 0 540, 700 LANDFILL TOTAL 0 1, ~t~,050 540 700 0 0 1 845, 750 DI VERSION% CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLY RECYCLING REPORT MAY 1996 BUYBACK Page 1 DATE iTEM TAG ~ WEIGHT PD PER PD PAID May 03 Newspaper 64658 9,~ May 04 Newspaper 64684 7,2i2 May 05 Milk Cartons 64691 528 May 06 CRV Plastic 64692 221 May 06 Tin 64692 1,122 May 06 CHDPE 64692 132 May 06 NHDPE 64692 209 May 06 Mix Plastic 64692 198 May 09 Newspaper 64815 6,036 May 09 Tin 64802 9i3 May 09 CHDPE 64802 198 May 09 NHDPE 64802 308 May 09 Mix Plastic 64802 154 May 10 Newspaper 64837 7,620 May 10 Mix Paper 64842 5,216 May 10 CRV Plastic 64849 196 May 10 Tin 64849 1,001 May 10 CHDPE 64849 116 May 10 NHDPE 64849 176 May 10 Mix Plastic 64849 176 May 17 Mix Paper 61842 3,736 May 11 CRV Glass 85067 4,020 May 11 Scrap Glass 85067 1,203 May 12 Newspaper 61693 9,144 May 15 CRV Glass 85194 3,980 May 15 Scrap Glass 85194 3,169 May 15 CRV Plastic 61771 140 May 15 Tin 61771 1,034 May 15 CHDPE 61771 138 May 15 NHDPE 61771 198 May 15 Mix Plastic 61771 176 May i6 Mix Paper 61783 6,416 May i6 Milk Cartons 61804 720 May 17 Newspaper 61841 8,220 May i7 Junk Metal 608964 7,320 May 19 Tin 61870 1,100 May 19 CHDPE 61870 242 May 19 NHDPE 61870 363 May 19 Mix Plastic 61870 187 $25.000 $32.000 $65.000 $1,584.060 $45.000 $30.000 $220.000 $0.000 $25.000 $45.000 $30.000 $220.000 $0.000 $25.000 $20.000 $1,584.060 $45.000 $30.000 $220.000 $0.000 $20.000 $173.720 $67.659 $35.000 $173.720 $67.659 $1,584.060 $45.000 $30.000 $220.000 $0.000 $20.000 $65.000 $25.000 $50.000 $45.000 $30.000 $220.000 $0.000 $115.35 $115.39 $17.16 $174.42 $25.25 $1.98 $22.99 $0.00 $75.45 $20.54 $2.97 $33.88 $0.00 $95.25 $52.16 $154.92 $22.52 $1.73 $19.36 $0.00 $37.36 $349.11 $40.70 $160.02 $345.50 $107.21 $109.69 $23.~! $2.06 $21.78 $0.00 $64.16 $23.40 $102.75 $183.00 $24.75 $3.63 $39.93 $0.00 CITY OF UKiAH MONTHLY RECYCLING REPORT MAY i996 BUYBACK Page 2 DATE ITEM TAG ~ WEIGHT I:::'D PER PD PAiD May 2i Tin 61920 429 May 21 CHDPE 61920 88 May 21 NHDPE 6i920 143 May 21 Mix Plastic 61920 77 May 22 Tin 61970 1,892 May 22 CHDPE 61970 418 May 22 NHDPE 61970 616 May 22 Mix Plastic 61970 330 ..... ~'~'- - 340 May ~ CRV Glass 8~¢~ ~, ~'~ 180 May 22 Scrap Glass o~ 2, May 24 Newspaper 62040 8,532 May 24 Pet Plastic 62043 212 May 24 Tin 62043 836 May 24 CHDPE 62043 66 May 24 NHDPE 62043 99 May 24 Mix Plastic 62043 147 May 26 Mix Paper 62064 9,384 May 27 Alum 51603 4,690 May 27 CRV Alum 51603 5,980 May 28 Junk Metal 609197 7,380 May 29 CRV Glass 85701 3,520 May 31 Junk Metal 598480 18,.080 $45. $30. $220. $0. $45. $30. $220. $0. $i73. $67. $25. $1,584. $45. $30. $220. $0. $20. $0. $0. $50. $I73. $60. 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 720 659 000 060 000 000 000 000 000 440 685 000 720 000 $9.65 $1.32 $15.73 $0.00 $42.57 $6.27 $67.76 $0.00 $191.92 $73.75 $106.65 $168.92 $18.81 $0.99 $10.89 $0.00 $93.84 $2,063.60 $4,096.25 $184.50 $230.03 $542.40 $10,515.49 CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLY RECYCLING REPORT MAY 1996 CURBSiDE Page i DATE ITEM TAG ~ WEIGHT PD PER PD PAID May 03 Newspaper 64658 6,152 May 04 Newspaper 64684 4,808 May 05 Milk Cartons 64691 660 May 06 Pet Plasitc 64692 279 May 06 · Tin 64692 918 May 06 CHDPE 64692 108 May 06 NHDPE 64692 171 May 06 Mix Plastic 64692 162 May 09 Newspaper 64815 4,024 May 09 Tin 64802 747 May 09 CHDPE 64802 i62 May 09 NHDPE 64802 252 May 09 Mix Plastic 64802 126 May 10 Newsppaer 64837 5,080 May 10 Mix Paper 64842 7,172 May 10 Pet Plastic 64849 274 May 10 Tin 64849 819 May 10 CHDPE 64849 95 May 10 NHDPE 64849 144 May 10 Mix Plastic 64849 143 May 17 Mix Paper 61842 5,137 May 11 Scrap Glass 85067 5,977 May 12 Newspaper 61693 6,096 May 15 Scrap Glass 85194 15,651 May 15 Pet Plastic 61771 290 May 15 Tin 61771 846 May 15 CHDPE 61771 113 May 15 NHDPE 61771 162 May 15 Mix Plastic 61771 143 May 16 Mix Paper 61783 8,~ May 16 Milk Cartons 61804 900 May 17 Newspaper 61841 5,480 May 19 Tin 61870 900 May i9 CHDPE 61870 198 May 19 NHDPE 61870 297 May 19 Mix Plastic 61870 153 May 21 Newspaper UDJ 61922 7,620 May 21 Tin 61920 351 May 21 CHDPE 61920 72 May 21 NHDPE 61920 117 May 2i Mix Plastic 61920 63 $25.000 $76.90 $32.000 $76.93 $65.000 '$21.45 $1,095.400 $!52.81 $45.000 $20.66 $30.000 $1.62 $220.000 $18.80 40.000 $0.00 $25.000 $50.30 $45.000 416.81 $30.000 $2.43 $220.000 $27.72 $0.000 $0.00 $25.000 $63.50 $20.000 $71.72 $1,095.400 $150.07 $45.000 $18.43 $30.000 $1.42 $220.000 $15.84 $0.000 $0.00 $20.000 $51.37 $67.659 $202.20 $35.000 $106.68 $67.659 ~'-' $~9.46 $1,095.400 $158.83 $45.000 $i9.04 $30.000 $1.69 $220.000 $17.81 $0.000 $0.00 $20.000 $88.22 $65.000 $29.°~ $=~.000 $68.50 $45.000 $20.25 $30.000 $'2.9'7 $220.000 $32.67 $0.000 $0.00 $38.000 $144.78 $45.000 $7.90 $30.000 $1.08 $220.000 $12.87 $0.000 $0.00 CiTY OF UKiAH MONTHLY MAY 1996 CURBSiDE RECYCLING REPORT Page DATE iTEM TAG # WEIGHT PD PER PD PAID May 22 May 22 May 22 May 22 May 22 May 24 May 24 May 24 May 24 May 24 May 24 May 26 May 26 May 27 May 28 May 28 May 28 May 28 May 28 Tin 61970 1,548 CHDPE 61970 342 NHDPE 61970 504 Mix Plastic 61970 270 Scrap Glass 85450 6,720 Newspaper 62040 5,688 Pet Plastic 62043 320 Tin 6L04~ 684 CHDPE 62043 54 NHDPE 62043 81 Mix Plastic 62043 121 Scrap Glass 62066 11,400 Mix Paper 62064 12,903 Alum 51603 114 Pet Plastic 62115 330 Tin 62115 1,800 CHDPE 62115 260 NHDPE 62115 390 Mix Plastic 62115 320 $45. 000 $ 30.000 $220. 000 $0.000 $67. 659 $25.000 $i, ~9~. 400 $ 45. 000 $30.000 $220.000 $0. 000 $67. 659 $20. 000 $0.685 $1,095.400 $45.000 $30.000 $220.000 $0.000 $34.83 ~5. i3 $~.44 $0.00 $227.33 $71.10 $175.26 $15.39 $0.81 $8.9i $0.00 $397.06 $129.03 $78.04 $180.74 $45.00 $3.90 $42.90 $0.00 $3,753.85 CITY DF UKIAH MONTHLY RECYCLING REPORT MAY 1996 LANDF ILL Page t DATE iTEM TAG # WEIGHT PD PER PD PA I D May 03 Junk Metal 618115 9,880 May 05 Milk Cartons 64691 132 May 09 Pet Plastic 64807 900 May 09 Tin 64807 1, 120 May 09 Mix Plastic 64807 220 May 10 Mix Paper 64842 652 May 17 Mix Paper 61842 467 May 16 Newspaper 61786 10,480 May 16 Mix Paper 61783 802 May 16 Milk Cartons 61804 180 May 17 Scrap Glass 61826 9,480 May 22 Scrap Glass 85450 11,300 May 24 Junk Metal 598414 15,740 May 26 Mix Paper 62064 1,173 May 27 Alum 51603 54 May 28 Junk Metal 609196 9,380 May 28 Junk Metal 609198 26,700 May 28 Pet Plastic 62115 820 May 28 Tin 62115 1,040 May 28 Mix Plastic 62115 200 May 29 Junk Metal 634405 10,780 May 30 Newspaper 62177 17,980 May 31 Junk Metal 598480 10,200 $50.000 - ~ $~.000 $1,188.600 $45.000 $0.000 $20.000 $20.000 $'-'~=~. 000 $20.000 $65.000 $71.288 $74.288 $67.000 $20.000 $0.685 $50.000 $70.000 $1,188.600 $45.000 $0.000 $50.000 $45.000 $50.000 $247.00 $4.29 $534.87 $25.20 $0.00 $6.52 $4.67 $131.00 $8.02 $5.85 $337.91 $419.73 $527.29 $11.73 $36.92 $234.50 $934.50 $487.33 $26.00 $0.00 $269.50 $404.55 $255.00 $4,912.~ Sol~d Wastes Systems, inc. May 1996 Compostiabie Poundage Picked Up - MONTHLY REPDRT Week Week Week Week 1 st 2nd 3rd 4rcs Week Total 5th Pounds Monday 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tuesdav 0 15,900 19,400 17,380 26q ~ 79 240 Wednesday 12,740 11,480 2,280 6,860 10,420 43,780 Thursday 11,540 10,980 5,660 9,420 12, 180 49,780 Friday 13,980 11,260 12,620 8,840 15,200 61,900 Total Pounds 38,260 49,620 39,960 42,500 64,360 234,700 Loose Yard Waste May 07 74084 20 May 07 74118 20 May 15 74616 20 May 16 74668 20 May 17 74338 12 May 17 74735 20 May 23 74834 20 May 24 75297 20 May 29 75701 20 May 30 75872 20 Date Receipt Pounds Date May 01 5292 6980 May 17 May 01 5285 5760 May 17 May 02 5363 11540 May 18 May 03 5377 13980 May 21 May 07 5389 12320 May 21 May 07 5397 3580 May 22 May 08 5408 11480 May 23 May 09 5419 10980 May 24 May 10 5429 11260 May 28 May 14 5451 8000 May 28 May 14 5438 11400 May 29 May 15 5463 2280 May 30 May 16 5472 5660 May 31 May 31 Receipt Pounds 5485 11840 5482 780 5494 480 5508 8400 5498 8500 ~i~ 6860 ~4 9420 5543 8840 5554 14600 ~b7 11960 ~7~ 10420 5587 12180 5607 7340 5595 7860 CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLY REPORT BUYBACK CARDBOARD mAY 1996 Date Tag# Weight Paid Per Pound Paid Non City Weight Weight Paid May 03 446681 5, 088 May 04 610928 1,737 Nay 09 597006 5, 610 May 10 578887 2,511 May 15 5789~2 2, 796 Nay 17 608980 5, 493 May 19 611462 4,425 May 23 609153 5, 547 May 24 63~615 2, 394 May 26 609126 3, 504 39,105 $65.00 $65.00 $65.00 $65.00 $65.00 $65.00 $80.00 $80.00 $80.00 $80.00 $165.36 3, 042 2, 046 $56.45 I, 307 430 $182.33 4,164 I, 446 $81.61 735 1,776 $90.87 2,117 679 $178.52 3, 285 2,208 $177.00 1,346 3, 079 $221.88 2,1B~ 3, 359 $95.76 I~ 600 794 $140.16 171 3, 333 $1,389.94 19,955 19,150 $66.50 $13.99 $47.00 $57.72 $71.76 $123.15 $134.34 $31.74 $133.32 $701.58 CITY OF LIKIAH MONTHLY REPORT CURBSIDE C~RDBORRD Nay 1996 Date Tag# Weight Paid Per Pound Paid Non City Weight Weight Paid May 03 446681 27,136 Nay 04 610928 9,264 May 09 597006 29,920 Nay 10 578887 13, 392 May 15 578902 14,912 May 17 608980 29,296 )lay 19 611462 23,600 May 23 609153 29,584 May 24 636615 12, 768 May 26 609126 18,688 $65.00 $65.00 $65.00 $65.00 $65.00 $65.00 $80.00 $80.00 $80.00 $80.00 $881.92 $301.08 $972.40 $435.24 $484.64 $952.12 $944.00 $1,183.36 $510.72 $747.52 $7,413. 16,224 10,912 6,968 2, 296 22, 208 7, 712 3,920 9,472 11,292 3, 620 17,520 11,776 7, 180 16,420 11,672 17,912 8, 536 4, 232 912 17,776 106,432 102,128 $354.64 $74.62 $250. 64 $307.84 $117.65 $382.72 $656.80 $716.48 $169.28 $711.04 $3,741.71 CITY DF UI(IAH IIDNTHLY REPORT LANDFILL CARDBOARD MY 1996 Date Tag# Weight Paid Per Pound Paid Non City Weight Weight Paid May 03 446681 1,696 May 04 610928 579 May 09 597006 1,870 May 10 578887 837 May 15 578902 932 May 17 608980 1,831 #ay 19 611462 1,475 May 23 609153 1,849 May 24 636615 798 May 26 609126 1,168 13, 035 $65.00 $65.00 $65.00 $65.00 $65.00 S65.00 $80.00 $80.00 $8~. 00 $80.00 $55.12 $18.82 $60.77 $27.20 $30.29 $59.51 $59.00 $73.96 $31.92 $46.72 $463.31 1,014 435 1,388 245 706 1,095 449 730 534 57 6,653 682 144 482 592 226 736 I, ~6 1,119 264 I, I11 $22.16 $4.66 $15.66 $19.24 $7.35 $23.92 $41.05 $44.78 $10.58 $44.44 $233.84 CITY OF UKIAH RECYCLING REPORT BINS, TOTERS AND CONTAINERS May 1996 CUSTOMERS ITEMS TOTERS BINS CONTAINERS Neelam Salmen Office Paper Century 21 Newspaper Plastic/Tin Glass Toppers Cardboard Plastic/Tin Glass Ukiah Fitness Center Office Paper Plastic/Tin No Curbside Bins Delivered Solid Wastes Recycling Curbs ide May Total Possible Customers Weeks During Period 1996 3900 4.33 Curbside Residential Participation Date Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Weekly Total May 01-03 0 0 333 250 197 780 May 06-10 159 259 345 277 215 1255 May 13-17 177 267 312 291 201 1248 May 20-24 195 280 337 284 228 1324 May 27-31 166 250 306 262 195 1179 Totals 697 1056 1633 1364 1036 5786 Par~ % 20.00% 32.18% 32.00% ~.95% 30. o~- 34.26% CSPARTRP 10-18-91 City of Ukiah JUNE 1996 Monthly Diversion Report BUY-BACK COMMERCIAL TRANSFER NON CURBS I DE LANDF ILL AFF I L I ATED '¥OTAL BI-METAL 11,088 2, '722 6,350 1,040 16,970 38, 170 ALUMINUM 6,670 15 101 37 2'7,890 34, 713 BATTERIES 1, 188 0 0 0 0 1, ld= '~ A CARDBOARD 13, 2'70 6'7,230 3,538 4,422 134,780 223,240 GLASS 14,564 8,687 20,269 0 91, 700 135, ~.-i~ MI XED PAPER 35,816 46, '785 2,462 4,605 0 89,668 ~qOTOR OIL 4,48,5 0 0 0 0 4,485 NEWSPAPER 45, 132 14,390 33,578 9,200 0 102,300 PLASTIC 7,883 2,053 4,791 1,040 5, 119 20,886 SCRAP' METAL 0 '7,020 0 40,020 0 4'7,040 TI RES 3'70 74,626 0 1, '722 0 76, '718 YARDWASTE 0 41,m~0 157,620 0 0 198,870 COMMERCIAL 0 970,240 0 0 0 970, 240 DROP' BOXES 0 177, '709 0 0 0 177,709 COMPACTORS 0 32,060 0 0 0 32,060 RESIDENTIAL 0 0 466, 140 0 0 466, 140 LANDFILL TOTAL 0 1, 180,009 466, 140 0 0 1,646, 149 DIVERSION% Page 1 DA"i'L- ITEM TAG ~ WE i GHT F'D F-'k~R PD PAiD .! ,.,.?-,.e ~'.",3_ Newspaper 62665 6, 8:-'-' June 03 Tin 62666 869 Jur~e 03 CHDPE 62666 187 June ~3 NHOPE 62~66 June 03 Mix Plastic 62666 280 June 06 Newspaper 62375 9,108 June 06 Mix Paper 62383 8, 168 June 06 CRV Plastic 62369 339 Ju~e 06 Tlr~ 62369 990 June 06 CHDPE 62369 55 June 06 NHDPE 62369 77 June 06 Mix Plastic 62369 176 June 09 Newspaper 62477 13,224 June 09 CRV Plastic 62475 139 June 09 Tin 62475 946 June 09 CHDPE 62475 118 June 09 NHDPE 62475 176 June 09 Mix Plastic 62475 165 June 10 Tin 62490 847 June 10 CHDPE 62490 187 June 10 NHDPE 62490 275 June 10 Mix Plastic 62490 143 June 12 Mix Paper 62576 6,296 June 13 Tin 64440 693 .June 13 CHDPE 64440 154 June 13 NHDPE 64440 220 June i3 Mix Plastic 64440 121 June i5 Newspaper 64506 8,856 June 15 Tin 64494 968 June 15 CHDPE 64494 220 June 15 NHDPE 64494 319 June i~; Mi)~ Plastic 64494 165 June i5 CRV Pias;ic 64499 32~ June i5 Tin 64499 1, 155 June 15 CHDPE 64499 115 June lb5 NHDPE 64499 i76 June i5 Mix Plastic 64499 198 June 16 Mix Paper 64514 6,520 June t7 CRV Glass 86658 5,500 Jun~_ 1 ? 5crap Glass 86658 $55.000 $188.43 ~45 000 $60.000 $5.6i $230.000 $32.89 $0.000 $0.00 $55.000 $250.47 $c~.000 $102.10 $i,544.060 $259.36 $45.000 $22.28 $60.000 $1.65 $230.000 $8.86 $0.000 $0.00 $40.000 $264.48 $1,584.060 $108.96 $45.000 $21.29 $60.000 $3.55 $230.000 $20.24 $0.000 $0.00 $45.000 $19.06 $60.000 $5.61 $230.000 $31.63 $0.000 $0.00 $~.000 $78.70 $45. 000 $15. $60. 000 $4.62 $230. 000 $'-'=,~. 30 $0.000 $0.00 $35.000 $154.98 $45.000 $21.78 $60.000 $6.60 $230.000 $36.69 $0.000 $0.00 $i,58q.060 $260.28 $45.000 *25.99 $60.000 $3.47 $230.000 $20.24 ~0.000 $0.00 $25.000 '~81.50 $173.720 $475.66 $67.659 $111.64 i: J:. -F Y' Of' :.~t~ l AH MON'I HL ¥' RECYi.":I....~bIG REPOR ~ i!jblE 199~: ~:~U ?BACF'., Page 2 DATE ITEM TAG ~ WEIGHT PD PER PD PAiD June i8 Tin 62777 869 June 18 CHDPE 62'777 1.98 June 18 NHDPE 6 :-'777 286 June 18 Mix Piastic 62777 154 June 20 Newspaper 62839 7,092 June 20 Milk Cartons 62853 512 June 20 CRV Plastic 62851 313 June 20 Tin 62851 539 June 20 Mix Plastic 62851 i9 June 23 Tin 64884 979 June 23 CHDPE 64884 220 June 23 CHDPE 64884 330 June 23 Mix Plastic 64884 165 June 23 Mix Paper 64885 5,816 June 24 CRV Glass 86981 4,060 June 24 Scrap Glass 86981 1,709 June 25 Mix Paper 64953 3,472 June 26 CRV Plastic 64980 279 June 26 Tin 64980 968 June 26 CHDPE 64980 88 June 26 NHDPE 64980 132 June 26 Mix Plastic 64980 165 June 28 Tin 63409 1,265 June 28 CHDPE 63409 ,-,'~.,'-'-= June 28 NHDPE 63409 418 June 28 Mix Plastic 63409 220 June 28 Mix Ppaer 63416 5,544 June 28 CRV Alun 53279 5,380 June 28 Alum 53279 5,822 $45.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $35.000 $35.000 $1,~4.~ ~4~.000 $0.000 $45.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $25.000 $173.720 $67.659 $25.000 $1,584.060 $45.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $45.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $25.000 $0.430 $0.685 $1q.~ $5.94 $32.89 $0.00 $124. ii $6.40 $248.00 $12.13 $0.00 $22.03 $6.60 $37.95 $0.00 $72.70 $352.34 $57.51 $43.40 $220.90 $21.78 $2.64 $15.18 $0.00 $28.46 $~.~O $48.07 $0.00 $69.30 $2,313.40 $3,987.86 $10,446.45 Page 1 DA'rE iTEM TAG -~ WEIGHT PD [-'ER PAID June 02 Newspaper 62849 8,940 June 03 aewspape'r 62665 ~+,568 .Jur, e 03 Tir'~ 62666 7il June 03 CHDPE 62666 153 June 03 NHDF'E 62666 234 June 03 Mix Plastic 62666 126 June 06 Newspaper 6~z;/o 6,072 June 06 Mix Paper 62383 11,231 June 06 Pet Piastic 62369 401 June 06 Tin 6~369 810 June 06 CHDPE ~ '~'-'~ q o~o. 45 June 06 NHDPE 62369 63 June 06 Mix Plastic 62369 144 June 08 Scrap Glass 86209 11,000 June 09 Newspaper 62477 8,816 June 09 Pet Plastic 62475 266 June 09 Tin 62475 774 June 09 CHDPE 62475 97 June 09 NHDPE 62475 144 June 09 Mix Plastic 62475 135 June 10 Tin 62490 693 J~ne 10 CHDPE 62490 1:~ June 10 NHDPE 62490 225 June 10 Mix Plastic 62490 117 June i2 Mix Paper 62576 8,657 June 13 Tin 64440 567 June 13 CHDPE 64440 126 June 13 NHDPE 64440 180 June 13 Mix Plastic 64440 99 June i5 Newspaper 64506 5,904 June 15 Tin 64494 792 June 15 CHDPE 64494 180 June 15 NHDPE 64494 261 June 15 Mix Plastic 64494 135 June 15 Pet F'lastic 64499 301 June 15 Tin 64499 945 June i5 CHDPE 64499 95 June 15 NHDPE 64499 144 June 15 Mix Plastic 64499 162 June 16 Mix Paper 64514 8,965 June 17 Scrap Glass 86658 [3,885 $35.000 ~,.000 :~. $~.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 ~.000 -,~ $~.000 $I,0,,.400 $45.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $67.659 $40.000 $1,075.827 $45.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $45.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $=~.000 $45.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $35.000 ~4~. 000 $60. 000 $230.000 $0.000 $1,075.827 $45.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $25.000 $67.859 $156.45 $125.62 $16.00 $4.,~ = .... $26.91 $0.00 $166.98 $140.39 $146.24 $1.35 $7.23 $0.00 $372.12 $176.~'':'~ $99.93 $17.42 $':'.~ 90 $16.55 $0.00 $15.59 $4.58 $25.88 $0.00 $108.21 $12.'76 $3.78 ~20.70 $0.00 $103.~ $i7.82 $5.40 $30.01 $0.00 $i13.07 $21.26 $2.84 $16 ~ $0.00 $i 12.00 $111.64 CITY OF UKiAH MONTHLY RECYCLING REPORT JUNE 1996 CURBSIDE Page 2 DATE ITEM TAG # WEIGHT PD PER PD PA I D June 18 Tin 62777 711 June 18 CHDPE 62777 162 June 18 NHDPE 62777 234 June 18 Mix Plastic 62777 126 June 20 Newspaper UDJ 628~9 8,940 June 20 Newspaper 62389 4,728 June 20 Wax Cartons 6~8~ 640 June 20 Pet Plastic 62851 372 June 20 Tin 62851 441 June 20 Mix Plastic 62851 16 June 23 Tin 64884 801 June 23 CHDPE 64884 180 June 23 NHDPE 64884 270 June 23 Mix Plastic 64884 135 June 23 Mix Paper 64885 7,997 June 24 Scrap Glass 86981 4,091 June 25 Mix Paper 64953 4,774 June 26 Junk Metal 635703 7,020 June 26 Pet Plastic 64980 301 June 26 Tin 64980 792 June 26 CHDPE 64980 72 June 26 NHDPE 64980 108 June 26 Mix Plastic 64980 135 June 28 Tin 63409 1,035 June 28 CHDPE 63409 225 June 28 NHDPE 63409 342 June 28 Mix Plastic 63409 180 June 28 Mix Paper 63416 7,623 June 28 Alum 53279 116 $45. $60. $230. $0. $35. $35. $~ $1,075. $45. $0. $45. $60. $230. $0. $25. $67. $25. $70. $1,075. $45. $60. $230. $0. $45. $60. $230. $0. $25. $0. 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 827 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 659 000 000 827 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 685 $16.00 $4.86 $26.91 $0.00 $156.45 $82.74 $8.00 $139.75 $22.05 $0.00 $18.02 $5.40 $31.05 $0.00 $99.96 $138.70 $59.68 $245.70 $113.07 $17.82 $2.16 $12.42 $0.00 $23.29 $6.75 $39.33 $0.00 $95.29 $79.25 $3,665.35 CiTY OF UKIAH MONTHLY RECYCLING REPORT JUNE 1996 LANDF ILL Page 1 DATE ITEM TAG # WEIGHT PD PER PD PA I D June 06 Mix Paper 62383 1,021 June 12 Mix Paper 62576 787 June 12 Junk Metal 655511 4,920 June 16 Mix Paper 64514 815 June 16 Pet Plastic 64516 840 June 16 Tin 64516 1,040 June 16 Mix Plastic 64516 200 June 19 Junk Metal 379891 10,380 June. 20 Mix Paper 62853 128 June 22 Junk Metal 655798 3,700 June 22 Junk Metal 655796 7, 160 June ;~ Mix Paper 64885 727 June 23 Newspaper 64887 9,200 June 25 Mix Paper 64953 434 June 26 Junk Metal 654558 8,600 June 28 Junk Metal 381856 5,260 June 28 Mix Paper 63416 693 June 28 Alum 53279 37 $25.000 $12.76 $25.000 $9.84 $50.000 $123.00 $25.000 $10.19 $1,168.233 $379.15 $45.000 $23.40 $0.000 $0.00 $50.000 $259.50 $25.000 $1.60 $50.000 $92.50 $50.000 $179.00 $25.000 $9.09 $35.000 $161.00 $25.000 45.42 $50.000 $215.00 $50.000 $131.50 $25.000 $8.66 $0.685 $25.63 $1,647.24 Sci. id Wastes Compost iabl e Systems, Yardage Picked Up - MONTHL. Y J u T"~ e REPORT 1996 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Th ursday Friday Week Week Week Week 1 st 2nd 3rd 4th 0 0 16,200 10, 160 5, 540 14, 520 0 8, 720 10,680 9, 080 0 16, 220 8, 140 8, 000 10, 500 0 14, 740 8, 100 8, 100 8, 920 We e k Tot a 1 ~, t h P o u n d s 0 0 0 57,320 0 36, 300 0 24,820 0 39, 180 'Total Pounds 32,420 42,480 42,860 39,860 0 157,620 Loose Yard Waste June 06 76429 20 June 06 5649 20 June 12 5963 20 June 14 6104 15 June 14 6067 10 June 21 77027 20 June 21 77018 20 June 26 77363 20 June 26 77348 20 Date Receipt June 04 5624 Jun e 04 5615 Jun e 05 5633 June 07 5301 June 08 5696 June 11 5803 June 11 5875 June 12 5896 June 12 5894 June 13 6066 June 15 6159 Pounds Dat 7320 8880 5540 3800 6880 7580 2580 7880 6640 8720 9080 June June June June Jun e June June J un e Jun e June J un e June Receipt Pounds 18 6181 4280 18 6176 11940 19 6193 8140 20 6203 8000 21 6218 2040 21 6216 8460 25 6235 5540 25 622'7 9200 26 6246 8100 27 6261 8100 28 6271 6580 28 6277 2340 CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLY REPORT BUYBACK CARDBOARD JUNE 1996 Date Tag# Weight Paid Per Pound Paid Non City Weight Weight Paid June 03 635197 2, 526 June 08 637340 5, 280 June 10 596873 3, 468 June 12 655521 3, 477 June 13 634467 1,692 June 15 634477 3,891 June 19 634577 5, 358 June 22 609017 705 June 24 634594 4, 962 June 26 609065 3, 480 June 30 654566 1,413 $80.00 $95.00 $95.00 $95.00 $95.00 $95.00 $95.00 $95.00 $95.80 $95.00 $95.00 $101.04 $250.80 $164.73 $165.16 $80.37 $184.82 $254.51 $33.49 $235.70 $165.30 $67.12 $1,783.04 2, 319 3, 531 I, 288 8, 267 I, 350 2, 898 3, 433 0 4, 578 1,318 0 22,988 207 $8.28 1,749 $83.08 2,180 $103.53 1,210 $57.50 342 $16.25 993 $47.17 1,925 $91.41 705 $33.49 384 $18. 24 2,162 $182.67 1,413 $67.12 13,270 $688.74 CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLY REPORT CURBSIDE CARDBOARD JUNE 1996 Date Tag# Weight Paid Pep Pound Paid Non City Weight Weight Paid June 03 635197 13, 472 June 08 637340 28, 160 June 10 596873 18, 496 June 12 655521 18, 544 June 13 634467 9,024 June 15 634477 20, 752 June 19 634577 28, 576 June 22 609017 3, 760 June 24 634594 26,464 June 26 609065 18, 560 June 38 654566 7, 536 193,344 $80.00 $95.00 $95.00 $95.00 $95.00 $95.00 $95.00 $95.00 $95.00 $95.00 $95.00 f538. 88 $1,337.60 $878.56 $880.84 $428.64 $985.72 $1,357.36 $178.60 $1,257.04 $881.60 $357.96 $9,082.80 12, 368 18, 832 6,872 12,088 7,200 15, 456 18, 312 0 24,416 7,032 0 122,576 1,104 9,328 11,624 6,456 1,824 5,296 10, 264 3, 760 2, 048 11,528 7,536 70,768 $44.16 $443.08 $552.14 $306.66 $86.64 $251.56 $487.54 $178.60 $97.28 $547.58 $357.96 $3,353.20 CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLY REd, IRT LANDFILL CARDBOARD ~t~r1996 Date Tag# Weight Paid Per Pound Paid Non City Weight Weight Paid June 03 635197 840 June 08 637340 1,760 June 10 596873 1,156 June 12 655521 1,159 June 13 634467 564 June 15 634477 1,297 June 19 634577 I, 786 June 22 609017 235 June 24 634594 1,654 June 26 609865 1,160 June 38 654566 471 18,888 $80.00 $95.80 $95.00 $95.00 $95.00 $95.80 $95.08 $95.00 $95.00 $95.08 $95.08 $33.68 $83.60 $54.9I $55.05 $26.79 $61.61 $84.83 $11.16 $78.57 $55.10 $22.27 $567.67 771 1,177 430 755 450 966 I, 145 0 I, 586 440 7, 660 69 583 726 404 114 331 64I 235 128 720 471 4,422 $2.76 $27.69 $34.50 $19.16 $5.41 $15.72 $30.47 $11.16 $6.08 $34.22 $22.37 $209.54 CITY OF UKIAH RECYCLING REPORT BINS, TOTERS AND CONTAINERS June 1996 CUSTOMERS ITEMS TOTERS BINS CONTAINERS E1Somobro Rest. Plastic & Tin 1 Marino's Pizza Plastic & Tin 1 Espresso Cafe Stop Glass/Plastic & Tin 2 Richard Knox Office Paper 1 Victoria's Office Paper 1 Public Defender Office Paper 3 .~tonio Andrade Office Paper 3 Angell Dist. Cardboard 1 Bus Garage Cardboard 1 Public Health Cardboard 1 Ten sets of bins delivered in June Solid Wastes Recycling Curbs i de June Total Possible Customers Weeks During Period 1996 3900 4.33 Curbside Residential Participation Date Mon Tue Wed Thu Jun 00-00 0 0 Jun 03-07 166 259 Jun 10-14 159 277 Jun 17-21 187 269 Jun 24-28 170 281 Totals 682 1086 0 333 342 327 359 1361 0 277 269 255 281 1082 Fri Weekly Part % Total 0 0 0.00% 198 1233 31.62% 203 1250 32.05% 224 1262 32.36% 201 1292 33.13% 826 5037 29.83% CSPARTRP 10-18-91 City of Ukiah Monthly Diversion Report JULY 1996 TRANSFER NON BUY-BACK COMMERCIAL CURBSIDE LANDFILL AFFILIATED TOTAL BI-METAL 10, 164 2,495 5,821 2, 180 1'7,500 38, 160 ALUM I NUM 7, '--'.=, .... . ~ ;-'~ 94 37 29,500 36,906 GLASS d5,049 ;-'1 1_4 49, 35'7 10~920 101,200 ~'.17.680 MIXED PAPER 36,0i~:4 47,056 2, 4'7'7 4,503 0 90,060 ~MOTOR OIL 3,705 0 0 0 0 3~'705 NEWSPAPER 30,696 18, 199 14,325 9,700 0 72, 920 PLASTIC 6, 98'7 1,91;~'. 4, 461 2,200 62,389 7'7,949 SCRAP METAL 0 0 0 15. 080 0 15,080 ~T~7 ......................... 7Tzs ................... ~T~ ................................. ~ ............. ~T~TT~- ....................................... ~ ................... YARDWASTE 0 47,500 159, 180 0 0 206,680 RECYCLE TOTAL 151,365 266,423 241,006 53,262 J~,,-'== 419 1,067, 475 COMMERCIAL 0 1,008,980 0 0 0 1,008, 980 DROP' BOXES 0 201,783 0 0 0 201,783 COMP'ACTORS 0 62,640 0 0 0 62, 640 RESIDENTIAL 0 0 528,240 0 0 528, 240 CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLY RECYCLING REPORT JULY 1996 BUYBACK Page 1 DATE ITEM TAG ~ WEIGHT PD PER PD PAID July 01 Tin 63445 847 July 01 CHDPE 63445 187 July 01 NHDPE 63445 275 July 01 Mix Plastic 63445 143 July 02 Tin 63530 924 July 02 CHDPE 63530 198 Jul y 02 NHDPE 63530 308 July 02 Mix Plastic 63530 165 July 05 Mix Paper 63634 3,904 July 05 CRV Plastic 63632 203 July 05 Tin 63632 880 uly 05 CHDPE 63632 88 duly 05 NHDPE 63632 121 July 05 Mix Plastic 63632 154 July 06 ~ Glass 87937 11,320 July 08 Wax Cartons 63674 512 July 08 Wax Cartons 63684 400 July 08 Tin 63675 968 July 08 CHDPE 63675 209 July 08 NHDPE 63675 319 July 08 Mix Plastic 63675 165 July 08 Mix Paper 63681 8,504 July I0 Newspaper 63765 8,064 July 11 Mix Paper 63809 5,528 July 11 CRV Plastic 63805 189 July 11 Tin 63805 1,023 July 11 CHDPE ~ ~ 6~80~ 115 July 11 NHDPE 63805 165 July 11 Mix Plastic 63805 176 July 14 Mix Paper 65036 4,264 July 14 Tin 65032 946 July 14 CHDPE 65032 209 July 14 NHDPE 65032 308 July 14 Mix Plastic 65032 165 July 17 Newspaper 65132 13,416 July 18 CRV Alum 63279 7,735 'uly 18 Alum 63279 5,822 ~uly 19 Tin 65216 869 July 19 CHDPE 65216 187 July 19 NHDPE 6~16 297 July 19 Mix Plastic 65216 154 $45.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $45.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $25.000 $1,484.060 $45.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $173.720 $85.000 $85.000 $45.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $25.000 $31.000 $25.000 $1,484.060 $45.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $25.000 $45.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $42.000 $0.430 $0.685 $45.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $19.06 $5.61 $31.63 $0.00 $20.79 $5.94 $35.42 $0.00 $48.80 $151.83 $19.80 $2.64 $13.92 $0.00 $883.29 $21.76 $17.00 $21.78 $6.27 $36.69 $0.00 $106.30 $124.99 $69.10 $141.31 $23.02 $3.47 $18.98 $0.00 $53.30 $21.29 $6.27 $35.42 $0.00 $281.74 $2,313.40 $3,987.86 $19.55 $5.61 $34.16 $0.00 CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLY RECYCLING REPORT JULY 1996 BUYBACK Page 2 DATE ITEM TAG # WEIGHT PD PER PD PAID July 19 CRV Glass 14932 4,260 July 19 Scrap Glass 14932 1,426 July 20 Tin 65228 649 July 20 CHDPE 65228 143 July 20 NHDPE 65228 220 July 20 Mix Plastic 65228 110 July 21 CRV Plastic 65262 229 July 21 Tin 65262 1,045 July 21 CHDPE 65262 99 July 21 NHDPE 65262 154 July 21 Mix Plastic 65262 176 'uly 21 Mix Paper 65265 4,888 ~uly 25 CRV Glass 88933 4,040 July 25 Scrap Glass 88933 7,691 July 25 Mix Paper 65383 5,184 July 25 Tin 65395 891 July 25 CHDPE 65395 198 July 25 NHDPE 65395 297 July 25 Mix Plastic 65395 154 July 25 CRV Glass 89106 4,860 July 25 Scrap Glass 89106 1,452 July 28 Wax Cartons 65462 568 July 30 Newspaper 63452 9,216 July 31 CRV Plastic 68523 245 July 31 Tin 68523 1,122 July 31 CHDPE 68523 110 July 31 NHDPE 68523 154 July 31 Mix Plastic 68523 198 July 31 Mix Paper 68519 3,752 $175.720 $67.659 $45.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $1,484.060 $45.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $25.000 $173.720 $67.659 $25.000 $45.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $173.720 $67.659 $85.000 $40.000 $1,484.060 $45.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $25.000 $373.41 $49.67 $14.60 $4.29 $25.30 $0.00 $160.03 $23.51 $2.97 $17.71 $0.00 $61.10 $350.74 $260.49 $64.80 $20.05 $5.94 $34.16 $0.00 $421.36 $49.12 $24.14 $184.32 $180.46 $25.25 $3.30 $17.71 $0.00 $46.90 $11,009.33 CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLY RECYCLING REPORT JULY 1996 CURBSIDE Page 1 DATE ITEM TAG ~ WEIGHT PD PER PD PAID July 01 Tin 63445 693 July 01 CHDPE 63445 153 July 01 NHDPE 63445 225 July 01 Mix Plastic 63445 117 July 01 Scrap Glass 87351 14,000 July 02 Tin 63530 756 July 02 CHDPE 63530 162 July 02 NHDPE 63530 252 July 02 Mix Plastic 63530 135 July 05 Mix Paper 63634 5,368 July 05 Pet Plastic 63632 297 'uly 05 Tin 63632 720 July 05 CHDPE 63632 72 July 05 NHDPE 63638 99 July 05 Mix Plastic 63632 126 July 08 Wax Cartons 63674 640 July 08 Wax Cartons 63684 500 July 08 Tin 63675 792 July 08 CHDPE 63675 171 July 08 NHDPE 63675 261 July 08 Mix Plastic 63675 135 July 08 Mix Paper 63681 11,693 July 10 Newspaper 63765 5,376 July 11 Mix Paper 63809 7,601 July 11 Pet Plastic 63805 341 July 11 Tin 63805 837 July 11 CHDPE 63805 95 July 11 NHDPE 63805 135 July 11 Mix Plastic 63805 144 July 14 Mix Paper 65036 5,863 July 14 Tin 65032 774 July 14 CHDPE 65032 171 July 14 NHDPE 65032 252 July 14 Mix Plastic 65032 135 July 15 Scrap Glass 88362 10,940 July 17 Newspaper 65138 8,944 'uly 18 Alum 63279 116 .uly 19 Tin 65216 711 July 19 CHDPE 65216 153 July 19 NHDPE 65216 243 July 19 Mix Plastic 65216 126 $45. $60. $230. $0. $67. $45. $60. $230. $0. $25. $975. $45. $60. $230. $0. $85. $85. $45. $60. $230. $0. $25. $31. $25. $975. $45. $60. $230. $0. $25. $45. $60. $230. $0. $67. $42. $0. $4~. $60. $=~. $0. 000 000 000 000 659 000 000 000 000 000 827 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 827 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 659 000 685 000 000 000 000 $15.59 $4.59 $25.87 $0.00 $473.61 $17.01 $4.86 $28.98 $0.00 $67.10 $104.89 $16.20 $2.16 $11.38 $0.00 $27.20 $21.25 $17.82 $5.13 $30.01 $0.00 $146.16 $83.33 $95.01 $120.43 $18.83 $2.84 $15.51 $0.00 $73.29 $17.42 $5.13 $~.97 $0.00 $370.09 $187.82 $79. o~ $16.00 $27.95 $0.00 CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLY RECYCLING REPORT JULY 1996 CURBSIDE Page 2 DATE ITEM TAG # WEIGHT PD PER PD PAID July 19 Scrap Glass 14932 15,174 July 20 Tin 65228 531 July 20 CHDPE 65228 117 July 20 NHDPE 65228 180 July 20 Mix Plastic 65228 90 July 21 Pet Plastic 65262 351 July 21 Tin 65262 855 July 21 CHDPE 65262 81 July 21 NHDPE 65262 126 July 21 Mix Plastic 65262 144 July 21 Mix Paper 65265 6,721 ~ly 22 Newspaper UDJ 65265 12,060 July 25 Scrap Glass 88933 12,529 July 25 Mix Paper 65383 7,128 July 25 Tin 65395 729 July 25 CHDPE 65395 162 July 25 NHDPE 65395 243 July 25 Mix Plastic 65395 126 July 25 Scrap Glass 89106 17,868 July 28 Wax Cartons 65462 710 July 30 Newspaper 63452 6,144 July 31 Pet Plastic 68523 375 July 31 Tin 68523 918 July 31 CHDPE 68523 90 July 31 NHDPE 68523 126 July 31 Mix Plastic 68523 162 July 31 Mix Paper 68519 5,159 $69.659 $528.50 $45.000 $11.95 $60.000 $3.51 $230.000 $20.70 $0.000 $0.00 $975.827 $123.96 $45.000 $19.24 $60.000 $2.43 $230.000 $14.49 $0.000 $0.00 $25.000 $84.01 $42.000 $253.26 $67.659 $423.54 $25.000 $89.10 $45.000 $16.40 $60.000 $4.86 $230.000 $27.94 $0.000 $0.00 $67.659 $604.47 $85.000 $30.18 $40.000 $122.88 $975.827 $132.44 $45.000 $20.66 $60.000 $2.70 $230.000 $i4.48 $0.000 $0.00 $25.000 $64.49 $4,782.45 CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLY RECYCLING REPORT JULY 1996 LANDFILL Page 1 DATE ITEM TAG # WEIGHT PD PER PD PAID July 05 Mix Paper 63634 488 July 08 Wax Cartons 63674 128 July 08 Wax Cartons 63684 100 July 08 Junk Metal 634732 8,320 July 08 Mix Paper 63681 1,063 July 11 Junk Metal 385859 6,760 July 11 Mix Paper 63809 691 July 12 Newspaper 63842 9,700 July 12 Pet Plastic 63858 880 July 12 Tin 63858 1,100 July 12 Mix Plastic 63858 220 'uly 14 Mix Paper 65036 533 uly 15 Scrap Glass 88362 10,920 July 18 Alum 63279 37 July 21 Mix Paper 65265 611 July 22 Pet Plastic 65302 880 July 22 Tin 65302 1,080 July 22 Mix Plastic 65302 220 July 25 Mix Paper 65383 648 July 28 Wax Cartons 65462 142 July 31 Mix Paper 68519 469 $25.000 $85.000 $85.000 $50.000 $25.000 $50.000 $25.000 $36.000 $1,068.233 $45.000 $0.000 $25.000 $74.288 $1.190 $25.000 $1,068.233 $45.000 $0.000 $25.000 $85.000 $25.000 $6.10 $5.44 $4.25 $208.00 $13.29 $169.00 $8.64 $174.60 $373.00 $24.75 $0.00 $6.66 $405.61 $44.05 $7.64 $373.00 $24.30 $0.00 $8.10 $6.03 $5.86 $1,868.32 C: o m I::' o s t :L a b ]. e Y a'r' d a g ,~:.:, I::' :i. (::. t..'. (.:.:, d U I::' -" M 0 i',1 "ir. H I... Y F;: E I::' C) R T W e e I-.'. "1" o 't: a :1. 5 t h I::, o u n cl ,.~!. Mond ay' 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tuesday .1.1, 120 8,940 1.4,820 .1.3,020 ]..1.,840 59,740 Wednesday '7, 140 8,460 6,840 '7 4~-'~0 6,'7c..0 36,640 '¥hursday 0 0 '7 200 0 0 7 200 Fr .'i. d ay· 18,~ 720 . 9., 400. ]..1.,620 1.5,860 0 ,.., ':"':", 600 ,.., Total I:'ounds 36,980 :~6, _, ,. 800 40,480 3~. 360 .1.8,560 159, 180 Date July 02 July 02 Loose Yard Waste July 03 July 05 Ju:Ly 02 777~ ...... 20 July 05 July 02 777'74 20 July 05 7'7962 20 July 0'7 80433 20 ,.Tuly 08 78278 20 July 09 78346 2.0 July :1.6 78860 20 ,luly 16 78823 2_0 Ju].v 26 -q' , 7_ b19 10 July 30 79843 2.0 190 July 09 July ].0 July 12 July 12 July .1.6 J u 1 y 16 July 16 July 17 July ].8 Recei pt Pounds Date 6286 7,920 July 19 6294 3,200 July 19 6308 7,140 July 23 6318 9,180 July 23 6329 9,540 July 24 6348 8,940 July 26 6369 8,460 July 26 638'7 4,420 Ju].y 30 6402 4,980 July 30 6408 6,408 July 31 6418 5,500 64].0 7, .1.80 6431 6,840 6445 7,200 Recei pt I::'ound s 6464 7,200 6453 4,420 6477 9,220 6483 3,800 6496 7,480 6512 9,300 6521 6,560 6538 8,200 6544 3,640 6555 6, '720 CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLY REPORT BUYBACK CARDBOARD JULY 1996 Date Tag # Weight Paid Per Pound Paid Non City Weight Weight Paid July 04 654835 July 05 654958 July 06 596894 July 07 655020 July 11 645699 July 15 634752~ July 19 645962 July 20 654961 July 24 646257 July 26 634705 July 26 634783 3,339 4,911 3,663 4,029 5, 109 4,335 2,541 4,671 4,419 666 4,905 42,588 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $141.9I $208.72 $155.68 $17t.23 $217.13 $184.24 $107.99 $198.52 $187.81 $28.~1~ $208.46 $1,810.00 2,577 1,038 1,365 0 1,701 4, 122 1,826 3,739 2,339 0 4,041 22,748 762 3,873 2,298 4,029 3,408 213 715 932 2,080 666 864 19,840 $32.39 $164.60 $97.67 $171.23 $144.84 $9.05 $30.41 $39.59 $88.42 $28.31 $36.72 $843.23 CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLY REPORT CURBSIDE CARDBOARD JULY 1996 Date Tag # Weight Paid Per Pound Paid Non City Weight Weight Paid July 04 654835 July 05 654958 July 06 596894 July 07 655020 July 11 645699 July 15 634752 July 19 645962 July 20 645961 July 24 646257 July 26 634705 July 26 634783 17,808 26,192 19,536 21,488 27,248 23, 120 13,552 24,912 23,568 3,552 26,160 227,136 $85. $85. $85. $85. $85. $85. $85. $85. $85. $85. $85. 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 $756.84 $1,113.16 $830.28 $913.24 $1,158.04 $982.60 $575.96 $1,058.76 $1,001.64 $150.96 $1,111.80 $9,653.28 13,744 5,536 7,280 0 9,072 21,984 9,736 19,944 12,472 0 21,552 121,320 4,064 20,656 12,256 21,488 18, 176 1, 136 3,816 4,968 11,096 3,552 4,608 105,816 $172.72 $877.88 $520.88 $913.24 $772.48 $48.28 $162.18 $211.14 $471.58 $150.96 $195.84 $4,497.18 CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLY REPORT LANDFILL CARDBOARD JULY 1996 Date Tag # Weight Paid Per Pound Paid Non City Weight Weight Paid July 04 654835 July 05 654958 July 06 596894 July 07 655020 July I1 645699 July 15 634752 July 19 645962 July 20 645961 July 24 646257 July 26 634705 July 26 634783 1, 113 1,637 1,221 1,343 I, 703 1,445 847 1,557 1,473 222 1,635 14,196 $85. $85. $85. $85. $85. $85. $85. $85. $85. $85. $85. 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 $47.30 $69.57 $51.89 $57.08 $72.38 $61.41 $36.00 $66.17 $62.60 $9.43 $69.49 $603.32 859 346 455 0 567 1,374 608 1,247 779 0 1,347 7,582 1,291 766 1,343 1, 136 71 239 310 694 222 288 6,614 $10.79 $54.87 $32.55 $57.08 $48.28 $J.0~ $10.13 $13.19 $29.47 $9.43 $12.24 $281.05 ! tI CITY OF UKIAH RECYCLING REPORT BINS, TOTERS AND CONTAINERS July 1996 CUSTOMERS ITEMS TOTERS BINS CONTAINER Sunset Grill Glass Methodist Church Plastic & Alum Great Speakers Office Paper & Gla nk Buisness Office Ppaer & New Dragons Lair Alum, Glass & Of fi Ron Led ford Newspaper & Paperb Plastic & Glass Twenty Eight Sets Of Recycling Bins C u r I::, s icl e July 39 00 4. 33 C u r b s i d e R e s :i d e n t i a 1 I::' a r t i c i p a t :i, o n D a t e M o n T u e W e d T h u F-' r i W e e I..'. 1 y T o t a 1 P a r '1.'.'. % Apr 01--05 200 270 333' 278 209 1290 33,, 08% A p r 08 .-- .t ':~ 16 '7 2 !:'; 5 34 ]. 291 ,:'~ ...... '~'7 1,:.,.. 1'~ a' 32 8 ~:' % pr 15-19 190 261 314 272 :1.9'7 1234 31.64% Apr 22-°6,.. 215 269 327 285 205 1301 33..,, 36%. Apr 29-30 183 258 340 0 0 '781 20.03% Totals 955 1313 1655 1126 838 5887 34.86% ~.; S P A R T R P :1. 0 - 18 ---- 91 CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLY RECYCLING REPORT AUGUST 1996 BUYBACK Page 1 DATE ITEM TAG ~ WEIGHT PD PER PD PAID Aug 01 CRV Glass 89348 9,440 Aug 01 Scrap Glass 89348 2,880 Aug 01 Newspaper 68579 10,068 Aug 02 Tin 68617 1,617 Aug 02 CHDPE 68617 352 Aug 02 NHDPE 68617 539 Aug 02 Mix Plastic 68617 275 Aug 04 Mix Paper 68666 4,856 Aug 06 CRV Plastic 68727 215 Aug 06 Tin 68727 803 ~Aug 06 CHDPE 68727 66 ug 06 NHDPE 68727 88 ~ug 06 Mix Plastic 68727 143 Aug 06 Tin 68784 660 Aug 06 CHDPE 68784 143 Aug 06 NHDPE 68784 220 Aug 06 Mix Plastic 68784 110 Aug 08 Newspaper 68786 10,188 Aug 09 CRV Glass 89781 4,660 Aug 09 Scrap Glass 89781 1,678 Aug 10 Mix Paper 68861 3,536 Aug 11 CRV Plastic 68890 252 Aug 11 Tin 68990 1,034 Aug 11 CHDPE 68990 105 Aug 11 NHDPE 68990 165 Aug 11 Mix Plastic 68990 176 Aug 14 Newspaper 68965 6,312 Aug 16 CRV Plastic 69029 189 Aug 16 Tin 69029 1,177 Aug 16 CHDPE 69029 143 Aug i6 NHDPE 69029 220 Aug 16 Mix Plastic 69029 209 Aug i7 Tin 69066 803 Aug 17 CHDPE 69066 176 Aug i7 NHDPE 69066 264 Aug 17 Mix Plastic 69066 143 · ug 17 Mix Paper 69063 4,616 .,ug 19 Newspaper 69097 14,160 Aug 20 CRV Glass 80344 2,800 Aug 20 Scrap Glass 80344 621 $173. $67. $40. $45. $60. $230. $0. $25. $1,304. $45. $60. $230. $0. $45. $60. $230. $0. $36. $173. $67. $10. $1,597. $45. $60. $230. $0. $36. $1,597. $45. $60. $230. $0. $45. $60. $230. $0. $25. $40. $177.~ ~67. 720 659 000 000 000 000 000 000 060 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 720 659 000 860 000 000 000 000 000 860 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 720 659 $654.52 $250.16 $201.36 $36.38 $10.56 $61.99 $0.00 $60.70 $138.15 ~18.07 $1.98 $10.12 $0.00 $14.85 $4.29 $25.30 $0.00 $183.38 $404.29 $56.77 $17.68 $200.34 $23.27 $3.14 $18.98 $0.00 $113.62 $149.62 $26.48 $4.29 $25.30 $0.00 $18.07 $5.28 $30.36 ~0.00 $57.70 $283.20 $238.97 $21.01 City of Ukiah AUGUST 1996 Monthly Diversion Report TRANSFER NON BUY-BACK COMMERCIAL CURBSIDE LANDFILL AFFILIATED TOTAL BI-METAL 9, '779 2,400 5, 60'1. 2,360 16, '700 36 840 ALUMINUM 8, 127 22 62 28 28, 760 36 999 BATTERIES 1,551 0 0 0 0 1~-=1 CARDBOARD 4,785 72, '727 3,828 4,785 135,340 221 465 GLASS 30, '736 1'7,209 40, 155 9,720 94, 100 191. 920 MI XED PAPER 29, 104 38,018 2,000 3,638 0 '72, '760 -~OTOR OIL 3,315 0 0 0 0 3,315 NEWSPAPER 40,728 11,932 2'7,840 10,520 0 91,020 PLASTIC 6,981 1,908 4,451 2,380 6,010 21,730 SCRAP METAL 0 0 0 3'7,380 0 3'7,380 TIRES 344 16,750 0 1,776 0 18,870 YARDWASTE 0 38,750 163,840 0 0 202,590 RECYCLE TOTAL 135,450 199,716 24'7, '777 '72,587 280,910 936,440 COMMERCIAL 0 1,057,417 0 0 0 1,057,417 DROF' BOXES 0 185,977 0 0 0 185,977 COMPACTORS 0 55 720 0 0 0 ~.=, 720 ~-~-~-£~'~-~-T-~'~'~ .................................................................................................................................................. 0 0 523, 380 0 0 ~'-'~,~3, 380 LANDFILL TOTAL. 0 1,299, 114 523,380 0 0 1,321,57.3 DI VERSION% CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLY RECYCLING REPORT AUGUST i996 BUYBACK Page 1 DATE ITEM TAG ~ WEIGHT PD PER PD PAID Aug 21 Pet Plastic 69192 183 Aug 21 Tin 69192 1,496 Aug 21 CHDPE 69192 330 Aug 21 NHDPE 69192 484 Aug 21 Mix Plastic 69192 253 Aug 22 Mix Paper 69206 6,256 Aug 23 CRV Alum 53912 8, 127 Aug 23 Alum 53912 5,530 Aug 26 CRV Glass 80692 5,000 Aug 26 Scrap Glass 80692 3,657 Aug 27 Mix Paper 66976 3,080 Aug 28 Pet Plastic 67023 273 ~g 28 Tin 67023 1,188 Aug 28 CHDPE 67023 132 Aug 28 NHDPE 67023 198 Aug 28 Mix Plastic 67023 209 Aug 29 Tin 67051 1,001 Aug 29 CHDPE 67051 220 Aug 29 NHDPE 67051 330 Aug 29 Mix Plastic 67051 176 Aug 29 Mix Paper 67050 6,760 $1,597. $45. $60. $230. $0. $5. $0. $0. $173. $67. $5. $1,597. $45. $60. $230. $0. $45. $60. $230. $0. $5. 860 000 000 000 000 000 685 460 720 659 000 860 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 $141.69 $33.66 $9.90 $55.66 $0.00 $15.64 $3,572.14 $2,543.80 $426.96 $123.71 $7.70 $217.73 $29.70 $3.96 $22.77 $0.00 $22.52 $6.60 $37.95 $0.00 $16.90 $10,659. 17 CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLY RECYCLING REPORT AUGUST 1996 CURBSIDE Page i DATE ITEM TAG # WEIGHT PD PER PD PAID Aug 01 Scrap Glass 89048 i3,480 Aug 01 Newpaper 68579 6,712 Aug 02 Tin 68617 1,323 Aug 02 CHDPE 68617 288 Aug 02 NHDPE 68617 441 Aug 02 Mix Plastic 68617 225 Aug 04 Mix Paper 68666 6,677 Aug 06 Pet Plastic 68727 305 Aug 06 Tin 68727 657 Aug 06 CHDPE 68727 54 Aug 06 NHDPE 68727 72 ~g 06 Mix Plastic 68727 117 Hug 06 Scrap Glass 68723 9,700 Aug 06 Tin 68784 540 Aug 06 CHDPE 68784 117 Aug 06 NHDPE 68784 180 Aug 06 Mix Plastic 68784 90 Aug 08 Newspaper 68786 6,792 Aug 09 Scrap Glass 89781 14,362 Aug 10 Mix Paper 68861 4,862 Aug 11 Pet Plastic 68890 298 Aug 11 Tin 68890 846 Aug 11 CHDPE 68990 85 Aug 11 NHDPE 68990 135 Aug I1 Mix Plastic 68990 144 Aug 14 Newspaper 68965 4,208 Aug 16 Pet Plastic 69029 331 Aug 16 Tin 69029 963 Aug 16 CHDPE 69029 i17 Aug 16 NHDPE 69029 180 Aug 16 Mix Plastic 69029 171 Aug 17 Tin 69066 657 Aug 17 CHDPE 69066 144 Aug 17 NHDPE 69066 216 Aug 17 Mix Plastic 69066 117 Aug 17 Mix Paper 69063 6,347 ~g 19 Newspaper 69097 9,440 o.ug 20 Scrap Glass 80344 10,079 $67.659 $40.000 $45.000 460.000 $230.000 $0.000 $25.000 $795.827 $45.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $67.659 $45.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $36.000 $67.659 $10.000 $928.037 $45.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $36.000 $928.037 $45.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $45.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $~.000 $40.000 $67.659 $303.29 $134.24 $29.77 $8.64 $50.72 $0.00 $83.46 $95.36 $14.78 $1.62 $8.28 $0.00 $328.15 $12.15 $3.51 $20.70 $0.00 $122.26 $485.86 $24.31 $112.87 419.04 $2.57 $15.50 $0.00 $75.74 $125.37 $21.67 $3.5i $20.70 $0.00 $14.78 $4.32 $24.84 $0.00 $79.34 $188.80 $340.97 CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLY RECYCLING REPORT AUGUST 1996 CURBSIDE Page 2 DATE ITEM TAG # WEIGHT PD PER PD PAID Aug 21 Pet Plastic 69192 297 Aug 21 Tin 69192 1,224 Aug 21 CHDPE 69192 270 Aug 21 NHDPE 69192 396 Aug 21 Mix Plastic 69192 207 Aug 22 Newspaper UDJ 69211 12,620 Aug 22 Mix Paper 69206 8,602 Aug 23 Alum 53912 62 Aug 26 Scrap Glass 80692 9,743 Aug 27 Mix Paper 66976 4,235 Aug 28 Pet Plastic 67023 327 ~g 28 Tin 67023 972 Hug 28 CHDPE 67023 108 Aug 28 NHDPE 67023 162 Aug 28 Mix Plastic 67023 171 Aug 29 Tin 67051 819 Aug 29 CHDPE 67051 180 Aug 29 NHDPE 67051 270 Aug 29 Mix Plastic 67051 144 Aug 29 Mix Paper 67050 9,295 $928. · ~ $4~. $60. $230. $0. $40. $5. $0. $67. $5. $928. $50. $60. $230. $0. $45. $60. $230. $0. $5. 037 000 000 000 000 000 000 685 659 000 037 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 $112.49 $27.54 $8.10 $45.54 $0.00 $252.40 $21.50 $42.26 $329.61 $10.59 $123.86 $24.30 $3.24 $18.63 $0.00 $18.43 $5.40 $31.05 $0.00 $23.24 $3,875.30 CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLY RECYCLING REPORT AUGUST 1996 LANDFILL Page 1 DATE ITEM TAG # WEIGHT PD PER PD PAID Aug 02 Junk Metal 393779 6,980 Aug 04 Mix Paper 68666 607 Aug 08 Pet Plastic 68808 900 Aug 08 Tin 68808 1,100 Aug 08 Mix Plastic 68808 220 Aug 09 Junk Metal 394306 5,900 Aug 10 Newspaper 68862 10,520 Aug 10 Mix Paper 68861 442 Aug 17 Junk Metal 650462 7,340 Aug 17 Scrap Glass 80237 9,720 Aug 17 Mix Paper 69063 577 Jg 22 Junk Metal 399500 5,480 Hug 22 Mix Paper 69206 782 Aug 23 Alum 53912 28 Aug 23 Junk Metal 646356 7,580 Aug 25 Pet Plastic 66902 1,000 Aug 25 Tin 66902 1,260 Aug 25 Mix Plastic 66902 260 Aug 27 Mix Paper 66976 385 Aug 29 Mix Paper 67050 845 Aug 30 Junk Metal 400287 4,100 $45. $25. $1,049. $45. $0. $45. $36. $10. $50. $74. $25. $45. $5. $0. $50. $1,049. $45. $0. $5. $5. $45. 000 000 823 000 000 000 000 000 000 288 000 000 000 685 000 823 000 000 000 000 000 I~7.05 $7.59 $409.65 $24.75 $0.00 $132.75 $189.36 $2.21 $183.50 $361.04 $7.21 $123.30 $1.96 $18.84 $189.50 $455.16 $28.35 $0.00 $0.96 $2.11 $92.25 $2,387.54 Solid Wastes Systems, Inc. Aug 1996 Compostiable Poundage Picked Up - MONTHLY REPORT Week Week Week Week Week Total i st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Pounds Monday 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tuesday 0 8,840 9,020 15,220 15,900 48,980 Wednesday 0 8,720 12,460 8,680 8,300 38, 160 Thursday 8, 140 8,400 0 8,600 0 25, 140 Friday 9,180 7,400 9,880 9,740 15,360 51,560 Total Pounds 17,320 33,360 31,360 42,240 39,560 163,840 Loose Yard Waste Aug 01 80007 20 Aug 08 80511 10 Aug 08 80557 20 Aug 13 80777 20 Aug 14 80930 05 Aug 16 81041 20 Aug 16 81045 20 Aug 21 81341 20 Aug 27 81717 20 155 Date Receipt Pounds Date Receipt Pounds Aug 01 6568 8,140 Aug 02 6586 9,180 Aug 06 6595 8,840 Aug 07 6613 8,720 Aug 08 6624 8,400 Aug 09 6642 7,400 Aug 13 6652 9,020 Aug 14 6663 5,200 Aug 14 6677 3,340 Aug 14 6670 3,920 Aug 16 6702 9,880 Aug 20 6716 10,880 Aug 20 6720 4,340 Aug 21 6735 8,680 Aug 22 6745 8,600 Aug 23 6761 9,740 Aug 27 6776 13,760 Aug 27 6780 2,140 Aug 28 6796 8,300 Aug 30 6824 4,920 Aug 30 6814 10,440 CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLY REPORT BUYBACK CARDBOARD AUGUST 1996 Date Tag # Weight Paid Per Pound Paid Non City Weight Weight Paid Aug 03 634828 Aug 04 646526 Aug 07 646585 Aug 09 645347 Aug 14 634877 Aug 21 646698 Aug 23 651340 Aug 25 650704 Aug 26 650715 Aug 29 651500 Aug 29 650841 1,587 5,052 5,016 4,320 3,849 4,734 975 5, 166 4,680 5,031 5,517 45,927 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $67.45 $214.71 $213.18 $183.60 $163.58 $201.20 $41.44 $219.56 $198.90 $213.82 $234.47 $1,951.91 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 1, 2, 4, 31, 455 228 006 549 075 389 714 213 485 325 132 571 130 824 2,010 771 774 1,345 261 953 3, 195 2,706 I, 385 14, 354 $5.55 $35.02 $85.43 $32.77 $32.90 $57.18 $11.09 $40.48 $135.79 $115.01 $58.84 $610.06 CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLY REPORT CURBSIDE CARDBOARD AUGUST 1996 Date Tag # Weight Paid Per Pound Pa i d Non City Weight Weight Pa i d Aug 03 634828 Aug 04 646526 Aug 07 646585 Aug 09 645347 Aug 14 634877 Aug 21 646698 Aug 23 651340 Aug 25 650704 Aug 26 650715 Aug 29 651500 Aug 29 650841 8,464 26,944 26,752 23,040 20,528 25, 248 5,200 27,552 24,960 26,832 29,424 244,944 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $359.72 $1,145.12 $1,136.96 $979.20 $872.44 $1,073.04 $221.00 $1,170.96 $1,060.80 $1,140.36 $1,250.52 $10,410.12 7,768 22,548 16,032 18,928 16,400 18,072 3,808 22,472 7,920 12,400 22,040 168,388 4, 10, 4, 4, 7, 1, 5. 17, 14, 7, 76, 696 395 720 112 128 176 392 080 040 432 384 555 $29.58 $186.79 $455.60 $174.76 $175.44 $304.98 $59.16 $215.90 $724.20 $613.36 $313.82 $3,253.59 CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLY REPORT LANDFILL CARDBOARD AUGUST 1996 Date Tag # Weight Paid Per Pound Paid Non City Weight Weight Paid Aug 03 634828 Aug 04 646526 Aug 07 646585 Aug 09 645347 Aug I4 634877 Aug 21 646698 Aug 23 651340 Aug 25 650704 Aug 26 650715 Aug 29 651500 Aug 29 650841 529 1,684 1,672 1,440 1,283 1,578 325 1,722 I, 560 1,677 1,839 15,309 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $22.48 $71.57 $71.06 $61.20 $54.53 $67.06 $13.81 $73.19 $66.30 $71.27 $78.16 $650.63 485 1,409 1,002 1, 183 1,025 1,129 238 1,404 495 775 1,377 10,522 44 275 670 257 258 449 87 317 1,065 902 461 4,785 $1.84 $11.68 $28.47 $10.92 $10.96 $19.06 $3.70 $13.49 $45.26 $38.33 $19.61 $203.32 CITY OF UKIAH RECYCLING REPORT BINS, TOTERS AND CONTAINERS August 1996 CUSTOMERS ITEMS TOTERS BINS Bull Dog Bros. Glass, Tin & Pl R. Bower's Office Paper Comm. Care Comm Newspaper Brahma Bull Music Office Paper, Glass New Dimension Radio Office Paper Marlene Village Townhouse Newspaper & Paperboard Plastic & Tin Glass Clark Miller Dist. O/P, Glass, N/P Real Goods Plastic Sheriff Dept. Glass & Alum Ukiah Aikido Alum, Plastic, Office Paper N. Casa Glass, Plastic, Office Paper .o Bins delivered in August Solid Wastes Recycling Curbs ide A u g u s t 'T' o t; a ii. P o s s .i. 13 ii. e [.".: u s t o m e r s Weeks Ou'r"ing Period 1996 4. ,_-,; Curbside Residential F-'articipation Date Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Weekly Total Aug 01.-02 0 0 0 277 201 4'78 ug 05-09 195 259 3:1.5 282 2:25 1. 276 Aug 12-16 179 271 331 273 234 1288 Aug 19-23 188 279 327 265 214 1273 Aug 26 -30 190 268 335 279 229 1301 Total s 752 10'77 1308 1376 1103 5616 P'art % 12.26% 32. '72 % 33. 03% 32.64% 33. 36% 33.26% C:SPARTRP 10--18-9 1 City of Ukiah Monthly Diversion Report SEPTEMBER 1996 BUY-BACK COMMERCIAL CURBSIDE TRANSFER NON LANDFILL AFFILIATED TOTAL BI-METAL 10,912 2, 484 5,796 1,840 1'7, 100 38 132 ALUMINUM '7,735 .... 30 107 '7'7 29.~4~'~ .57 .... 489 BATTERIES 1 ~1 0 0 0 0 1 551 CARDBOARD 30,805 14'7,859 16,429 10,267 14'7, 460 352. 820 GLASS ;-'7,949 8, 715 20, 336 28,980 '.~. 4:~ 184. 430 '-Z't-~J':'T'OR OIL 2, 5'74 0 0 0 0 ~"",'- .~74 NEWSPAPER 39,804 14,902 22,354 ~, 340 0 80,400 PLASTIC '7,683 2,090 4, 8'7'7 1,880 6, 100 22. 630 SCRAP METAL 0 0 0 9,700 0 9,700 'TIRES 1,086 23, 114 0 1,402 0 25,602 YARDWASTE 0 5'7,500 123,860 0 0 181. 360 COMMERCIAL 0 935,680 0 0 0 9;'= ~.~, 680 DR[][-:' BOXES 0 157,980 0 0 0 15'7,980 COMPACTORS 0 30,480 0 0 0 30,480 RESIDENTIAL 0 0 467,800 0 0 467, 800 ~ ' 940 LANDFILL. TOTAL 0 1, 124, 140 467,800 0 0 1,,..,91, DI VERSION% CITY OF UKiAH MONTHLY RECYCLING REPORT Sept ember BUYBACK Page DATE ITEM TAG $~ WEIGHT PD PER TON PA I D Sept 01 Mix Paper- 67108 4,000 0. 000 ~ 0 J~.b. 000 Newspaper 6'7107 7, ~,~ -- Tin Cans 67122 990 45. 000 Chpde 6'7122 220 60. 000 Nhdpe 67122 319 ~. 000 Mix Plastic 6'7122 176 0. 000 Sept 03 Glass CRV 81119 2, 300 173. 720 Glass Sc'rap 81119 4, 4~ 'b/.A5'-~ Sept 04 Tin Cans 67207 803 45. 000 Chdpe 67207 1'76 60. 000 Nhdpe 67207 264 230. 000 Mix Plastic 67207 143 0. 000 ~ept 05 Newspaper 67239 6,468 33. 000 Sept 06 Mix Paper 67289 3,904 0. 000 Sept 08 Pet Plastic 67347 213 1597.860 Tin Cans 67347 693 45. 000 Chdpe 67347 66 60. 000 Nhdpe 67347 99 230. 000 Mix Plastic 67347 ~o'--' 0.000 Sept 09 Tin Cans 67364 528 45. 000 Chdpe 67364 121 60. 000 Nhdpe 67364 176 230. 000 Mix Plastic 67364 88 0. 000 Sept 10 -Fin Cans 6'7395 946 45. 000 Chdpe 67395 209 60. 000 Nhdpe 67395 319 230. 000 Mix Piastic 6739=5 165 0. 000 Sept 13 Glass CRV 81645 4,660 173. 720 Glass Scrap 81645 3,915 67. 659 Newspaper 6'7486 7,860 35. 000 Sept 15 Mix Paper 6~=;-~ - = ~ d, 848 ~,. 000 Sept. 15 Pet Plas~.ic. 656'74 367 1=c~,~7.860 T i n Can ~'~_ 6=~b~ 74 ~,'-' 002 ,~,.' = 000 C:hdpe 656'74 220 60. 000 Nhdpe 65674 319 230. 000 Mix Plastic 65674 341 0. 000 Sept 21 Tin Cans 646666 1,012 45. 000 Cindpe 646666 220 60. 000 Nhdpe 646666 330 230. 000 Mix Plastic 646666 1'76 0. 000 N e w s p a p e r 646666 7, 584 .75. 000 · 0~ 131. -- - 6. 36. 0. 197. 150. 18. 5. 30. 0. 106. 0. 161. 15. 1. 11. 0. 11. 20. 0. 21. 6. 36. 0. 362. 132. 137. 9. 282. 6. 36. 0. -- -- 6. 0. 132. C I T"F L] F U K I A H J'fl 0 I'..J T H L Y S e I:",t e r~ I"', e'r-. BUYB~qCK R IF_ C Y C L. I N (3 iR E !::' 0 R T D A T E i T E M T A G :1'$ W E i (3 H T F' D i::'E R 'i- L')lq i:' A i D Sept 21 Tin Cans Chd pe N h d p e Mix F'lastic Sept 22 Office Paper Sept 23 Glass CRV Glass Scrap Sept 24 Tin Cans Clndpe Nhd pe Mix Plastic Mi x F'aper Sept 25 Newspaper Pet F'lastic Tin Cans Chdpe Nhdpe Mix Plastic Sept 26 Glass CRV Glass Scrap Sept 27 Milk Cartons Sept 29 Mix P'aper "Fin Cans Chdpe Nhdpe Mix Plastic Sept 31 Aluminum A1 um CRV 65705 1, 034 45. 000 ;'::3. 27 o~ ~ ~,,._, 2;-4;:: 60. 000 7.26 ,-_,, 0,.., 330 :' ':""h 000 ...... ' ...... ~ ~ ~. ~ 1 ?"A 0. 000 0. 00 65'724 4,088 5. 000 10. =~.':"::' 82168 5,580 173. 720 478. 28 82168 2,969 67. 659 100. 44 6 -=177 R~ ._ q68. '~._,' ='. 000_ ~':':f .78 657'73 220 60. 000 6.60 65'773 319 230. 000 36. 69 657'73 176 0. 000 0.00 6= ~ 296 5 000 10 74 ~,78, 4, . . 65842 10, 392 35. 000 182.00 65844 '-' "~= . .-~ 1597 860 15;. ~5 65844 957 45. 000 21.53 65844 110 60. 000 3.30 65844 154 230. 000 17. 71 65844 176 0. 000 0.00 82406 2,600 173. 720 221.89 82406 1,475 67. 659 49. 90 65911 976 85. 000 41. 48 65969 4, 480 0. 000 0.00 65963 979 45. 000 22.03 65963 209 60. 000 6.27 ~,~6~ 319 230 000 36.6'::'~ 6~63 198 0 000 0. 00 54704 6,610 0. 3~0. .-,' 57',';.90 54704 6, 698 0. 708 4, 743. 99 i i, 023. 60 CITY OF UKIAH MOiqTI.-tLY RECYCLING REPORT Se pt: e m be'r-' CURBS I DE'i Page DA-f'E ITEM ]"AG -~ WEIGHT PD PER TON PAID Sept 01 Mix Paper 67108 5,500 0. 000 Newspape'r 6710'7 5,000 35. 000 Tin Cans 67122 810 45. 000 Chd pe 5712;:'. 180 60. 000 Nhdpe 57122 261 230. 000 Mix Plastic 57122 144 0. 000 Sept 03 (Blass Scrap 81119 16,890 67. 659 Sept 04 'Tin Cans 67207 657 45.000 Chdpe 67207 144 60. 000 Nhdpe 6'7207 216 230. 000 Mix Plastic b~;-'~7 11 / 0. 000 Sept 05 Newspaper 67239 4, 312 33. 000 ;ept 06 Mix Paper 67289 5, 368 0. 000 Sept 08 Pet Plastic 67347 347 928.037 Tin Cans 67347 567 45. 000 Chdpe 67347 54 60. 000 Nhdpe 67347 81 230. 000 Mix Plastic 67347 18 0. 000 Sept 09 Tin Cans 67364 432 45. 000 Chdpe 67364 99 60. 000 Nhdpe 67364 144 230. 000 Mix Plastic 67364 72 0. 000 Sept 10 7'in Cans 67395 774 45. 000 Chdpe 6'7395 171 60. 000 Nhdpe 67395 261 230. 000 Mix F-'last ic 67395 135 0. 000 Sept i3 (Blass Sc'rap 81645 3,085 67. 659 Junk Metal ~,~,_~,~-~~aA~.~7--~ 15, 920 50. 000 Newspaper 67486 5,240 z.~,.-':' 000 Sept 15 Mix Paper ~7,~ 5,291 5. 000 Newspaper 67556 10,720 33. 000 Sept 19 Pet Plastic 65674 673 928. 037' Tin Can:._ 65674 1,638 4~,.'~' 000 Chdpe 656'74 180 60. 000 Nhdpe 65674 261 230. 000 Mix Plastic 65674 279 0. 000 Sept 21 Tin Cans 646666 180 45. 000 Chdpe 646666 270 60. 000 Nhdpe 6.46666 270 230. 000 Mix Plastic 646666 144 0.000 New~.,paper 646666 5, 056 :.-'=~,. 000 0~ 8'7. 18. 30. 0. 571. 14. 4. 24. 0. 71. 0. 131. 12. 1. 9. 0. 9. ;-.. 16. 0. 17. 30. 0. 132. 398. 91. 13. 176. 254. 36. 30. 0. 18. 3i. 0. 88. 00 23 40 00 00 38 78 84 00 15 00 43 76 62 31 00 72 97 00 4;-'. 13 00 44 00 70 23 88 91 86 40 00 O~Z~ 63 40 08 CITY OF UKIAH MON"FHLY RECYCLING Sept ember CURBS I DiE REPOI-TT DATE ITEM T A G fl: W E I GI---I T P D i:'E R T O N PAiD Sept 21 'Tin Cans Chdpe Nhdpe Mix Plastic Sept 22 Mix Pape'r Sept Ldo: Glass ~c'r'ap Sept 24 Tin Cans Chdpe Nhdpe Mix Plastic Mi x Paper Sept 25 Newspaper Pet Plastic Tin Cans Chdpe Nhdpe Mix Plastic Sept 26 Glass Scrap Sept 27 Milk Cartons Sept 29 Mix Paper ]'in Cans Chdpe Nhdpe Mix Plastic Sept 31 Alum Scrap 65'705 846 45. 000 19.04 ~,,'~o~, 198 60 000 5.94 65705 2'70 230. 000 31.04 :-', / 0~, 144 0. 000 0.00 65'724 5,621 5. 000 14.05 82168 ~, d. dl 6 /. o~ 100. 44 65773 793 45. 000 17. 82 65773 180 60. 000 5. 40 65773 261 230. 000 30. 01 65773 144 0. 000 0. 00 65787 5, 907 5. 000 14. 77 65742 6,928 d.~,.-'~' 000 121. 10 65844 295 9~8. 037 i 11. 74 65844 783 ~,.' ~ 000 17.62 65844 90 60. 000 2. 70 65844 126 230. 000 14. 49 65844 144 0. 000 0. 00 82406 6, 745 67. 659 228. 18 65911 1, 220 85. 000 51. 85 65969 6, 160 0. 000 0. 00 65963 801 45. 000 18. 02 65963 171 230. 000 5. 13 65963 261 230. 000 30. 01 65963 162 0. 000 0. 00 ~,4, 04 13'7 0. 708 Ual. 78 ~, c.U~<. 73 CI'FY OF UKIAH MONTHLY ..... Sept ember ANDFI LL RECYCLING REPORT Page D A T E i T E 1'4 ]'AG .$~. WEIGHT PD PER ]'[]N PA I D S e pt 01 Se ~t 06 Se ~t 08 Se .~t i0 Se .3t 15 Se ~t 23 Se :~t 24 Se ~t 2'7 Se ~:,t Sept 29 Sept 31 Pet Plast:Lc "Fin Cans Mix Piastic Mi x Paper Mi x Paper Newspaper Glass Scrap Mix Paper Mi x Paper Glass Scrap Mix Paper Milk Cartons Pet Plastic Tin Cans Mix Plastic Junk Metal Mi x Paper Glass Scrap A1 um Scrap 67059 800 1,0-49. 820 67059 1,000 45. 000 67059 200 0. 000 67108 500 0. 000 67289 488 0. 000 6'7353 8,340 33. 000 814 ~.~, 10, 320 74. 288 67553 481 5. 000 65724 511 5. 000 82108 10,880 74. 288 6~ ~78 / 537 5. 000 65911 244 85. 000 o~,~ 660 1, 049. 820 65938 840 45. 000 65938 220 0. 000 ¢~ ¢~ 9, 700 50. 000 ~69 560 0. 000 65968 7, 780 74. 288 ~,4704 77 0. 708 364. 13 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 137. 61 383. 33 1.20 1. 28 404. 13 1. 34 10.3'7 300.41 18.90 0.00 ;--:42 =' · 0.00 288.98 52.47 2,229. 15 Sol. id Wastes Systems~ Compostiable Ya'rdaqe P:ic:.ked Up Sept M 0 N T H L Y R E P [i.~ R T 1 99 6 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Th ursday F'riday 'Total F-'ound s W e e k i ~.i:. t 0 · _., 660 13, 260 4-, 700 9, 560 33, 180 Week 2n d 0 6, 720 6, 380 12,900 0 2:6, 000 Week 3r.d 0 11, 760 6, 260 6, 600 '7,820 32, 440 Week 4th 0 11,980 '7, 200 5, 440 '7, 620 32, 240 Week 5th 0 0 0 0 0 0 '1- o t a ] P O U l]d s 0 36, 120 33, 100 29, 640 'z'= 000 123, 860 Loose Yard Waste Sept 03 8~1 20 Sept 05 82430 20 Sept 05 82438 20 ~,04 10 Sept 06 Sept 10 7006 20 Sept 11 7102 20 Sept 12 7116 20 Sept 20 83066 20 ~0,~ 20 Sept 20 Sept 20 83071 20 Sept 24 83263 20 Sept 25 83374 20 230 Date Sept 03 Sept 04 Sept 05 ~ept ~o Sept 06 Sept 10 Sept 10 Sept 11 Sept 11 Sept 12 Sept 17 Sept 18 Receipt 6839 6848 6872 6871 6885 4420 2300 3980 7109 7196 7412 7427 Po und s 5,660 13,260 1,600 3, 100 9,560 7,014 7,015 '7, 108 2, 400 12, 900 11,760 6,260 Date Sept 19 Sept 19 Se pt 20 Sept 24 Se pt 24 Sept 25 Sept 26 Sept Receipt 7443 7442 7460 7471 7490 7504 7518 Po und s 4, 700 1,900 7,820 9, 420 7,200 5, 440 '7, 620 CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLY REPORT BUYBACK CARDBOARD SEPTEMBER 1996 Date Tag # Weight Paid Per Pound Paid Non City Weight Weight Pa id Se~t 01 Se ~t 03 Se ~t 03 Se ~t 06 Se~t 10 Se ~t 10 Se ~t 13 Se ~t 16 Se~t 18 Se~t 22 Se )t 22 e~t 23 Se~)t 27 Se~)t 30 650903 653288 653430 651377 651400 688528 651411 688706 688797 689186 689187 690047 690870 690059 ~, 412 4, 149 3,582 642 1,086 2,454 2,607 5~ 271 4,965 7, 125 5, 181 777 3,552 4,596 51,399 $~.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $~.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $230.01 ~$176.33 $152.23 $27.28 $46.16 $104.30 $I10.80 $224.02 $211.00 $302.81 $220.19 $33.02 $150.96 $195.33 $2,184.44 0 170 0 375 990 1,763 2,288 3,977 1,684 5, 167 0 0 2,649 1,533 20,596 5,412 3~ 979 3,582 267 96 692 320 1,295 3,280 1,958 5, 181 777 903 3, 063 30,805 $230.01 $169.06 $152.23 $11.35 $4.08 $29.39 $13.58 $55.02 $139.42 $83.19 $220.19 $33.02 $38.38 $130.18 $1,309.10 CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLY REPORT CURBSIDE CARDBOARD SEPTEMBER 1996 Date Tag ~ Weight Paid Per Pound Paid Non City Weight Weight Paid Sept 01 650903 Sept 23 653288 Sept 03 653430 Sept 06 651377 Sept 10 651400 Sept 10 688528 Sept 13 651411 Sept 16 688706 Sept 18 688797 Sept 22 689186 Sept 22 689187 ept 23 690047 ~ept 27 690870 Sept 30 690059 28,864 22,128 19, 104 3,424 5,792 13,088 13,904 28, 112 26,480 38,000 27,632 4, 144 18,944 24,512 274, 128 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $1,226.72 $940.44 $811.92 $145.52 $246.16 $556.24 $590.92 $1,194.76 $i,1~.40 $1,615.00 $1,174.36 $176.12 $805.12 $1,041.76 $11,650.44 0 904 0 2,000 5,280 9,400 12,200 21,208 8,984 27,560 0 0 14, 128 8, 176 109,840 28,864 21,224 19,104 1,424 512 3,688 1,704 6,904 17,496 10,440 27,632 4,144 4,816 16,336 164,288 $1,226.72 $901.68 $811.92 $60.52 $21.76 $156.74 $72.42 $293.42 $743.58 $443.70 $1,174.36 $176.12 $204.68 $694.28 $6,981.90 CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLY REPORT LANDFILL CARDBOARD SEPTEMBER 1996 Date Tag # Weight Paid Per Pound Paid Non City Weight Weight Pa i d Sept 01 650903 Sept 03 653288 Sept 03 653430 Sept 06 651377 Sept 10 651400 Sept 10 688528 Sept 13 651411 Sept 16 688706 Sept 18 688797 Sept 22 689186 Sept 22 689187 · ept 23 690047 ~ept 27 690870 Sept 30 690059 1,804 1,383 1,194 214 362 818 869 1,757 i, 655 2,375 1,727 259 I, 184 1,532 17,133 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $76.67 $58.78 $~0.75 $9.10 $15.38 $34.77 $36.93 $74.67 $70.35 $100.94 $73.40 $11.01 $50.32 $65.11 $728.18 0 56 0 125 330 587 763 1,326 561 1,723 0 0 883 511 6,865 1,804 1,327 1,194 89 32 230 106 43i 1,094 652 I, 727 259 301 1,021 10, 267 $76.67 $56.36 $50.75 $3.78 $1.36 $9.80 $4.52 $18.33 $46.47 $27.73 $73.40 $11.01 $12.79 $43.39 $436.36 CITY OF UKIAH RECYCLING REPORT BINS, TOTERS AND CONTAINERS September i996 CUSTOMERS ITEMS TOTERS BINS CONTAINERS Dave Hull Ins. Office Paper 1 New Hope School Newspaper/Plastic & Tin 3 Mental Health Dept. Office Paper 1 No bins delivered in September Solid Wastes Recycling Curbs ide Sept Total Possible Customers Weeks During Period 1996 3900 4.33 Curbside Residential Participation Dar e Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Weekly Total Sep 02-06 189 255 334 278 202 1258 Sep 09-13 198 275 349 270 221 1313 Sep 16-20 222 266 331 283 198 1300 Sep 23-27 201 271 351 265 227 1315 Sep 30-00 180 0 0 0 0 180 Totals 990 1067 1365 1096 848 5366 Part % 32.26% 33.67% 33.33% 33.72% 4.62% 31.78% CSPARTRP 10-18-91 City of Ukiatn Monthiy Diversion Report OCTOBER 1996 B U Y - B A C K C (] M iq E R C i A L.. C U R B S I D E T R A N S F E R N 0 N L A N D F i L.. L A F F t L.. ]il iq 'T' E DT [] "i" ~--t L.. ALL.IM I NUM 9: 698 ~:Z'7 i 17 '7'7 2'7,900 37 B A T'T E R i E S 1, 122 0 iD 0 0 i, 1 ~iJ: 2 CARDBOARD 24, 465 11'7,413 13,045 8, i50 1L"~:7,660 290,733 GLASS 2.3, 301 ].= 927 3'7~ 162 10 180 8, ~ ~ ~ .... . ...... MIXED PAPER ~:4,944 28,783 1, ?]15 3, 118 0 ~'~O'i'OR OIL 3, 744 0 0 0 0 3. 744 NEWSPAPE iR 46, 296 £~2,039 ~z 1, 605 9, 920 0 99, ~560 FLH,_Ti(: 6~ 843 1, 899 4, 4d,~5 d;, 540 5, 6J t_~L.:RAP METAL 0 0 0 ~Z, 700 0 . 700 COMIflF'RCIAL 0 1,047,020 0 0 0 i,04-?, 020 DROP BOXES 0 303, 280 0 0 0 303, COMPAC"FORS 0 62,560 0 0 0 62, 5~, 0 i~E~ IDENT IAL 0 0 603, 480 0 0 603,-480 LANDF'ILL TOTAL 0 1,41~, 860 603, 480 0 0 2,016, 340 D i V E R S i C) N % C);"','Y OF UKtAH MON"FHLY RECYCL. iNG OE:TC;BI£R 199~ Page DATE i'i'EM TAG ;~ WEiGHi PAiD Oct 03 Mix Pape'¢ 66074 5,096 Oct (~;:, i',~ews pa F, er 66078 Oc~:. 0~, CRv Glass 8296~:: 2,860 Oct 04 Scrap Glass 82962 1,88i Ocr 05 Tin 66322 979 Oct 05 CHDPE 663~,~ ~0 Oct 05 NHDPE 66d~ 3i9 Oct 05 Mix Plastic 66322 165 Oct 05 CRV Glass 82980 1,860 Oct 05 Scrap Glass. 82980 794 Oct 06 Tin 66329 902 Oct 06 CHDPE 66329 198 Oct 06 NHDPE 66329 308 Oct 06 Mix Plastic 66329 154 Oct 06 CRV Plastic 66330 150 Oct 06 Tin 66330 1,078 Oct 06 CHDPE 66330 132 Oct 06 NHDPE 66330 198 Oct 06 Mix Plastic 66330 187 Oct 09 CRV Alum 54704 6,610 Oct 09 Alum 54704 6,698 Oct i0 CRV Plastic 66464 196 Oct 10 Tin 66464 847 Oc~ 10 CHDPE 66464 66 Oct 10 NHDPE 66464 110 Oct 10 Mix Plastic 66464 143 Oct ti ~ix Paper 66487 3,368 Oct i 1 Newspaper 66505 i~, 456 Oct 12 Mix Paper oo~,~ 4,768 Oct 12 CRV Glass 83400 3,680 Oct i2 Scrap Glass 83400 1,33i oct 12 Tin 66535 Oct 12 CHDPE o6 ~,d.~, 198 Oct 12 NHDF'E .... ~b~.~ 308 Oct 12 Mix Plastic 66535 154 Uct i2 Wax Cartons 66521 568 Oct 16 Tzn 66619 902 Oc~ 16 CHDPE 66619 i98 Oc.~. i 6 NHDPE 666 i 9 297 Oct 16 p~zx Pias~lc 66b19 15~ $25.000 $ ~5. 000 $ i 73. 720 ~67. 659 $45.000 ~60.000 ¢230.000 $0.000 $173.720 $67.659 $45.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $1,597.860 $45.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $0.390 $0.7075 $1,~/.860 $45.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $25.000 $35.0~0 $0.000 $173.720 $67.669 $4~.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $85.000 $40.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.00~ $63.70 '~t55.82 $63.63 ~22.03 $6.60 $36.96 $0.~0 $i~.83¢/ $26.86 $20.30 $5.94 $35.42 $0.00 $115.90 $24.26 $3.96 $22.77 $0.00 ~/7 90 $2,=- . $4,743.99 $150.79 $19.06 ~1.98 $12.65 $0.00 $42.10 $2i7.98 $0.00 $232.35 $4b. 33 $20.'?9 $5.94 $35.42 $0.00 $~4.14 $18.04 $5.94 ~3~.lb (] i. TY 1.3F IJK IAH i',10NTHL_Y REC'fCLJ. i'ib i~,I.-.]F'OR'[ OCTOBER I996 B U Y B A E: K ~'age 2 'rAG ~ WE i GH-i' PD PER PD PA i D _._t. 17 Newspaper. 66659 8, 4.t~: uc~ i? ~,l~.x ~'ape¥, AAA5C] 5,3~8 Oc~: ~6 CRV F'ias~ic 67797 298 Oct 18 Tin 67797 803 Oct 18 Mix Plastic 67797 143 Oct i9 Tin 67832 814 Oct i9 CHDPE 67832 176 Oct 19 Nt4DPE 67832 ~64 Oct t9 Mix Plastic 6/d~ 143 Oct 22 Newspape~~ 67893 8, 184 Oct 23 Tin 67917 Oct 23 CHDPE 6719'7 1 Oct 23 NHDPE 67197 242 Oct ~3 Mix Plastic 67197 132 Oct ~:';' CRV Glass 83969 4,000 Oct 23 Scrap Glass 83969 1,692 Oct 24 Mix Paper 67952 6,384 Oct 25 CRV Plastic 69270 193 Oct 25 Tin 69270 924 Oct '~ ~ CHDPE 69270 Oct :~, NHDPE 69270 209 Oct 25 Mix Plastic 69270 44 Oct ~5 Newspaper 69290 8,340 Oct 28 CRV Glass 84255 3,800 Oct 28 Scrap Glass 84255 2,403 Oct 28 Wax Cartons 69330 688 Oct 29 Tin 69367 1, I66 Oct 29 CHDPE 69367 264 Oct 29 NHDPE 69367 385 Oct 29 Mix Plastic 69367 i98 $35.000 $0.000 '~!,597.860 $40.000 $0.000 $40.000 ~60.000 $230.000 $0.000 ~.000 $40.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $173.720 $67.659 $0.000 $1,597.860 $40.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $35. 000 $1'73. '720 $67. 659 $90. 000 ~6~.000 $230.000 $0.000 $147.2t $0.00 '~228.90 $16.06 $0.00 ~i6. E8 $5.28 ~30.3o $0.00 $14~.~ $14.74 $4.95 $27.83 $0.00 $315.41 $57.24 $0.00 $146.55 $18.48 ,3.96 $24.04 $0.00 $145.95 ,322.9i $81.29 $30.96 $23.32 $7.9~ $44.28 $0.00 055.54 CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLY RECYCLING REPORT OCTOBER 1996 CURBSIDE Page 2 DATE ITEM TAG # WEIGHT PD PER PD PAID Oct 18 Pet Plastic 67797 422 Oct 18 Tin 67797 657 Oct 18 Mix Plastic 67797 117 Oct 19 Tin 67832 666 Oct 19 CHDPE 67832 144 Oct 19 NHDPE 67832 216 Oct I9 Mix Plastic 67832 117 Oct 22 Newspaper 67893 5,456 Oct 23 Tin 67917 603 Oct 23 CHDPE 67917 135 Oct 23 NHDPE 67917 198 Oct 23 Mix Plastic 67917 108 Oct 23 Scrap Glass 83969 5,508 Oct 24 Scrap Glass 84058 14,680 Oct 24 Mix Paper 67952 8,778 Oct 25 Pet Plastic 69270 327 Oct 25 Tin 69270 756 Oct 25 CHDPE 69270 108 · Oct 25 NHDPE 69270 171 Oct 25 Mix Plastic 69270 36 Oct 25 Newspaper 69290 5,560 Oct 28 Scrap Glass 84255 4,397 Oct 28 Wax Cartons 69330 860 Oct 29 Tin 69367 954 Oct 29 CHDPE 69367 216 Oct 29 NHDPE 69367 315 Oct 29 Mix Plastic 69367 162 $928. $40. $0. $40. $60. $230. $0. $35. $40. $60. $230. $0. $67. $67. $0. $928. $40. $60. $230. $0. $35. $67. $90. $40. $60. $230. $0. 037 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 659 659 000 037 000 000 000 000 000 659 000 000 000 000 000 $159.84 $13.14 $0.00 $13.32 $4.32 $24.84 $0.00 $95.48 $I~'.06~ $4.05 $22.77 $0.00 $186.33 $496.62 $0.00 $123.86 $15.12 $3.24 $19.66 $0.00 $97.30 $148.75 $38.70 $19.08 $6.48 $36.22 $0.00 $3,916.27 ._ h'afie DATE ITEH i i-It~ $i WEIGHT PD PEP. PD PA i D OCL'L: ~1~.~ £'11 x PapeY' 00C~74 Oct 03 News pape'r- t]c~ ~:~ h~ewspaper OL, J 6631.7 Oct 0~) Tin 6632~ Oct 05 CHDPE 66322 Oct 05 NHDPE 66,~,c_="-' Oct 05 i,l~x Plastic 66326: Oct 05 Scrap Giass 8298~ Oct 06 [ in 66329 Oct 06 CHDPE Oct 06 NHDPE 66329 Oct 06 Mix Plastic 66329 Oct 06 Pet Plastic 66330 Oct 06 Tin 66330 Oct 06 CHDPE 66330 Oct 06 NHDPE 66330 Oct 06 Mix Plastic 66330 Oct 09 Scrap Glass 66403 Oct 09 Alum 54'704 Oct 10 Pet Plastic 66464 Oct 10 Tin 66464 Oct 10 CHDPE 66464 Oct 10 NHDPE 66464 Oct 10 Mix Plastic 66464 Oct il m~x Paper 66487 Oct 22 Newspaper 66505 Oct i2 Mix Paper 66=-. Oct i2 Scrap Glass 83400 Uct 1~ [~n 06535 Oct 12 CHDPE 66=-'~ Oct 12 NHDPE 66535 Oct 12 Mix Plastic Oct i~ Wax Cartons 665~1 Oct 16 Tin 66619 Oct 16 CHDPE 66619 Oct i6 NHDPE 66619 Oc~ 16 Mix Piastic 66619 Oct: ii' News paper 66659 Oct ~7 Mix Pape~~ 6665,i' 10, 8, 6, 6, 42i 9 806 180 261 130 906 162 252 126 330 882 108 162 153 880 13'7 344 693 54 90 i i7 631 304 556 309 7~6 162 - . _ 126 738 162 243 326 ~,::5. 000 ~3~.000 '~674659 $40.00~t $45.000 ~60.000 $230.000 $~.000 $67.659 '~4~.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $938.037 $45.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $69.659 $0.7075 $928.037 $45.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $25.000 $35.000 $0.000 $67.6b9 $~5.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 ~85.000 $40.000 $60.000 ~230.000 $0.000 $35.000 $¢~.000 · i 84.00 · ~,~55.6~ $i8.02 ~5.40 $30.01 $0.00 ~199.80 ~i6.6i $4.86 $28.97 $0.00 $124.99 $19.85 $3.24 $18.62 $0.00 $378.94 $93.78 $130.30 $i5.59 $1.62 $10.35 $0.00 '~ 57.89 $ .t 45.32 $0.00 $ 213. 13 ~17.01 $4.86 $28.98 +30.1m $14.76 $4.86 $27.94 $98.14 $0.00 CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLY RECYCLING REPORT OCTOBER 1996 LANDFILL Page i DATE ITEM TAG ~ WEIGHT PD PER PD PAID Oct 03 Mix Paper 66074 637 Oct 04 Scrap Glass 82962 10, 180 Oct ~ ~ Junk Metal 673883 5, 300 Oct 05 Junk Metal 673884 3,860 Oct 06 Pet Plastic 66332 840 Oct 06 Tin 66332 1,060 Oct 06 Mix Plastic 66332 220 Oct 09 Alum 54704 77 Oct 11 Junk Metal 414130 8,080 Oct 11 Junk Metal 414102 7,560 Oct 11 Mix Paper 66487 421 Oct 12 Mix Paper 66534 596 Oct 12 Junk Metal 414216 12,520 Oct 12 Wax Cartons 66521 142 Oct 13 Newspaper 66547 9,920 Oct 16 Junk Metal 416557 7,300 Oct 16 Pet Plastic 66619 680 Oct 16 Tin 66619 860 Oct 16 Mix Plastic 66619 160 Oct 17 Mix Paper 66652 666 Oct 20 Pet Plastic 67838 600 Oct 20 Tin 67838 740 Oct 20 Mix Plastic 67838 140 Oct 22 Junk Metal 417050 6,080 Oct 23 Pet Plastic 67934 700 Oct 23 Tin 67934 700 Oct 23 Mix Plastic 67934 200 Oct 24 Mix Paper 67952 798 Oct 28 Wax Cartons 69330 172 $25.000 $74.288 $50.000 $50.000 $1,049.820 $45.000 $0.000 $0.7075 $45.000 $45.000 $25.000 $0.000 $45.000 $85.000 $35.000 $40.000 $1,049.820 $40.000 $0.000 $0.000 $1,049.820 $40.000 $0.000 $45.000 $1,049.820 $40.000 $0.000 $0.000 $90.000 $7.96 $378.13 $132.50 $96.50 $382.34 $23.85 $0.00 $52.47 $181.80 $170.10 $5.26 $0.00 $218.70 $6.03 $173.60 $146.00 $309.51 $17.20 $0.00 $0.00 $273.10 $14.80 $0.00 $136.80 $318.61 $14.00 $0.00 $0.00 $7.74 $3,067.00 Solid Wastes Compo st i able Sy s.t e m s, I nc. Ya'r-.dage l::'ickeci Lip -- MON]"HLY 0 c-t 1 9 9 6 REPORT We e k We ek We ek We ek We e k Tot a 1 1 s t 2 n d 3'r'" d 4. t h 5 t h I:' o u n d s M o n d a y 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tuesday 16, 620 ].4, 620 18, 620 16, 660 14, 240 80, 760 Wednesdav, '7,. 600 '7, 620 7, 680 7, 980 '7, 460 38, 340 -~ ~-A' ~ ~ ~-~ · ~4~ 8 3~0 7, 160 37 '- .... ~ Thursday ~, ~0 7, 780 6, , Friday 10, 260 6, 820 9, 560 8,620 0 35,260 'Total Pounds 42,060 36, 600 44, 360 41,040 2'7, 860 191,920 Loose Yard Waste Oct Oct Oct Oct Oct Oct Oct Oct Oct Oct Oct Oct Oct 01 83781 10 01 83789 20 01 83767 20 04 83991 20 08 84315 20 09 8441'7 20 12 84841 20 16 84856 20 i7 84903 20 18 84982 10 24 8~,1 20 31 85618 20 31 ~ 230 Date Receipt Pounds Date Receipt Pounds Oct 01 7525 940 Oct 16 7670 7680 Oct 01 7537 8540 Oct 17 7687 8500 Oct 01 7529 7140 Oct 18 7707 6440 Oct 02 7548 7600 Oct 18 7701 3120 ~' 7R80 Oct 22 7726 5220 Oct 03 7~b~ Oct 04 '7571 7440 Oct 22 7728 1880 Oct 04 7577 2820 Oct 22 7706 9~'0 Oct 08 7594 4800 Oct 23 '7705 7980 Oct 08 7589 9820 Oct 24 7762 7780 Oct 09 7608 '7620 Oct='-'=~ 7'748 8620 Oct 10 76'-'~ 7540 (]ct 29 7704 6~'-'~,~0 Oct 11 7635 6820 Ocb 29 7773 7720 Oct 15 7646 9520 Oct 30 7800 7460 Oct 15 7649 2620 Oct 31 7840 6160 Oct 15 76~--~,? 6480 CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLY REPORT BUYBACK CARDBOARD OCTOBER 1996 Date Tag ~ Weight Paid Per Pound Paid Non City Weight Weight Pa i d Oct 0i i37767 Oct 05 690092 Oct 07 690097 Oct 09 690156 Oct 09 673724 Oct 14 675218 Oct 16 67~7 Oct 19 628463 Oct 21 628500 Oct 25 628996 Oct 27 628671 ~ct 29 629132 2, 5Z0 1,281 1,440 4,998 4,758 5,736 2,904 3,714 4,746 4:863 3,576 5,986 46,522 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $90.00 $90.00 $90.00 $90.00 $90.00 $90.00 $90.00 $107.10 $54.44 $61.20 $2i2.42 $202.22 $258.12 $130.68 $167.13 $213.57 $218.84 $160.92 $269.37 $1,056.01 i71 897 997 3. 593 0 4,788 1, 180 2,761 1,462 2,443 I, 9~,4 1,811 22,057 2, 349 384 443 1 ? 405 4,758 948 1,724 3,284 2,420 1,622 4,175 24, 465 $99.83 $!6.32 $18.81 $59.70 $202.22 $42.66 $77.56 $42.86 $147.76 $108.88 $72.97 $187.85 $1,077.42 CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLY REPORT CURBSI DE CARDBOARD OC'FOBER 1996 Date Tag # Weight Paid Per Pound Pa i d Non City Weight Weight Paid Oct 0i 137767 Oct 05 690092 Oct 07 690097 Oct 09 690156 Oct 09 673724 Oct 14 675218 Oct 16 ~^~ Oct 19 628463 Oct 21 628500 Oct 25 628996 Oct 27 628671 ~t 29 629132 13,440 6,832 7,680 26,656 25,376 30,592 15,488 19,808 25,312 25,936 19,072 31,924 248,116 $~. 00 · -~ $~,. 00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $90.00 $90.00 $90.00 $90.00 $90.00 $90.00 $90.00 $571.20 $290.36 $326.40 $1,132.88 $1,078.48 $1,376.64 $696.96 $891.36 $1,139.04 $1,167.12 $858.24 $1,436.62 $10,965.30 9i2 4,784 5,320 i9, 165 0 '-'= 53A 6,296 14,728 7,800 13,032 10,424 9,661 12,528 2:048 2,360 7,491 25, 376 5,056 9, i92 5,080 17,5i2 12,904 8,648 22,263 130,458 $~mm. 44 $87.04 $100.30 $318.38 $1,078.48 $227.52 $413.64 $228.60 $788.04 $580.68 $389.16 $1,001.83 $5,746.11 CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLY REPORT LANDFILL CARDBOARD OCTOBER 1996 Date Tag # Weight Paid Per Pound Paid Non City Weight Weight Paid Oct 01 317767 Oct 05 690092 Oct 07 690097 Oct 09 690156 Oct 09 673724 Oct 14 675218 Oct 16 ~ = 6~4~7 Oct 19 628463 Oct 21 628500 Oct 25 628996 Oct 27 628671 ct 29 629132 840 427 480 1,666 1,586 1,912 968 1,238 1 ~ ~.,~,- i, 621 I, 192 1,996 15,508 $85. $85. $85. $85. $90. $90. $90. $90. $90. $90. $90. 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 $~.70 $18.15 $20.40 $70.80 $67.40 $86.04 $43.56 $55.71 $71.19 $72.94 $53.64 $89.78 $685.31 57 299 1, 198 0 1,596 394 921 488 815 652 605 ~8 7, .7~ 783 128 147 468 1,586 316 574 317 1,094 806 ~4~ 1,391 8,150 $5.44 $6.27 $19.89 $67.40 $14.22 ~.- ~,. 85 $14.29 $49 $36.29 $24.32 $62.62 $359.12 CITY OF UKIAH RECYCLING REPORT BINS, TOTERS AND CONTAINERS October 1996 CUSTOMERS ITEMS TOTERS BINS CONTAINERS Fairgrounds-Security Office Paper 1 Social Services Office Paper 1 8 Afterschool Program Office Paper-Plas-Glass 1 2 Mendo Lake Office Plastic 1 New Hope School Office Paper 5 Dr. Joseph Office Paper 1 2 _.2 Curbside Recycling Bins Delivered for October Solid Wastes Recycling Curbs ide Oct Total Possible Customers Weeks During Period 1996 3900 4.33 Curbside Residential Participation Date ~on Tue Wed Thu Oct 01-04 0 277 323 281 Oct 07-11 189 281 345 273 Oct 14-18 202 266 327 280 Oct 21-25 197 271 319 262 Oct 28-31 222 259 325 269 Fri Weekly Part % Total 188 1069 27.41% 220 1308 33.54% 195 1270 32.56% 201 1250 32.05% 0 1075 27.56% Totals 810 1354 1639 1365 804 5972 35.36% CSPARTRP 10-18-9I City of Ukiah Monthly Diversion Report NOVEMBER 1996 BUY-BACK COMMERCIAL CURBSIDE TRANSFER NON LANDFILL AFFILIATED TOTAL BI-METAL 8, 151 2,000 4,669 3, 100 15,200 33, 120 ALUMINUM 7, 582 18 '70 41 26,900 34, 611 BATTERIES 1, 155 0 0 0 0 1, 1.55 CARDBOARD ~""7,420 131, 606 14,. 623 9, 13'7 145,320 328. 106 GLASS 24,999 9, 348 ~1,813 36, '780 8, 480 1.01, 420 .... ~IOTOR OIL 3,323 0 0 0 0 3, 323 NEWSPAPER 60 i:.:.:04 19, 861 28, 09'= 17, , ~ ~40 0 1 ~, PLASTIC 5, 478 1,663 3.8'79 .3,080 4, 9 '72 i 9 0'? ~:! SCRAP METAL 0 0 0 :30, 380 0 30, 380 T I RES_ 1 .. 062 24,543 0 0 0 i--_'~'~, , 6 ~_l '? '='~ YARDWASTE 0 40,000 31'7,880 0 200,. -~,'~ .... ~,8==' ', 7 ..... ' · ,J COMMERCIAL 0 1,033,250 0 0 0 1,033, 250 DROP BOXES 0 i32,900 0 0 0 132, 900 COMPACTORS 0 50, 580 0 0 0 50, 580 RESIDENTIAL 0 0 472,460 0 0 4'72, 460 L. AI'qii)FiLL TOTAL 0 1,216, 730 472, 460 0 0 1,689, i90 DT VERSION% CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLY RECYCLING REPORT NOVEMBER 1996 BUYBACK Page 1 DATE ITEM TAG ~ WEIGHT PD PER PD PAID Nov Nov Nov Nov Nov Nov Nov Nov Nov Nov Nov 'OV Nov NOV Nov Nov Nov Nov Nov Nov Nov Nov Nov Nov Nov Nov Nov Nov Nov Nov Nov Nov Nov Nov Nov Nov '~OV ~OV Nov Nov Nov 01 Mix Paper 66131 6,360 01 Tin 69341 1,067 01 CHDPE 69341 231 01 NHDPE 69341 352 01 Mix Plastic 69341 187 01 CRV Plastic 64929 73 01 Tin 64929 968 01 CHDPE 64929 121 01 NHDPE 64929 187 01 Mix Plastic 64929 165 02 Tin 66173 990 02 CHDPE 66173 220 02 NHDPE 66173 319 02 Mix Plastic 66173 176 04 Mix Paper 66212 9,336 05 CRV Glass 84722 5,280 05 Scrap Glass 84722 2,939 06 Newspaper 66284 8,904 07 Mix Paper 66689 3,928 09 CRV Plastic 66759 163 09 Tin 66759 1,034 09 CHDPE 66759 121 09 NHDPE 66759 187 09 Mix Plastic 66759 176 10 Newspaper 66775 7,536 10 Mix Paper 66780 3,336 12 Tin 66829 946 12 CHDPE 66829 209 12 NHDPE 66829 308 12 Mix Plastic 66829 165 14 Newspaper 67629 7,908 14 CRV Plastic 67640 198 14 Tin 67640 990 14 CHDPE 67640 88 14 NHDPE 67640 132 14 Mix Plastic 67640 176 17 Mix Paper 67717 5,368 19 CRV Glass 85481 5,300 19 Scrap Glass 85481 2,613 21 Newspaper 67999 11,928 23 Newspaper 68065 8,004 $0.000 $40.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $1,537.860 $40.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $40.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $0.000 $173.720 $67.659 $35.000 $0.000 $1,537.860 $40.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $35.000 $0.000 $40.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $35.000 $1,537.860 $40.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $0.000 $173.720 $67.659 $25.000 '$25.000 $0.00 $21.34 $6.93 $40.48 $0.00 $42.24 $19.36 $3.63 $21.51 $0.00 $I9.80 $6.60 $36.69 $0.00 $0.00 $457.39 $99.42 $155.82 $0.00 $121.62 $20.68 $3.63 $21.51 $0.00 $131.88 $0.00 $18.92 $6.27 $35.42 $0.00 $138.39 $142.34 $19.80 $2.64 $15.18 $0.00 $0.00 $459.03 $88.40 $149.10 $100.05 CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLY RECYCLING REPORT NOVEMBER 1996 BUYBACK Page 2 DATE ITEM TAG # WEIGHT PD PER PD PAID Nov 24 Mix Paper 68075 6,688 Nov =~ CRV Alum 55724 7,453 Nov 25 Alum 55724 6,500 Nov 25 CRV Glass 85785 2,620 Nov 25 Scrap Glass 85785 1,404 Nov 26 CRV Plastic 68130 163 Nov 26 Tin 68130 1,210 Nov 26 CHDPE 68130 165 Nov 26 NHDPE 68130 253 Nov 26 Mix Plastic 68130 209 Nov 27 Newspaper 68192 9,348 ov 29 CRV Glass 68249 3,400 Nov 29 Scrap Glass 68249 1,443 Nov 30 Newspaper 68275 6,576 Nov 30 CRV Plastic 68267 173 Nov 30 Tin 68267 946 Nov 30 CHDPE 68267 154 Nov 30 NHDPE 68267 242 Nov 30 Mix Plastic 68267 165 $0. $0. $0. $173. $67. $1,537. $40. $60. $~. $0. $25. $173. $67. $25. $1,537. $40. $60. $230. $0. 000 610 450 720 659 860 000 000 000 000 000 720 659 000 860 000 000 000 000 $0.00 $4,546.33 $2,925.00 $227.51 $47.50 $127.12 $24.20 $4.95 $29.10 $0.00 $116.85 $258.29 $48.82 $82.20 $121.46 $18.92 $4.62 $27.83 $0.00 $11,016.77 CiTY OF UKIAH MONTHLY' RECYCLING REPORT NOVEMBER i996 CURBSiDE DATE iTEM TAG WEIGHT PD PRE PD PAiD Nov 01 Mix Paper 66131 Nov 01 Tin 69341 Nov 01 CHDPE 69341 Nov 01 NHDPE 69341 Nov 01 Mix Plastic 69341 Nov 01 Pet Plastic 69429 Nov 0i Tin 69429 Nov 01 CHDPE 69429 Nov 01 NHDPE 69429 Nov 01 Mix Plastic 69429 Nov 02 Tin 66173 '~ov 02 CHDPE 66173 ~ov 02 NHDPE 66173 Nov 02 Mix Plastic 66173 Nov 04 Mix Paper 66c~1~ Nov 05 Scrap Glass 84722 Nov 06 Newpaper 66284 Nov 07 Mix Paper. 66689 Nov 09 Pet Plastic 66'759 Nov 09 Tin 66759 Nov 09 CHDPE 66759 No v 09 NHDPE 66759 Nov 09 Mix Plastic 66759 Nov 10 Newspaper 66775 Nov 10 Mix Paper 66780 Nov 11 Newspaper UDJ 66807 Nov 11 Scrap Glass 85101 Nov 12 Tin 66829 Nov i2 CHDPE 66829 Nov t2 NHDPE 66829 Nov i2 Mix Plastic 66829 Nov 14 Newspaper 67629 No,,' 14 Pet Plastic 67640 Nov i4 Tin 67640 Nov 14 CHDPE 67640 Nov 14 NHDPE 67640 ~'.iov !4 Mix Plastic 6-7640 ov 17 Mix Paper 67717 Nov 19 Scrap Glass 8584~ Nov 2i Newspaper. 67999 Nov 23 Newspaper 68065 8,745 873 189 288 153 347 79.=. 153 135 810 180 261 144 i2, 83'7 2,441 = 936 5, 40i 317 846 99 15.3 i44 5,024 4, 58'7 7,820 12,820 774 171 252 i35 5,272 382 810 72 i08 i44 7, 38i 2,427 7,952 5,336 $0.000 $40.000 $60.000 ~230.000 $0.000 $868.040 $40.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $40.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $0.000 $67.659 $35.000 $0.000 $868.040 $40.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $35.000 $0.000 $35.000 ~67.659 $40.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $35.000 $868.040 $40.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $0.000 ~67.659 $25.000 $25.000 $0.00 $17.46 $5.67 ~33. i2 $0.00 $i2i.98 $15.84 $2.97 $17.59 $0.00 $i~.20 $5.40 ~30.(~i $0.00 ~0.00 $82.58 $103.88 $0.00 $1ii.43 $16.92 $2.97 $17.59 $0.00 $87.92 $0.00 $136.85 $433.69 $i5.~8 $5.13 $28.98 $0.00 $92.26 $134.28 $i6.20 $2. i6 $t2.42 CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLY RECYCLING REPORT NOVEMBER 1996 CURBSIDE Page 2 DATE ITEM TAG # WEIGHT PD PER PD PAID Nov 24 Mix Paper 68075 9,196 Nov 25 Alum 55724 88 Nov 25 Scrap Glass 85785 6,896 Nov 26 Pet Plastic 68130 297 Nov 26 Tin 68130 990 Nov 26 CHDPE 68130 135 Nov 26 NHDPE 68130 207 Nov 26 Mix Plastic 68130 171 Nov 27 Newspaper 66192 6,232 Nov 29 Scrap Glass 68249 6,577 Nov 30 Newspaper 68275 4,384 ov 30 Pet Plastic 68267 347 Nov 30 Tin 68267 774 Nov 30 CHDPE 68267 126 Nov 30 CHDPE 68267 198 Nov 30 Mix Plastic 68267 135 $0.000 $0.00 $0.610 $53.68 $67.659 $233.28 $868.040 $104.40 $40.000 $19.80 $60.000 $4.05 $230.000 $23.80 $0.000 $0.00 $25.000 $77.90 $67.659 $222.49 $25.000 $54.80 $868.040 $121.98 $40.000 $15.48 $60.000 $3.78 $230.000 $22.77 $0.000 $0.00 $3,150.32 CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLY RECYCLING REPORT NOVEMBER 1996 LANDFILL Page I DATE ITEM TAG # WEIGHT PD PER PD PAID Nov 01 Mix Paper 66131 795 Nov 01 Newspaper 66139 8,020 Nov 02 Pet Plastic 66186 640 Nov 02 Tin 66186 820 Nov 02 Mix Plastic 66186 160 Nov 04 Mix Paper 66212 1,167 Nov 05 Scrap Glass 66257 8,080 Nov 07 Mix Paper 66689 491 Nov 10 Mix Paper 66780 417 Nov 11 Scrap Glass 66790 9,160 Nov 13 Junk Metal 422877 10, 880 ,v 14 Pet Plastic 67628 940 .~ov 14 Tin 67628 1,180 Nov 14 Mix Plastic 67628 220 Nov 15 Newspaper 67671 9,220 Nov 17 Mix Paper 67717 671 Nov 23 Scrap Glass 68059 9,400 Nov 24 Mix Paper 68075 836 Nov 25 Scrap Glass 68090 10,140 Nov 25 Alum 55724 41 Nov 25 Junk Metal 626012 9,360 Nov 26 Junk Metal 626046 4,340 Nov 26 Junk Metal 626045 5,800 Nov 27 Pet PLastic 68178 880 Nov 27 Tin 68178 1,100 Nov 27 Mix Plastic 68178 240 $0.000 $35.000 $989.820 $40.000 $0.000 $0.000 $74.288 $0.000 $0.000 $74.288 $45.000 $989.820 $40.000 $0.000 $25.000 $0.000 $74.288 $0.000 $74.288 $0.610 $40.000 $40.000 $40.000 $989.820 $40.000 $0.000 $0.00 $104.35 $273.54 $16.40 $0.00 $0.00 $300.12 $0.00 $0.00 $340.24 $244.80 $401.77 $23.60 $0.00 $115.25 $0.00 $349.15 $0.00 $376.64 $25.01 $187.20 $86.80 $116.00 $376.12 $22.00 $0.00 $3,358.99 Solid Wastes Compostiable Systems, Inc. Yar. dage Picked Up - MONTHLY REPORT 1996 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday We e k Wee k We ek 1 st 2nd 3rd 0 0 0 0 17,980 23, 100 0 10,860 14,740 0 9,640 12,920 10, 140 12,720 20,600 We ek Week Tot a 1 4th 5th Pounds 0 0 0 24, 160 42, 400 107, 640 14, 300 29, 040 ~,~ A 940 ~,, 160 0 37, 720 23,060 37, 060 103, 580 Total Pounds 10, 140 51,200 '71,360 76,680 108,500 317,880 Loose Yard Waste Nov 06 86071 20 Nov 07 86089 10 Nov 07 86125 20 Nov 12 86536 10 Nov 1~ o_~u~ 10 Nov 14 86688 20 Nov 14 86672 20 Nov 14 86689 10 Nov 22 87091 20 Nov 26 87320 20 160 Date Nov 01 Nov 02 Nov 05 Nov 05 Nov 06 Nov 07 Nov 08 Nov 09 Nov 12 Nov 12 Nov 12 Nov 13 Nov 13 Nov 14 Nov 14 Nov 15 Nov 15 Nov 16 Receipt. Pounds 7841 8,900 7844 1,240 7849 11,280 7857 6,700 7869 10,860 7878 9,640 7887 11,060 7893 1,660 7906 3, 120 '?908 10, 100 7898 9,880 79 18 5,080 79 19 9,660 7933 3,800 79 34 9, 120 7945 11,200 7946 6,800 '7950 2~ 600 Date Receipt Pounds Nov 19 7961 3,780 Nov 19 7953 11,200 Nov 19 7962 9,180 Nov 20 7992 14,300 Nov 21 7969 4,100 Nov 21 79'70 11,060 Nov 22 7982 6,640 Nov 22 7986 15,000 Nov 23 7988 1,420 Nov 26 8016 12,960 Nov 26 8017 14,260 Nov 26 8001 15,180 Nov 27 8036 15,280 Nov 27 8037 13,760 Nov 29 8057 4,320 Nov 29 8056 2,780 Nov 29 8048 6,620 Nov 29 8058 10,200 Nov 29 8042 13,140 CITY OF UKIAH MON1-HLY REPORT BUYBACK CARDBOARD NOVEMBER 1996 Date Tag $~ We i ght Paid Per Pound Paid Non City Weight Weight Pa id Nov 01 675388 Nov 03 ~~'~- Nov 04 629156 Nov 06 626811 Nov 08 675908 Nov 08 626842 Nov 14 628787 Nov 16 675947 Nov 18 675948 Nov 22 "-'= =~ b~9~b NOV ~ 6~9~ ~v 25 675984 ,~ov 27 628782 Nov 30 141328 4,251 4, 134 1,500 4,188 1,260 4,482 4,365 3,462 2,937 6,248 720 4,027 ~, 588 4,491 51,653 $90.00 $90.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $80.00 $80.00 $80.00 $80.00 $80.00 $80.00 $80.00 $191.30 $186.03 $63.77 $177.99 $~.55 $190.48 $185.51 $138.48 $ii7.48 $249.92 $28.80 $161.09 $223.52 $179.64 $2,147.56 i, 462 ~, /89 1,447 2. 687 0 t, 500 1,794 2,394 0 1,260 ~.- ~.- ..~ .- 1, ,_,,_,,.. ~, 930 3, 613 752 3,312 150 1,440 i, 497 3,837 2, 411 0 720 1,470 2,557 2,821 2,767 1,485 3,006 24,233 27,420 $125.48 $120.89 $6~.i/ $101.75 $~.5~ $124.50 $3!.94 $6.00 $59.88 $96.44 $28.80 $102.28 $110.68 $120.24 $1,146.20 Ci'TY OF UKIAH MONTHLY REPORT CURBSIDE CARDBOARD NOVEMBER 1996 Date Tag ~ Nov 01 675388 Weight Paid Non City Per Pound Paid Weight Weight 22,672 $90.00 $ I, 020.24 7,800 14,872 Paid $669.24 Nov 03 '~='-'-A Nov 04 629156 Nov 06 626811 Nov 08 675908 Nov 08 626842 Nov 14 628787 Nov 16 675947 Nov 18 675948 Nov 22 625956 Nov 23 675983 tv 25 675984 .~ov 27 628782 Nov 30 141328 22,048 8,003 22. 336 6,720 23,904 23,280 18,464 15,664 33,322 3,840 21,478 29,802 23,952 275,485 $90.00 $992.16 $85.00 $340.10 $85.00 $949.28 $85.00 $285.60 $85.00 $1,015.92 $85.00 $989.40 $80.00 $'?38.56 $80.00 $626.56 $80.00 $1,332.86 $80.00 $I53.60 $80.00 $859.14 $80.00 $1,192.10 $80.00 $958.08 $11,453.60 7,720 0 9,568 0 8,280 19,272 17,664 7,680 20,464 0 7,840 15,048 7,920 129,256 14,328 8,003 12,768 6,720 15,624 4,008 800 7,984 12~ 858 3,840 13,638 14,754 16,032 146,229 $644.76 $340. 10 $542.64 $~- 8._,. 60 $664.02 $170.34 $32.00 $319.36 $514.30 $153.60 $545.52 $590. 16 $641.28 $6, 112.92 CiTY OF UKIAH MONTHLY REPORT LANDFILL NOVEMBER 1996 Date Tag ~ Weight Paid Per Pound Paid Non City Weight Weight Pa id Nov 01 675388 Nov 03 675288 Nov 04 629i56 Nov 06 626811 Nov 08 675908 Nov 08 626842 Nov 14 628787 Nov 16 675947 Nov 18 675948 Nov 22 625956 Nov 23 675983 ~iov 25 675984 ~v 27 628782 Nov 30 141328 1,417 1,378 500 1,396 420 1,494 1,455 1, 154 979 2,082 240 1,343 1,863 1,497 17,218 ~90. $90. $85. $85. $85. $85. $80. $80. $80. $80. $80. $80. $80. 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 $63.76 $62.01 $21.26 $59.33 $17.85 $63.50 $61.84 $46.16 $39. i6 $83.30 $9.60 $53.69 $74.50 $59.88 $715.84 488 483 0 598 0 518 1, 104 480 1 .~ 279 0 490 940 495 8,080 929 895 500 798 420 976 50 499 803 240 853 922 1,002 9,137 $41.83 $40.30 $21.26 $33.91 $17.85 $41.50 $10.64 $2.00 $19.96 $32.14 $9.60 $34.10 $36.88 $40.08 $382.05 CITY OF UKIAH RECYCLING REPORT BINS, TOTERS AND CONTAINERS November 1996 CUSTOMERS ITEMS TOTERS BINS CONTAINERS Etchell Brothers Office Paper 3 Jeffers Pool & Spa Office-Plastic 3 Selzer Realty Plastic 1 57 Curbside Recycling Bins Delivered for November Solid Wastes Recycling Curbs ide November Total Possible Customers Weeks During Period 1996 3900 4.33 Curbside Residential Participation Date Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Weekly Total Part % -Nov 00-01 0 0 0 0 215 205 275 323 259 179 167 255 302 263 194 188 259 322 242 200 180 260 310 257 186 740 1049 1257 1021 974 201 5.15% Nov 04-08 Nov 11-15 1241 31.82% 1181 30.28% 1211 31.05% 1193 30.59% 5027 29.77% Nov 18-22 Nov 25-29 Totals CSPARTRP 10-18-91 City of Ukiah Monthly Diversion Report DECEMBER 1996 TRANSFE~ NON BUY-BACK COMMERCIAL CURBSIDE LANDFILL AFFILIATED TOTAL BI-METAL 7,535 1,850 4, 315 5,040 15,200 33,940 ALUMINUM 6,324 47 121 53 26,900 33,445 BATTERIES 1,023 0 0 0 0 1,023 CARDBOARD 26,300 133,239 7,013 8,030 145,320 319,902 GLASS 20, 163 4,559 10,638 30, 180 8,480 74,020 MIXED PAPER 58,238 76,074 4,004 7,280 0 145,596 '~IOTOR OIL 1,053 0 0 0 0 1,053 NEWSPAPER 56,736 15,619 36,445 16,440 0 125,240 PLASTIC 4,942 1,499 3,499 5,060 4,972 19,972 SCRAP METAL 0 0 0 13,560 0 13,560 TIRES 32 13,617 0 2,006 0 15,655 YARDWASTE 0 36,700 158,760 0 0 195,460 RECYCLE TOTAL 182,346 283,204 224,795 87,649 200,872 978,866 COMMERCIAL 0 1, 100,260 0 0 0 1, 100,260 DROP BOXES 0 127, 160 0 0 0 127, 160 COMPACTORS 0 56,680 0 0 0 56,680 RESIDENTIAL 0 0 521, 340 0 0 521, 340 LANDFILL TOTAL 0 1,284, 100 521,340 0 0 1,805,440 DIVERSION% CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLY RECYCLING REPORT DECEMBER 1996 BUYBACK Page 1 DATE ITEM TAG ~ WEIGHT PD PRE PD PAID Dec 04 CRV Plastic 68393 Dec 04 Tin ~9m Dec 04 CHDPE 68393 Dec 04 NHDPE 68393 Dec 04 Mix Plastic 68393 Dec 05 Newspaper 68461 Dec 06 Mix Paper 68493 Dec 10 Tin 69520 Dec 10 CHDPE 69520 Dec 10 NHDPE 69520 ..... Dec i0 Mix Plastic 69520 ec 10 CRV Glass 86541 Dec 10 Scrap Glass 86~41 Dec 12 Newspaper 70134 Dec 13 CRV Plastic 70185 Dec 13 Tin 70185 Dec 13 CHDPE 70185 Dec 13 NHDPE 70185 Dec i3 Mix Plastic 70185 Dec i3 Mix Paper 70196 Dec i6 Mix Paper 364694 Dec 17 CRV Glass 86899 Dec 17 Scrap Glass 86899 Dec 18 Newspaper 70494 Dec 19 Newspaper 70540 Dec 20 CRV Plastic 70282 Dec 20 Tin 70282 Dec 20 CHDF'E 70282 Dec 20 NHDPE 70282 Dec 20 Mix Plastic 70282 Dec 22 Mix Paper 70332 Dec 22 Tin 70331 Dec 22 CHDPE 70331 Dec 22 NHDPE 70331 Dec 22 Mix Plastic 70331 Dec 23 Newspaper 70344 ec 23 CRV Glass 87145 ~ec 23 Scrap Glass 87145 Dec 24 Mix Paper 70380 119 2,068 352 528 352 9,516 7,272 1,265 275 418 220 4,860 1,838 13,356 230 1, 199 110 176 209 5,936 25,086 4,400 1,277 9,456 7,848 253 902 55 77 154 6,704 990 220 330 176 6,732 5,660 2, 128 7,320 $1,537.860 $40.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $15.000 $20.000 $40.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $173.720 $67.~- $15.000 $1,537.860 $40.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $15.000 $0.000 $173.720 $67.659 $15.000 $15.000 $1,537.860 $40.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $2.000 $40.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $15.000 $173.720 $67.659 $20.000 $92.01 $41.36 $10.56 $60.72 $0.00 $71.37 $72.72 $25.30 $8.25 $48.07 $0.00 $421.86 $62.18 $100.17 $175.28 $23.98 $3.30 $20.24 $0.00 $44.52 $0.00 $377.03 $43.20 $70.92 $~8.86 $183.63 $18.04 $1.65 $8.86 $0.00 $6.70 $20.24 $6.60 $37.95 $0.00 $50.49 $489.75 $7i.99 $73.20 CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLY RECYCLING REPORT DECEMBER i996 BUYBACK Page 2 DATE ITEM TAG # WEIGHT PD PRE PD PAID Dec 28 CRV Plastic 70789 Dec 28 Tin 70789 Dec 28 CHDPE 70789 Dec 28 NHDPE 70789 Dec 28 Mix Plastic 70789 Dec 28 Newspaper 70806 Dec 29 Mix Paper 70813 182 1,111 121 187 198 9,828 5,920 $1,537.860 $40.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $15.000 $2.000 $i30.57 $22.22 ~3.63 $21. i5 $0.00 $73.7i $5.92 $3,058.20 CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLY RECYCLING REPORT DECEMBER 1996 CURBSIDE Page 1 DATE i TEM TAG ~ WEIGHT PD PRE PD PA1 D Dec 04 CRV Plastic 68393 Dec 04 Tin 68393 Dec 04 CHDPE 68393 Dec 04 NHDPE 68393 Dec 04 Mix Plastic 68393 Dec 05 Newspaper 68461 Dec 06 Mix Paper 68493 Dec 07 Newspaper 69453 Dec 10 Tin 6~-~'~'~ Dec 10 CHDPE 69520 Dec 10 NHDPE 69520 ec 10 Mix Plastic 69520 Dec 10 Scrap Glass 86541 Dec 12 Newspaper 70134 Dec 13 Pet Plastic 70185 Dec 13 Tin 70185 Dec 13 CHDPE 70185 Dec 13 NHDPE 70185 Dec 13 Mix Plastic 70185 Dec 13 Mix Paper 70196 Dec 16 Mix Paper 364694 Dec 17 Scrap Glass 86899 Dec I8 Newspaper 70494 Dec 19 Newspaper 70540 Dec 20 Pet Plastic 70282 Dec 20 Tin 70282 Dec 20 CHDPE 70282 Dec 20 NHDPE 70282 Dec 20 Mix Plastic 70282 Dec 22 Mix Paper 70332 Dec 22 Tin 70331 Dec 22 CHDPE 70331 Dec-22 NHDPE 70331 Dec 22 Mix Plastic 70331 Dec 23 Newspaper 70344 .Dec 23 Scrap Glass 87145 ec 24 Mix Paper 70380 361 1,692 288 432 288 6,344 9,999 14,240 1,035 --- 342 180 3,662 8,904 430 981 90 144 171 8, 162 34,494 7,603 6,304 5,232 427 738 45 63 126 9,218 810 180 270 144 4,488 3,932 10,065 $868.040 $40.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $15.000 $20.000 $15.000 $40.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $67.659 $15.000 $868.040 $40.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $15.000 $0.000 $67.659 $i5.000 $15.000 $868.040 $40.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $2.000 $40.000 $60.000 $~.000 $0.000 $15.000 $67.659 $20.000 $126.90 $33.84 $8.64 $49.68 $0.00 $47.58 $99.99 $106.80 $~.70 $6.75 $39.33 $0.00 $123.88 $66.78 $151.15 $19.62 $2.70 $16.56 $0.00 $61.22 $0.00 $257.2i $47.28 $39.24 $1~ 10 $14.76 $1.35 $7.24 $0.00 $9.~:'~ $16.56 $5.40 $31. A=~ $0.00 $33.66 $417.76 $i00.65 CITY OF UKIAH DECEMBER 1996 CURBSIDE MONTHLY RECYCLING REPORT Page DATE ITEM TAG # WEIGHT PD PRE PD PAID Dec 28 Dec 28 Dec 28 Dec 28 Dec 28 Dec 28 Dec 29 Pet Plastic Tin CHDPE NHDPE Mix Plastic Newspaper Mix Paper 70789 70789 70789 70789 70789 70806 70813 378 909 - - 153 162 6.~ 8, 140 $868.040 $40.000 $60.000 $230.000 $0.000 $15.000 $2.000 $132.87 $18.17 $2.97 $17.60 $0.00 $49.14 $8.14 $2,342.49 CITY OF UKiAH MONTHLY RECYCLING REPORT DECEMBER 1996 LANDFILL DATE iTEM TAG ~ WEIGHT PD PRE PD PAID Dec 06 Pet Plastic 68475 Dec 06 Tin 68475 Dec 06 Mix Plastic 6~47~ Dec 06 Mix Paper 68493 Dec 13 Mix Paper 70196 Dec 15 Pet Plastic 70241 Dec 15 Tin 70241 Dec i5 Mix Plastic 70241 Dec 16 Pet Plastic 70403 Dec 16 Tin 70403 .Dec 16 Mix Palstic 70403 ec 16 Mix Paper 364694 Dec 17 Scrap Glass 86899 Dec 18 Pet Plastic 70512 Dec 18 Tin 70512 Dec 18 Mix Plastic 70512 Dec 19 Scrap Glass ..... ~ Dec 20 Scrap Glass 70304 Dec 22 Mix Paper 70332 Dec 24 Mix Paper 70380 Dec 26 Newspaper 70716 Dec 29 Mix Paper 70813 Dec 30 Junk Metal 728260 Dec 30 Junk Metal 437038 1, 120 i, 400 300 909 742 800 980 200 1,000 1,260 260 3, 136 13,280 1, 100 1,400 280 8,400 8,500 838 915 16,440 740 10,080 3,480 $989. $40. $0. $20. $15. $989. $40. $0. $989. $40. $0. $0. $74. $989. $40. $0. $74. $74. $2. $20. $15. $2. $40. $45. 820 000 000 000 000 820 000 000 820 000 000 000 288 820 000 000 288 288 000 000 000 000 000 000 $4'?8.70 $28.00 $0.00 $9.09 $5.56 $341.93 $19.60 $0.00 $427.4i $~.20 $0.00 $0.00 $493.27 $470. i5 $28.00 $0.00 $312.01 $3i5.72 $0.84 $9.15 $123.30 $0.74 $201.60 $78.30 $3,368.57 Solid Wastes Compost iable Systems, Yardage Inc. P i ck ed Up - MONTHLY Dec 1996 REPORT Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Week Week Week Week Week 1 st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 0 0 0 0 28, 120 '7, 400 1.3, 820 '7, i40 14,240 4,820 11,840 0 9, 740 3, ;--'.40 7, 200 6,860 12, 180 8, 780 13, 000 4, 700 0 680 0 0 Total P o u n d s 0 62, 160 30,900 27,040 38,660 'Total Pounds 64., 2:80 24,240 45, 860 18, 700 5~ 680 158, '760 Loose Yard Waste Dec 03 8308 3,840 Dec 04 8216 4,000 Dec 05 8223 2,100 DEc 05 8286 4,900 Dec 05 8283 4,360 Dec 17 8'7998 20 YD Dec 17 88355 10 YD Dec 24 88342 20 YD Dec 31 88562 20 YD '70 YD Date Dec 03 Dec 03 Dec 03 Dec 04 Dec 04 Dec 05 Dec 06 Dec 07 Dec 10 Dec 11 Dec 12 Dec 13 Dec 14 Receipt 8072 8318 8319 8214 8215 8285 8380 8388 8414 8431 8441 '7781 8455 Pounds Date Receipt Pounds 13, 180 Dec 17 8464 13,820 4,980 Dec 18 84'76 11:840 9,960 Dec 19 7820 7,200 1,960 Dec: 20 8498 1t,'700 12., 280 Dec 21 o~,~'='~'~ 1, 300 9 '740 Dec ~4 8.~1~:: 7, 140 ~.=.8 860 10,960 Dec 26 -="-' 6, 1,220 Dec 27 8541 24,500 ~ 140 7,400 Dec 28 8~7 1, 4,820 Dec 31 8=',~4 5,680 3,240 7,360 1,420 CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLY REPORT BUYBACK CARDBOARD DECEMBER 1996 Date Tag # Weight Paid Per Pound Paid Non City Weight Weight Paid Dec 05 707079 Dec 07 628864 Dec 11 728629 Dec 16 628884 Dec 18 628930 Dec 22 625477 Dec 23 729116 Dec 24 628885 Dec 28 142977 Dec 28 729256 qec 30 729265 1,599 7,068 5,852 4,751 7,204 5,475 784 2,664 4,776 5,937 5,995 52,105 $75.00 $75.00 $75.00 $70.00 $70.00 $70.00 $70.00 $70.00 $70.00 $70.00 $70.00 $59.97 $265.05 $219.46 $166.29 $252.13 $191.63 $27.43 $93.24 $167.16 $207.80 $209.83 $1,859.99 171 6,400 1,624 3,~=.-~'~-' 3, 111 5,226 0 1,465 2,587 0 2, 199 25,805 1,428 668 4,228 1,729 4,093 249 784 1,199 2,189 5,937 3,796 26,300 $53.56 $25.03 $158.~'~e $60.~'~0 $i43.24 $8.72 $27.43 $4i.95 $76.60 $207.80 $132.86 $936.23 CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLY REPORT CURBSIDE CARDBOARD DECEMBER 1996 Date Tag # Weight Paid Per Pound Paid Non City Weight Weight Paid Dec 05 707079 Dec 07 628864 Dec 11 728629 Dec 16 628884 Dec I8 628930 Dec 22 625477 Dec 23 729116 Dec 24 628885 Dec 28 142977 Dec 28 729256 Dec 30 729265 8,529 37,696 3i,212 25, 339 38,419 29,200 4,179 14,208 25,472 31,664 31,974 277,892 $75. $75. $75. $70. $70. $70. $70. $'70. $70. $70. $70. 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 $319.84 $1,413.60 $1,170.45 $886.87 $1,344.67 $1,022.00 $146.27 $497.28 $891.52 $1,108.24 $1,119.08 $9,919.82 912 34, 136 8,664 16, 120 16,592 27,872 0 7,816 13,800 0 11,728 137,640 7,617 3,560 22,548 9,219 21,827 1,328 4, 179 6,392 11,672 31,664 20,246 $~=~.63 $133.50 $845 ~ $322.67 $763.95 $46.48 $146.27 $223.72 $408.52 $1,108.24 $708.60 $4,993.12 CITY OF UKIAH MONTHLY REPORT LANDFILL CARDBOARD DECEMBER 1996 Date Tag # Weight Pa i d Per Pound Pa i d Non City Weight Weight Paid Dec 05 707079 Dec 07 628864 Dec il 728629 Dec 16 628884 Dec 18 628930 Dec 22 625477 Dec 23 728116 Dec 24 628885 Dec 28 142977 Dec 28 729256 Dec 30 729265 532 2,356 1,951 1,584 c. 401 1,825 261 888 1,592 1,979 1,265 16,634 $75.00 $75.00 $75.00 $70.00 $70.00 $70.00 $70.00 $70.00 $70.00 $70.00 $70.00 $19.98 $88.~= $73.15 $~= ~.43 $84.04 $63.87 $9.14 $31.08 $55.72 $69.26 $44.28 $594.30 57 2, 134 542 1,008 1,037 1,742 0 489 863 0 733 8,605 476 1,409 576 1,364 261 399 729 1,979 532 8,030 $17.85 $8.34 $52.85 $20.1'? $47 -= . ?o $2.91 $9.14 $13.98 $25.53 $69.26 $18.29 $286.07 CITY OF UKIAH RECYCLING REPORT BINS, TOTERS AND CONTAINERS Dec 1996 CUSTOMERS ITEMS TOTERS BINS CONTAIERS Redwood Title Office Paper 1 Jet Con Office Paper 1 Valley Veiw Nursing Office Paper Plastic & Tin 2 Glass 4 Cardboard 1 Thirty Seven curbside recycling bins delivered in Dec. Solid Wastes Recycling Curbside Dec Total Possible Customers Weeks During Period 1996 3900 4.33 Curbside Residential Participation Date Mon Tue Wed Dec 02-06 1'78 254 309 )ec 09-13 155 246 324 Dec 16--20 1'71 25'7 301 Dec 23-2:7 181 2'77 355 Dec 30-31 190 282 0 Tot al s 8'75 1316 1289 Thu Fri Weekly Total 2'.40 185 1166 251 190 i 166 237 i98 1164 288 232 1333 0 0 472 1016 805 5301 Part % 29.90% 29.90% 29.85% 34. 18% 12. 10% CSPARTRP 10-18-'91 ITEM NO. 6e DATE: FEBRUARY 5,1997 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION DESIGNATING AGENT FOR FILING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE APPLICATION FOR DECEMBER 1996 FLOOD DISASTER The late December/early January flood disaster wreaked havoc throughout California including Mendocino County and Ukiah. Since the County and the State declared states of emergency, the City is eligible for disaster financial assistance from both the State and Federal governments. As part of the assistance process, the local entity must designate an agent for filing the necessary applications. The attached resolution completes this procedural step. The Assistant City Manager has been the primary staff person responsible for these activities and was identified as the agent for the January-April 1995 (Resolution No. 97-36) and December 1995 (Resolution No. 96-41) storms. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution designating the Assistant City Manager as the agent for the December flood. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution Designating Agent for Filing Financial Assistance Application for December 1996 Flood Disaster ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Determine assistance is not desired and do not adopt resolution. 2. Determine a different staff person should be agent, identify the position, and adopt revised resolution. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Appropriation Requested: N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Acct. No.: N/A N/A F ederalEmergency Management Agency ~. -,~ .~_~~ Michael F. Harris, AICP, Assistant City Manager ' ~~. Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Resolution for adoption, page 1. APPROVED:' Cand-ace H~sley, '(~i{y~Manager mfh:asrcc97 0205FEMA RESOLUTION NO. 97- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH DESIGNATING AGENT FOR FILING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE APPLICATION FOR DECEMBER, 1996 FLOOD DISASTER WHEREAS, in December, 1996, the City of Ukiah, an incorporated city within the County of Mendocino, incurred damage during the severe winter storms; and WHEREAS, the County of Mendocino declared a state of emergency due to the amount of damage received by both private and public properties; and WHEREAS, the City of Ukiah is applying to the State of California and the Federal Emergency Management Agency for financial assistance to cover some of the expenses caused by rescue and cleanup efforts during this disaster. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Ukiah City Council authorizes the Assistant City Manager to execute for and in behalf of the City of Ukiah, a public entity established under the laws of the State of California, this application and to file it in the Office of Emergency Services for the purpose of obtaining certain federal financial assistance under P.L. 93-288 as amended by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988, and/or state financial assistance under the Natural Disaster Assistance Act for California Floods of 1996, which was declared a disaster on December 28, 1996. THAT the City of Ukiah, a public entity established under the laws of the State of California, hereby authorizes its agent to provide to the State Office of Emergency Services for all matters pertaining to such state disaster assistance the assurances and agreements required. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of February, 1997 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Sheridan Malone, Mayor Colleen Henderson, City Clerk mfh:resord 1155 ITEM NO. 6f DATE: February 5, 1997 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING CITY OF UKIAH QUALIFIED CONTRACTORS' LIST FOR 1997 As required by Ukiah City Code §1541-1542, the City Clerk prepared and mailed a wdtten notice to 15 construction trade journals, inviting all licensed contractors to submit the name of their firm to the City for inclusion on the City's list of qualified bidders for the following calendar year. A contractor may be included throughout the year, as well, by either submitting a written notice to the City Clerk or by bidding on a City project. A total of 27 responses were received by the deadline and have been included in the City's list for 1997, which is attached as Exhibit "A" to the resolution that is before the Council for adoption. It is appropriate for the Council to adopt the Resolution at this time. RECOMMENDED ACTION- Adopt Resolution Approving Qualified Contractors' List for 1997 Calendar Year. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. N/A Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted)' N/A Acct. No.: Appropriation Requested: N/A (if budgeted) Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Prepared by: Karen Yoast, Executive Assistant Attachments: 1. Resolution Approving Qualified Contractors' List for 1997 Calendar Year APPROVED: 4/Can. ASRCont.Lst Cand~ce ~o~sley, City I~lanager I RESOLUTION NO. 5 6 1.0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAHAPPROVING QUALIFIED CONTRACTORS LIST FOR 1997 CALENDAR YEAR WHEREAS, under Ukiah City Code (UCC) Sections 1541-1542, the City Clerk must request licensed contractors who are qualified to perform public work under contract with the City of Ukiah to submit their names, addresses, phone numbers, type of work in which they are interested, class of contractor's license and contractor's license number; and WHEREAS, the City Council is required to adopt a list of qualified contractors, identified according to categories of work; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk has published the notice as required by UCC Section 1541 and compiled a list of qualified contractors based on information submitted in response to said notice and including all contractors who have submitted valid bids to the City during the preceding calendar year; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that the list as compiled complies with the requirements of the City Code and Public Contracts Code Section 22032(b) and shall constitute the City of Ukiah's Contractors List for use in providing notice under the informal bidding procedure authorized in UCC Section 1543. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the List attached to this resolution as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference is adopted as the Contractors List for the City of Ukiah for the calendar year 1997. PASSED ANDADOPTED this 5th of February, 1997 by the following roll call vote- AYES- NOES- ABSENT- ATTEST' Mayor Sheridan Malone Colleen Henderson, City Clerk 4 :Res: ConList GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS QUALIFIED BIDDERS LIST CLASS A Able General Contractor 51 Foley Street Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Arcadian Enterprises P.O. Box 475 Shasta Lake, CA 96089 Adobe Construction Inc. 109 Horn Avenue Petaluma, CA 94952 Cole-Armstrong Mech. 3232 51st Avenue #7 Sacramento, CA 95823 Cushman Contractor P.O. Box 6212 Santa Barbara, CA 93160 D.C. Crane & Exc. 7580 Conde Lane Windsor, CA 95492 Argonaut Constructors 1236 Central Ave. Santa Rosa,Ca 95402 Ashhin Pacific Constr. 819 Pepper Road Petaluma, CA 95952 Arnold Construction 2119 Wood Rd. Fulton, CA 95439 Arrow Paving 500 C Pinoleville Drive Ukiah, CA 95482 Epidendio Construction P.O. Box 452 Lower Lake, CA 95457 Donald Ferranti P.O. Box 259 Redwood Valley, CA 95470 Flannery Group 432 N.Canal St Ste. 22 S.SanFrancisco,CA 94080 C.R. Fredrick 320 Deer Island Lane Novato, CA 94948 BDM Construction 835 Piner Road Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Robert Fiora Constr. 35501 S. Highway 1 Gualala, CA 95445 Beacom Construction Co. PO Box 457 Fortuna, CA 95540 Bell Springs Construction PO Box 611 Laytonville, CA 95454 Fred Berry Construction 305 La Quinta Drive Windsor, CA 95492 Blaisdell & Baker, Inc. P.O. Box 493459 Redding, CA 96049 Alan A. Bradford 4970 Peabody Road Fairfield, CA 95433 California Pavement Maint. 9390 Elder Creek Rd. Sacramento, CA 95829 Cheli & Young Constr. P.O. Box 1939 Sebastopol, CA 95473-1939 Crane of Ukiah 4 Banker Blvd. Ukiah, CA 95482 Ghilotti Bros. 246 Ghilotti Ave. Santa Rosa, CA 95407 Gilardoni Construction 4502 Bennett Valley Road Santa Rosa, CA 95404 L.A. Grow 4993 Canfield Road Petaluma, CA 94952 Harborth Excavating P.O. Box 736 Lower Lake, CA 95457 Hersmeyer Paving 5454 Old Redwood Hwy. Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Lee Howard Construction 3900 Parducci Road Ukiah, CA 95482 J.K.H. General Engineering P.O. Box 778 Lower Lake, CA 95457 Jet-Con Enterprises P.O. Box 508 Ukiah, CA 95482 Karinen Construction 541 Atherton Avenue Novato, CA 94945 King Bay Landscape Co. 2346 Floral Way Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Kirkwood Bly. Inc. P.O. Box 3339 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 L. J. Construction 9460 Graton Road Sebastopol, CA 95472 Joseph LaMalfa 251 Stipp Lane Ukiah, CA 95482 Lawson Mechanical Contractors PO Box 15224 Sacramento, CA 95851 Lawson's P.O. Box 235 Yorkville, CA 95494 Ross Mayfield P.O. Box 275 Ukiah, CA 95482 M.P.H., Inc. 2619 Westberry Dr. Santa Rosa, CA 95403-7206 Mendocino Constr. Services P.O. Box 1517 Willits, CA 95490 Mendocino Paving P.O. Box 1338 Willits, CA 95490 North Bay Construction P.O. Box 6004 Petaluma, CA 94952 KBR Construction 2806 Tarmac Road Redding, CA 96003 Oak Grove Construction 3354 Regional Prkwy Santa Rosa, CA 95403-8203 Northern Industr. Elec. 2430 Radio Lane Redding, CA 96601 PP & P Constr. Co., Inc. P.O. Box 362038 Santa Rosa, CA 95403 (Class A Continued) Pacific Mechanical Corp. P.O. Box 4041 Concord, CA 94524 Parnum Paving P.O. Box 970 Ukiah, CA 95482-0970 Pipeline Excavators P.O. Box 1755 Sebastopol, CA 95473-1755 J.H. Pomeroy Co., Inc. P.O. Box 411 Petaluma, CA 94953 C. A. Rasmussen, Inc. P.O. Box 638 Santa Rosa,CA 95402-0638 Rhoads Construction 1696 Ash Way Marysville, CA 95901 C.W. Roen P.O. Box 4 Danville, CA 94526 Schram Constr., Inc. 3162 Regional Parkway Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Sequoia Surfacing 5441 Pepperwood Rd. Santa Rosa, CA 95409-5529 Smith Electric 875 Eureka St. Eureka, CA 95503 Stellar Construction P.O. Box 277 Talmage, CA 95482 T & S Construction 1525 East Hill Road Willits, CA 95490 Valley Engineers 1010 W. Whitebridge Fresno, CA 93706 Valley Paving P.O. Box 559 Redwood Valley, CA 95470 Valley Slurry Seal P.O. Box 1620 W. Sacramento, CA 95691 K.G. Walters Constr. P.O. Box 4359 Santa Rosa, CA 94502 Wayne Waters Constr. P.O. Box 126 Willits, CA 95490 Wildcat Underground & Eng. 21 Washington St. Petaluma, CA 94952 Wipf Construction P.O. Box 234 Ukiah, CA 95482 Wise Construction Inc. P.O. Box 2826 Santa Rosa, CA 95402 Richardson Engineering PO Box 638 Healdsburg, CA 95448 Morerno Trenching PO Box 458 Rio Vista, CA 94571 Pfister Excavating 834 Mayo Court Benicia, CA 94510 RJ Gordon Construction, Inc. 144-A Mayhew Way Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Charles A. Heath Construction 3268 Westho Trail Cottonwood, CA 96022 Stiles Construction 6209 Lockwood Drive Windsor, CA 95492 Wimmer Excavating 7960 Silverado Trail Napa, CA 94558 Enrique Avila Avila Construction 396 Cottonwood Vacaville, CA 95688 R.E. McCollum Genl. Eng. & Bldg. Const. 13515 Pleasant Lane Grass Valley, CA 95945 Mark Guiton & Associates 2360 Nebula Street Redding, CA 96002 Groeniger & Company PO Box 3629 Hayward, CA 94540 Sonomarin, Inc. PO Box 966 Santa Rosa, CA 95402-0966 ASBESTOS ~UALIFIED BIDDERS LIST AFM Environmental, Inc. PO Box 2535 Vacaville, CA 95696-2535 APC Contractors, Inc. P.O. Box 12507 Fresno, CA 93778-2507 Asbestos Management Group 2855 Mandela Parkway, Suite 11 Oakland, CA 94608 Lawson Mechanical Contractors PO Box 15224 Sacramento, CA 95829 C.A. Rasmussen, Inc. PO Box 638 Santa Rosa, CA 95402-0638 GENERAL BUILDING CONTRACTORS QUALIFIED BIDDERS LIST CLASS B AFM Environmental, Inc. PO Box 2535 Vacaville, CA 95696-2535 Able General Contractor 51 Foley Street Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Arcadian Enterprises P.O. Box 475 Summit City, CA 96089 APC Contractors, Inc. P.O. Box 12507 Fresno, CA 93778-2507 Asbestos Management Group 2855 Mandela Parkway, Ste 11 Oakland, CA 94608 Aura Construction P.O. Box 163 Lucerne, CA 95458 Beacom Construction Co. PO Box 457 Fortuna, CA 95540 Birge & Sons Const. P.O. Box 283 Upper Lake, CA 95485 Busch Construction Inc. 2020 Industry Road Ukiah, CA 95482 Bourassa Construction P.O. Box 440 Miranda, CA 95553 Boyrie Inc. P.O. Box 5512 Santa Rosa CA 95402-5512 Alan A. Bradford 4970 Peabody Road Fairfield, CA 94533 B. Cantarutti Co. 1575 Indian Valley Road Novato, CA 94947 Cart's Constr. Service 9140 Piccadilly Circle Windsor, CA 95492 Carroll Builders Corp. 8109 Elphick Road Sebastopol, CA 95472 Clark Construction P.O. Box 167 Calpella, CA 95481 Courtney J. Collins 195 Clara Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Crane of Ukiah 4 Banker Blvd. Ukiah, CA 95482 Cupples Const. 501 Saint Mary's Ave. Hopland, CA 95449 Danube Const & Develop 5749 Corbett Circle Santa Rosa, CA 95403 E & W Construction P.O. Box 858 Ukiah, CA 95482 Epidendio Construction P.O. Box 452 Lower Lake, CA 95457 Estok Menton 760 Apple Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Donald Ferranti P.O. Box 259 Redwood Valley, CA 95470 C.R. Fredrick 320 Deer Island Lane Novato, CA 94948 Robert Fiora Constr. 35501 S. Highway 1 Gualala, CA 95445 Hopley Co., Inc. 770 Mark West Springs Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Jet-Con Enterprises P.O. Box 508 Ukiah, CA 95482 Kitchens & Son Constr. 1506 Hallmark Court Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Lawrence Gentry Const. P.O. Box 11039 Santa Rosa, CA 95406 Sacramento, CA 95823 Miller Paneling P.O. Box 270 Woodland, CA 95695 Mullin Constr. Co., Inc. P.O. Box 68 Sebastopol, CA 95472 Northcoast Caspi Inc. 2117 N Street Eureka, CA 95501 North Coast Energy Serv. P.O. Box 413 Ukiah, CA 95482 Northern Industr. Elect. 2430 Radio Lane Redding, CA 96001 Pipeline Excavators P.O. Box 1755 Sebastopol, CA 95473-1755 Project Builders, Inc. 3213 Orange Grove Ave. Ste B North Highlands, CA 95660 C. A. Rasmussen, Inc. PO Box 638 Santa Rosa, CA 95402-0638 C.W. Roen P.O. Box 4 Canville, CA 94526 Sonomarin, Inc. PO Box 966 Santa Rosa, CA 95402-0966 Stellar Construction P.O. Box 277 Talmage, CA 95481 T.D.M. Construction 144 A Cherry Street Ukiah, CA 95482 Tavolacci Construction 3278 Moorland Ave. Santa Rosa, CA 9504-5727 Trinity Construction Lawson Mechanical Contractors 583 Martin Avenue PO Box 15224 Rohnert Park, CA 94928 Sacramento, CA 95851 Ukiah Construction L.G. Miller Construction 676 S. Orchard Avenue 4530 Feliz Creek Road Ukiah, CA 95482 Hopland, CA 95449 McCarthy Construction PO Box 15246 (Class B Continued) Valley Slurry Seal P.O. Box 1620 W. Sacramento, CA 95691 K.G. Walters P.O. Box 4359 Santa Rosa, CA 95402 Woodstove Builders Inc. 9501 Mill Station Road Sebastopol, CA 95472 INSULATION AND ACOUSTICAL QUALIFIED BIDDERS LIST CLASS C2 AFM Environmental, Inc. PO Box 2535 Vacaville, CA 95696-2535 APC Contractors, Inc. P.O. Box 12507 Fresno, CA 93778-2507 Kitchen & Son Constr. 1506 Hallmark Court Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Lawson Mechanical Contractors PO Box 15224 Sacramento, CA 95851 Ukiah Acoustics 676 S. Orchard Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 BOILERf HOT WATER HEATINGAND STEAM FITTING QUALifieD BIDDERS LIST CLASS C4 Lawson Mechanical Contractors PO Box 15224 Sacramento, CA 95851 Pacific Mechanical Corp P.O. Box 4041 Concord, CA 94524 C.W. Roen P.O. Box 4 Danville, CA 94526 Schram Construction Inc. 3162 Regional Parkway Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Sonomarin, Inc. PO Box 966 Santa Rosa, CA 95402-0966 CABINET & MILLWORK CONTRACTORS QUALIFIED BIDDERS LIST CLASS C6 Beacom Construction Co. PO Box 457 Fortuna, CA 95540 LOW VOLTAGE SYSTEMS CONTRACTOR QUALIFIED BIDDERS LIST CLASS C7 Advance Security Systems 3302 T Street Eureka, CA 95501 Deep Valley Security 960 North State St. Ukiah, CA 95482 CONCRETE CONTRACTORS QUALIFIED BIDDERS LIST CLASS C8 BDM Construction 835 Piner Road Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Clark Construction P.O. Box 167 Calpella, CA 95481 Epidendio Construction P.O. Box 452 Lower Lake, CA 95457 Donald Ferranti P.O. Box 259 Redwood Valley, CA 95470 Ghilotti Bros. 246 Ghilotti Ave. Santa Rosa, CA 95407 Kitchen & Son Constr. 1506 Hallmark Court Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Lemos Concrete Constr. 555 W.College Ave. Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Sack Concrete Construction 1320 Chateau Pi. Ukiah, CA 95482 T.D.M. Construction 144 Cherry Street Ukiah, CA 95482 DRYWALL CONTRACTOR QUALIFIED BIDDERS LIST CLASS C9 Master Plan Const. Serv. PO Box 355 Garberville, CA 95542 L.G. Miller Drywall 4530 Feliz Creek Road Hopland, CA 95449 ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS QUALIFIED BIDDERS LIST CLASS C10 Advanced Security Systems 3302 T Street Eureka, CA 95501 Ed Busch Construction 2020 Industry Road Ukiah, CA 95482 B. Cantarutti Co 1575 Novato Road Novato, CA 94947 Clark Construction PO Box 167 Calpella, CA 95418 Deep Valley Security 960 North State Street Ukiah, CA 95482 C.R. Fredrick 320 Deer Island Lane Novato, CA 94948 EETS Engineering P.O. Box 1075 Fair Oaks, CA 95682 Intersection Developmen{ Corp 1511 East Orange Thorpe Ave. Ste. A Fullerton CA 92631 Attn.: John Schulte NorCal Electric 6275 Loma Avenue Eureka, CA 95501 Northern Industr. Elect. 2430 Radio Lane Redding, CA 96001 Pacific Lighting & Power 433 Town Center, Suite 296 Corte Madera, CA 94925 Smith Electric 875 Eureka St. Eureka, CA 95503 443-5818 Sonomarin, Inc. PO Box 966 Santa Rosa, CA 95402-0966 Ukiah Electric 676 S. Orchard Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 ELEVATOR INSTALLATION CONTRACTORS QUALIFIED BIDDERS LIST CLASS Cll Access Development 323 Sutton Place Santa Rosa, CA 95407 EXCAVATING, GRADING, TRENCHING AND PAVING CONTRACTORS QUALIFIED BIDDERS LIST CLASS C12 Arrow Paving 500 C Pinoleville Road Ukiah, CA 95482 B. Cantarutti Co. 1575 Novato Road Novato, CA 94947 California Pavement Maint. 9390 Elder Creek Rd. Sacramento, CA 95829 Duran Construction P.O. Box 681 Redwood Valley, CA 95470 Robert Fiora Constr. 35501 S. Highway 1 Gualala, CA 95445 Ghilotti Bros. 246 Ghilotti Ave. Santa Rosa, CA 95407 Graham Contractors, Inc. P.O. Box 26770 San Jose, CA 95159 Lee Howard Construction 3900 Parducci Road Ukiah, CA 95482 Joseph LaMalfa 251 Stipp Lane Ukiah, CA 95482 Malott & Peterson-Grundy 3201 Pierce Street Richmond, CA 94804 Ross Mayfield P.O. Box 275 Ukiah, CA 95482 Pipeline Excavators P.O. Box 1755 Sebastopol, CA 95473-1755 FENCING CONTRACTORS QUALIFIED BIDDERS LIST CLASS C13 Arcadian Enterprises P.O. Box 475 Summitt City, CA 96089 Jet-Con Enterprises P.O. Box 508 Ukiah, CA 95482 Olenik & Frey P.O. Box 508 Willits, CA 95490 T n T Fence 7840 - 14th Avenue Sacramento, CA 95826 SHEET METALROOFING CONTRACTOR QUALIFIED BIDDERS LIST CLASS C14 Simpson Sheet Metal Inc. P.O. Box 2834 Santa Rosa, CA 95405 FLOORING AND FLOOR COVERING QUALIFIED BIDDERS LIST CLASS C15 Malott & Peterson-Grundy 3201 Pierce Street Richmond, CA 94804 Crown Interiors, Inc. 139 Washington Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEERING QUALIFIED BIDDERS LIST CLASS C16 Lawson Mechanical Contractors PO Box 15224 Sacramento, CA 95829 Pacific Mechanical Corp. P.O. Box 4041 Concord, CA 94524 Superior Sprinkler Co. 7704 Bell Road Windsor, CA 95492 WARM-AIR, VENTILATING, AND AIR CONDITIONING QUALIFIED BIDDERS LIST CLASS C20 Lawson Mechanical Contractors PO Box 15224 Sacramento, CA 95829 Pacific Mechanical Corp P.O. Box 4041 Concord, CA 94524 Redwood Air Conditioning 775 E. Gobbi Street Ukiah, CA 95482 Simpson Sheet Metal Inc. P.O. Box 2834 Santa Rosa, CA 95405 (707) 576-1500 Fax (707) 576-1639 Sonomarin, Inc. PO Box 966 Santa Rosa, CA 95402-0966 Ukaih Air Conditioning P.O. Box 804 Ukiah, CA 95482 BUILDING MOVING AND DEMOLITION QUALIFIED BIDDERS LIST CLASS C21 B. Cantarutti Co. 1575 Novato Road Novato, CA 94947 D.C. Crane & Exc. 7580 Conde Lane Windsor, CA 95492 Ghilotti Bros. 246 Ghilotti Ave. Santa Rosa, CA 95407 Pacific Structural Corp. 138 Hamilton Dr., Suite A Novato, CA 94949 ORNAMENTAL METALCONTRACTORS QUALIFIED BIDDERS LIST CLASS C23 Mendocino Metal 207B Clara Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 LANDSCAPING CONTRACTORS QUALIFIED BIDDERS LIST CLASS C27 Atlas Tree Surgery 2100 Llano Road Santa Rosa, CA 95407 Waterwise Landscape Con. P.O. Box 803 Cloverdale, CA 95425 Davey Tree Surgery Co. P.O. Box 351 Livermore, CA 94550 Firewheel Landscape 350 East Todd Road Santa Rosa, CA 95407 H & M Tree Service P.O. Box 1637 Willits, CA 95490 Horizon Landscaping 8277 Honor Place Cotati, CA 94931 King Bay Landscape Co. 2346 Floral Way Santa Rosa, CA 95403 L.J. Construction 9460 Granton Road Sebastopol, CA 95472 Little Lake Landscape 27755 Poppy Drive Willits, CA 95490 Marvins Garden Tree Serv. 1300 A Muir Mill Road Willits, CA 95490 Neal Notaro 1750 S. Main St. Sp 20 Willits, CA 95490 Pacific Environments P.O. Box 1639 Rohnert Park, CA 94927 John Phillips 26010 String Creek Road Willits, CA 95490 Ritner Tree Service P.O. Box 317 Sonoma, CA 95476 Sangiacomo 3150 Guidiville Road Ukiah, CA 95482 Timberline Tree Service 10220 Old River Road Forestville, CA 95436 TS Landscapes 2110 Road B Redwood Valley, CA 95470 MASONRY CONTRACTOR QUALIFIED BIDDERS LIST CLASS C29 Mendocino Masonry PO Box 271 Comptche, CA 95427 PARKING AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT QUALIFIED BIDDERS LIST CLASS C32 Adams Surfacing 1616 Woodhue Ave. Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Chrisp Company PO Box 1368 Fremont, CA 94538-0136 American Asphalt Company 1771 E Bayshore Road Redwood City, CA 94064 Calif. Pavement Co. 9390 Elder Creek Road Sacramento, CA 95829 Central Striping Service 11391 Pyrites Way Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 Ellen Tominello Striping P.O. Box 927 Middletown, CA 95461 Ph (707) 987-2138 Fax (707) 987-2045 Price Striping Service 1680 Elk Valley Road Crescent City, CA 95531 Pave-Mark Corporation 9925 Yucca Road Adelanto, CA 92301 Re-Stripe Rite 4954 John Wayne Drive Ceres, CA 95307 Vintage Sweep P.o. Box 885 Ukiah, CA 95482 Womac Striping P.O. Box 994 Tracy, CA 95378 Apply-A-Line 5625 Eastside Road Redding, CA 96001-4531 Apply-A-Line 106 Frontage Road No. Pacific, WA 98047 Traffic Limited PO Box 1721 Lodi, CA 95241 Riley's Striping PO Box 1188 Benicia, CA 94510 PAINTING AND DECORATING CONTRACTORS QUALIFIED BIDDERS LIST C33 APC Contractors, Inc. P.O. Box 12507 Fresno, CA 93778-2507 Beacom Construction Co. PO Box 457 Fortuna, CA 95540 Markos Painting Co., Inc. PO Box 2108 Novato, CA 94948 Master Plan Construction Serv. PO Box 355 Garberville, CA 95542 Summit Painting P.O. Box 445 Boonville, CA 95415 Spurgeon Painting P.O. Box 2776 Petaluma, CA 94953 Tru-Tech Coating & Roofing 1700 Reliance Street Modesto, CA 95358 PIPELINE CONTRACTORS QUALIFIED BIDDERS LIST CLASS C34 Lee Howard Construction 3900 Parducci Road Ukiah, CA 95482 PLASTERING CONTRACTORS QUALIFIED BIDDERS LIST CLASS C35 Mendo Lake Plastering P.O. Box 791 Ukiah, CA 95482 PLUMBING CONTRACTORS QUALIFIED BIDDERS LIST CLASS C36 Aura Construction P.O. Box 163 Lucerne, CA 95458 Clark Construction PO Box 167 Calpella, CA 95418 Lawson Mechanical Contractors PO Box 15224 Sacramento, CA 95829 Pacific Mechanical Corp. P.O. Box 4041 Concord, CA 94524 Schram Construction Inc. 3162 Regional Parkway Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Sonomarin, Inc. PO Box 966 Santa Rosa, CA 95402-0966 QUALIFIED BIDDERS LIST CLASS C38 Lawson Mechanical Contractors PO Box 15224 Sacramento, CA 95829 ROOFING CONTRACTORS QUALIFIED BIDDERS LIST CLASS C39 Malott & Peterson-Grundy 3201 Pierce Street Richmond, CA 94804 Mendocino Roofing P.O. Box 904 Willits, CA 95490 Mendocino Roofing 1772 S. Main Street Ukiah, CA 95482 Ken Ray Roofing 8556 S. Highway 101 Ukiah, CA 95482 Steve Roberts Roofing 1291 Talmage Road Ukiah, CA 95482 AMERICAN ROOFING CO. Ron Huebner P.O. Box 785 Lakeport, CA 95453 Warrington Roofing Inc. 1685 Helena Avenue, Suite B Sacramento, CA 95815 Tru-Tech Coating & Roofing 1700 Reliance Street Modesto, CA 95358 SANITATION SYSTEM CONTRACTORS QUALIFIED BIDDERS LIST CLASS C42 Ghilotti Bros. #644515 246 Ghilotti Ave. Santa Rosa, CA 95407 (707) 585-1221 Fax (707) 585-1601 Lee Howard Construction 3900 Parducci Road Ukiah, CA 95482 Pipeline Excavators P.O. Box 1755 Sebastopol, CA 95473-1755 SHEET METAL CONTRACTORS QUALIFIED BIDDERS LIST CLASS C43 Lawson Mechanical Contractors PO Box 15224 Sacramento, CA 95829 Redwood Air Conditioning 775 E. Gobbi Street Ukiah, CA 95482 Simpson Sheet Metal Inc. P.O. Box 2834 Santa Rosa, CA 95405 Sonomarin, Inc. PO Box 966 Santa Rosa, CA 95402-0966 SOLAR CONTRACTORS QUALIFIED BIDDERS LIST CLASS C44 Lawson Mechanical Contractors PO Box 15224 Sacramento, CA 95829 ELECTRICAL SIGN CONTRACTOR QUALIFIED BIDDERS LIST CLASS C45 J & L Signs P.O. Box 5099 Santa Rosa, CA 95402 TILE (CERAMIC & MOSAIC) CONTRACTORS QUALIFIED BIDDERS LIST CLASS C54 Malott & Peterson-Grundy 3201 Pierce Street Ukiah, CA 95482 Miller Paneling P.O. Box 270 Woodland, CA 95695 Roberts Tile, Inc. P.O. Box 6102 Santa Rosa, CA 95406 WELL-DRILLING (WATER) CONTRACTORS QUALIFIED BIDDERS LIST CLASS C57 Cache Creek Drilling P.O. Box 999 Woodland, CA 95695 Country Pump and Well P.O. Box 1177 Forestville, CA 95436 D. Lyon Drilling P.O. Box 401 Navarro, CA 95463 Performance Excavators 3060 Kerner Blvd., Ste. A San Rafael, CA 94901 WELDiNG CONTRACTORS QUALIFIED BIDDERS LIST CLASS C60 O.T.S. Welding PO Box 216 Redwood Valley, CA 95470 GOLD LEAF GUILDiNG QUALIFIED BIDDERS LIST CLASS C61 Hopley Co., Inc. 770 Mark West Springs Road Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Access Development 323 Sutton Place Santa Rosa, CA 95407 Den-Em Entrerprises P.O. Box 963 Healdsburg, CA 95448 DOORS AND DOOR SERVICE, SHOWER AND TUB ENCLOSURES ACCORDION DOORS ~UALIFIED BIDDERS LIST CLASS D08 Vermillion Door 16 Rocca Drive Petaluma, CA 95452 FIBERGLASS, PLASTIC AND SYNTHETIC PRODUCTS QUALIFIED BIDDERS LIST CLASS D12 Miller Paneling P.O. Box 270 Woodland, CA 95695 METAL PRODUCTS AND SERVICES, METAL CABINETS METAL PARTITIONS QUALIFIED BIDDERS LIST CLASS D24 Hopley Co., Inc. 770 Mark West Springs Rd Santa Rosa, CA 95404 CONSTRUCTION C?.ma.N-UP CONTRACTOR QUALIFIED BIDDERS LIST CLASS D63 Den-Em Enterprises P.O. Box 963 Healdsburg, CA 95448 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES REMOVAL QUALIFIED BIDDERS LIST CLASS HAZ Able General Contractor 51 Foley Street Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Beacom Construction Co. PO Box 457 Fortuna, CA 95540 Robert Flora Constr. 35501 S. Highway 1 Gualala, CA 95445 Lawson Mechanical Contractors PO Box 15224 Sacramento, CA 95829 Oak Grove Construction 3354 Regional Prkwy Santa Rosa, CA 95403-8203 J.K.H. General Engineering P.O. Box 778 Lower Lake, CA 95457 C.A. Rasmussen, Inc. PO Box 638 Santa Rosa, CA 95402-0638 4: PW. ContList. 97 ITEM NO. 6g DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 1997 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR PLANNING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT GRANT ON BEHALF OF UKIAH COMMUNITY CENTER At their November 20, 1996 meeting the City Council adopted a resolution authorizing the submittal of an application for a Planning and Technical Assistance Community Development Block Grant (CDBG P&TA). By letter of January 6, 1997, the City was notified that the grant was awarded in the amount of $5,723. The project is to assist the Ukiah Community Center in preparing appropriate data analysis, appraising the property at 888 North State Street, determining the financial feasibility of purchasing the property, and completing an application for a full Community Development Block Grant. The Ukiah Community Center is to pay the required local cash match for the grant. The City will serve as the administrator of the grant with payments received from the State as reimbursements for completed activities. Revenues will equal expenditures and thus there is no net cost to the City. As this grant was awarded after the adoption of the budget, a budget amendment approved by the City Council is required to authorize this activity. Staff recommends the City Council approve the budget amendment identifying $5,723 of revenue in account 333.0600.488 and expenditures of $5,723 in account 333.4706.250. RECOMMENDED ACTION' Approve Budget Amendment for Planning and Technical Assistance Community Development Block Grant on Behalf of Ukiah Community Center Identifying $5,723 of Revenue in Account 333.0600.488 and Expenditures of $5,723 in Account 333.4706.250. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Determine City funds will be used in this endeavor, identify amount, and modify budget amendment accordingly. 2. Determine grant should not be accepted and do not approve budget amendment. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): 333.XXXX.XXX Acct. No.' NA Appropriation Requested: $5,723 (if budgeted) Citizen Advised: NA Requested by: NA Prepared by: Michael F. Harris, AICP, Assistant City Manager Coordinated with: Gordon Elton, Director of Finance and Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: 1. Budget amendment worksheets, pages 1-2. APPROVED: mfh:asrcc97 0205UCC Candace Horsley, ~ity/Manager CDBG GRANT - FUND #333 Budgeted amounts: Beginning fund balance 7/1/96 Revenue budgeted Transfers budgeted Expense Budgeted ending fund balance 6/30/97 $ - $ - $ - Adjustments made durinq the fiscal year: Date Approved 7/1/96 Change in beginning fund balance per audit 2/5/97 CDBG Grant award - Planning & Technical Assistance 2/5/97 Payment to Ukiah Community Center Account No. 333.0600.488.000 333.4706.250.000 $ 5,723 $ (5,723) Revised ending fund balance 6~30~97 $ RESERV97.XLS 1/28/97 Page 2 Funds 332; 333; 335; 530 LLI ~ ~( 0 00000000000000~0000 0 000000000000000000 0 - o~o~~~oo~~~~  0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 i ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~~ 0 ~ ~,~ ~ 00~ O0 X 0 ~ 000000~ O0 ~ 00 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 00000000 000000 0 O0000000 00000000 0 0 o ~,~ ~ ~ o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ o ~ o~,~ ~~zzoo~~~' . . ~ . ~ ~ . ._ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 m ILl m ! 0 Z Z Z 0 m ITEM NO. 6h MEETING DATE: February 5. 1997 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: AWARD OF BID FOR LIQUID FERRIC CHLORIDE REPORT: Each year it is necessary to purchase approximately 150 tons of liquid ferric chloride for use at the wastewater treatment plant. Liquid ferric chloride is used as the primary coagulant in the advanced wastewater treatment process. Total quantities are an estimate of annual usage. Orders are placed on an as needed basis by wastewater treatment plant personnel. Requests for Quotations through the formal bid process were sent to six chemical suppliers. Five bids were returned and opened by the City Clerk on January 22, 1997. The bid from Kemwater for $270.00 per dry ton is the Iow bid. $122,000 was budgeted in the Sewer account 612-3580-520 for the purchase of chemicals. Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Kemwater for $270.00 per dry ton which equates to an annual estimated cost of $40,500. RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council award the bid for Liquid Ferric Chloride to Kemwater for the amount of $270.00 per dry ton. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Postpone award of bid. Acct. No. (if not budgeted): N/A Acct. No.: 612-3580-520 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 Candace ey, City, Manager Zo 0 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0 CD 0 Z E ITEM NO. 6i MEETING DATE: February 5, 1997 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: AWARD OF BID FOR ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR CHLORINE PRODUCTS REPORT: Each year it is necessary to purchase chlorine products in 150 lb. and 1 ton cylinders. Chlorine is a chemical necessary to meet State of California Water Quality standards and is used in the daily operations of the water and wastewater treatment facilities. A Request for Quotation for the purchase of chlorine products on an as needed basis was written for firm unit prices within one year from date of award. Bid packages were mailed to five suppliers. All five bids were returned and opened by the City Clerk on January 28, 1997. All Pure Chemical Company is the Iow bidder with a bid price of $72.00 for 150 lb. cylinders and $410.00 for 1 ton cylinders. This equates to a total annual estimated cost of $30,140. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Award bid to All Pure Chemical Company for the amount of $72.00 for 150 lb. cylinders and $410.00 for 1 ton cylinders. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Postpone award of bid. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Acct. No.: 612-3580-520 Appropriation Requested: N/A 820-3908-520 Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Darryl Barnes, Director of Public Utilities Prepared by: George Borecky, Water and Sewer Operations Superintendent Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: Bid Tabulation Candace Horsley, Manager 01 LEI 0 0 0 0 -a 'a · - CO 0 0 0 ~' '~ Z Z Z 0 0 C 0 0 E C E 0 ITEM NO. 6i DATE: February 5, 1997 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: AWARD OF BID TO WEST STAR DISTRIBUTING FOR THE FIVE YEAR LEASE PURCHASE OF TORO MODEL 6500D FAIRWAY MOWER, IN THE AMOUNT OF $39,342.76 Staff has requested and received bids from three distributors for a Toro Model 6500D Reelmaster mower for use on the fairways. Bids were requested from West Star Distributing and California Turf for Toro models and H.V. Carter for a comparable Jacobson model. As the Golf Course budget for FY 96/97 was approved for a lease purchase with an annual amount not to exceed $8,500, all bids were requested in lease format. Due to the total price of the equipment exceeding $30,000 lease terms were requested for a five year period in order to remain below the annual allocation of $85,000. West Star distributing has submitted the lowest bid with a five year lease in the amount of four annual payments of $7,868.50 and a fifth payment of $7,868.76. H.V.Carter offers only a 36 month lease which would result in an annual payment of $13,615. California Turf did not offer any lease purchase terms and was also the highest bidder. The bid sheets for all three suppliers are attached to this report as well as the City of Ukiah budget excerpt indicating the appropriated funds for this purchase. As the bid provided by West Star Distributing does comply with all specifications of the bid request and lease purchase terms comply with approved budget limitations, staff is recommending award of bid to West Star. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Award bid to West Star Distributing for the five year lease purchase of Toro model 6500D Reelmaster fairway mower, in the amount of $39,342.76. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Award bid to one of the alternative firms according to terms and conditions as provided in the attached bid sheets. 2. Determine none of the bids are acceptable and remand to staff for rebid. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Acct. No.: 695.6120.255 Appropriation Requested: N/A (if budgeted) Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: N/A Prepared by: Larry W. DeKnoblough, Community Services Director Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: 1. Bid sheets 2. Budget excerpt Can~ce'Horsley, ~i~, ~anager 4:LGia'mow~r 1t. ~. Carter Co. Inc. Garden,Golf Course and T~ Eq~pm~t 4~71 ~yo Vista ~ ~v~ore, Ca. 94550 Phon~510)44~5~3 The following quote is exclusively przpared for: ACCOUNT: Ukl~ Municipal Golf Course ADDRESS: CITY/$TATEAr. lp: ATTENTION: Chuck PHONE: DZSCRn, t~O~ Jacobsen 3810 4/WD (Demo) Month Lease with delivery in January .... $1,134.60~month 2 year warranty on this machine. TERMS; Net 15 FIRM FOR THE NEXT 30 DAYS SUB-TOTAL: $34,500 SALES TAX: 2,501 FREIGHT: no charge TOTAL: $37,001 PREPARED BY: David Trieschman DATE: 1\8\97 -I-- Date: January 9, ![997 CALIFORtXlIA TURF City of Ukiah Golf Course 506 Park Blvd. Ukiah, CA 95482 A~.: Chuck Watson Phone: Fax: (707) 467-2804 Relenting to your request for prices, we wish to quote as follows: Qty Model I 03801 5 03854 1 93-2962 I 93-2967 1 85-4750 1 95-871 -SL De..scription Reelmaster 6500-D 4WD 5 Blade Cutting Unit Rear Roller Scraper Kit Front Roller Scraper Hm~d Held Diagnostic Kit 6000 Series Service Manual Pric~ *Lease Information* No residual payment, monthly paymets with first payment due on delivery. 36 months ~ $1,470.00 48 months (~} $1,158.00 60 months (¢ $ 972.00 Total $42,310.00 Sub Total $42,3 I0.00 Tax $ 3,279.03 Total $45,589.03 Quote is firm for 30 days. Note: Quote includes sales tax For further information please contact: Joe Montclconc [-I 16~65 VIA ESPRILLO SAN i.)iI-GO, CAI. IFORNIA 92127 [6}9} 67'~-6700 Sincerely, [] 955 BEACON STREET BREA,, CALIFORNIA 9262 I [714) 990- i 490 [] 7*9-253 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE. BERMUDA DUNES, CAt. lkORNIA 92201 (619} 360--8070 AN, 24, 199~' '~. N~WEST STAR DIST N0, 2~34 PROI Payrr Numl LEASE/PURCHASE FINANCING PROPOSAL FOR CITY OF UKIAH. CALIFORNI,~ )OSAL# 26784 REVISED OPTION ~1 OPTION #2 ents ,er of Payments PaYment Timing Payment Amount Payment Factor Unde~riting Fee Total Amount Funded Annual Percentage Rate OPTION #3 In Advance In Arrears In Advance 5 5 5 Ann ual An nual Annual $8,075.41 $8,567.55 $9,211.24 0.223760 0.237396 0.223760 $300 paid on ' $300 paid on $300 paid on execution of execution of execution of documents documents documents $36,089.63 $36,089.63 $41,165.72 5.95% 6.00% 5.95% Payments In A~rears In Advance Number of Payments 5 5 Paym,ent Timing Annual Annual* Payment Amount $9,772.59 4 ~ $7,868.50, I ', 1 ~ $7,868.76 Paym6nt Factor 0.237396 Unde :n~riting Fee $300 paid on $300 paid on } execution of execution of i documents documents Total Amount Funded $41,165..72 $36,089.63 Annual Percentage Rate 6.00% 5.95% *l~t[,I pmt due 3157 upon deliverY.oPTiON2nd pmt#4 due 8197~r. DOCUMENTATION AND FUNDING MUST RE COMPLETED BY: APRIL 30, 1997 ! 6500D Reelmaster Ne~ 1997 Model 8500D Re®lmaster Toro 1 03/1997 $41,165.72 [TOTAL EQUIPMENT COST AFTER DOWN/TRADE $36,089.63 or $41,165.72 tl24/97 12:48 PM - ~ - Page I of 2 ITEM NO. 8a DATE: February 5, 1997 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FEES TO BE IMPOSED ON DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK SUMMARY: This item was opened for public hearing at the City Council meeting of January 15, 1997 and continued to this meeting for further consideration. Staff has revised the Engineering Report (Attachment 2) based on concerns raised by one of the developers of the Airport Industrial Park (ALP). Staff has reduced the total retail floor area within the AlP by approximately 100,000 square feet and has requested W-Trans, Inc. to revise and update their traffic analysis (Attachment 3) based on the reduction in the size of the retail development. A typographical error has been corrected in the resolution. The original agenda summary dated January 15, 1997 has been revised to reflect the revised fees per land use. These documents are submitted for your consideration and approval. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Approve the Engineering Report and adopt the resolution establishing capital improvement fees to be imposed on development within the Airport Industrial Park. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Not adopt the resolution establishing capital improvement fees and return to staff for development of alternative measures. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Acct. No.: Appropriation Requested: N/A (if budgeted) Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Rick Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engine_er, ~.~--- Prepared by: Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works~J,J~ Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Rick Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Attachments: 1. Resolution for adoption 2. Engineering Report dated January 29, 1997 3. W-Trans Airport/Redwood Business Park - Traffic Analysis, dated January 29, 1997 4. Agenda Summary Report-Revised, dated January 15, 1997 5. Excerpt from Municipal Code APPROVED: RJS:AGCIF4.SUM Candace Horsley, City Manager 5 6 ? 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 25 26 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ESTABLISHING THE AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FEES WITHIN THE CITY OF UKIAH WHEREAS, the Ukiah City Council has adopted Ordinance No. 882 creating and establishing the authority for imposing and charging off-site capital improvement fees within the City of Ukiah; and WHEREAS, a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) entitled "Redwood Business Park and Airport Business Park Final Subsequent EIR" was prepared by Leonard Charles and Associates which identified and assessed the impacts that would result from the buildout of the Airport Industrial Park (AIP); and WHEREAS, the Engineering Report for the Establishment of Airport Industrial Park Capital Improvement Fees (hereinafter "Report") has examined the impact of contemplated future development on existing public facilities identified in the Report along with an analysis of the need for new public facilities and improvements required by this new development. The Report sets forth the relationship between new development in this study area, the needed facilities, and the estimated costs of those improvements. The Report was prepared by the Public Works Department of the City of Ukiah, is dated January 29, 1997, and is attached herein and incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit "A". WHEREAS, the Report was available for public inspection and review ten (10) days prior to the public hearing on this resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows: a. The purpose of these fees is to finance off-site capital improvements as described in the Report in order to reduce the impacts of increased vehicle and pedestrian traffic caused by new development within the Airport Industrial Park 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 19. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 25 26 27 28 b. Co do e. which is identified and described in the map of the study area, attached hereto as Attachment "A" of Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. The capital improvement fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used to finance only the public facilities described or identified in Exhibit "A", attached herein. After considering the Report and the testimony received at the public hearing, the Council approves the Report, and incorporates such herein, and further finds that the new development in the area identified in Attachment "A" will generate additional vehicle and pedestrian traffic and require the identified off-site capital improvements. New development in the Airport Industrial Park has or will create the need for off-site capital improvements to service project traffic generated by the development with the Airport Industrial Park. The facts and evidence presented establish that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the described public facilities and the impacts of the types of land use for which fees are established in Paragraph 2 below, for which the corresponding fee is charged. There is a reasonable relationship between the fee' s use and the type of land use for which the fee is charged. The fee charged to each development bears a reasonable relationship to the need for the public improvement contributed by the development. All of these relationships are in more detail described in the Report. The cost estimates set forth in Exhibit "A" are reasonable cost estimates for constructing these facilities, and the fees expected to be generated by new development will not exceed the total of these costs. 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 19. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 25 26 27 28 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Ukiah that: 1. Airport Industrial Park Capital Improvement Fees shall be charged upon and paid prior to the issuance of any permit for all new development in the Airport Industrial Park depicted and described on the map attached hereto as Attachment "A" of Exhibit "A" except as otherwise specifically provided in Ukiah City Code Section 9543. No certificate of occupancy or permit, as appropriate, shall be issued until the required fees are paid. "Permit", "Inspections", and "Certificate of Occupancy", as used in this Section, have the same meaning and application as described in Sections 106, 108, and 109, respectively, of the currently adopted edition of the Uniform Building Code, International Conference of Building Officials. 2. Fee. The fees for constructing the off-site capital improvements are identified on Attachment "I" of Exhibit "A". The fees per acre of developable land based on proposed land use are as follows: Restaurant $19,010.61; Office/Retail $7,505.75; Retail $12,438.07; Wal-Mart Expansion $11,932.35; Industrial $2,618.39; Auto Dealership $8,131.72; and Auto Parts/Auto Care $12,364.67. 3. Use of Fee. The fee shall be used solely to pay (1) for the described public facilities to be constructed by the City; (2) for reimbursing the City for the development's fair share of those capital improvements already constructed by the City; or (3) to reimburse other developers who have constructed public facilities described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, where those facilities were beyond that needed to mitigate the impacts of the other developer's project or projects. 1 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 19. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 0.2 23 25 26 4. Fee Review. If any fees collected pursuant to this resolution remain unexpended five (5) years after collecting any such fees, the City shall review the fees if and as required by Government Code Section 66001(d) or any amendments thereto. If some, but not all, fees collected pursuant to this resolution are expended as authorized herein, it shall be conclusively presumed that the fees first received are the fees first expended. 5. Judicial action to Challenge this Resolution. Any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul this resolution shall be brought within 120 days from the date this resolution is adopted. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1997, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Sheridan Malone Mayor ATTEST: Colleen Henderson City Clerk B:I\RESI :KK IMPFEES.AIP ENGINEERING REPORT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FEES January 29, 1997 Executive Summary The proposed capital improvement fees will be established in accordance with the City of Ukiah, Municipal Code Division 9, Chapter 5, Article 2, Section 9543. The fees are required to provide necessary off-site capital improvements resulting exclusively from the development of the Airport Industrial Park (ALP) as shown within the boundary on Attachment "A." The fees will be assessed to those properties within the AlP as development occurs. Due to the increased traffic volumes resulting from development of the AlP, off-site improvements will be needed at three intersections: Talmage Road and US 101 southbound exit ramp, Talmage Road and Airport Park Boulevard, and South State Street/VVashington Avenue/Hastings Avenue. As each parcel within the AlP is developed, fees will be assessed and collected at the time the building permits are applied for. Since each parcel developed within the AlP will generate additional traffic, the City will see a corresponding impact in traffic conditions at the three intersections identified in this report for improvement. At this time, City staff does not propose that fees be collected for the construction of off- site improvements to the US 101 Northbound exit ramp to Talmage Road and the US 101 Southbound exit ramp to Talmage Road. City staff does not believe work on these ramps will be warranted within the projected 5-year build out of the AlP. If warranted City staff will propose an assessment district to obtain funds necessary to construct improvements to the ramps. Staff is of the opinion that construction of the US Highway 101 ramp improvements would be at a high cost that would unduly impact the AlP with little benefit to the overall improvement of traffic flow in the area. The estimated cost of improvements to the US 101 Northbound and US 101 Southbound exit ramps, including signalization, is $458,420.00 (in 1997 dollars). Staff has, however, included improvements to Talmage Road in the vicinity of the southbound US 101 exit ramp. In addition, correspondence from Ms. Linda Goff Evans, Caltrans, dated November 2, 1995 states that Caltrans does not recommend installing a second right-turn lane on the Southbound off ramp for US Highway 101 at Talmage Road until a traffic signal is constructed. Ms. Evans indicates that standard practice for traffic signal construction involves meeting signal warrants. Ms. Evans also stated that selection of a traffic signal for an intersection should also be based on the net overall impact of the signal to the intersection. Traffic signals may, in fact, increase the overall delay at an intersection as well as certain types of accidents. Page 2 Engineering Report for the Establishment of Airport Industrial Park Capital Improvement Fees January 29, 1997 The Capital Improvement Fees to be charged development within the AlP have been calculated based on the addition of project traffic only. Level of Service Evaluation Table 5 of the W-Trans Airport/Redwood Business Park, Traffic Analysis dated January 29, 1997, page 14, Attachment "B," specifies the Level's of Service (LOS) for the intersections affected by project traffic. With existing traffic volumes, the intersection of South State Street and Talmage Road operates at an LOS of C. With the addition of project traffic, this intersection is projected to operate at LOS C. Although the SEIR recommends mitigations for the South State Street/Talmage Road intersection, the City has subsequently adopted its Revised General Plan which accepts LOS D (as a minimum) for intersections. With existing traffic volumes, the intersection of Talmage Road and Airport Park Boulevard operates at LOS of B. With the addition of project traffic, this intersection is projected to operate at LOS D with the northbound left turn lane operating at LOS E and the westbound left turn lane operating at LOS F. With existing traffic volumes, the intersection of South State Street and Washington Avenue/Hastings Avenue operates at an LOS of B. With the addition of project traffic, this intersection is projected to operate at LOS F with the westbound approach operating at LOS F. Although the US 101 southbound exit ramp at Talmage Road currently operates (with existing traffic) at a LOS C for right turn movements, the southbound right turn lane from this ramp is projected to operate at a LOS E with the addition of project traffic. As such, the City is proposing the widening of Talmage Road on the northbound side to allow a "free" right turn from this ramp. Although the SEIR considered a southern access to the AlP by extending a road south to Norgard Lane, staff does not envision this access being needed. Staff has therefore assumed that projected, project Norgard Lane traffic will utilize the Hastings Avenue to access the AlP. The City did not experience a reduction in service levels at the two intersections prior to initial development of the AlP and all improvements recommended in this report will only benefit the AlP traffic. For this reason City staff has recommended that the Page 3 Engineering Report for the Establishment of Airport Industrial Park Capital Improvement Fees January 29, 1997 developers of the AlP shall be the sole contributors of funds needed to improve the three identified intersections. The AlP developments generate the traffic which causes the impacts identified in the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report to the City's existing intersections. City staff does not propose to require the developers to pay for improvements resulting from cumulative traffic impacts. Amount of Fee The fee is established based on the total estimated capital costs needed to construct the identified improvements. As shown on Attachment "1" the total fee is distributed to each land use as a percentage of the respective land use's boundary PM peak hour traffic volume compared to total boundary traffic. The total fee needed to construct the following capital improvements in the year 2002 with full build out of the AlP is projected to be $727,136. This amount is based on cost estimates prepared by Boyle Engineering Corporation, April 12, 1996, and updated by staff in January 1997. Please refer to Attachments "C, D, E, F, G, and H." The cost estimate for South State Street and Washington Avenue/Hastings Avenue (Attachment "H") has been modified to include structure demolition and land acquisition. Capital Improvements to be Constructed with these Fees The W-Trans Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis dated January 29, 1997 identifies mitigations beginning on page 15 for the proposed AlP. Staff has determined that at present the identified mitigations for the US 101 northbound exit ramp/Talmage Road and the traffic signal with the second left turn lane for the US 101 southbound exit ramp at Talmage Road as mentioned in the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report will not need to be constructed within the next five years. The three locations requiring improvements are: Talmage Road/US 101 Southbound Exit Ramp. Improvements at this location will involve the widening of Talmage Road on the north side for a length of 320 feet west of the intersection of Talmage Road/US 101 Southbound Exit Ramp. This improvement will enhance traffic flows by allowing a free right turn from the exit ramp onto Talmage Road. In addition this proposed work will address safety issues related to sight distance for vehicles turning west from the ramp onto Talmage Road. Please refer to Attachment "C" for the proposed layout of the intersection. This will mitigate the projected LOS E (with project traffic) for the right turn movement at this intersection. Page 4 Engineering Report for the Establishment of Airport Industrial Park Capital Improvement Fees January 29, 1997 Talmage Road/Airport Park Boulevard. This intersection will be modified to provide two westbound left turn lanes. The northbound lanes will be restriped to allow three separate lanes: a single left turn, a combined through-left turn lane, and a right turn. Please refer to Attachment "E" for the proposed layout of the intersection. South State Street/Washington Avenue/Hastings Avenue. Improvements to this intersection would require the construction of a separate left turn lane, a separate through lane and a combined through-right turn lane on the northbound approaches on South State Street. A separate right turn only lane, a separate through lane, and a separate left turn lane will be constructed on the Hastings Avenue westbound approach. Construction of the right turn lane would require land and structure acquisition and demolition of a structure located at the northeast corner of this intersection. The curb return at the southeast corner will be reconstructed to allow for truck turning movements. The Washington Avenue approach would be restriped to allow for a combined through-right turn lane and a separate left turn lane. Please refer to Attachment "G" for the proposed layout of the intersection. Estimated Cost of Capital Improvements Costs were taken from estimates prepared by Boyle Engineering Corporation, Attachments "D," "F," and "H." Talmage Road/US 101 Southbound Exit Ramp Talmage Road/Airport Park Boulevard South State Street/Washington Avenue/Hastings Avenue SUBTOTAL Engineering, Administration, & Project Inspection at 32% Contingencies at 20% TOTAL in 1997 dollars $ 39,410 $ 19,600 $323,125 $382,135 $122,283 $ 76,427 $580,845 Calculated amount needed for construction in the year 2002 An average annual inflation rate of 4% for 5 years will be utilized to account for the unknown receipt of capital improvement fees from development projects. Any accrued interest (and principal) not utilized will be redistributed to developers upon completion of construction of all identified improvements in this report. Page 5 Engineering Report for the Establishment of Airport Industrial Park Capital Improvement Fees January 29, 1997 per formula, Future Value = Present Value (1 + i)n Present Value - $580,845; i - 4% - 0.04; n - 5 years Therefore, future value = $ 706,686 Future Value = $ 706,686 Add $ 6,700 Add $ 10,000 Add $ 3,75O Total Fee $ 727,136 (Traffic Studies, Oct. 1996 to Jan. 1997) ($2,000 per year traffic volume counts & intersection LOS analysis) (annual administration fee) Application of Fee These capital improvement fees shall be applied to all development within the AlP excluding the existing Walmart, the US Geological Survey (lot id #19), the Redwood Coast Regional Center (lot id #8), the Talmage Professional Center (lot id #2), the Talmage Office Park (lot id #3), and North Cai Wood Products (lot id ~4). The Talmage Professional Center, the Talmage Office Park, and North Cai Wood Products have been previously developed and do not contribute to project traffic. The US Geological Survey and the Redwood Coast Regional Center were developed prior to the traffic counts which were taken for the revised traffic study and are already included in existing traffic volumes and will not add to project traffic volumes. The total cost of the capital improvements will be distributed according to six land uses in the AlP. Please refer to Attachment "1" for the percent distribution based on land use. This distribution is based on data from Table 4 of the W-Trans, Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis dated January 29, 1997, page 11, Attachment "J." Although traffic projections were not indicated for the vineyard at the south end of the AlP it is assumed that this land (which is zoned industrial) will generate the same percentage of traffic as the Redwood Business Park and Airport Business Park industrial land. The fee totals per land use from Attachment "1" were divided by the total acreage for each land use to obtain a fee per acre for the respective land use. On Attachment "K" the parcel's within the AlP have been identified with their respective fees. The fees have been calculated based on "developable" acreage. This is defined as that Page 6 Engineering Report for the Establishment of Airport Industrial Park Capital Improvement Fees January 29, 1997 land which can be developed and utilized by prospective land owners including any proposed roadways other than Airport Park Boulevard and Commerce Drive from Airport Road to its terminus at US Highway 101. Attachment "K" lists "developable" land acreage by Assessor's Parcel Number for each of the properties within the AlP. The acreages identified are those which can be developed. The Environmental Impact Reports for the AlP indicate some "wetland" and "riparian" areas. For the purposes of this report, staff has assumed that there is a total of 3.0 acres of wet meadow/riparian habitat, a total of 1.05 acres of pond area, and a total of 1.38 acres for the extension of Airport Park Boulevard as currently approved and under construction within a portion of lot number 30 identified on Attachment "A." Summary As identified on pages three and four of this report, the capital improvements recommended for construction will only mitigate the traffic impacts created by the addition of project related traffic. The proposed improvements at each of the three locations do not restore the LOS to the existing LOS prior to construction of the AlP. Therefore, the existing traffic (not project traffic) will not see a return to the LOS at the respective locations prior to project construction at the AlP. C'IT¥ OF U~'IAH ATTACHMENT "B" in Table 5 and arc identified as "Ctunulativc". Thc Cumulative level of service calculations arc included in Appendix D. Under the Cumulative conditions, thc intersection of South State Street/'ralmage Road would be expected to operate with an average delay of 26.6 seconds per vehicle and a LOS D. The intersection of South State Street/Hastings Avenue would be expected to operate with a delay of 241.9 seconds per vehicle and a LOS F. The intersection of Talmage Road/Airport Park Boulevard would be expected to operate with an average delay of 38.6 seconds per vehicle and a LOS D. The southbound off-ramp movement at the intersection of Talmage Road/U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp would be expected to operate with an average delay of 75.4 seconds per vehicle and a LOS F. Table 5 Summary of Intersection Operations (Weekday P.M. Peak Hour) i Intersection Existing Existing plus Project Cumulative Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 1. South State Street/Talmage Road 21.6 C_. 24.0 C 26.6 D Northbound Through/Right 17.7 C 18.4 C 18.8 C Southbound Left/Through 25.5 D 31.2 D 37.7 D Westbound Left 26.7 ' D 26.7 D 27.2 D Westbound Right 16.3 C 17.6 C 17.6 C 2. South State Street/Hastings Avenue 10.0 13 125,5. F ~241,9. F Northbound Left 18.2 C 18.2 C 18.3 C Northbound Through/Right 11.3 'B 57.0 E 62.6 F Southbound Left 18.0 C 19.5 C 19.6 C Southbound Through/Right 7.1 B 11.2 13 11.5 B Eastbound Approach 14.3 B 13.9 B 27.4 D Westbound Approach 14.3 B 586 F 999+ F 3. Airport Park Boulcvard/ralmage Road ! 3.2 13 ~28.4 D ~58.6 D_ Northbound Left 22.2 C 47.8 E 69.9 F Northbound Through/Right 15.5 C 21.4 C 34.0 D Southbound Left 24.6 C 24.6 C 24.7 C Southbound Through/Right 19.1 C 19.5 C 19.8 C Eastbound Left 23.8 C 21.2 C 21.3 C Eastbound Through/Right 11.2 B 14.4 B 14.7 B Westbound Left 24.9 C 75.4 F 105.2 F Westbound Through/Right 7.3 B 8.4 B 8.5 B 4. U.S. 101 SB-Rampsfralmage Road 3.3 A 10.7 C ~0.0 C_ Southbound Right 12.2 C 38.8 E 75.4 F Notes: Delay = average delay per vehicle in seconds, LOS = level ofservicc, XX'4 = overall intersection level of service Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. City of Ukiah Page 14 January 29, 1997 . ATTACHMENT "C" i ,i //I '~ ~'~ TALMAGE ROAD .... ~._~-.~ .... ~ .~~ ......... Cl~ OF UKIAH INTERSECTION P-4 IMPROVEMENTS  ~~ DATE ~ 4/12/96 ~~ R~ISIONS ATTACHMENT "D" CITY OF UKIAH Cost Estimate for Talmage Road and Southbound US 101 Based on Cost Estimates Prepared by Boyle Engineering on April 12, 1996 Reference Boyle Engineering Drawing No. P-4 Prepared By: Rick Seanor Date & Time Printed: 1/30/97 10:02 Item Estimated Unit of No. Item Quantity Measure Unit Price Total Price 1 Clearing & Grubbing 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 2 Sawcut AC 400 LF $2.00 $800.00 3 Roadway Excavation 150 CY $25.00 $3,750.00 4 Remove Concrete Sidewalk, C&G 2,000 SF $2.00 $4,000.00 5 Construct Wheelchair Ramp 1 EA $2,400.00 $2,400.00 6 Construct Curb & Gutter 320 LF $20.00 $6,400.00 7 Construct Sidewalk 300 LF $25.00 $7,500.00 8 Aggregate Base 200 TON $20.00 $4,000.00 9 Asphalt Concrete 70 TON $52.00 $3,640.00 10 Place Traffic Stripe 400 LF $1.00 $400.00 11 Place Pavement Marking 130 SF $4.00 $520.00 12 Right of Way and Permits 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00 Subtotal $39,410.00 ATTACHMENT "E" · i .f--_.Z~.. "'C.f___~. x,,.>. RE:LOCAT[ TRAmC S,ONAL-7 I-1;. 't ..... ~, ~;~.'~. LOOPS we APPROACH ! I . .'.'.' POLE ~ ,._ ~RELOCATF* TRAFFIC SIGNAL I LOOPS NB APPROACH ~, v ,' I .... fl.. , !~.:..... · .I ~ ".v. i ~ ~ .... ~' i ! ".'.'. ,~Rox. $¢~£: ~'-~o' ".:.:-: VJ I b c. I~ OT ~ E t o~¢T~c. TE , ~[SC~T~ou s.£rr CI'W' OF UKIAH INTERSECTION P-3 IMPROVEMENTS / ~.~, DAlE ~¢:~,~m REVISIONS ATTACHMENT "F" CITY OF UKIAH Cost Estimate for Talmage Road and Airport Park Boulevard Based on Cost Estimates Prepared by Boyle Engineering on April 12, 1996 Reference Boyle Engineering Drawing No. P-3 Prepared By: Rick Seanor Date & Time Printed: 1/30/97 10:04 Item Estimated Unit of No. Item Quantity Measure Unit Price Total Price 1 Place Traffic Stripe 3,000 LF $1.00 $3,000.00 2 Place Pavement Marking 400 SF $4.00 $1,600.00 3 Modify Traffic Signal & Detector Loops 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000.00 Subtotal $19,600.00 ATTACHMENT "G" I ; ! , I , I ~ IS'~_Ilt_l RELOCATE TRAFF1C ~ LLI SIGHAL LOOPS SB APPROACH ~ APPROX. SC,,U.£: 1'-40' ~ST~ ,.~ I ~ __ /!! '~ ~ J I ~ RELOCATE SIGNAL, STANDARD SIGNAL LOOPS ~ ; ,~,! ~ '~' i~ EB APPROACH--1 // ~l Y l ::_¥¥ .... ::.:: ............ -I- .... "C,:~ ::---~~~ , ............ ::': L ..... 7_2 ..... ~ '.' .-~ ' ". ",,,, ~,_:~:,:-: ~ '..~ ~-INST~L N~ S~NAL ~LE ~ RELATE T~ I S~ L~PS i ~ ~PR~H ' ' DESCRIPTION SHE~ NO. c~ o~ U~H INTERSECTION P-1 IMPROVEMENTS ,. "DATE -,-~~ , , 4/~ 2/~ ~~ R~SIONS i lit _1?__1t':~Ir _ ATTACHMENT "H" CITY OF UKIAH I Cost Estimate for South State Street and Washington Ave./Hastings Ave. Based on Cost Estimates Prepared by Boyle Engineering on April 12, 1996 Reference Boyle Engineering Drawing No. P-1 Prepared By' Rick Seanor Date & Time Printed: 1/30/97 10:05 Item Estimated Unit of No. Item Quantity Measure Unit Price Total Price 1 Clearing & Grubbing 1 LS $2,500.00 $2,500.00 2 Sawcut AC 300 LF $2.00 $600.00 3 Relocate Utilities 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 4 Reset Water Valve to Grade 3 EA $400.00 $1,200.00 5 Roadway Excavation 200 CY $25.00 $5,000.00 6 Construct Wheelchair Ramp 2 EA $2,400.00 $4,800.00 7 Construct Curb & Gutter 500 LF $20.00 $10,000.00 8 Construct Sidewalk 500 LF $25.00 $12,500.00 9 Aggregate Base 200 TON $20.00 $4,000.00 10 Asphalt Concrete 150 TON $52.00 $7,800.00 11 Place Traffic Stripe 1,625 LF $1.00 $1,625.00 12 Place Pavement Marking 100 SF $4.00 $400.00 13 Modify Traffic Signal & Detector Loops 1 LS $60,000.00 $60,000.00 14 Structure Acquisition 1 LS $70,000.00 $70,000.00 15 Land Acquisition 1 LS $127,700.00 $127,700.00 16 Demolition of Structure 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Subtotal $323,125.00 ~m, mm mm, mm, Z ATTACHMENT "J" Table 4 - Proje,ct Trip Generation Summary Land Use Number P.M. Peak Hour of Units Trip Rate In Out Total Per Unit Restaurant 5.0 ksf 12.92 36 28 64 Primary/Diverted Trips (60%) 22 17 39 (Internal Trips) (3) (3) (6) Pass-by Trips (40%) ' 14 11 25 Oflic~/Retail 67.0 ksf 1.50 IS 85. 100 Industrial Park 373.5 ksf 0.91 74 266 340 Auto Dealership (4.09 Acres) 33.9 ksf 2.62 37 52 89 Primary/Diverted Trips (72%) 27 3 7 64 (Internal Trips) (7) (9) (16) Pass-by Trips (28%) 10 15 25 Auto Parts/Auto Care (12,27 Acres) 101.6 ksf 4.00 178 228 406 Primary/Diverted Trips (72%) 128 164 292 (Internal Trips) 02) (41) (73) Pass-by Trips (28%) 50 64 114 Retail 198.1 ksf 3.98 394 394 788 Primary/Diverted Trips (72%) 284 284 568 (Internal Trips) (94) (94) (188) Pass-by Trips (28%) 110 110 220 Wal-Mart Expansion 18.0 ksf 3.98 36 36 72 Primary/Diverted Trips (72%) 26 26 52 (Internal Trips) (3) (3) (6) Pass-by Trips (28%) 10 10 20 Lot #12 Retail 8.3 ksf 3.98 17 17 .34 Primary/Diverted Trips (72%) · 12 12 24 (Internal Trips) (4) (4) (8) ~',~.¥ rri£~ (2s%) . ~ ~ ~ o Total Trips 787 1,106 1,893 Total Primary/Diverted Trips 588 891 1,479 (Internal Trips) (143) (154) (297) Total Pass-by Trips 199 215 414 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Source: Trip Generation, 5th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1991 and the 1995 Update k.s.f. --- 1000 square feet (Internal Trips) = Those "Primary/Diverted Trips" which stay within the Airport/Redwood Business Park area. Building Floor Area to Land Area Coverage = 8,274 square feet/acre Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis ~.[!~ & ~einberger Tr~pO~aation, Inc. Page 11 City of Ukiah January 29, 1997 ATTACHMENT "K" !CITY OF UKIAH I SUMMARY OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FEES BY PARCEL NUMBER AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK Prepared By: Rick Seanor Date & Time Printed: 1/30/97 9:49 Lot Assessor's ID Parcel No. Land Use Acreage Fee No. 1 180-070-36 Restaurant 1.39 $26,424.74 SUBTOTAL (RESTAURANT) 1.39 $26,424.74 2 180-070-01 Talmage Prof. Ctr. 0.00 $0.00 3 180-070-02 Talmage Office Pk 0.00 $0.00 4 180-070-03 North Cai Wood 0.00 $0.00 6 180-070-29 Office/Retail 1.22 $9,157.01 7 180-070-28 Office/Retail 1.53 $11,483.80 8 180-070-27 R.C. Regional Ctr. 0.00 $0.00 9 180-070-26 Office/Retail 1.21 $9,081.96 10 180-070-25 Office/Retail 1.09 $8,181.27 11 180-070-24 Office/Retail 1.02 $7,655.86 SUBTOTAL (OFFICE/RETAIL) 6.07 $45,559.90 5 180-070-38 Walmart (Existing) 0.00 $0.00 12 180-080-41 Retail 1.00 $12,438.07 13 180-080-49 Retail 6.52 $81,096.22 14 180-080-43 Retail 4.90 $60,946.55 15 180-080-44 Retail 7.35 $91,41 9.82 16 180-080-45 Retail 3.16 $39,304.30 SUBTOTAL (RETAIL) 22.93 $285,204.97 I 5 180-070-38 I Walmart (Expansion) 2.52 $30,069.53 SUBTOTAL (WALMART EXPANSION) 2.52 $30,069.53 17 180-080-16 Industrial 2.96 $7,750.42 18 180-080-25 Industrial 3.54 $9,269.08 19 180-080-26 U.S. Geol. Survey 0.00 $0.00 20 180-080-19 Industrial 1.00 $2,618.39 21 180-080-22 Industrial 2.23 $5,839.00 22 180-080-27 Industrial 4.49 $11,756.55 23 180-080-28 Industrial 4.59 $12,018.39 24 180-080-29 Industrial 4.60 $12,044.57 25 180-080-30 Industrial 5.56 $14,558.22 28 180-110-02 Industrial 4.62 $12,096.94 29 180-110-07 Industrial 9.00 $23,565.47 30 180-110-06 Industrial 9.57 $25,057.94 31 180-120-04 Industrial 5.80 $15,186.63 32 184-080-01 Industrial 1.20 $3,142.06 SUBTOTAL (INDUSTRIAL) 59.16 $154,903.66 26/27 Portion of 180-080-46/47 Auto Dealership 4.09 $33,258.73 26/27 Portion of 180-080-47/46 Auto Parts/Auto Care 12.27 $151,714.47 SUBTOTAL (AUTO DEALERSHIP/AUTO PARTS/AUTO CARE) 16.36 $184,973.19 Table of Contents Introduction and Summary ................................................... 1 Study Parameters ........................................................... 3 Pass-Through Traffic ........................................................ 7 Project Generated Traffic Volumes .............................................. 9 Evaluation of Intersection Operations ........................................... 13 Mitigation Alternatives ..................................................... 15 Study Participants And References ............................................ 17 Figures 1 Study Area ......................................................................... 4 2 Existing Pass-Through Traffic Volumes .................................................. 8 3 Project Traffic Volumes .......... ' ................................................... 12 Tables Intersection Level of Service Criteria ................................................. 5 Intersection Level of Service Thresholds ............................................... 6 Level of Service Standard ^ltematives ................................................ 6 Project Trip Generation Summary ................................................... 11 Summary of Intersection Operations ................................................. 14 Appendices A Description of Intersection Capacity Analysis Methodologies B Intersection Level of Service Calculations - Existing Conditions C Intersection Level of Service Calculations - Existing Plus Project Conditions D Intersection Level of Service Calculations, Cumulative Plus Project Conditions E Intersection Level of Service Calculations - Mitigated Conditions Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page i City of Ukiah January 29, 1997 Introduction and Summary Introduction This report presents an analysis of the potential troffic impacts for thc Airport/Redwood Business Park in the City of Ukiah. The study area is located west of U.S. 101 along South State Street and Talmage Road. The analysis focused on four study intersections, South State Street/Talmage Road, South State Street/Hastings Avenue, Talmage Road/Airport Park Boulevard, and Talmage Road/U.S. 101 SB Ramps. Summary In total, the proposed mixed use development is anticipated to generate an average of 1,893 p.m. peak hour vehicle trips which includes 1,479 new/diverted trips external to the project area, 297 new trips internal to the project area, and 414 pass-by trips which currently exist on South State Street and Talmage Road. Under Existing Conditions before the opening of the Friedman Brothers store, the intersection of South State Streetfralmage Road is currently operating with an average delay of 21.6 seconds per vehicle and a LOS C. The intersection of South State Street/Hastings Avenue is currently operating with an average delay of 10.0 seconds per vehicle and a LOS B. The intersection of Talmage Road/Airport Park Drive is currently operating with an average delay of 13.2 seconds per vehicle and a LOS B. The southbound off-ramp movement at the intersection of Talmage Road/U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp is currently operating with an average delay of 12.2 seconds per vehicle and a LOS C. With the addition of the project traffic volumes, the South State Street/Talmage Road intersection would be expected to operate with an average delay of 24.0 seconds per vehicle and a LOS C. The intersection of South State Street/Hastings Avenue would be expected to operate with an average delay of 125.5 seconds per vehicle and a LOS F. IfNorgard Lane is not connected to the project from the south, the impacts of the project on the intersection of South State Street/Hastings Avenue would be slightly more than indicated here. The intersection of Talmage Road/Airport Park Boulevard would be expected to operate with an average delay of 28.4 seconds per vehicle and a LOS D. The southbound off-ramp movement at the intersection of Talmage Road/U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp would be expected to operate with an average delay of 38.8 seconds per vehicle and a LOS E. Under the conditions with the project and other future traffic growth fi'om other development, the intersection of South State Street/Talmage Road would be expected to operate with an average delay of 26.6 seconds per vehicle and a LOS D. The intersection of South State Street/Hastings Avenue would be expected to operate with a delay of 241.9 seconds per vehicle and a LOS F. The intersection of Talmage Road/Airport Park Boulevard would be expected to operate with an average delay of 38.6 seconds per vehicle and a LOS D. The southbound off-ramp movement at the intersection of Talmage Road/U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp would be expected to operate with an aVerage delay of 75.4 seconds per vehicle and a LOS F. The following mitigations are recommended at the study intersections with the addition of the project traffic volumes in order to operate at LOS C conditions or better. Slightly fewer improvements would be needed to operate at LOS D conditions or better. Intersection # 1 - South State Street/Talmage Road - It is recommended that the two southbound lanes be striped as one through lane and one left mm lane. The north-south signal phasing could then operate without the split phasing. It should be noted that this restriping would create a "trap" lane from the southbound left mm lane. An altemative would be to eliminate parking in order to stripe a southbound left turn lane in addition to the two Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page 1 City of Ukiah January 29, 1997 through lanes. Intersection #2 - South State Street/Hastings Avenue - Provide separate left, through and right turn lanes on the westbound approach, extend the two northbound through lanes to Talmage Road, and stripe a separate eastbound left mm lane. It should be noted that ifNorgard Lane is not connected to the project from the south, the impacts of the project on this intersection would be slightly more than indicated in this report. Therefore, these improvements would become more critical for the intersection to operate acceptably. Intersection #3 - Airport Park Boulevard/Talmage Road - Provide a second westbound left turn lane and a northbound approach which includes one left turn lane, one combined left/through lane, and one exclusive right turn lane. Inter~ti0n #4 - U.S. 101 SB Offramp/Talmage Road City staffhas previously determined that the ramp design/location and/or concrete barrier can't be modified in order to increase the sight distance. Therefore, in order to decrease delay to the southbound off ramp traffic and to address safety issues related to the sight distance at the ramp, it is recommended that a second westbound through lane on Talmage Road be extended back to the southbound offramp and allow the offramp traffic turning fight to mm into its own lane without conflict. Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page 2 City of Ukiah January 29, 1997 Study Parameters Study Area The study area includes the following intersections. . 2. 3. 4. South State Street/Talmage Road South State Street/Hastings Avenue Talmage Road/Airport Park Blvd. Talmage Road/U.S. 101 SB Ramps All of the study intersections are controlled by a traffic signal except for Talmage Road/U.S. 101 SB Ramps which is controlled by a stop sign on the southbound off-ramp approach to Talmage Road. The locations of the study intersections are shown in Figure 1. Study Period Sirffllar to the Airport/Redwood Business Park El~ Leonard Charles & Associates, the weekday p.m. peak hour conditions were analyzed. Evaluation Criteria The traffic analysis was completed based on methodologies and criteria contained in the following references. Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report No. 209, Transportation Research Board, 1994 Traffic Manual, California Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual, California Department of Transportation Lefi-Turn Channelization Design Guide, Transportation Research Board Intersection Level of Service Methodologies "Level of Service" (LOS) is used to rank traffic operation on various types of facilities based on traffic volumes and roadway capacity using a series of letter designations ranging from A to F. Generally, Level of Service A represents free flow conditions and Level of Service F represents forced flow or breakdown conditions. The methodology used for the intersection analysis in the Airport/Redwood Business Park EIR was the Intersection Capacity Utilization method. This method is described in Circular 212, "Interim Materials on Highway Capacity," Transportation Research Board, 1980. The Circular 212 methodology determines the movement which is critical, or controls the amount of green time necessary, on each approach. The critical movements for each approach are divided by their respective theoretical capacities and these volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratios are added together to obtain an intersection v/c ratio. The v/c ratio for the entire intersection is then related to a level of service, with a v/c of 1.0 considered to be at capacity and the upper limit of LOS E. This v/c approach is a theoretical ranking difficult for people to understand and relate to. By contrast, the intersection analysis in this evaluation utilizes methodologies from the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual. There are different methodologies for signalized intersections, two-way stop controlled intersections, and all-way stop controlled intersections. These methodologies are more data intensive: but also provide more understandable results. The signalized intersection methodology is based on average vehicular delay experienced at the intersection and takes into account factors such as pedestrian activity, flow characteristics, and actual signal Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page 3 City of Ukiah January 29, 1997 Talmage Road Washingfon Avenue slings Avenue £ Norgard Lo~o LEGEND No -Ih .... Future Roadways W Figure 1 StudyArea AirporCRedwood Business Park Traffic Analysis ~ .,~,~ ~,,~ ~, Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation Inc. City of Ukiah UKIOOS.DRW 12/96 timing. The new unsignalized methodology measures delay for each intersection approach or mOvement, as well as providing weighted average of vehicular delay for the entire intersection. Following is a summary of the Level of Service methodologies. The intersection Level of Service criteria are shown in Table 1. The intersection Level of Service thresholds for both signalized and unsignalized intersections are shown in Table 2. More complete descriptions of the methodologies and the Level of Service criteria are provided in Appendix A. Si~alized Intersection Level of Service Analysis Methodolo~ The study intersections which are currently signalized were analyzed using the Operations Method contained in the Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, Special Report No. 209, 1994. This methodology is based on factors including traffic volumes, green time for each movement, phasing, whether or not the signals are coordinated, truck traffic, and pedestrian activity. Average stopped delay per vehicle in seconds is used as the basis for evaluation in this LOS methodology. Unsi~alized Intersection Level of Service Analysis Methodolo~ The level of service for the unsignalized study intersection, or one which is controlled by a stop sign on the minor street approaches, was analyzed using the unsignalized intersection capacity method from the Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, Special Report No. 209, 1994. This method determines a level of service for each minor mining movement by estimating the level of average delay in seconds per vehicle. The through movements on the main street are assumed to operate essentially without delay. The methodology also determines an average delay and level of service for the intersection as a whole. Table 1 Intersection Level of Service Criteria Level of Type of Delay Maneuverability Service Flow A Stable Very slight or no delay. If signalized, no Turning movements are easily made, and Flow approach phase is fully utilized and no driver nearly all drivers find freedom of operation. waits through two red signals. B Stable Slight delay. If signalized, an occasional Vehicle platoons are formed. Many drivers Flow approach phase is fully utilized, begin to feel somewhat restricted within groups of vehicles. C Stable Acceptable delay. If signalized, a few drivers Back-ups may develop behind turning Flow arriving at the end of a queue may vehicles. Most drivers feel somewhat occasionally wait through one cycle, restricted. D Approaching Tolerable delay. Delays may be substantial Maneuverability is severely limited during Unstable during short periods, but excessive back ups short periods due to temporary back ups. Flow do not occur. E Unstable Flow Intolerable delay. Delay may be great--up to There are typically long queues of vehicles several signal cycles, waiting upstream of the intersection. F Forced Flow Excessive delay Jammed conditions. Back ups from one movement may restrict or prevent other movements. Reference: Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report No. 209, Transportation Research Board, 1994. dirport~edwood Business Park Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page 5 City of Ukiah January 29, 1997 Table 2 Intersection Level of Service Thresholds Level of Service A B C D E F Signalized Intersection Delay (Seconds per vehicle, average) < 5.0 5.1 to 15.0 15.1 to 25.0 25.1 to 40.0 40.1 to 60.0 > 60.0 Unsignalized Intersection Delay (seconds per vehicle, average) < 5.0 5.1 to 10.0 I0.1 to 20.0 20.1 to 30.0 30.1 to 45.0 > 45.0 Level of Service Standards The level of service standard used in the Airport/Redwood Business Park E/R traffic analysis was a minimum of Level of Service C. This analysis considers three alternative standards, Level of Service C, a mid Level of Service D, and a Level of Service D. These standards were applied to the intersection as a whole as well as individual critical movements. The maximum allowable delay for these alternatives is shown in Table 3. Table 3 Level of Service Standard Alternatives Level of Service Signalized Intersections ' Maximum Delay (seconds per vehicle, average) Unsignalized Intersections Maximum Delay (seconds per vehicle, average) C mid D D 25.0 32.5 40.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 Using a standard of a Level of Service D threshold is very common in most urbanized areas of California. There are some communities who use the slightly more maneuverable standard of mid LOS D. It is not unusual for smaller communities in California to utilize a LOS C standard. However, this level of operation becomes harder to achieve as more urbanized type development occurs. In developing mitigation measures to achieve these level of service standards, two types of intersection modifications were evah~_a_ted. These included additional lanes and traffic signal timing changes. Because signal timing changes may not be possible due to factors such as increased pedestrian use or coordination with other traffic signals, the use of signal timing changes to improve level of service was done on a limited basis. Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page 6 City of Ukiah January 29, 1997 Pass-Through Traffic Pass-through traffic in the Airport/Redwood Business Park was field surveyed and estimated based on those surveys. Pass-through traffic is defined as traffic which does not have an origin or destination in the business park such as at Wal-Mart and Friedman's Brothers but travels on Airport Park Boulevard. In order to quantify the actual volume of pass-through traffic, the following field methodology for an origin and destination (O&D) study was used. 1. Field crew recorded vehicle license plates in both directions at the following locations. Airport Park Boulevard, immediately south of Talmage Road Commerce Drive, immediately east of entrance to lumber yard at Northeast comer of Airport Road/Commerce Drive. The O&D study was performed for one two-hour period between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 6, 1996. There did not appear to be any special events or nearby construction which might have affected the data collection. . The resulting database included vehicle license plate every five minutes for four locations - Airport Park Boulevard arrival (southbound), Airport Park Boulevard departure (northbound), Commerce Drive arrival (eastbound) and Commerce Drive departure (westbound). 4. The database was evaluated to determine matches between: · Airport Park Boulevard arrival (southbound) and Commerce Drive departure (westbound) · Commerce Drive arrival (eastbound) and Airport Park Boulevard departure (northbound) License plate matches were done for a 15 minute increment. For example, if a license is recorded at Airport Park Boulevard Southbound between 4:00 - 4:05 p.m. and is matched at Commerce Drive Westbound between 4:00 - 4:20 p.m., the vehicle was considered as pass-through traffic. However, if a license is recorded at Airport Park Boulevard Southbound between 4:00 - 4:05 p.m. and is matched at Commerce Drive Westbound later than 4:20 p.m., the vehicle was not considered as pass-through traffic. The data revealed that during the p.m. peak hour there are approximately 9 vehicles traveling in the northbound direction on Airport Park Boulevard approaching Talmage Road which are traveling through and not related to land uses within the new commercial area and 24 vehicles traveling in the southbound direction on Airport Park Boulevard leaving Talmage Road which are traveling through and not related to land uses within the new commercial area. These volumes are shown in Figure 2. This pass-through traffic volumes represents approximately 3 to 4 percent of the total traffic on Airport Park Boulevard, south of Talmage Road. This volume of traffic is very minor. Therefore, any updated intersection level of service calculations which follow have not removed these volumes due to their insignificant level. It should be noted that this pass-through traffic data collection effort took place after the opening of the Friedman Brothers store. Based on the observed traffic conditions on Airport Park Boulevard, potential delay at other intersections, and available routes to uses off of Hastings Avenue and Airport Park Boulevard, the amount of pass-through traffic should not have changed since the time existing traffic counts were taken for the WalMart EIK Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page 7 City of Ukiah January 29, 1997 · 0 L? Talmage Road Washingfon Avenue JlrHasfJngs Av~'~ LEGEND ~ ~udy I~ers~tbm .... F~ure Rm~m Nor[h ~ ~ PM. p~k hour thro~h ~lu~ ~ ~  Figure 2 Existing Pass-Through Traffic Volumes A~rpo~Ro~woo~ Bus~noss PorR Troffic Anol~s~s · . ~ · ~ ~,~hiflook ~ ~inb~r~r Tran~omfion Ino. City of Hkiah UlCIOOS. DRW 12/96 Project Generated Traffic Volumes For commercial and retail uses, the total trips which are generated consist of primary trips, diverted trips, pass-by trips, and internal trips. Primary trips are those trips which are new to the study area as a direct result of the development Diverted trips are those trips that may be occurring near the study area, but will divert to the new use rather than an existing use. Pass-by trips are trips made as intermediate stops on the way from an Origin to a primaw trip destination. Pass-by trips are attracted from existing traffic which now passes the project site on an adjacent street or streets. Internal trips represent a portion of the primary and diverted trips which stay within the Airport/Redwood Business Park area and do not impact the arterial street system. In estimating the external vehicle trip generation of most large development projects, different traffic engineers can obtain a variety of results based on varying assumptions, techniques and interpretations of data. Following are the assumptions used in this analysis. Those which differ fi'om the projections presented in the Airport/Redwood Business Park EIR are noted. The majority of the trip generation assumptions have been obtained fi'om Trip Generation, 5th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1991, as were the projections contained in the EIR. However, these assumptions also use the 1995 Update of Trip Generation and different interpretations of diverted, pass-by and internal trips. 1. The trip generation rate for the restaurant use has been updated based on more recent information. 2. The office/retail, industrial and retail trip rates are the same as used in the EIK 3. The Wal-Mart expansion trip rate has been updated and is based on a shopping center rate. 4. Diverted trips are assumed to be new to the study area and originate from U.S. 101 or other areas of 5. Pass-by trips are assumed to consist of trips which curremly exist on South State Street and Talmage Road. 6. Pass-by trips for the restaurant and retail uses have been estimated based on data provided in Trip Generation. 7. Internal trips are assumed to consist of trips which are made between the existing and new uses at the Airport/Redwood Business Park site without impacting South State Street and Talmage Road intersections. 8. Internal trip assumptions are as follows: a) All of the office and industrial trips are assumed to travel external to the site. However, 28 percent of these outbound trips during the p.m. peak hour axe assumed to stop at the retail/restaurant uses before traveling external to the site. b) The percentage of internal trips related to each of the retail uses was based on assumptions presented in the previous EIR. These trips were estimated between 25 and 33 percent. These internal trips percentages are reasonable for the period analyzed due to the following considerations. The peak period analyzed in the weekday p.m. peak hour where the majority of trips taken are sole purpose trips before the dinner hour. Unlike weekend afternoons, there are a small percentage of trips which are multi-purpose linked trips to a variety of uses. The project is disjointed with uses which have a variety of commercial purposes. This type of development does not lend itself to a larger number of internal trips during the weekday p.m. peak hour unlike a shopping mall where a variety of uses within a confined space may increase the number of internal trips. Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page 9 City of Ukiah January 29, 1997 The City of Ukiah has indicated that several developments have either been constructed or been approved for construction. Projects which have been constructed include Friedman Brothers and WalMart. Planned projects include Lazy Boy Furniture. The floor area for these uses total 198,100 square feet. It should be noted that this total floor area includes Friedman Brothers but does not include WalMart since the existing traffic counts which are the basis for the traffic analysis were taken after WalMart opened but before Friedman Brothers opened. All of these uses are within the retail category originally designated. The City of Ukiah has also indicated that 16.36 acres of industrial zoned land has been rezoned to automotive commercial uses. The automotive commercial uses were assumed to consist of four acres of an auto dealership and 12 acres of automotive parts/auto care uses. The resulting trip generation estimates with these assumptions for the project are shown in Table 4. Note that the internal trips shown are subtracted from the primary/diverted trips. In total, the proposed mixed use development is anticipated to generate an average of 1,893 p.m. peak hour vehicle trips which includes 1,479 new/diverted trips external to the project area, 297 new trips internal to the project area, and 414 pass-by trips which currently exist on South State Street and Talmage Road. These trip generation projections were assigned to the study area based on the distribution assumptions contained in the Airport/Redwood Business Park EIR. The resulting project traffic volumes are shown in Figure 3. It should be noted that these project traffic volumes shown in Figure 3 consist of the new/diverted trips external to the project area and the pass-by trips which cUrrently exist on either South State Street and Talmage Road. The intemal project trips were not assumed to impact any of the study intersections. Also, the assigned project traffic volumes assume the extension of Norgard Lane into the project from the south. If this connection is not made, the impacts of the project on the intersection of South State Street/Hastings Avenue would be slightly more than indicated in this report. Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page 10 City ofUkiah ' January 29, 1997 Table 4 - Project Tri! Generation Summary II I · Land Usc Number P.M. Peak Hour of Units Trip Rate In Out Total Per Unit Restaurant 5.0 ksf 12.92 36 28 64 Primary/Diverted Trips (60%) 22 17 39 (Internal Trips) (3) (3) (6) Pass-by Trips (40%) 14 11 25 Office/Retail 67.0 ksf 1.50 15 85 100 Industrial Park 373.5 ksf 0.91 74 266 340 Auto Dealership (4.09 Acres) 33.9 ksf 2.62 37 52 89 Primary/Diverted Trips (72%) 2 7 3 7 64 (Internal Trips) (7) (9) (16) Pass-by Trips (28%) 10 15 25 Auto Parts/Auto Care (12.27 Acres) 101.6 ksf 4.00 178 228 406 Primary/Diverted Trips (72%) 128 164 292 (Internal Trips) 0 2) (41) (73) Pass-by Trips (28%) 50 64 114 Retail 198.1 ksf 3.98 394 394 788 Primary/Diverted Trips (72%) 284 284 568 (Internal Trips) (94) (94) (188) Pass-by Trips (28%) 110 110 220 · Wal-Mart Expansion 18.0 ksf 3.98 36 36 72 Primary/Diverted Trips (72%) 26 26 52 (Internal Trips) (3) (3) (6) Pass-by Trips (28%) 10 10 20 Lot//12 Retail 8.3 ksf 3.98 17 17 34 Primary/Diverted Trips (72%) 12 12 24 (Internal Trips) (4) (4) (8) J,o~-oy rri£~ a8%) s s lO Total Trips 787 1,106 1,893 Total Primary/Diverted Trips 588 891 1, 479 (Internal Trips) (143) (154) (297) Total Pass-by Trips 199 215 414 Source' Trip Generation, 5th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1991 and the 1995 Update k.s.f. = 1000 square feet (Internal Trips) = Those "Primary/Diverted Trips" which stay within the Airport/Redwood Business Park area. Building Floor Area to Land Area Coverage = 8,274 square feet/acre Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page 11 City of Ukiah January 29, 1997 -4- ~ Talmage Road Washington Ave n tings Avenue · I) Norgard Lane il ] [2 ! h. -o 106 0 J I co~- ,_71 o'?" ~° ~-- 118 I ~& ~0 ~ ~ 97 ~J~ ~ 247 ~o 81 ,~ ~ 0 ~ J ~ I L LEGEND l, ~& ~ 47 j .... Fmure R~d~ ~ ] N c r[ h ~ > P.M. ~ak ~ur thr~h ~lu~  Figure 3 Project Traffic Volumes Airpo~Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis .. ~ ~ ~. ~ Whitloek & Weinberger Transpo~aflon In~. City of Ukiah UKIOOS.DRW 1/97 Evaluation of Intersection Operations Existing Conditions The actual average stopped delay by approach at the four study intersections was measured in the field during the weekday p.n~ peak hour on November 15 and 16, 1995. The method used in obtaining the delay was based on guidelines presented in the Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report No. 209, Transportation Research Board, 1994. Using the computer software available for the Highway Capacity Manual methodologies and the existing lanes and volumes counted during the field measurements, the average delays for the intersection and its approaches were calculated. A calibration process was then employed to match the field measured delay with the calculated delay. This process included the adjustment of default values such as lane capacities and critical gaps. Using the intersection level of service parameters which were confirmed in the field and the existing traffic volumes shown in the Redwood Business Park Revised Traffic Study dated June 22, 1995, the existing levels of service were recalculated. The resulting conditions are shown in Table 5. Based on this process, the intersection of South State Street/Talmage Road is currently operating with an average delay of 21.6 seconds per vehicle and a LOS C (compared with a V/C of 0.80 and a LOS C/D shown in the EIR). The intersection of South State Street/Hastings Avenue is currently operating with an average delay of 10.0 seconds per vehicle and a LOS B (compared with a V/C of 0.65 and a LOS B shown in the EIR). The intersection of Talmage Road/Airport Park Drive is currently operating with an average delay of 13.2 seconds per vehicle and a LOS B (compared with a V/C of 0.45 and a LOS A shown in the EIR). The southbound off-ramp movement at the intersection of Talmage Road/U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp is currently operating with an average delay of 12.2 seconds per vehicle and a LOS C (compared with a LOS A shown in the EIR). The existing level of service calculations are included in Appendix B. Existing Plus Project Conditions Using the calibrated intersection level of service parameters and the alternate project traffic volumes described in the previous section, the "Existing plus Project" levels of service were recalculated. The resulting conditions are shown in Table 5 and are identified as "Existing plus Project". The Existing plus Project level of service calculations are included in Appendix C. It should be again noted that the Existing Plus Project traffic volumes at the study intersections did not include the projected internal project trips. Under the Existing plus Project volumes, the intersection of South State Street/Talmage Road would be expected to operate with an average delay of 24.0 seconds per vehicle and a LOS C. The intersection of South State Street/Hastings Avenue would be expected to operate with an average delay of 125.5 seconds per vehicle and a LOS F. If Norgard Lane is not connected to the project from the south, the impacts of the project on the intersection of South State Street/Hastings Avenue would be slightly more than indicated here. The intersection of Talmage Road/Airport Park Boulevard would be expected to operate with an average delay of 28.4 seconds per vehicle and a LOS D. The southbound off-ramp movement at the intersection of Talmage Road/U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp would be expected to operate with an average delay of 38.8 seconds per vehicle and a LOS E. Cumulative Conditions Using the calibrated intersection level of service parameters and the alternate project traffic volumes described in the previous section, the Cumulative levels of service were recalculated. The resulting conditions are shown Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page 13 City of Ukiah January 29, 1997 in Table 5 and are identified as "Cumulative". The Cumulative level of service calculations are included in Appendix D. Under the Cumulative conditions, the intersection of South State Street/Talmage Road would be expected to operate with an average delay of 26.6 seconds per vehicle and a LOS D. The intersection of South State Street/Hastings Avenue would be expected to operate with a delay of 241.9 seconds per vehicle and a LOS F. The intersection of Talmage Road/Airport Park Boulevard would be expected to operate with an average delay of 38.6 seconds per vehicle and a LOS D. The southbound off-ramp movement at the intersection of Talmage Road/U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp would be expected to operate with an average delay of 75.4 seconds per vehicle and a LOS F. Table 5 Summary of Intersection Operations ,Weekday P.M. Peak Hour) Intersection Existing Existing plus Project Cumulative Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 1. South State Street/Talmage Road 21.6 C 24.0 (2 26.6 D Northbound Through/Right 17.7 C 18.4 C 18.8 C Southbound Left/Through 25.5 D 31.2 D 37.7 D Westbound Left 26.7 ' D 26.7 D 27.2 D Westbound Right 16.3 C 17.6 C 17.6 C 2. South State Street/Hastings Avenue 10.0 B 125.5 F 241.9 F Northbound Left 18.2 C 18.2 C 18.3 C . Northbound Through/Right 11.3 B 57.0 E 62.6 F Southbound Left 18.0 C 19.5 C 19.6 C Southbound Through/Right 7.1 B 11.2 B 11.5 B Eastbound Approach 14.3 B 13.9 B 27.4 D Westbound Approach 14.3 B 586 F 999+ F 3. Airport Park Boulevard/Talmage Road 13.2 I3 28.4 D 38.6 D Northbound Left 22.2 C 47.8 E 69.9 F Northbound Through/Right 15.5 C 21.4 C 34.0 D Southbound Left 24.6 C 24.6 C 24.7 C Southbound Through/Right 19.1 C 19.5 C 19.8 C Eastbound Left 23.8 C 21.2 C 21.3 C Eastbound Through/Right 11.2 B 14.4 B 14.7 B Westbound Left 24.9 C 75.4 F 105.2 F Westbound Through/Right 7.3 B 8.4 B 8.5 B 4. U.S. 101 SB-Rampsfralmage Road 3.3 A 10.7 (2 20.0 Southbound Right 12.2 C 38.8 E 75.4 F Notes: Delay = average delay per vehicle in seconds, LOS = level of service, xxx = overall intersection level of service Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page 14 City of Ukiah January 29, 1997 Mitigation Alternatives Based on the alternative operational thresholds and the updated level of service conditions presented, optional mitigation measures were developed which would be required to meet each of thc alternative thresholds. The mitigation investigation included the evaluation of additional lanes and traffic signal ope. rations. The .mitigated level of service calculations are included in Appendix E. Existing Plus Project Conditions Inter~¢¢tign # 1 - South State Street/Talmage Road Level of Service D ThreshoM (40. 0 seconds per vehicle) - No additional' mitigation beyond existing conditions would be required to achieve this level of delay. Mid Level of Service D Threshold (32.5 seconds per vehicle) - No additional mitigation beyond existing conditions would be required to achieve this level of delay. level of Service C Threshold (25. 0 seconds per vehicle,) - It is recommended that the two southbound lanes be striped as one through lane and one left turn lane. The north-south signal phasing could then operate without the split phasing. It should be noted that this restriping would create a "trap" lane from the southbound left turn lane. An alternative would be to eliminate parldng in order to stripe a southbound left turn lane in addition to the two through lanes. Int¢r~ection #2 - South State Street/Hastings Avenue Level of Service D Threshold (40.0 seconds per vehicle) - Add a westbound left turn lane, extend the two northbound through lanes to Talmage Road, and stripe a separate eastbound left turn lane. Mid Level of Service D ThreshoM (32.5 seconds per vehicle) -In addition to those mitigations described for the LOS D threshold, provide a separate westbound right mm and westbound through lane. Level'of Service C Threshold (25.0 seconds per vehicle) - Same as above. It should be noted that ifNorgard Lane is not connected to the project from the south, the impacts of the project on this intersection would be slightly more than indicated in this report. Therefore, these improvements would become more critical for the intersection to operate acceptably. Inter~¢ction #3 - Airport Park Boulevard/Talmage Road Level of Service D Threshold (40.0 seconds per vehicle) - Provide a second westbound let~ turn lane and a northbound approach which includes one left turn lane, one combined leflYthrough lane, and one exclusive right turn lane. Mid Level of Service D ThreShold (32.5 seconds per vehicle) - Same as above. Level of Service C Threshold (25. 0 seconds per vehicle) - Same as above. Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page 15 City of Ukiah January 29, 1997 Inlersection #4 - U.S. 101 SB Offramp/Talmage Road City staff has previously determined that the ramp design/location and/or concrete barrier can't be modified in order to increase the sight distance. Therefore, in order to decrease delay to the southbound off ramp traffic and to address safety issues related to the sight distance at the ramp, it is recommended that a second westbound through lane on Talmage Road be extended back to the southbound offxamp and allow the offramp traffic turning right to turn into its own lane without conflict. Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page 16 City of Ukiah January 29, 1997 Study Participants And References Study Participants Project Manager: Engineer/Data Collection: Graphics: Report Review: Field Technician: Steve Weinberger, P.E. Andrew Wong Cheryl Whitlock-Griffm Dalene J. Whitlock, P.E. Jerry Jaromin References Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report No. 209, Transportation Research Board, 1994 Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report No. 209, Transportation Research Board, 1985 Traffic Manual, California Deparlment of Transportation Highway Design Manual, California Department of Transportation Left-Turn Channelization Design Guide, Transportation Research Board Trip Generation, 5th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1991 and February 1995 Update Airport/Redwood Business Park EIR, Leonard Charles & Associates. Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page 17 City of Ukiah January 29, 1997 Appendix A Description of Intersection Capacity Analysis Methodologies Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. City of Ukiah January 1997 DESCRIPTION OF SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS 1994 HCM OPERATIONS METHOD Background The operations method of intersection capacity analysis found in Chapter 9, "Signalized'Intersections," of the Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report No. 209, Transportation Research Board, 1994, was used for this analysis. This method is used in most analyses of existing conditions or for future situations in which traffic, geometric, mid control parasneters are well established by projections and trial designs. This method addresses the capacity and level of service of intersection approaches, and the level of service of the intersection as a whole. In this method, ~apacity and level of service are evaluated separately, and are not related to each other in a simple one-to-one faslfion. Capacity is evaluated in terms of the ratio of demand flow rate to capacity (volume-to-capacity ratio), while level of service is evaluated on the basis of average stopped delay per vehicle (seconds/velficle). The capacity of the intersection as a whole is not addressed by this method; the design and signalization of intersections focuses on the accommod__a~on of the major movements and approaches comprising the intersection. Capacity is, therefore, only meaningful as applied to these major movements and approaches. Capacity analysis results in the computation of volume-to-capacity ratios for individual movements and a composite volume-to- capacity ratio for the sum of critical movements or lane groups within the intersection. The volume-to-capacity ratio is the actual or projected rate of flow on an approach or designated group of lanes during a peak 15-minute interval divided by the capacity of the approach or designated group of lanes. Input Data The input data necessary to use this methodology includes lane geometrics, traffic volumes, signal timing, vehicle type distribution, percent grade, pedestrians, peak hour factors, parking activity, and arrival type per approach. Level of Service Level of service is based on the average stopped delay per vehicle for various movements within the intersection. While volume-to-capacity affects delay, there are other parameters that mOre strongly affect it, such as the quality of progression, length of green phases, cycle lengths, and others. Thus for any given volume-to-capacity ratio, a range of delay values may result, and vice-versa~ See the table "Level of Service Criteha for Signalized Intersections" for the relationship'between the level of service and stopped delay per vehicle. Because delay is a complex measure, its relationship to capacity is also complex. It is possible, for example, to have delays in the range of Level of Service F while the volume-to-capacity ratio is below 1.00, perhaps as Iow as 0.75-0.85. Very high delays can occur at such volume-to-capacity ratios when some combination of the following conditions exists: the cycle length is long; the lane group in question has a long red time; and/or the signal progression for the subject movement is poor. The reverse is also possible. A saturated approach or lane group with a volume-to-capacity equal to 1.00 may have Iow delays if the cycle length is short, and/or the signal progression is favorable for the subject movement. Acceptable delay levels do not automatically ensure that capacity is sufficient. The analyst must consider the results of the capacity analysis module and the level of service module to obtain a complete picture of existing or projected intersection operations. Thus, the designation of Level of Service F does not automatically imply that the intersection, approach, or lane group is overloaded, nor does a level of service in the A to E range automatically imply that there is unused capacity available. The procedures of this methodology require the analysis of both capacity and level of service conditions to fully evaluate the operation of a signalized intersection. LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level of Service Average Total Delay (seconds/veldcle) A ~5.0 B >5.0 and ~15.0 C >15.0 and ~25.0 D >25.0 and ~40.0 E >40.0 and ~60.0 F >60.0 Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report No. 209, Third Edition, Transportation Research Board, 1994 DESCRIPTION OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS TWO-WAY STOP-CONTROLLED METHOD Background The method of unsignalized intersection capacity analysis used for two-way stop-controlled intersections is from Chapter 10, "Unsignalized Intersections," Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report No. 209, Third Edition, Transportation Research Board, 1994. This method applies to two-way stop sign or yield sign controlled intersections (or one-way stop sign or yield sign controlled intersections at three-way intersections). At such intersections, drivers on the minor, or stop-controlled, street are forced to use judgment when selecting gaps in the major flow through which to execute crossing or turning maneuvers. If there is a queue, each driver must also use some measurable amount of time to move into position at the front of the queue and get ready to evaluate gaps in traffic on the major street. Thus, the capacity of the controlled legs of an intersection is based on three factors, as follows. lo The distribution of gaps in the major street traffic stream. Driver judgment in selecting gaps through which to execute their desired maneuvers. The follow-up time required by each driver in a queue. It is assumed that gaps in the traffic stream are randomly distributed. For this reason, the methodology will be less reliable in situations in wlfich the conflicting flows are strongly platooned, as would be the case at many urban intersections where the major street is part of a signalized network. The impact of progression on the gap distribution in major street traffic can vary substantially, from creating large gaps and thereby increasing capacity to virtually eliminating gaps and creating considerable delays. This method assumes that major street traffic is not affected by minor street flows. This assumption is generally good for periods when the operation is smooth and uncongested. (When congestion occurs, it is likely that major street traffic will experience some impedance due to minor street traffic.) Left turns from the major street are assumed to be affected by the opposing major street flow, and minor street traffic is affected by all conflicting movements. Input Data The general procedure to calculate the level of service is as follows: o . . . Define existing geometric and volume conditions for the intersection under study. Determine the conflic~g traffic through which each minor street movement and the major street left- tum must cross. Determine the size of the gap in the conflicting traffic stream needed by vehicles in each movement crossing the conflicting traffic stream. Determine the capacity .of the gaps in the major traffic stream to accommodate each of the subject movements that will utilize these gaps. Adjust the capacities found to account for impedance and the use of shared lanes. Estimate the average total delay for each of the subject movements and determine the level of service for each movement and for the intersection. Gaps are utilized by vehicles in the following priority order: . 2. 3. 4. Right tums from the minor street Left turns from the major street Through movements from the minor street Left turns from the minor street For example, ifa lett-tuming vehicle on the major street and a through vehicle from the minor street are waiting to cross · the major Ixaftic stream, the first available gap of acceptable size would be taken by the lefMurning vehicle. The minor street through vehicle must wait for the second available gap. In aggregate terms, a large number of such leR-turning vehicles could use up so many o£the available gaps that minor street tlu'ough vehicles are severely impeded or unable to make safe crossing movements. Level of Service The level of service criteria is shown below. As used here, total delay is defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of the queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line; this time includes the time required for the vehicle to travel from the last-in-queue position to the first-in-queue position. Note that the level of service criteria for two-way stopwamtrolled intersections are different than for signalized intersections primarily because drivers expect different levels of performance from different kinds of transportation facilities. An unsignalized intersection is designed to carry less traffic and have shorter delays, hence the thresholds for a stop-controlled intersection are lower than for a signalized intersection. LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR TWO-WAY STOP-CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS Level of Service Average Total Delay (seconds/vehicle) B >5 and < 10 C >10 and <20 · . D >20 and <30 E >30 and <45 F >45 Re£ereace: Highway Capacity'Manual, Special Report No. 209, .Third Edition, Transportation Research Board, 1994 Using this same criteria, the average approach delay for all vehicles on a particular approach or for the intersection as a whole can be computed as the weighted average of the total delay estimates for each individual movement on the specific approach or for all approaches, respectively. Estimation of Queue Lengths Theoretical Studies and empirical observations have demonstrated that the probability distribution function for queue lengths for any minor movement at an unsignalized intersection is a function of the capacity of the movement and the movement's degree of saturation. An estimate of the 95th percentile queue length for minor movements is provided in the calculations. 94homta~,p Appendix B Intersection Level of Service Calculations Existing Conditions Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis Whitlock & W¢inbcrgcr'Transportation, Inc. City of Ukiah January 1997 · Il MITIG8 Wed Jan 29, 1997 07:29:14 Page 1-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #4 U.S. 101 Ramps/Talmage Road - ~W(~ Average Delay (sec/veh): 3.3 Worst Case Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Ignore Include Ignore Ignore Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Volume Module: L - T - R L - T - R Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 310 0 515 0 0 365 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 310 0 515 0 0 365 0 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 -0 310 0 515 0 0 365 Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 0 Adjusted Volume Module: Grade: 0% % Cycle/Cars: xxxx xxxx 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 310 0 515 0 0 365 0% 0% 0% 0.00 0.92 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx % Truck/Comb: PCE Adj: Cycl/Car PCE: Trck/Cmb PCE: Adj Vol.: Critical Gap Module: MoveUp Time:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx Capacity Module: xxxx xxxx 0.06 0.02 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 1.10 1.10 1.10 xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 xxxx xxxx 0.50 1.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 1.50 2.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0 0 0 0 0 326 0 515 0 0 365 0 Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 365 xxxx xxxx xxmcx_x xmcxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 603 x3cxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxx_xx Adj Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 1.00 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xmcxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 603 xxxx xx_x~ xxxxx xxxx xxxx xx_xxx Level Of Service Module: Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx x_xxxx xxxxx xxxx 12.2 xmcxxx xxxx xxxxx xxmaxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * C * * * * , , Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx x3cx~ xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xx_xx xxxx_x x3cxxx xocxx xx3cxx Shared LOS: * * * , , , , , , , , . ApproachDel: 0.0 12.2 0.0 0.0 Traffix 6.8.1511 (c) 1995 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-Trans, Santa Rosa, CA Appendix C Intersection Level of Service Calculations Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. City of Ukiah January 1997 r- U ~oo oooo oooo # o o r~ ii ii # · o o o MITIG8 Wed Jan 29, 1997 07:29:32 Page 1-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #4 U.S. 101 Ramps/Talmage Road - ~(~9 % 76o~c% Average Delay (sec/veh): 10.7 Worst Case Level Of Service: E Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - -R L - T - R Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Ignore Include Ignore Ignore Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Volume Module: Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Final Vol.: Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 431 0 751 0 0 433 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 431 0 751 0 0 433 0 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 431 0 751 0 0 433 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 431 0 751 0 0 433 0 Adjusted. Volume Module: Grade: 0% % Cycle/Cars: xxxx xxxx % Truck/Comb: xxxx xxxx 0% 0% 0% 0.00 0.92 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.06 0.02 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx PCE Adj: Cycl/Car PCE: Trck/Cmb PCE: Adj Vol.: 0 0 0 0 0 I II Critical Gap Module: MoveUp Time:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx I II Capacity Module: 1.10 1.10 1.10 xmufx xxxx xxxxx 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 xxxx xxxx 0.50 1.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 1.50 2.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 453 0 751 0 0 433 0 2.6 xxxxx ~ ~ ~ ~ ~x 9.5 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 433 xxxx xm~x xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 516 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xmcxxx Adj Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 1.00 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx x~cxxx xxxx xxxx 516 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Level Of Service Module: Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx x_xxxx xxucxx xxxx 38.8 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * E * * * * · · Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxx_x xxxx x3cxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx x3cw_xx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx_x Shared LOS: * * * · · · · ', , , , , ApproachDel: 0.0 38.8 0.0 0.0 Traffix 6.8.1511 (c) 1995 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-Trans, Santa Rosa, CA Appendix D Intersection Level of Service Calculations Cumulative Traffic Conditions Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. City of Ukiah' January 1997 o . ', 4.44 ',st oo~ MITIG8 Wed Jan 29, 1997 07:29:56 Page 1-i Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #4 U.S. 101 Ramps/Talmage Road -- Average Delay (sec/veh): 20.0 Worst Case Level Of Service: Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Ignore Include Ignore Ignore Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0. 0 0 451 0 851 0 0 463 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 451 0 851 0 0 463 0 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Initial Bse: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 Adjusted Volume Module: Grade: 0% % Cycle/Cars: xxxx xxxx % Truck/Comb: xxxx xxxx 0 0 451 0 851 0 0 463 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 451 0 851 0 0 463 0% 0% 0% 0.00 0.92 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.06 0.02 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx PCE Adj: 1.10 1.10 1.10 xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 Cycl/Car PCE: xxxx xxxx 0.50 1.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Trck/Cmb PCE: xxxx xxxx 1.50 2.00 xxxx xxx_x xxxx xxxx Adj Vol.: 0 0 0 0 0 474 0 851 0 0 463 O Critical Gap Module: MoveUp Time:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 2.6 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxocxx Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 9.5 xxxxx xxx_x xxxxx xxocxx xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxocx xxxxx xxxx x~cxx 463 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 482 xxxx ~xxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Adj Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 1.00 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xx_xxx xxxx xxxx 482 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Level Of Service Module: Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 75.4 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * F * * * · · · Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx x~cxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * , · · · , , , · ApproachDel: 0.0 75.4 0.0 0.0 Traffix 6.8.1511 (c) 1995 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-Trans, Santa Rosa, CA Appendix E Intersection Level of Service Calculations Mitigated Conditions Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. City of Ukiah January 1997 ~ o · ^ o ¥ · I I I I II I 1 1 i · 1 · i ~ I · o°o°o° I 444," N II oooo oooo + + .... ~ ~ C.) C.,) o . o "lI · ii ,, I~ "~ ri i1 tl II ,,~ ii ii ii i II It II ITEM NO. DATE: January 15, 1997 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT (REVISED) SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FEES TO BE IMPOSED ON DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK SUMMARY: Submitted for the City Council's consideration is an Engineering Report (Attachment 2) for the establishment of Capital Improvement Fees to be imposed on development within the Airport Industrial Park (ALP.) The report identifies off-site improvements which are needed to mitigate impacts created by project traffic generated by development within the AlP. The capital improvement fee (ClF) report was prepared in accordance with the City of Ukiah Municipal Code, Division 9, Chapter 5, Article 2, Sections 9542 through 9544, included as Attachment 3. Several environmental documents and traffic reports have been prepared to Continued on Page 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Approve the Engineering Report and adopt the resolution establishing capital improvement fees to be imposed on development within the Airport Industrial Park. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Not adopt the resolution establishing capital improvement fees and return to staff for development of alternative measures. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Acct. No.: Appropriation Requested: N/A (if budgeted) Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Rick Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engine~.~ ~1~--~/~ 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. Resolution for adoption 2. Engineering Report 3. Excerpt from Municipal Code 4. W-Trans Airport/Redwood Business Park - ~ Traffic Analysis 5. Excerpt entitled Revised Traffic Study from the Final Subsequent EIR APPROVED: Candace Horsley, City Manager RJS:AGCFEE3.SUM Page 2 Adoption of Resolution Establishing Capital Development Within the Airport Industrial Park January 15, 1997 (REVISED) Improvement Fees to Be Imposed on address mitigations that will result from the proposed build-out of the AlP. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Redwood Business Park, dated February 1995, prepared by Leonard Charles & Associates, was the first report to address traffic issues related to the development within the major portion of the AlP excluding the Walmart project. The Draft Subsequent EIR, Airport Business Park, dated March 1995, prepared by Leonard Charles & Associates addressed traffic issues related to the Airport Business Park which includes lot numbers 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32. The Final Subsequent EIR, Airport Business Park and Redwood Business Park, dated July 1995, prepared by Leonard Charles & Associates is a summary of the two aforementioned EIR's. This Final Subsequent EIR contains the Revised Traffic Study which was the basis of the CIF report presented at the September 18, 1996 City Council meeting. Because of issues raised by Mr. Gary Akerstrom, developer of the Redwood Business Park, an outside review of the Final Subsequent EIR Revised Traffic Study was performed. The City selected Whitlock and Weinberger, Inc. (W-Trans) for an independent review of the EIR Revised Traffic Study. W-Trans prepared the Airport/Redwood Business Park EIR Independent Traffic Analysis dated March 6, 1996. In summary, this report confirmed the conclusions of the Final Subsequent EIR Revised Traffic Study. The W-Trans Independent Traffic Analysis used the LOS methodologies identified in the updated 1994 Highway Capacity Manual. This methodology is essentially based on traffic delay. The Final Subsequent EIR Revised Traffic Study was based on the Intersection Capacity Utilization methodology. The day prior to the City Council meeting of September 18, 1996, Mr. Gary Akerstrom, Redwood Business Park, and Mr. Kenneth Finney, Attorney for Redwood Business Park, met with City staff to discuss the traffic volumes used in the CIF report. Mr. Akerstrom disagreed with the traffic volumes and stated that he believed the volume of vehicles using Airport Park Boulevard and Commerce Drive as a "short cut" to the usual routes accounted for a significant portion of the total traffic volume. This type of movement is known as pass-through traffic. Staff obtained professional traffic engineering services from W-Trans to verify the amount of pass-through traffic. In addition staff requested W-Trans to calculate new traffic volumes based on the rezoning from industrial to auto parts/auto care/auto dealership/industrial of the 16.36 acres shown as lot numbers 26 and 27 on Attachment A of the CIF report. These lot numbers were rezoned by City Council action on October 30, 1996. The W-Trans analysis also recalculated the Levels of Service for the respective intersections based on the existing traffic plus project traffic volumes. Please refer to the W-Trans report dated Dscsmbsr 13, -1-996 January 29, 1997 (Attachment 4) which addresses these issues. In the analysis of the improvement fees staff utilized the most current data for the assignment of fees to respective land uses. This data is shown in Table 4, page 11, of Attachment 4. Page 3 Adoption of Resolution Establishing Capital Development Within the Airport Industrial Park January 15, 1997 (REVISED) Improvement Fees to Be Imposed on As identified in the Revised Traffic Study presented in the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Redwood Business Park and the Airport Business Park (Attachment 5), off-site intersection improvements will be needed at the South State Street and Washington Avenue/Hastings Avenue and the Talmage Road and Airport Park Boulevard intersections by reason of the projected AlP project traffic. In addition, widening of the north side of Talmage Road immediately west of the southbound US 101 exit ramp is needed to provide a protected right turn for traffic turning west onto Talmage Road. This last mentioned improvement is an alternative to the signalization of the southbound US 101 exit ramp as recommended by the consultant firm of W-Trans. The SEIR recommends improving the US 101 Northbound and Southbound exit ramps. These improvements have not been included in the construction cost estimates for the CIF report. Staff does not believe work on these ramps will be warranted within the projected 5- year build out of the AlP. If warranted City staff will propose an assessment district to obtain funds necessary to construct improvements to the ramps. Staff is of the opinion that construction of the US Highway 101 ramp improvements would be at a high cost that would unduly impact the AlP with little benefit to the overall improvement of traffic flow in the area. The estimated cost of improvements to the US 101 Northbound and US 101 Southbound exit ramps, including signalization, is $458,420.00 (in 1997 dollars). The CIF report identifies improvement fees per acre based on the land use and corresponding traffic generation indicated in the W-Trans, Airport/Redwood Business Park - Traffic Analysis dated D~c~,,mb~r I°.,, I~'~'~,~,,~ January 29, 1997. The fees per acre of developable land based on proposed land use are as follows: Restaurant e'~'~ o,~,, ,-,~ $19,010.61' Office/Retail ~,~,,,.,.~, 01 $7,505 75; Retail '~'~'~ coo 7n $12,438.07; Wal-Mart · . Expansion ~'") '~ -~-/~ ':: '~ ~,,..,,, ,,..,,-, $11,932.35; Industrial ~ $2,618.39; Auto Dealership ~,~,,, ~,,..,~,, $8,131.72; and Auto Parts/Auto Care~,e~,..,,,~,,,A o~,~,_ .,,,,6" $12,364.67. The fees identified in this CIF report will be charged upon and paid prior to the issuance of any building permit for all new development within the AlP. The Friedman Brothers Store has entered into a prior agreement with the City and therefore is the only existing development which will be assessed the fees indicated in this CIF report. Attachment "K" of the CIF report indicates that Talmage Professional Center, Talmage Office Park, North Cai Wood Products, Redwood Coast Regional Center, Walmart store (existing), and US Geological Survey will not be assessed capital improvement fees because the traffic volumes generated by these developments are components of the existing traffic volumes. In preparing the CIF report, staff utilized projected traffic volumes from the W-Trans, Airport/Redwood Business Park - Addi~m~ Traffic Analysis dated ~' .... """ I ° ~ ~"~ I./~;~;~,~;;~1 I I1~;;;~1~,,), I Page 4 Adoption of Resolution Establishing Capital Development Within the Airport Industrial Park January 15, 1997 (REVISED) Improvement Fees to Be Imposed on January 29, 1997. Traffic volumes for the PM Peak Hour for each of the seven land uses were divided by the total PM Peak Hour traffic volume to obtain a percentage of the total traffic volume per land use. This percentage was then multiplied by the total improvement cost to obtain the required improvement cost per land use. Please refer to Attachment "1" of the CIF report for a comparison of the required capital improvement fees per land use. Staff then established a per acre fee for each of the seven land use categories and prepared a spreadsheet which represents the total fee to be assessed to each parcel as it currently exists within the AlP. Please refer to Attachment "K" of the CIF report for a listing of the capital improvement fees to be assessed to each parcel within the Airport Industrial Park. Staff recommends that the AlP developments fund the entire offsite capital improvements at the three locations identified in the CIF report. Since the three locations identified for improvements all operated with satisfactory level's of service under existing traffic prior to development of the AlP, staff does not recommend that existing development be required to pay for the improvements. In addition the improvements presented in the CIF report will not restore the level's of service at the three locations to the level's enjoyed prior to the addition of project traffic from the AlP. Please refer to Attachment "B" of the CIF report for a comparison of the level's of service. Also please note pages 15 and 16 of the Attachment "4" which indicate the level's of service after construction of the proposed improvements Public notice for the CIF report and resolution was printed in the Ukiah Daily Journal on January 5, 1997. In addition, staff mailed copies of the public notice to all AlP property owners on January 3, 1997. SUMMARY With the adoption of the attached resolution, the City will financially be able to construct public works improvements required as a result of the build-out of the AlP. The improvement projects as identified will enable the orderly movement of traffic into and out of the AlP, when fully developed, and will mitigate the impacts to the existing infrastructure. Without some means to set aside funds for these improvements, it is unlikely that the City will ever afford the traffic system mitigations necessary because of the development of the AlP. If this were the case, the unfortunate losers would be the public, the AlP employees, the AlP developments, and the City. The three locations discussed in the CIF report would most likely see an increased level of driver frustration resulting in a greater vehicle accident rate. §9542 CHAPTER 5 DEDICATIONS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ARTICLE 2. OFF-SITE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FEES {}9543 SECTION' §9542: §9543: §9544: Purpose Establishment of Capital Improvement Fees Limited Use Of Fees §9542: PURPOSE: In various locations throughout the City public facilities such as streets, bridges, traffic signals, storm drains and sewer lines must be constructed or improved in order to accommodate the impacts from or provide access to new development in those areas. The City Council has determined that capital improvement fees must be established in order for that new development to contribute its fair share toward financing the construction of these improvements. (Ord. 882, §2, adopted 1988) §9543: A. ESTABLISHMENT OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FEES: Creation by Resolution- By resolution the City Council shall establish such capital improvement fees as it determines are necessary to contribute toward the financing of public facilities. Each such resolution shall: ~1.. Establish and'describe the benefit and impact area within which the fee shall "apply; 2. Set forth the specific amount of the fee; 3. List the specific public improvement or improvements to be financed; .: 9183 {}9543 A) Be {}9543 4. Describe the estimated cost of these facilities, and associated costs such as necessary engineering services and administrative costs; 5. Describe the reasonable relationship between the fee and the types of new development to which it will apply; 6. Set forth the time when the fee must be paid as follows: a. As to residential development that time shall not be sooner than the date of final inspection or the date the certificate of occupancy is issued, whichever occurs first. The City shall not furnish utilities to occupants of any such residential development prior to final inspection and the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The City shall disconnect utilities furnished to a residential development if that development is occupied prior to final inspection and the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. In accordance with the {}{}2136 to 2137, the City shall revoke the business license issued pursuant to Division 2 of this Code to any person (as defined in {}2100) engaged in a business (as defined in §2101), if such person participates as seller, broker or otherwise in the sale of a residential development to an occupant of that development before final inspection and issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The City shall not issue a new business license to a person whose license is revoked as provided herein for a period of two (2) years. b. As to all other development that time shall be at the time a building permit is issued. c. No certificate of occupancy or building permit, as appropriate, shall issue until the required fees are paid. "Building permit," "final inspections," and "certificate of occupancy," as used in this Section, have the same meaning as described in Sections 301, 305, and 307 of the Uniform Building Code, International Conference of Building Officials, 1985 Edition; 7. Set forth the method for reviewing or modifying the fee or its use. · · Procedure' The City Council shall adopt each resolution according to the following procedure: 1. The resolution shall be adopted at a public hearing at which any person may appear in person or in writing. 2. A fee study establishing the reasonable relationship between the fee and each parcel of property to which it will apply shall be available for public inspection for at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing. 9184 {}9543 B) {}9544 3. Notice of the hearing shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City ten (10) days prior to the hearing. The notice shall describe the public facilities to be financed with the fee, the area within which the fee will apply, the amount of the fee, and the times and location where the fee study is available for public inspection. (Ord. 882, {}2, adopted 1988) {}9544: Be ].,];M];?F.D USE OF FEES: The revenues raised by payment of this fee shall be placed in a separate and special account and such revenues, along with any interest earnings on that account, shall be Used solely to: Pay for the City's future construction of facilities described in the resolution enacted pursuant to {}9543, and all associated costs, such as engineering and administrative costs attributable to such facilities or to reimburse the City for those described or listed facilities constructed by the City with funds advanced by the City from other sources, or '~ Reimburse developers who have been required or permitted to install such listed facilities which are oversized for their development for such supplemental size, length or capacity. (Ord. 882, {}2, adopted 1988) .i 9185 AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 8b DATE: February 5, 1997 REPORT SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY ZONING MAP TO REZONE 34 LOTS IN THE MISCELLANEOUS AREA NO. 1 GENERAL PLAN REZONING AREA SUMMARY: In December of 1995, the City Council formally adopted a new General Plan for the City. One of the first tasks of implementing the new General Plan is to revise ordinances and other regulatory "tools" to be consistent with the Plan. Accordingly, over the past year, staff has initiated a series of zoning map and ordinance revisions based upon the direction provided in the new General Plan. Phase No. 8 of the city-wide General Plan rezoning program involves 54 lots situated in what is referred to as the Miscellaneous Area No. 1 rezoning area (see map attached to the draft ordinance). This rezoning area is generally bounded by Clara Avenue on the north, Observatory Avenue on the south, Pine Street on the west, and Orchard (continued on page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Introduce by title only the ordinance amending the City Zoning Map rezoning 34 lots in the Miscellaneous Area No. 1 General Plan rezoning area. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: 1. Do not introduce the proposed ordinance, and provide direction to staff. Citizen Advised: All affected and adjoining properties owners duly noticed Requested by: Planning Department Prepared by: Charley Stump, Senior Planner Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager and Bob Sawyer, Planning Director Attachments: 1. 2. . Ordinance amending the City Zoning Map Letters received from Lorie Leaf, James Nix, Pat Beltrami (2), Foutz and Sanchez, the Ukiah Senior Center, and Burgess Williams Planning Commission Staff Report, dated January 8, 1997 Planning Commission Minutes, dated January 8, 1997 APPROVED: C-~'~dace Ho'r~ley, Ci'iy ~lanager 1 Avenue on the east. The Planning Commission is recommending that 34 of the 54 lots be rezoned, and that the remaining 20 lots be included in a General Plan amendment and rezoning package at the conclusion of the City-wide rezoning program. The General Plan assigns medium and high density residential, and some commercial land use designations to parcels in the Miscellaneous Area No. 1 rezoning area. These designations have been assigned to reflect existing development, and to facilitate the logical evolution of inappropriate land uses. A table listing the parcels by Assessor's Parcel number, their current zoning, General Plan Land Use Designation, and proposed zoning, is included as Exhibit "A" to the proposed ordinance rezoning the properties. Planning Commission Hearing On January 8, 1997, the City Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and discussed the proposed rezoning project. After considerable discussion, the Planning Commission formulated a number of recommendations for the City Council's consideration. The rezone groupings, and the Planning Commission's recommendations are discussed below. 1. C-2 to R-2 This grouping consists of 7 parcels along the south side of Clara Avenue between the NWP railroad tracks and Hamilton Street. They are developed with single family residences, and are bordered by manufacturing/warehousing (Ukiah Foods) to the west, and single family residences to the north. Adjacent to the south is a vacant commercially zoned parcel, and to the east is Hamilton Street. The single family residential parcels along the eastern portion of Clara Avenue are all designated as medium or high density residential. The rezoning of the subject parcels would provide spatial continuity for the "R-2" zoning district in this portion of the Wagenseller neighborhood. Representatives of the Ukiah Valley Medical Center (Hospital), who own the two lots closest to the Ukiah Foods facility, requested that the Planning Commission approve and recommend the "C-N" (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district for their lots, rather than the "R-2" (Multiple Family Residential). The Planning Commission discussed the issues, and voted unanimously to recommend "C-N" for the hospital owned lots, and "R-2" for the remaining 5 lots. They based their recommendation on the fact that the 2 hospital lots are adjacent to commercially developed land to the west, and adjacent to the commercially zoned larger hospital parcel to the south. Subsequent to the January 8, 1997 Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Burgess Williams, owner of AP 002-137-03 (313 Clara Avenue - southwest corner of Clara Avenue and Hamilton Street) has requested that his lot not be rezoned from "C-2" to "R-2" (see attached letter). He has expressed a strong interest in having the lot zoned "C-N" similar to the hospital property. It should be noted that the Planning Commission discussed recommending that this entire 7 parcel group be rezoned to "C-N", but opted to recommend limiting this zoning classification to the hospital owned lots adjacent to the Ukiah Foods facility. They concluded that if all 7 lots were assigned the "C-N" zoning classification, potential redevelopment of the properties could result in commercial land uses that would generate excessive traffic in the Clam Avenue residential neighborhood. In addition, they concluded that the "C-N" zoning classification was appropriate for the hospital owned lots because commercially zoned lots are contiguous to both the west and south. VVhile staff understands and acknowledges the Planning Commission's conclusions on the Clara Avenue grouping of lots, we respectfully maintain our original recommendation of supporting the spirit and intent of the General Plan to remove commercial zoning from Clara Avenue and maintain it as a residential neighborhood. Therefore, staff supports the General Plan "MDR" (Medium Density Residential) Land Use Designation, and recommends the rezoning of all 7 Clara Avenue lots from "C-2" to "R-2." If the Council concurs, the proposed ordinance would have to be modified, because it presently reflects the Planning Commission recommendation. 2. R-3 to C-N These 13 lots have been divided into two subgroups: Subqrou~) #1: Subgroup number 1 consists of 7 lots situated along the east side of Pine Street between Perkins Street and Stephenson Street. They are developed with single family residences and business offices. Surrounding land uses include single family residential, multiple family residential, professional offices, and commercial. The City Council previously considered the rezoning of these lots from "R-3" to "C-1" on October 2, 1996, as a part of the North Central area rezoning project. After considerable discussion, the City Council decided not to rezone the subject parcels at that time, and to remand them to the Planning Commission for further discussion. After revisiting the matter, the Planning Commission concluded that this Westside fringe of the downtown has been evolving into a Iow intensity mix of residential, professional office, and commercial land uses. Accordingly, they unanimously agreed that the new "C-N" district is most appropriate because it provides a better transition of land uses, while supporting and encouraging the Iow intensity mix of uses that in fact is beginning to occur. The Planning Commission recommends the rezoning of these parcels from "R-3" to "C-N." Subqrou~) #2: Subgroup number 2 involves 6 lots situated along the east side of Oak Street between Mill Street and Seminary Avenue. These lots are developed with 4 single family residences, a small apartment complex, and the offices and operations of the Ukiah Daily Journal. The Planning Commission disagreed with the Commercial Land Use Designation contained in the General Plan for 5 of the lots, and is recommending that these parcels be rezoned to "R-2" (Multiple Family Residential) as a part of the anticipated General Plan amendment and rezoning package at the end of the Citywide rezoning program. For the Ukiah Daily Journal lot, they agreed with the commercial Land Use Designation, and are recommending the "C-N" (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district. 3. R-1 to C-N This grouping consists of 5 parcels situated along the west side of Oak Street between Mill Street and Seminary Avenue, and are developed with single family residences. Surrounding land uses include single-family residential, multiple-family residential, professional offices, and commercial businesses. The General Plan Steering Committee envisioned these parcels as potentially evolving into commercial land uses in the future, and therefore assigned the "C" (Commercial) Land Use Designation. After discussing the matter, the Planning Commission concluded that these 5 parcels are developed with nicely maintained and stable single family residences, and they are not representative of properties experiencing a transition in land use. Accordingly, they are recommending that the "R-I" zoning classification for these 5 parcels be retained. Staff agrees, and is supportive of the Planning Commission recommendation. 4. C-1 to R-3 This grouping consists of 7 parcels divided into two subgroups. Subgroup #1: These 2 large parcels are located along the eastern side of Leslie Street south of Peach Street, and are developed with the Ukiah Senior Center and the Real Goods Trading Company business offices. Surrounding land uses include high density residential, commercial, and single-family residential. These 2 parcels were originally discussed with the Planning Commission during the East Side rezoning area project on November 13, 1996. During that discussion, it was mistakenly understood that these parcels were developed with high density residential apartments, and the Commission voted unanimously to recommend the rezoning of the 2 parcels to "R-3." However, subsequent to that meeting, it was discovered that these parcels are developed with the Senior Center and Real Goods Trading Company business offices. Accordingly, the City Council has remanded these parcels back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. During the Planning Commission's reconsideration of these 2 parcels, the owners of the property strongly requested, both in written correspondence and verbal testimony, that they recommend retaining the "C-1" (Light Commercial) zoning district for both properties. The Planning Commission agreed, and is recommending that the "C-1" zoning classification be retained. Sub_~roup #2: These 5 parcels have frontage along both Observatory Avenue and Luce Avenue. The 2 parcels on Observatory Avenue are developed with a multiple-family residential project and a single family residence. The 3 parcels on Luce Avenue are developed with 1 single family residence and 2 offices. Surrounding land uses include single family residential, commercial, heavy commercial, quasi-public (Plowshares), and multiple-family residential. After considerable discussion, the Planning Commission voted to recommend "R-3" (General Multiple Residential) for the Observatory Avenue parcels, and "C-N" for the Luce Avenue parcels. 4 5. C1 to R2 These 22 parcels have been divided into 2 subgroups: Sub_~roup #1: This subgroup consists of 3 parcels situated along the east side of Oak Street just north of Freitas Avenue, and are developed with apartment buildings. Surrounding land uses include commercial, multiple-family residential, and single family residential. Based upon the high intensity of the majority of surrounding land uses, as well as the existing use of the parcels, the Planning Commission concluded that the "R-3" zoning classification is most appropriate for the parcels, rather than the "R-2" that is suggested in the General Plan. Accordingly, they are recommending that these parcels not be included in the Miscellaneous Area No. 1 rezoning area ordinance, but rather be included in the General Plan amendment and rezoning project that will be considered at the end of the City-wide rezoning program. They will be included in a grouping that will involve amending the General Plan Land Use Designation from "MDR" to "HDR", and the rezoning to "R-3." Subgroup #2: This group consists of 19 parcels situated along privately owned Cherry Court, and are developed with single family residences, multiple-family units, and a family services business office/pre-school conducted in a single family residence. Surrounding land uses include commercial, multiple family residential, and single family residential. The Planning Commission received 2 letters from property owners objecting to the "R-2" zoning classification. Pat Beltrami, agent for Mr. and Mrs. Jim Morris, who own the family services business office/pre-school parcel, requested that the "C-2" zoning be retained or the parcel be rezoned to "R-3." These two zoning classifications allow or permit the existing use of the property, whereas the "R-2" district does not. Mr. James Nix, who owns the property and single family residence located at 7 Cherry Court objected to the "R-2" zoning because the noise ordinance contained in the Ukiah City Code has stricter standards for residential districts, and he has a large "hobby" shop in his garage. He has requested that the "C-1" zoning district be retained for his residential parcel so that the more relaxed noise standards would apply to the "hobby" shop activities on his parcel. Based upon the current mixed density residential use of the parcels, and the privately owned residential cul-de-sac access, the Planning Commission concluded that the "R-2" zoning classification is more appropriate than the current "C-1" zoning. Accordingly, they are recommending the rezoning of these parcels to the "R-2" classification. Subsequent to the January 8, 1997 Planning Commission meeting, Ms. Beltrami, on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Morris, has suggested that the "C-N" (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district makes sense for the property (see attached January 17, 1997 letter). While this "new" commercial/residential zoning district is certainly a better zoning classification for the property than the "C-1", staff still questions the appropriateness of commercial zoning along a privately maintained residential cul-de-sac street. While we understand the concerns and issues expressed by Mr. and Mrs. Morris, and agree that the "C-N" zoning district makes more sense than the "C-1", we nevertheless, feel obligated to apply basic planning principles to the situation. Therefore, we agree with the Planning Commission recommendation to support the "MDR" (Medium Density Residential) Land Use Designation assigned in the General Plan, and rezone the property to "R-2." It should be noted that the "C-N" zoning classification was not specifically discussed for any of the parcels along Cherry Court by the Planning Commission. Accordingly, if the City Council determines that the "C-N" zoning district deserves consideration for the Cherry Court parcels, staff recommends remanding this grouping back to the Planning Commission for discussion and the formulation of a recommendation. CONCLUSIONS The newly adopted City General Plan provides new Land Use Designations for a number of properties in the Miscellaneous Area No. 1 rezoning area of the community. The purpose of redesignating some properties is to acknowledge and protect important existing land uses, and to help facilitate the evolution of land uses that have become out of context with their surroundings. The Planning Commission supports a number of the rezonings, but recommends against others, because of existing development, or concerns about the preservation of neighborhood character. Accordingly, they are recommending 34 of the 54 rezoning actions. Subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting, two new issues have surfaced. First, Mr. Burgess Williams has formally requested that his parcel situated at the southwest corner of the intersection of Clara Avenue and Hamilton Street be rezoned to "C-N" (Neighborhood Commercial) similar to the hospital lots along Clara Avenue adjacent to the Ukiah Food facility. Staff is recommending support of the "MDR" (Medium Density Residential) General Plan Land Use designation for the Clara Avenue lots, and against any commercial designation/zoning for lots developed with residential land uses. Second, it has been suggested that the "C-N" zoning district may make sense for the Morris property on Cherry Court, and perhaps all the parcels along this unique privately owned street. VVhile staff acknowledges the complexity and difficulty of the Morris property, we are recommending support for the General Plan and "R-2" zoning, because Cherry Court is a privately owned residentially designed cul-de-sac street developed with residential land uses. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR THE CITY OF UKIAH, CALIFORNIA The City Council of the City of Ukiah does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION ONE Pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 9009 of the Ukiah City Code, the Official Zoning Map for the City of Ukiah is amended to change the zoning on 34 parcels in the Miscellaneous Area No. 1 rezoning area of the community as identified in the General Plan Rezoning Program. Specifically, the City Zoning Map is amended to rezone 5 parcels from "C-2" (Highway Commercial and Restricted Industrial) to "R-2" (Multiple Family Residential); 8 parcels from "R-3" (General Multiple Residential) to "C-N"; 19 parcels from "C-1" (Light Commercial) to "R-2"; and 2 parcels from "C-1" to "R-3." The listing of the specific parcels involved in this rezoning action, along with detailed rezoning information is attached as Exhibit "A." SECTION TWO This ordinance shall be published as required by law in a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ukiah. SECTION THREE This rezoning action and amendment to the Official Zoning Map of the City of Ukiah is necessary to bring the zoning for the subject properties listed in Exhibit "A" into conformance with the new General Plan adopted on December 6, 1995. SECTION FOUR This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after adoption. Introduced by title only on AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: , by the following roll call vote: 1 Passed and adopted on , by the following role call vote: 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Colleen Henderson, City Clerk Sheridan Malone, Mayor 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EXHIBIT "A" Miscellaneous Area No, 1 Rezoning Project (96-52) Assessor's Current General Plan New Parcel No. Zoning Designation Zoning 2-126-5 C-2 MDR R-2 2-137-1 2-137-3 C-2 MDR R-2 2-137-21 2-137-22 2-219-1 2-219-3 R-3 C C-N 2-219-4 2-256-1 2-256-2 2-256-4 R-3 C C-N 2-256-8 2-271-16 R-3 C C-N 3-050-37, 39, 51, 55, 56, C-1 MDR R-2 63, 68, 69, 70-80 3-074-11 3-074-12 C-1 HDR R-3 EXHIBIT "A" - Page 1 of 2 MISCELLANEOUS #1 REZONING AREA .... · '-' '"'ZONING DISTRICTS :.. R~I:i:i=.:SlNGLE:~FAMILY RESIDENTIAL -: :.?R2i':~!.iMULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.' : R3::!=:iGENERAL~MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL -'::CN:=NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ...: .- : :'i i iC ~iii!~:!i:LIGHTCO U MERCIA L -':::C2i~:iHi:GHWA:Y COMMERC IAL/INDUSTRIAL.: . . R3 TO CN (7 Parcels) DO NOT REZONE THESE 2 PARCELS FROM C2 TO R2. INCLUDE IN FUTURE GP AMENDMENT AND REZONING TO CN. C2 TO R2 (5 parcels) DO NOT REZONE THESE 5 PARCELS FROM R3 TO CN. INCLUDE IN FUTURE ;P AMENDMENT AND REZONING TO R2. RETAIN R1 (5 parcels) R3 TO CN parcel) RETAIN Cl (2 parcels) DO NOT REZONE THESE PARCELS FROM C~ TO R2. INCLUDE IN FUTURE GP AMENDMENT AND REZONING TO R3. DO NOT REZONE THESE 3 PARCELS FROM Cl TO R3. INCLUDE IN FUTURE GP AMENDMENT AND REZONING TO CN. ~ C1 TO R2 (19 parcels) Cl TO R3 (2 parcels) EXHIBIT "A" - Page 2 of 2 RECEIVED ., .JAN - 6 1997 'CITY OF UKIAH. P~NNING DEPT. January 3, 1997 Jim and Anne Nix 7 Cherry Crt.. Ukiah, CA 95482 RECEIVED JAN - 3 1997 £11'f OF UKIAtt PLANNING DEPT. City of Ukiah Planning Dept. We are writing this letter to express our concerns for the proprosed rezoning, on Cherry Crt., from C-1 to R-2. We purchased our property in 1976, specifically for the C-1 zone classification, not only our hobby shop, but for our own personal home. Our family spends aiot of time in the shop, and because of this we were sure to insulate it well and put full commercial shop doors on it to suppress the noise levels as much as possible. After receiving your notification of your proposed rezoning, we took a noise level reading ( under City of Ukiah section 6048 ambiant base noise levels- C-1 is 60 D.B. from l Op.m.-Ta.m., 65 D.B. from 7a.m.-lOp.m.) and much to our amazement we realized that a simple "Shop-Vac" exceeds the residential noise level requirement, and tools such as an electric saw, or a hammer, hammering a 16 penny nail into a 2x4 far exceed the commercial noise levels. Each parcel on this proposed rezoning currently boarders commercial property, and will continue to do so. We feel that C-1 zoning for this area is an accurate classification, We also feel that future property transactions in this area would be very misleading if this change took place. Jim and Anne Nix December 30, 1996 Mr. Chaffy Stump Mr. David Lohse Planning Department City of Ukiah Civic Center 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 I ECE. VED JAN - 2 1997 OF UKIAlt PLANNING DEPT. Dear Charly & Dave: I represent James & Eleanor Morris, owners of the property at 10 A & B Cherry Court. They were recently notified of a proposed zoning change by the city from C-1 to R-2. We would like to request that the property remain C-1 or be changed to R-3. This property consists of 2 buildings that are connected with an overhang. The original building is a 3 bedroom house and the second building was designed and built in 1970 to be a three classroom school building with 3 half baths and two firewalls, which might preclude any conversion into apartment units. The property is currently leased to Mendocino County's Social Services Department with the house being used for offices and the school building for children's activities and seminars. The property is located between an auto service station to the south and a one family residence to the north. Again, we would request that the zoning remain C-1 or be converted to R-3 to allow continued office or school use. We appreciate your attention to this matter. Please don't hesitate to call with any questions. Yours truly, Pat Beltrami Realtor cc:James Morris 320 South State Street · Ukiah, Califomia 95482 · (707) 463-2570 10751 Main Street · P.O. Box 66 · Potter Valley, California 95469 · (707) 743-1101 .lanuarv 1'7. 10o7 REC ¥ D CITY OF U IAH P NI{iNG DE?T. l lkiah City ('ouncil ('ity of Ukiah Civic Center 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 ..Dear Coiincil Members: · . I represent James & Eleanor Morris, oxvners of the property at 10 A & B Cherry Court. ()n Janu~try 8, 1'997, the planning commission held a public hearing, and agreed with tlie proposed rezoning of the Cherry Court properties from C-! to R-I. As stated in our previous letter to tile city planning department, such a change would be detrimental to tile value of the building used for a school and offices in that it would be almost impossible, with the firewalls, to convert ii into residential property. C)n Janua~.-y 16, we met with Senior Planner Charley Stump to express our concerns. At the meeting, Mr Stump provided us with information regarding the new (,-N Zoning. This zoning sounds like lhe ideal solution for this property. We strongly urge you to consider the zoning change from C-! to C-N. We appreciate your attention on this matter. Sincerely, I'al llellrau~i P, eallor ct' ('haflex' Slump .lames & F~leanor Morris 32¢) ,qou~h Slate Street · l, Jkiah, California 95482 · (707) 463-2570 10751 Maiu Slreel · t' {). r!ox 66 · Poller Valley, California 05460 · (707) 743-Il01 December 30, 1996 RECEIVED JAN - 2 I $7 (ITY OF UKIAtt PLANNIN6 DEPT. Charley Stump Senior Planner 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Ref- Zoning Code Cha~ge of 555 Leslie Street Dear Mr. Stump: I am writing to state for the record that T, Frances (Frenchy) j. Sanchez very strongly protest the rezoning of my property. , I request that the City Planning Committee consider the following reasons why they should not allow this rezoning to occur and should allow the zoning to remain as is- l. There are five other commercial properties on Leslie Street besides Real Goods and the Senior Center (which 'also has doctor.s offices). 2. The change from "C-I" to "R-3" will result in the devaluation of my property. 3. The resale value of this piece of property will probably be cut in half. 4. This property is the source of our livelihood. Please consider the impact on our livelihood When you vote on gnzs ~/~ o,~,.-. issue. ' ~f £~-Z/~ S~. , Sincerely, '/', 4-4,,-,c ~/.,,,~,~.~,. nces (Frenchy) j. Sanche'z Co-Owner §~-e 1 ~ a Fout~ Co-Owner '~ ' $OUtz and Sanchez 296 Banker Blvd. Ukiah, CA 95482 Ukiah Senior Center Building Community · Bridging Needs December 30, 1996 RECEIV JAN - 2 1SS7 (IT'/0F UKIAH PLANNING DEPT. Charley Stump Senior Planner 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Ref: Zoning Code Change of 555 Leslie Street Dear Mr. Stump: As President of the Board for the Ukiah Senior Center, I represent 1500 individuals who request your trustworthy re-evaluation of the proposed rezoning, and ask that the zoning code remain the same, "C-I". I would like to first pose the question concerning the busy time in which this mailing was presented to those affected. I would not anticipate a large response to your proposal because this piece of information could have easily been over looked in the holiday rush. I would like you to consider my response in earnest. I believe the rezoning would have the following negative impact on the Senior Center: The immediate reduction in the value of this property when considering the resale value is obvious. · If we should have a rental become vacant and be unable to fill it within 6 months, we would be prohibited from renting this area. This would be disastrous to the Ukiah Senior Center. We depend on the rentals we have to help us to meet the costs of our non funded and under funded programs! · Should a major fire or disaster destroy over fifty percent of our facilities, we have insurance to cover rebuilding. However, with rezoning, we would not qualify to rebuild under a "C-I" zoning. We.would have to pay to have the building demolished and cleared in order to sell the property. The resale of this property would result in a lower price. 499 Leslie Street · Ukiah, CA 95482 · 707-462-4343 · If this should occur, the Senior Center would cease to exist as we could not afford to buy commercial property and rebuild. This would cause a loss of jobs plus the loss of many programs and services for Seniors, disabled clients and citizen of Ukiah. · Funding for programs could be in jeopardy if funding was for an organization that is operating in a non conforming location. This Senior Center effects the lives of many people young and old. Please let this be an important factor in your consideration of the proposed rezoning of this piece of property. s7; President of the Board cc: Terr Willis, Executive Director, Ukiah Senior Center BURGESS WILLIAMS Attorney at Law 605 South State Street Ukiah, CA 95482 REC i JAN ~ 3 1997 CITY OF UKIAI-t PLANNING DEPT. Facsimile: 707 462 7071 Telephone: 707 462 2000 Ukiah City Council 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 HAND DELIVERED Attn: Charles Stump Senior Planner RE: Rezoning Project Dear Mr. Stump: I received public notice of the seven-parcel unit' along Clara Avenue which was proposed for Rezoning from C-2 (Highway Commercial and Restricted Industrial) to R-2. It is my understanding that the Rezoning was necessitated by the recent change in the General Plan. It is also my understanding that the Planning Commission will recommend to the City Council that only five of the seven parcels be rezoned to R-2 and that the remaining two (2) parcels be zoned N-C. The two (2) parcel exclusion was apparently requested by the owner, Ukiah Valley Medical Center. I hereby request exclusion of my parcel from the R-2 designation and request that it be rezoned N-C. The parcel in question is adjacent to property currently zoned N-C (on the south) which is owned by the Ukiah Valley Medical Center, and the greater portion of the lot frontage is on Hamilton Street which serves the Hospital and the newly proposed K-Mart project. I am sympathetic to the concerns of the residents in the Clara Avenue neighborhood and support their request for modifications to Clara Avenue for the purpose of alleviating the traffic problems. Clara is an avenue and I appreciate the connotations of that designation. Hamilton, however, serves high commercial uses such as the hospital and K-Mart. It is felt that the best use of my parcel would be to allow for neighborhood commercial uses, much as is presently contemplated by my neighbors to the south, the Ukiah Valley Medical Center. It is respectfully requested that APN 002-137-03 be rezoned N-C. Thank you for your consideration of this request. BURGESS WILLIAMS ,~~truly yours., CITY OF UKIAH PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: 7B. ii I I DATE: 01-08-9,7, DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: January 8, 1997 City of Ukiah Planning Commission City of Ukiah Planning Department Miscellaneous Area No. 1 Rezoning Project (96-52) City of Ukiah PROJECT SUMMARY: Phase No. 8 of the city-wide General Plan rezoning program involves 54 lots situated in what is referred to as the Miscellaneous Area No. 1 rezoning area (see map attached to the draft ordinance). This portion of the community is predominantly comprised of commercial, and medium and high density residential zoning classifications. The General Plan assigns medium and high density residential, and some commercial land use designations to parcels in the Miscellaneous Area No. 1 rezoning area. These designations have been assigned to reflect existing development, to facilitate the logical evolution of inappropriate land uses, and to guide the development of existing vacant land. This project is quasi-legislative in nature and does not require City Planning Commissioners to visit the site prior to formulating a recommendation to the City Council. PROJECT LOCATION: The Miscellaneous Area No. 1 rezoning area is generally bounded by Clara Avenue on the North, Observatory Avenue the south, Pine Street on the west, and the Orchard Avenue on the east. DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION' The Planning Department recommends that the Planning Commission recommend City Council APPROVAL of the rezonings and ADOPTION of the ordinance amending the City Zoning Map. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION' The City Council has adopted a programmatic Negative Declaration for the General Plan rezoning project. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: MDR (Medium Density Residential), HDR (High Density Residential), and "C" (Commercial). ZONING DISTRICT: "R-2" (Multiple Family Residential), "1:{-3" (General Multiple Residential), and "C-N" (Neighborhood Commercial). PROJECT DESCRIPTION: In the Miscellaneous Area No. 1 rezoning area, the General Plan directs the rezoning of 5 parcels from "R-I" (Single Family Residential) to "C-N" (Neighborhood Commercial), located along the west side of Oak Street between Mill Street and Seminary Avenue; 7 parcels parcel from "C-2" (Highway Commercial and Restricted Industrial) to "R-2," located along the southern side of Clara Avenue between Orchard Avenue and the NWP railroad tracks; 13 parcels from "R-3" (General Multiple Residential) to "C-N" located along the east side of Oak Street between Perkins Street and Stephenson Street, and along the east side of Oak Street between Seminary Avenue and Mill Street; 5 parcels from "C-1" to "R-3" located along Luce Avenue between State Street and South Avenue, and along Observatory Avenue between State Street and South Avenue; 2 parcels from "C-1" to "R-3" located at 497 and 555 Leslie Street; and 22 parcels from "C-1" to "R-2" located along the east side of Oak Street between Freitas Avenue and Gobbi Street, and along the east and west sides of Cherry Court. A map(s) indicating the locations of the subject properties, and their current and proposed zoning is included with the attached draft ordinance. STAFF ANALYSIS: The parcels proposed to be rezoned have been grouped according to what the existing and proposed zoning classifications are, as described in the project description above. ITEM #1:R1 to CN This grouping consists of 5 parcels situated along the west side of Oak Street between Mill Street and Seminary Avenue, and are developed with single family residences. Surrounding land uses include single-family residential, multiple-family residential, professional offices, and commercial offices and businesses. The General Plan Steering Committee envisioned these parcels as potentially evolving into commercial land uses in the future. While this possibility does seem to exist in the next twenty years, it seems unlikely that these lots would evolve into high intensity commercial land uses, because of the stability of the Iow intensity mixed uses in the area, as well as its prominent residential quality. Accordingly, staff is able to conclude that the "C-N" (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district is appropriate for these lots. It would encourage and support commercial land uses that are compatible with the existing residences in the area. ITEM #2:C2 to R2 This grouping consists of 7 parcels along the south side of Clara Avenue between the NWP railroad tracks and Hamilton Street. They are developed with single family residences, and are bordered by manufacturing/warehousing (Ukiah Foods) to the west, and single family residences to the north. Adjacent to the south is a vacant commercially zoned parcel, and to the east is Hamilton Street. The single family residential parcels along the eastern portion of Clara Avenue are all designated as medium or high density residential. The rezoning of the subject parcels would provide spatial continuity for the "R-2" zoning district in this portion of the Wagenseller neighborhood. Accordingly, staff recommends the rezoning of these parcels from "C-2" to "R-2." ITEM #3:R3 to CN These 12 lots have been divided into two subgroups: Subgroup #1: Subgroup number 1 consists of 7 lots situated along the east side of Pine Street between Perkins Street and Stephenson Street. They are developed with single family residences and business offices. Surrounding land uses include single family residential, multiple family residential, professional offices, and commercial. The Planning Commission considered the rezoning of these lots from "R-3" to "C-1" as a part of the North Central area rezoning. After public input and considerable discussion, the Commission voted affirmatively to recommend the rezoning to the City Council. After lengthy discussion, the City Council decided not to rezone the subject parcels at that time, and to remand them back to the Planning Commission for further discussion. They provided direction to consider retaining the "R-3" zoning as a transition between the medium density residential land uses to the west and the commercial land uses to the east. This Westside fringe of the downtown has been evolving into a Iow intensity mix of residential, professional office, and commercial land uses. While the "R-3" zoning district makes some sense, staff has concluded that the "C-N" district is most appropriate because it provides a better transition of land uses, while supporting and encouraging the Iow intensity mix of uses that in fact are beginning to establish. Accordingly, staff recommends the rezoning of these parcels from "R-3" to "C-N." Subgroup #2: Subgroup number 2 involves 6 lots situated along the east side of Oak Street between Mill Street and Seminary Avenue. These lots are developed with 4 single family residences, a small apartment complex, and the offices and operations of the Ukiah Daily Journal. These lots are located across the street from the 5 lots recommended for rezoning from "R-I" to "C-N" in Item #1 above. They generally fit the purpose and intent of the "C-N" district, and would form a small neighborhood commercial corridor along this part of Oak Street. Staff supports the General Plan commercial designation for these lots, and recommends their rezoning from "R-3" to "C-N." ITEM #4:C1 to R3 This grouping consists of 7 parcels divided into two subgroups. Subgroup #1' These 2 large parcels are located along the eastern side of Leslie Street south of Peach Street, and are developed with the Ukiah Senior Center and the Real Goods Trading Company business offices. They were originally discussed with the Planning Commission during the East Side rezoning area project. During that discussion, it was mistakenly understood that these parcels were developed with high density residential apartments, and the Commission voted unanimously to recommend the rezoning of the 2 parcels to "R-3." However, subsequent to that meeting, it was discovered that these parcels are developed with the Senior Center and Real Goods Trading Company business offices. Accordingly, the City Council has remanded these parcels back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. Surrounding land uses include high density residential, commercial, and single-family residential. The high density residential is situated to the west, south and north. It appears that this portion of Leslie Street has evolved into an area dominated by high density residential development. From a 20-year land use planning perspective the "R-3" zoning is logical given the evolving pattern of land uses in the general area. It should also be noted that the types of existing land uses on the subject parcels are either allowed or permitted in the "R-3" zoning district. Accordingly, staff recommends that these 2 parcels be rezoned from "C-1" to "R-3." Subgroup #2: These 5 parcels have frontage along both Observatory Avenue and Luce Avenue. The 2 parcels on Observatory Avenue are developed with a multiple-family residential development and a single family residence. The 3 parcels on Luce Avenue are developed with 1 single family residence and 2 offices. Surrounding land uses include single family residential, commercial, heavy commercial, Plowshares, and multiple-family residential. Based upon the mixed nature of uses in the area, the close proximity of high intensity land uses and a major arterial street, as well as the general concept that multiple-family residential is a better transition to single-family residential than light commercial, staff recommends the rezoning of these parcels from "C-1" to R-3." ITEM #5' C1 to R2 These 22 parcels have been divided into 2 subgroups: Subgroup #1' This subgroup consists of 3 parcels situated along the east side of Oak Street just north of Freitas Avenue, and are developed with apartment buildings. Surrounding land uses include commercial, multiple-family residential, and single family residential. Based upon the high intensity of the majority of surrounding land uses, as well as the existing use of the parcels, staff is able to conclude that the "R-3" zoning classification is most appropriate for the parcels, rather than the "R-2" that is suggested in the General Plan. Accordingly, staff recommends that the rezoning of these parcels not be included in the Miscellaneous Area No. 1 rezoning area ordinance. We recommend further that these parcels be included in the General Plan amendment and rezoning project that will be considered at the end of the City-wide rezoning program. They will be included in a grouping that will involve amending the General Plan Land Use Designation from "MDR" to "HDR", and the rezoning to "R-3." Subgroup #2: This group consists of 19 parcels situated along Cherry Court, and are developed with single family residences, multiple-family units, and a family services business office conducted in a single family residence. Surrounding land uses include commercial, multiple family residential, and single family residential. Based upon the current mixed density residential use of the parcels, and the cul-de-sac access, staff is able to conclude that the "R-2" zoning classification is more appropriate than the current "C-1" zoning. Accordingly, staff recommends the rezoning of these parcels to the "R-2" classification. ZONING DISTRICT INFORMATION ZONING DISTRICT R-1 R-2 R-3 MINIMUM LOT SIZE 6,000 / 7,000 on a comer lot 6,000 / 7,000 on a comer lot 6,000 / 7,000 on a corner lot DENSITY REQUIREMENT I unit per 6,000 square feet (7 units per acre) 1 unit per 3,000 square feet (14 units per acre) 1 unit per 1,500 square feet (28 units per acre) C-1 None None C-N 7,000 1 unit per 7,000 square feet CONCLUSIONS: The newly adopted City General Plan provides new Land Use Designations for a number of properties in the Miscellaneous Area No. 1 rezoning area of the community. The purpose of redesignating some properties is to acknowledge and protect important existing land uses, and to help facilitate the evolution of land uses that have become out of context with their surroundings. Staff supports a number of the rezonings, but recommends against others, because of existing development, or concerns about the preservation of neighborhood character. Accordingly, staff is recommending 51 of the 54 rezoning actions. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Ordinance Amending the City Zoning Map ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: The following personnel prepared and reviewed this Planning Report, respectively: Bob Sawyer, Planplhg Director Commissioner Puser suggested an added Condition of Approval to state: "The Planning Director shall approve architectural plans to ensure they are consistent with the existing neighborhood and to ensure that energy efficiency building design has been considered in the design of the new structure." ON A MOTION by Commissioner McCowen, Seconded by Commissioner Puser, it was carried by the following roll call vote to approve the Negative Declaration for Pierre Horn Use Permit/Variance, #96-50: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Larson, McCowen, Puser, and Chairperson Pruden None None None ON A MOTION by Commissioner McCowen, Seconded by Commissioner Puser, it was carried by the following roll call vote to approve Variance Application No. 96-50, based on Findings #1-3 as stated in the Planning Staff Report. THE MOTION WAS AMENDED by Commissioner Larson to change the side yard setbacks for the proposed new structure to 8 feet on the east and 12 feet on the west, and was agreed upon by the makers of the motion and second' AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Larson, McCowen, Puser, and Chairperson Pruden None None None ON A MOTION by Commissioner McCowen, Seconded by Commissioner Puser, it was carried by the following roll call vote to approve Use Permit No. 96-50, based on Findings #1-4 and subject to Conditions of Approval No. 1-18, as delineated in the Staff Report, renumbering the existing Condition No. 18 to Condition No. 20,and adding new Conditions of Approval Number 18 and 19: NEW/AMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 18. The Planning Director shall review and approve building elevations for the residential unit permitted by the approval of this project prior to the issuance of a building permit for the unit to ensure that energy efficiency and a building design that is consistent with the aesthetic characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood are considered. 19. 20. Each existing tree that is removed from the proposed parcel on the eastern portion of the site shall be replaced wtih two 15-gallon replacement trees, utilizing species that are indigenous to the Ukiah Valley area and methods that would enhance the natural characteristics of the hillside area; the requirement for the replacement of trees shall apply to all mature trees, including those that are removed for health and safety reasons. All conditions be completed prior to release of final inspection and issuance of use and occupancy permit. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Larson, McCowen, Puser, and Chairperson Pruden None None None RECESS: 8:09 p.m. RECONVENE: 8:15 p.m. BI MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 7 Rezoning Application 96-52, as filed by the City Planning Department to rezone 54 parcels of land to zoning classifications consistent with the Land Use Designation assigned in the new General Plan. The project involves the rezoning of 5 parcels from "R-l" (Single Family Residential) to "C-N" (Neighborhood Commercial), located along the west side of Oak Street between Mill Street and Seminary Avenue; 7 January 8, 1997 parcels from "C-2" (Highway Commercial/Restricted Industrial) to "R-2", located along the southern side of Clara Avenue between Orchard Avenue and the NWP railroad tracks; 12 parcels from "R-3" (General Multiple Residential) to "C-N" located along the east side of Oak Street between Perkins Street and Stephenson Street. Also along the east side of Oak Street between Seminary Avenue and Mill Street; 1 parcel from "R-3" to "C-1" (Light Commercial) located on the southeast corner of Mill Street and Oak Street; 7 parcels from "C-1" to "R-3" located along Luce Avenue between State Street and South Avenue, and along Observatory Avenue between State Street and South Avenue. Also, at 497 and 555 Leslie Street; and 22 parcels from "C-1" to "R-2" located along the east side of Oak Street between Freitas Avenue and Gobbi Street, and along the east and west sides of Cherry Court. Charley Stump, Senior Planner, introduced Phase #8 of the General Plan Rezoning Program, situated in the area referred to as the "Miscellaneous Area". He requested that the Planning Commission proceed to the rezoning item that includes the Senior Center and Real Goods Trading Center office property since the majority of people in the audience were present for that item. ITEM ~ - Sub-Group #1: C1 to R3 Mr. Stump described this rezoning as containing two large parcels situated on Leslie Street developed with the Ukiah Senior Center and the Real Goods Trading Company Business Offices. He reminded the Commission that these parcels had come before them previously with the "East Side" area group and it was mistakenly indicated that they were developed with high density residential apartments. The Planning Commission had recommended rezoning to R-3 on that basis and it was forwarded to Council. Subsequent to that action it was discovered the parcels were actually developed with the Senior Center and Real Goods offices, at which time the Council agreed to remand the parcels back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration with the accurate information. The General Plan designates these properties as high density residential, which would therefore receive the R-3 zoning designation. Staff has recommended R-3 in the Staff Report, however, Staff has since had the opportunity to meet with Senior Center representatives and letters have been received from owners of the property and from the Senior Center Administration. Based on those letters and the conversations held with representatives of the Senior Center, Staff believes that the C-1 District would be appropriate and would protect the property. He reminded the Commission that the General Plan Steering Committee did envision the high density residential on the property. Mr. Stump recommended that the Commission listen to what the Senior Center people have to say, consider their concerns and arguements, in making their decision. Chairperson Pruden stated her understanding of the R-3 zoning classification is that it does not make the Ukiah Senior Center legally nonconforming at R-3 from C-1, by Use Permit. Mr. Stump stated the Senior Center is a unique use;, it is not just a professional office, but a variety of land uses and is hard to categorize because of that. He advised the Senior Center people can much better describe the uses occuring on the site, and he does not think their specific use is delineated in any of the zoning codes. Mr. Stump suggested the C-1 District provides more flexibility and a broader definition of land uses that would more accurately fit this property. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 8:24 P.M. Russ Kinsey, 1391 Concord Street, Ukiah, President of Board of Directors of the Ukiah Senior Center, described the programs provided by the Center, such as transportion for seniors to congregate meals, shopping, doctors appointments; Alheizmer's program, adult day care program, meals on wheels, etc; Mr. Kinsey explained these programs are supported through fundraising, grants, and renting out a portion of the facility. The rental income helps to provide funds to meet their deficit. He expressed concern under the R-3 zoning, if over 50% of th~ facility were destroyed they could not afford to rebuild the building. If that occured they would have to demolish, sell at a reduced price, and the Senior Center would cease to exist. In view of that, the Senior Center MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 8 January8,1997 requested the C-1 zoning be retained. Mr. Kinsey noted it was suitable when the facility was built and expanded. It doesn't seem fair to face possible future consequences. Discussion occured regarding the actual street address of the Senior Center and it was clarified the Senior Center and Real Goods Trading Centers offices are owned by separate owners. Tarr Willis, Director Ukiah Senior Center, 2340 Mill Creek Road, Ukiah, reiterated Mr. Kinsey's words and expressed concern that if the Senior Center property was sold it would have to be sold at a lesser rate because of the R-3 zoning designation. Many grantors would turn them down due to their location in a residential zoning area. Under the R-3 zoning designation if the Senior Center has a vacancy of more than six months they will not be allowed to rent the facility out for commercial use. This would be detrimental because they rely on the rental income. Ms. Willis strongly recommended the Senior Center remain C-1. Discussion occured between Staff and the Commission relative to professional offices functioning by Use Permit in the R-3 district and the impact a six month vacancy could have. It was determined that professional offices would not be affected, but if retail sales or other commercial activities are taking place they would have to revert to residential use. Staff confirmed the thrift shop run by the Senior Center would be classified as retail sales. Margie Sanchez, 296 Banker Blvd., one of three owners of Real Goods building stated she agrees that if the zoning changed from C-1 to R-3 it would diminish the property value and thus impact their livlihood. She suggested if Clay Street is built through from Main Street to Orchard Avenue, it is likely those properties will become commercial or new commercial, rather than residential, and that street will cross right through Leslie Street. Frenchie Sanchez, 296 Banker Blvd, Ukiah, expressed his agreement with the others and requested the properties remain C-1. He stated it is their main source of income, and if 50% of the building is destroyed, they could not afford to demolish and rebuild. The property has been zoned C-1 for over twenty-five years and they wish to have that zoning retained. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 8:35 P.M. Discussion followed relative to the appropriateness of the C-1 zoning designation. ON A MOTION by Commissioner McCowen, Seconded by Commissioner Larson, it was carried by the following roll call vote to recommend to the City Council the retention of the C-1 zoning for the Ukiah Senior Center and Real Goods Trading Company business offices: Chairperson Pruden indicated if and when the 10 acres acres are developed around the railroad, there may be major changes in circulation and land use, which will impact that neighborhood, and their is a potential for future rezoning of that area five to ten years down the road. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Larson, McCowen, Puser, and Chairperson Pruden None None None Chairperson Pruden informed the audience of the recommendation to City Council and noted the rezoning is not final until the City Council approves it. Mr. Stump recommended hearing Item #2, Clara Avenue, since property owner representatives are present to hear this specific item. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 9 January 8, 1997 ITEM #2:C2 TO R2 Senior Planner, Charley Stump provided a brief description of this item, consisting of 7 parcels on the south side of Clara Avenue between the railroad tracks and Hamilton Street, which are recommended for rezoning from C-2 to R-2. Mr. Stump referred to a letter from property owner, Lorie Leaf, who is in favor of the proposed rezoning to R-2. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 8:40 p.m. ValGene Devitt, 4426 First Avenue, introduced himself as President of the Ukiah Valley Medical Center. He stated the Medical Center owns 211 and 215 Clara, which are the first two lots immediately east of Ukiah Frozen Foods. The back of these properties also adjoin a large piece of undeveloped C-2 property owned by the Medical Center. Mr. DeVitt explained the two Clara Street parcels were purchased because they were adjacent to the hospital and because they were zoned C-2 like the contiguous hospital property. The two homes are currently rented as single family residences, but the hospital has future plans for possibly a small medical clinic, parking, or a similar neighborhood use. He noted the Medical Center tries to be a good neighbor with surrounding property owners, and they are sensitive to their neighbor's needs to try to control and minimize traffic on Clara Street. Whatever future use is proposed by the hospital would not be a 0-2 or Industrial zoning, therefore he supports rezoning from C-2. However, Mr. Devitt stated R-2 is thought to be too restrictive for even the most conservative future needs. Ukiah Valley Medical Center would like to request consideration be given to changing the zoning on these two properties from C-2 to C-N, that would allow everything that is permissable under R-2. It would additionally allow limited development that would be compatible with the neighborhood and its needs, while also meeting future needs of the hospital. Commissioner Larson inquired if UVMC is requesting C-N zoning for 211 and 215 Clara specifically, or for all seven parcels on Clara Street. Mr. Devitt stated he can only speak to the hospital's two parcels, for which he is requesting the C-N designation. Discussion followed relative to the hospital having the two parcels on Clara Street zoned C-N and its contiguous parcel to the south being zoned C-2. Also discussed was the vacant land owned by the Medical Center on Hamilton and Hospital Drive, and proposed future plans for development. Commissioner McCowen stated one possibility, if the Commission were to approve retention of the C-2 zoning, is the Clara Street parcels could serve as ingress and egress for UVMC's existing property. Mr. DeVitt responded that is not a possibility they have considered. They are very sensitive to traffic issues on Clara Street, and if they could arrange for access from the Hospital Drive side to lessen traffic impact on Clara, it would serve the property better. Commissioner McCowen inquired if the Medical Center would accept a condition that the two Clara Street parcels not be used to access the larger parcel to the south of them by vehicular traffic. Mr. Devitt responded they would accept such a condition. If it were a C-N, that would allow a small clinic or support building and the traffic that would access that property alone, which would be minimal. They would, however, agree to that restriction as it pertains to traffic to the large parcel. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 8:52 p.m. Commissioner McCowen inquired of Staff if the proposed condition would be appropriate in a zoning change. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 10 January 8, 1997 Mr. Stump stated the condition would be most appropriate if and when a development permit came before the Commission, but it would not be appropriate in a rezoning project. It will be noted in the record that the Medical Center has always worked with the community, and they have agreed to preclude access to the large parcel through the Clara Street parcels. Discussion followed relative to imposing the C-N zoning to the seven parcels on Clara Street, and what the intent of the general plan was for that area. It was also discussed whether to zone the two parcels owned by the medical center separately from the remaining five parcels. Mr. Stump noted the General Plan Steering Committee didn't have the benefit of utilizing the new C-N District, and his understanding was that they wanted to get commercial property off of Clara Street. If they had the new C-N text available, they may have used it. Mr. Stump stated C-N is appropriate for Clara, more now than before, as the intent of C-N is to provide Iow intensity commercial services to the adjacent and nearby community. C-N might fit well in this particular area, and provide the types of services that people can walk or ride bikes to. Size of parcels lend themselves to Iow intensity uses. Mr. Stump cautioned the Commission that someone could buy several parcels, merge them, and improve them as such. He clarified it would not necessarily be "spot zoning" to zone only the two parcels C-N, since the parcels to the west and south are also zoned commercial. He encouraged the Commission to discuss C-N zoning for all seven lots. Commissioner Puser stated zoning all seven lots C-N seems most appropriate to her. Commissioner McCowen reminded the Commission of the letter from property owner, Lorie Leaf, expressing her approval of R-2. Mr. Stump advised if the Commission decided to rezone to C-N, it would be recommended to Council, and there no immediate action would be taken. It would require a general plan amendment and future action with other parcels requiring an amendment. That property owner would be noticed and communicated with prior to any discussion of rezoning her property beyond what is conceptually being discussed at this hearing. Discussion followed relative to the flexibility of the C-N designation, and placing C-N in a neighborhood that is still primarily a residential use. The Commission also discussed potential impacts of split zoning the seven parcels versus zoning all seven parcels alike. Chairperson Pruden stated the general plan intent was to enhance and maintain the residential quality of this street. She stated she is not supportive of rezoning all seven parcels to C-N, as it sends out a commercial message and could affect the residental nature of the neighborhood. She is not opposed to the two parcels contiguous to Ukiah Foods being zoned commercially. Also doesn't have problem with R-2 to protect the rest of the neighborhood. A Use Permit could be granted for 211 and 215 Clara. Chairperson Pruden advised she would support R-2 for all seven parcels, or five parcels at R-2 and two parcels at C-N. ON A MOTION by Commissioner McCowen, Seconded by Commissioner Larson, it was carried by the following roll call vote to recommend rezoning to R-2 the five eastern-most parcels as designated on Clara Avenue, and that the two western-most parcels that are contiguous to the Medical Center property and Ukiah Frozen Foods, not be rezoned at this time but be recommended for a future rezoning to C-N with a General Plan Amendment: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Larson, McCowen, Puser, and Chairperson Pruden None None None PUBLIC HEARING OPENED (For All Remaining Items) - 9:11 p.m. No one came forward. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 11 January 8, 1997 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED - 9:12 p.m. ITEM #1' R1 to CN Discussion occurred relative to retaining the R-1 zoning. ON A MOTION by Commissioner McCowen, Seconded by Commissioner Puser, it was carried by the following roll call vote to recommend to City Council the retention of the R1 zoning on Item #1' AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Larson, McCowen, Puser, and Chairperson Pruden None None None ITEM #3 - Sub-Group #1' R3 to CN Chairperson Pruden noted this particular item was previously reviewed as R3 to Cl by the Planning Commission and returned by Council for further discussion and consideration. Mr. Stump noted the new C-N zoning text was not available the last time this item came before the Planning Commission. He noted since this area has been designated commercial in the General Plan, Staff recommends C-N as an appropriate designation. Discussion occurred regarding the Commission's former rational for C-1, and the appropriateness of C-N for the neighborhood. ON A MOTION by Commissioner McCowen, Seconded by Commissioner Larson, it was carried by the following roll call vote to support Staff's recommendation to recommend to City Council the rezoning of Item #3/Sub-Group #1 from R3 to CN: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Larson, McCowen, Puser and Chairperson Pruden None None None ITEM #3 - Sub-Group 2:R3 to CN Discussion occurred relative to the transition and existing uses on Oak Street between Mill Street and Seminary Avenue, and whether the neighborhood should evolve commercially or residentially. The Commission considered both C-N and R-2 zoning for the area. Chairperson Pruden stated she is not in favor of sending out commercial messages in this area, adding more commercial buildings are not needed with the high vacancy rate already in existance on Seminary alone. She indicated her preference for R-2. Commissioner McCowen concurred with R-2, with the exception of the Ukiah Daily Journal building, which he recommended should be C-N, in view of the fact that the uses to the south of that building are currently commercial. ON A MOTION by Commissioner McCowen, Seconded by Commissioner Puser, it was carried by the following roll call vote to recommend that City Council rezone Item #3, Sub-Group 2, to R-2, with the exception of the Ukiah Daily Journal building on Oak and Mill Streets, which is recommended for rezoning to C-N' MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 12 January 8, 1997 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Larson, McCowen, Puser, and Chairperson Pruden None None None ITEM #4 -Sub-Group 2' Observatory & Luce/C1 to R3 The Planning Commission discussed the existing uses in this area and the potential for transitioning this neighborhood toward commercial. Commissioner McCowen recommended R-3 zoning on Observatory to reflect current use and stated the parcels on Luce may be more appropriate as C-N. Chairperson Pruden inquired of Staff how the current C-1 zoning could occur in the middle of a block. Mr. Stump explained the General Plan's Map show it to be high density residential. The General Plan called for those parcels to be separated out. Discussion occured between Staff and the Commission regarding the Steering Committee's intent for this block and how the existing zoning came about. The Commission discussed the potential impacts on the neighborhood by zoning either R-3 or C-N, and discussed with Staff the potential affect on Ukiah's housing element these rezonings could create. ON A MOTION by Commissioner Puser, Seconded by Commissioner McCowen, it was carried by the following roll call vote to recommend to City Council on Item #4, Sub-Group 2, to rezone the three parcels on Luce Avenue to C-N and the two parcels on Observatory Avenue to R3: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Larson, McCowen, and Puser Chairperson Pruden None None ITEM #5 - Subgroup #1' C1 to R2 After discussion is was the consensus of the Commission to support Staff's recommendation for rezoning to R-3. ON A MOTION by Commissioner McCowen, Seconded by Commissioner Puser, it was carried by the following roll call vote to recommend to City Council support of Staff's recommendation for rezoning Item #5, Sub-Group 1, from C-1 to R-3: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Larson, McCowen, Puser, and Chairperson Pruden None None None ITEM #5 - Subgroup #2:C1 to R2 Mr. Stump referred to letters received relative to this group, one from a property owner on the west side of Cherry Court, which is a single family residence converted to Family Services Offices and leased by the County. The agent for the property owners have requested the property be retained as C-1 or rezoned to R-3. Across the street is a single family dwelling owned by James Nix, who has requested that the C-1 be retained. His rational MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 13 Januaw 8,1997 includes his use of the property as a single family residence and hobby shop. He stated it is Staff's opinion that a hobby shop on a parcel used primarily for residential use is most appropriate in a Residential zone. The Planning Commission discussed legal, nonconforming land uses as it pertains to rezoning this particular area to R2, and the current C1 zoning in a culdesac designed for residential use. ON A MOTION by Commissioner Larson, Seconded by Commissioner Puser, it was carried by the following roll call vote to recommend to City Council support of Staff's recommendation to rezone Item #5, Sub-Group 2 from Cl to R2: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Larson, McCowen, Puser, and Chairperson Pruden None None None PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORTS City Council and Redevelopment Agency Actions Future Planning Commission Agenda Items Status Reports The Planning Commission briefly questioned Staff regarding the impending City Engineer public hearing for the Valentic/Keszler Boundary Line Adjustment. Commissioner Larson questioned Staff regarding the Ukiah Recycle project, which will be heard by the Planning Commission on January 22, 1996. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS Chairperson Pruden informed the Commission of the Planner's Institute in Monterey, California. The City currently has no allocation for Planning Commissioner training, as they have had in the past. She asked any Planning Commissionser's who are interested in attending on their own to contact her for the registration information. Chairperson Pruden also informed the Commission of an employment opportunity addressed to the Commission Chair for an Airport Facility Planning Manager for the City & County of San Francisco. Commissioner McCowen inquired if Staff had reviewed the landscaping plan for Walmart for consistency with the Conditions of Approval, specifically in relation to the olive trees that were planted. He noted they are not trees that provide a large canopy shade, as was specified. Mr. Stump explained the olive trees were approved as a part of the landscaping plan. The olive trees will eventually provide a shade canopy, though it may take some time. He noted the Swan Hill Olive has since been abandoned as a use for parking lot trees, due to the slow growth. Commissioner McCowen announced his resignation to the Planning Commission and noted this would be his last meeting. He has been appointed to serve on the Mendocino County Planning Commission. He expressed his regret at having to leave the Planning Commission on short notice, but explained due to "incompatiblity of office", he is not allowed to serve on both commissions, even for an interim period. Chairperson Pruden congratulated Mr. McCowen and commended him for his service to the City of Ukiah. She advised the City Council will be interviewing for Planning Commissioners next week and will appoint for the current vacancy at their January 15th meeting. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 14 January 8, 1997 RECE~VE~ CITY OF tJK~AH FEB 5 1997 CITY CLERK DEPAk I Ivt£N i Fro. t3, ~, iqq-7 AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 8c DATE: February 5, 1997 REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION MODIFYING RESOLUTION 95-8 REGARDING FEES, CHARGES, AND POLICY CHANGES AT THE UKIAH MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE SITE SUMMARY The City of Ukiah has been an active participant in solid waste issues county-wide. With the recent closing of the Laytonville and Caspar Landfills and the eminent closing of the Willits Landfill, the Ukiah Landfill has been identified as the probable interim site until a regional transfer station is developed. To determine the financial feasibility of using the Ukiah Landfill, Fort Bragg, Willits, and the County have requested what tipping fee would be imposed by the City. There are other fee and procedural issues which should be resolved at this time. Submitted for the City Council's consideration and adoption is a resolution which would, if adopted, establish new landfill tipping fees to be charged to commercial refuse collectors/haulers representing the County of Mendocino and the cities of Fort Bragg and Willits who dispose compacted refuse at the Ukiah Landfill. The proposed tipping fee is $63 per ton plus the Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority (MSWMA) surcharge (currently $6 per ton) for compacted refuse. This new tipping fee would be applicable only if the cities of Fort Bragg and Willits, and the County of Mendocino collectively elect to dispose their waste at the Ukiah Landfill. Should any of the three jurisdictions not elect to dispose their refuse at the Ukiah Landfill, the current fee of $66 per ton plus the $6 per ton MSWMA surcharge would be applicable to all commercial haulers other than the City's franchised refuse collector. CONTINUED ON PAGE 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: After conducting the Public Hearing and receiving public testimony, adopt the attached resolution "Modifying Resolution 95-8 Regarding Fees, Charges, and Policy Changes at the Ukiah Municipal Solid Waste Site". ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS' Refer matter back to Staff for further analysis utilizing other tipping fees. Appropriation Requested: Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Public Notice 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 R:I\LANDFILL:kk Canda~e anager ATIPPING.FEE Adoption of Resolution Modifying Resolution 95-8 Regarding Fees, Charges, and Policy Changes at the Ukiah Municipal Solid Waste Site February 5, 1997 Page 2 The resolution would also, if adopted, establish a fee to be charged to inter-City Departments for the disposal of yardwaste and untreated/unpainted woodwaste at the Ukiah Landfill. City Departments are not currently charged the current fee of $3.75 which is charged the public. This charge will offset the amount the Landfill currently pays a service provider to have the yardwaste removed and recycled. It is proposed that this change would become effective July 1, 1997, because of budgetary considerations. The resolution would further, if adopted, eliminate an option available to haulers whereby the disposal fee for loose refuse may be determined from certified weight tags. The weight of loose refuse has no bearing in the amount of air space consumed when landfilled. The current disposal fee for refuse which is delivered in a loose state is $11.90 per cubic yard plus a $0.75 per cubic yard MSWMA surcharge. The fee would remain in place. It is proposed that all other rate provisions of Resolution No. 95-8, adopted August 3, 1994, shall remain unchanged. Attached to the Summary Report is the City Manager's Report for the proposed changes which provides background information and the rationale for the changes. R: 1 'd. JuNDFILL A TIPPING.FEE 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 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 Willits 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 ATTACHMENT NO. I 1 5 6 ? 9 10 11 12 13, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 25 26 27 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 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 1 $ 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 27 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. This provision modifies the provisions of Paragraph g of Resolution No. 95-8. 3. 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 all cases pursuant to the provisions of Paragraphs c, g, and h of Resolution No. 95-8. 4. All other fees, charges, and provisions established under Resolution No. 95-8 shall remain unchanged. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1997, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Sheridan Malone, Mayor Colleen B. Henderson, City Clerk B:RES2 TIPPING.FEE CITY MANAGER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF TIPPING FEES TO BE CHARGED COMMERCIAL REFUSE COLLECTORS/HAULERS FOR THE DISPOSAL OF COMPACTED REFUSE SHOULD THE CITIES OF FORT BRAGG AND WILLITS AND THEIR ENVIRONS ELECT TO DISPOSE THEIR REFUSE AT UKIAH'S LANDFILL AND OTHER CHANGES TO RESOLUTION NO. 95-8 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 current Landfill service area includes the City of Ukiah, its County environs (Ukiah Valley), Potter Valley, Anderson Valley, Hopland, Boonville, and Redwood Valley. Approximately one-half of the County's population reside within this service area. The Landfill currently accepts an average of 115 tons per day of which an average of 105 tons is landfilled. These daily averages are based on a 5-day operational week or approximately 258 days per year. The difference of 10 tons between what is accepted and what is landfilled represents materials which are diverted and recycled including yardwaste, woodwaste, metals, tires, and other recyclables. Approximately half of the tonnage accepted at the Landfill is generated within the City of Ukiah with the balance being generated from the County unincorporated portion of the current service area. On August 8, 1996, the Landfill was re-permitted to accept a maximum daily average tonnage of 190 tons. This daily tonnage represents the estimated amount of refuse that is generated within Mendocino County per day. This new permitted tonnage will allow the City to accept all waste that is generated within the County. Currently, there are three (3) remaining landfills serving the communities of Mendocino County; they are the City of Ukiah, City of Willits, and South Coast landfills. The Willits Landfill is projected to reach capacity on or about June of 1997, and it currently receives waste from Fort Bragg, Mendocino, Albion, Laytonville, and Covelo because of the closure of the Caspar and Laytonville landfills. The South Coast Landfill is a small landfill serving the Community of Point Arena and the unincorporated communities along the southern Mendocino Coast. This small landfill is currently opened 3 days a week and accepts approximately 1,200 tons of refuse per year. Under the current County Solid Waste Five Year Plan, the South Coast Landfill is projected to cease landfill operations on or about January 1, 1999, for economic reasons; tipping fees do not offset operational costs. The South Coast Landfill has enough air space remaining to continue to operate for another 20 to 25 years at the current input of 1,200 tons per year. At the current rate of disposal (105 tons per day), the Ukiah Landfill is projected to reach capacity over the existing 40 acre foot print by March of 2000. Should the disposal rate increase to 190 tons per day beginning June 1997 the projected closure date would be February 1999. Page 1 of 5 As a result of the Landfill Siting Study completed in December 1992 by the Anderson Consulting Group, it has become clear of the difficulties in constructing a new landfill in Mendocino County. As a result of the Federal Subtitle D regulations and the subsequent State regulations, landfill expansions beyond the existing footprint must be lined with leak detection and leachate recovery capabilities. Landfill construction in full compliance with Subtitle D is costly ranging from $400,000 per acre to $500,000 per acre depending upon topography of the proposed site. These cost's are prohibitive for a landfill which has a low daily volume such as the City of Ukiah's Landfill. County of Mendocino and the City of Ukiah Staff have recognized that given the small quantities of refuse generated within the entire County of Mendocino, it is imperative and more economical to combine the wastestreams from all jurisdictions within Mendocino County and have it shipped out-of-county to a mega landfill. The Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority (MSWMA), a joint powers authority established by the cities of Fort Bragg, Willits, and Ukiah and the County of Mendocino, is pursuing the construction of a Regional Transfer Station to be located within the Ukiah Valley. It is proposed that all waste except that waste generated within Point Arena and the South Coast area be delivered to this Regional Transfer Station for ultimate disposal out-of-county. Proposals for the construction and operation of the Transfer Station at the property located on North State Street, north of Mendocino Drive, have been received and are currently being evaluated by Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority staff. Should this project proceed in the near future, it is anticipated that the Transfer Facility would be completed and ready to receive waste the fall or early winter of 1998. Since the Willits Landfill is projected to close 15 to 18 months prior to the completion of the Regional Transfer Station, a interim-disposal location is needed for their wastestream of approximately 14,000 tons per year of compacted waste and 47,500 cubic yards per year of uncompacted waste. In the interest of keeping the entire County wastestream intact in order that all jurisdictions within Mendocino County may enjoy the benefits of volume, the City of Ukiah has supported making the Ukiah Landfill available for the disposal of waste from Fort Bragg, Willits, and the remaining County areas. Should these jurisdictions elect to dispose their waste at the Ukiah Landfill, the City's Landfill will reach capacity just after the Transfer Station is projected to begin operations. Proposed Reduction in Tipping Fees Charged Franchised or Permitted Haulers for the City of Willits and Fort. Bragg, and the County of Mendocino To encourage a team approach to solving and meeting our future solid waste needs and to maintain a unified wastestream which is needed to achieve reasonable and affordable transportation and tipping fees, it is necessary that the City of Ukiah offer a reasonable and competitive tipping fee to the cities of Fort Bragg and Willits, and the remaining County area during the interim period. Currently, the City's franchised refuse collector is charged $63 per Page 2 of 5 ton and the County's permitted haulers are charged $72 per ton to dispose of compacted waste at the Ukiah Landfill. Both tipping fees include a $6 per ton surcharge which has been established by the MSWMA. Loose waste or uncompacted waste delivered by commercial and self-haulers are charged $12.65 per cubic yard which includes a $0.75 per cubic yard surcharge established by MSWMA. Should Willits, Fort Bragg, and the balance of the County area elect to direct their waste to Ukiah's Landfill for disposal, the amount of waste received for disposal per day would almost double. This additional volume of waste permits the distribution of fixed costs related to the Landfill's operation over a larger base. Based on waste quantities provided in annual disposal reports, the Director of Public Works has calculated Landfill revenue and expenditures based on a competitive tipping fee of $63 per ton for non-City commercial haulers and the existing fee of $57 per ton charged to the City hauler. These tipping fees exclude the $6 MSWMA surcharge and the estimated revenue and expenditures are based on a waste volume that includes the current wastestream plus all the waste from the cities of Fort Bragg and Willits, and the remaining County area. The combined waste volume is estimated at 31,820 tons of compacted waste and 101,892 cubic yards of loose or uncompacted waste. The revenue projections assumed that all loose waste would continue to be accepted at $11.90 per cubic yard plus the $0.75 per cubic yard MSWMA surcharge. With the additional waste being directed to the Ukiah Landfill beginning June 1997, maximum capacity would be reached within approximately 1.7 years. At the proposed tipping rates, the total projected revenue and expenditures over the 1.7 year period are estimated at $5,330,353, and $4,885,000 respectively with a positive balance of $445,353. The expenditures include the required annual set aside for the Closure Fund, however, it does not include a contribution towards Post-Closure Maintenance. Closure costs are estimated to be 1.7 million dollars at time of closure and sufficient annual contributions are being made to the Closure Fund whereby the amount needed for closure will be available at closure. It is estimated that a 2.56 million dollar fund is needed at the time of closure to fund a Post-Closure Maintenance period of 30 years. To date, no funds have been contributed to a Post-Closure Fund because of its affect to the tipping fees. To satisfy financial assurance requirements, the City Council elected to pledge future garbage collection revenue to fund the 30 year post-closure period. Staff proposes that any positive balance remaining in the Landfill Enterprise Account at time of closure be reserved for Post-Closure Maintenance. It has been reported to City Staff that Fort Bragg has received a proposal from Empire Waste for the hauling and disposal of their waste at a unit cost of $63.50 per ton. This proposal has prompted City Staff's proposed competitive rate of $63.00 per ton which would be offered to Fort Bragg, Willits, and the Count only if all three (3) jurisdictions participate in the Ukiah Landfill. If not, Staff proposes that non-City commercial haulers be charged the current rate of $66 per ton plus the $6 MSWMA surcharge. Page 3 of 5 Proposal to Charge Inter-City DePartments $3.75 Per Cubic Yard for the Disposal of Yardwaste and Woodwaste Currently, all landfill users are charged $3.75 per cubic yard for the receipt of yardwaste and non-treated woodwaste except City Departments such as the Street and Parks Departments. The City currently pays $3.75 per cubic yard to a service provider who loads and removes the yardwaste and woodwaste to their facilities for recycling and processing. Because City Departments are not charged fees for depositing these materials at the Landfill, the processing fees for this yardwaste are subsidized by the other rate payers. It is to be noted that City Departments are charged the current disposal fee for loose refuse. Staff is recommending that City Departments be charged the same rate for the depositing of yardwaste and woodwaste as the other rate payers. Staff is also recommending that the charge be effective after June 30, 1997 because of budgeting reasons. Elimination of Option to Hanler Allowing a Disposal Fee for Loose Refilse Based on Weight and Confirmed by Certified Weight Tags Currently, Resolution 95-8 which sets forth all landfill rates and hours of operation provides an option to a hauler whereby loose refuse may be charged on a weight basis in-lieu of the volume basis. As presented to previous Council's, weight of refuse has no bearing in the amount of airspace it consumes when landfilled. Compactibility or the potential for volume reduction is the primary factor which determines how much airspace the refuse will consume when landfilled. Landfills "sell" airspace and the rates established for refuse must be based accordingly. The composition and makeup of refuse hauled to the Landfill in a loose state is varied and includes such items as discarded furniture, construction and demolition materials, painted and treated wood, roofing materials, and household garbage. These items have varied weights but may take up the same volume of airspace; a cubic yard of furniture will consume the same airspace as a cubic yard of roofing materials but weights much less than the roofing materials. This is why most landfills charge loose refuse by volume. Household refuse delivered in compacted form in a garbage truck behaves differently than loose refuse. Compacted household refuse is somewhat consistent per load and arrives at the Landfill at various compaction rates. Based on field surveys conducted in 1994, these compaction rates can vary from 750 pounds per cubic yard to over 1,000 pounds per cubic yard. Refuse contained in a 15 cubic yard garbage truck and compacted to 1,000 pounds per cubic yard will consume more airspace than refuse confined in the same garbage truck but compacted at 750 pounds per cubic yard. Staff estimates that the maximum compaction achieved for this waste when landfilled and compacted with the compactor is 1,200 pounds per cubic yard. Because of the variable in compaction rates achieved in garbage trucks, compacted household refuse is charged by the weight. Page 4 of 5 This option to self-haulers is not common knowledge nor does Staff advertise it, however, a few customers are invoking the option. This option provides a subsidy to those who invoke it and should this become a frequent occurrence, the entire rate structure for the Landfill will have to be revised to make up the loss of revenue. Attachments: tlAII tlBtl I! C It ,! D" i, Etl ifGtl Landfill Revenue Calculation Landfill Cost Projections Cost Per Ton Calculation with all County Wastestream to Ukiah Correspondence to Mayor Campbell, City of Fort Bragg - dated November 18, 1994. Correspondence to Gary Milliman, City of Fort Bragg - dated December 8, 1994. Resolution No. 95-2, Stating Solid Waste Policy Preference. Landfill Solid Waste Facility Permit R: I ~..AN DFILL TIPPING.CMR Page 5 of 5 LANDFII~L REVENUE CAI,CULATION Proposed Tipping Fees Excluding MSWMA Fees of $6.00 per ton & $0.75 per cubic yard City of Ukiah Compacted - $57 per ton (Current Fee) County Commercial Compacted (Ukiah Area) - $63 per ton (Current Fee $66) Fort Bragg/Willits Commercial Compacted - $63 per ton Ukiah & County Loose- $11.90 per cubic yard Fort Bragg/Willits Loose- $11.90 per cubic yard Projected Revenue Over Remaining Life of Landfill - 1.69 years City of Ukiah Compacted 10,520 tons per year x $57 per ton x 1.69 years = $1,013,392 County Compacted (Ukiah Area) 7,436 tons per year x $63 per ton x 1.69 years = $791,711 Fort Bragg/Willits Compacted (plus surrounding County area) 13,864 tons per year x $63 per ton x 1.69 years = $1,476,100 Ukiah & County Loose 54,435 cubic yards x $11.90 per cubic yard x 1.69 years = $1,094,742 Fort Bragg/Willits Loose (plus surrounding County area) *47,457 cubic yards per year x $11.90 per cubic yard x 1.69 years = $954,408 TOTAL PROJECTED REVENUE ESTIMATE OF REVENUE REQUIRED BALANCE $5,330,353 $4,885.000 $ 445,353 * reported as 7,119 tons R: 1 \LANDFILL CITY OF UKIAH Ukiah Landfill Cost Projections With Additional Waste from Willits Landfill beginning June 1, 1997 and ending February 1999 with the projected closure of Ukiah Landfill I I Prepared By: Rick Seanor Date & Time Printed: 11/21/96 8:38 I I Note: Assumed Inflation Rate of 4% per fiscal year Full Value Partial Value Full Value Partial Value FY 96/97 FY 96~97 FY 97~98 FY 98/99 FY 98/99 TOTAL (4 weeks = 8%) (32 weeks = 62%) Landfill Operating Costs $1,259,892 $100,791 $1,303,000 $1,355,120 $840,174 $2,243,965 Closure Reserve Fund $255,000 $18,800 $405,000 $16,300 $440,100 Account 7301 $565,000 $45,040 $45,040 Refuse Debris $60,000 $4,800 $60,000 $60,000 $124,800 Subtotal $2,853,905 Items within O & M which are annual expense add 38% of value Hydroseeding $27,390 $10,410 Monitoring add 1 more quarter $14,900 Scraper Lease Payment $92,20,I $35,040 Gun Club Lease $88,314 $33,560 General Government Charges $7.3,785 $28,040 Scraper Mtce. Agreement $16,652 $6,320 Slope Work $7,140 $2,710 Billing & Collection $2.3,703 $9,010 Portion of Special Supplies $50,000 $19,000 I Subtotal $158,990 $158,990 Additional Operating Costs TOTAL O & M $3,012,895 I Power (Leachate) $5,000 $400 $5,200 $5,410 $3,350 $8,950 Aerial Topo Mapping $15,000 $15,000 Rebuild Compactor Engine $33,100 $33,100 Replace 955L Track Loader $57,900 $57,900 Replace Pickup Truck $13,200 $13,200 Replace D8 Dozer with used D6 $192,900 $192,900 Delete D8 Lease Payments ($51,500) ($53,560) ($33,210) ($84,710) Delete Compactor Lease Payments (873,600) ($76,544) ($47,460) ($121,060) Gun Club Property Loan Buyout $441,570 $441,570 Allowance for Scraper Over Usage $20,000 $20,000 Allowance for Tier 3 EPA Emissions Guidelines $15,000 $15,000 $30,000 I Subtotal $606,850 Preclosure Projects I Final Closure Plans $65,000 $65,000 Perimeter Gas Extraction (west) $273,000 $273,000 Allowance for Gas O & M $9,100 $9,100 $18,200 Allowance for Gas Extraction (east) $284,000 $284,000 Allowance for Gas O & M I $10,000 $10,000 Allowance for Benzene Remediation $200,000 $200,000 Allowance for Pavement Repair Vichy Springs Rd. $40,000 $40,000 $80,000 Allowance for Final Pavement Surface Vichy Springs Rd. $184,000 $184,000 Permanent Site Fencing $100,800 $100,800 Surface Drainage Improvements $50,000 $50,000 Subtotal $1,265,000 TOTAL EXPENSE $4,884,745 COST PER TON CALCULATION ALL COUNTY WASTESTREAM TO UKIAH Estimate of Landfill expense from June 1, 1997 to February 14, 1999 = $4,885,000 Annual waste to Landfill beginning June 1997 (28,160 + 20,912 tons) = 49,072 TONS Life of Landfill at 49,072 tons per year = 1.69 years Tonnage from June 1997 to February 1999 = (49,072)(1.69) = 82,932 TONS Average cost per ton = $4,885,000/82,932 tons = $58.90 or $59.00 per ton CAUTION: At current practice, self-haul waste is charged by the yard regardless of weight $12.65 per cubic yard (including 0.75 MSWMA surcharge). Value of Airspace - 4,885,000/177,000 cubic yards = $27.60 The above average tonnage cost excludes funds for post-closure maintenance and MSWMA fees. R: IkLANDFILL WASTE.~FREAM 300 · ADMIN. 707146~-6200 · FAX 11 707/46~-6204 ~,,~VE., UKIAH, CA 95482-5400 · PUBLIC SAFETY 463-6242/6274 · November 18, 1994 Patti Campbell, Mayor City of Ft. Bragg 416 Franklin St. Ft. Bragg, CA 95437 Dear Patti: As a follow-up to our City's Solid Waste Workshop held on November 1, and due to the fact that we are aware your Agency is presently considering various alternatives in the management of your wastestream, we wanted to provide you fud'her Information regarding the possible utilization of the Ukiah landfill as a regional site that might be helpful to you in your deliberations. The City of Uklah Is confident that by mid-1995, our landfill will be appropriately permitted to accept all of the wastestream In Mendocino County. Three weeks ago, we were also successful in receiving our Waste Discharge Requirements Permit for 1he landfill. Our landfill is regarded as one of the better-run landfills by the State Integrated Waste Management Board, the Local Enforcement Agency, and Regional Water Quality. We are prepared to offer a base gate fee rate of $64 per ton for all commercial haulers. The base rate includes continued funding of the Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority. As we stated at the Workshop, each of the jurisdictions could attach a surcharge to that base rate which we would collect at the gate on your behalf, and which you could use to offset any transportation and/or closure/post-closure related costs. Our base rate would be subject to adjustment due to any annual Increases in C.P.I., or in the event of any new local, state, or federal regulations which might cause an increase in the cost of operation or maintenance of the landfill. We recognize that Indemnification has been an issue of concern, and we are prepared to arrive at a solution to the Issue that is to the satisfaction of all parties concerned. We believe the offer we are making could result in reduced refuse collection costs to your constituents, and offer you a reasonable alternative with which to finance your current closure obligations. We look forward to your serious consideration of this offer, '~/e Are Here To Serve" · Patti Campbell, Ff. Bragg Page 2 November 18, 1994 and to future discussions concerning this offer beNveen our agencies. Respectfully, Mayor FS:CLR:ky C: Gary MIIIiman, Ft. Bragg City Council, Ft. Bragg Cily Council, Uklah Cily Manager, Uklah Director of Public Works/Cily Engineer, Uklah Director of Finance, Uklah 4:CC LBase j. o 300 UKIAH, C.A 95402-5400 · Al)MIN. 707/46:]-6200 · . pUBlIC SAFETY . 46'~-6242/6274 · Ir~4~( # 7071463-6204 · j Gary MIIIiman, Clly Admlnlsl'rator CIIy of Ft. Bragg 416 Franklin Street · Ft. Bragg, CA 9,5437 December 8, 1994 Dear Gan/: We are appreclalive of lhe effort your CIIy Is making In evaluating th~. otter we made to you to bring your waste to our landfill. We recognize that a conlinuin~'.'! concern at your Clly has been 'lhe Issue at Indemnlflcallon. 1here[ore, as a result ~.:; our Cily Council meeling last evenincj, Ihe Clly of Uklah Is prepared to otter to hold ha~l ,'dess and de[end II~e Cilles of FI. Bragcj and Willlls acjalnsl' any claims tar off-slle conlan',l,'~allon at lhe Uklah landfill In the event lhat municipal solid waste from these cllles Is d! ;'~osed of al' Ihe Uklah landfill, provided: (1) The Cilles of Ft, Bragg and Willlls, or lheir officers, agents, employees or contraclors, do not knowingly direct, participate In or condone 11 ~e disposal of prohiblled hazardous materials at lhe Uklah landfill; and (2) The Cllles of Ft. Bragg and Willils disposal of prohibited hazardous wasl'e at the Uklah landfill does not result from the negligent or willfully wrongful act or omission of the cities, or their officers, agents, employees or conlractors; and .; (3) The Cities of Ft. Bragg and Wiilils shall continue lo participate In the household hazardous waste coilecllon programs of the Mendoclno Solid Wasle Aulhorlly. We believe this Indemnification offer by lhe City of Uklah represents a significant effort on our part to forlhrighlly respond to a major concern expressed by your Clly, and Indlcales our willingness to work wilh you to make the Uklah landl'ill a workable solution 1o meet your needs. We look forward lo hearing from you with re,lards to our November 1~ offer, and particularly, In light, of this most recent communication and offer. Sincerely, Fred $chnelt er Mayor · , '~/e Are Here To Sense" I RESOLUTION NO. 95-28 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH STATING SOLID WASTE POLICY PREFERENCE. WHEREAS, 1. The City of Ukiah ("City") has applied to the Mendocino County Department of Environmental Health, which is the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA), and the California Integrated Waste Management Board (the Board) to amend its solid waste facilities permit for its solid waste disposal site (Landfill); and 2. The City has sought to amend its permit to allow the disposal Of up to 190 tons of solid waste per day at the Landfill (the Project); and 3. This higher volume would accommodate the entire Mendocino County waste stream for the remaining life of the Landfill; and 4. Under the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the city is the "Lead Agency," because it must carry out the Project (see 14 California Code of Regulations (CCR) §15051(a)); and 5. As the Lead Agency the City has prepared a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and is in the process of preparing a supplement to the draft. Once approved by the City, the final EIR will be used by the LEA and the Board in acting on the City's application. In conformity with the CEQA Guidelines, the supplement will, among other things, identify, analyze and discuss alternatives to the Project which could feasibly accomplish most of the basic purposes of the Project, while avoiding or substantially reducing one or more of the significant adverse effects of the Project (see 14 CCR §15088.5(d)); and 6. The City cannot approve the Project before it has adopted a final EIR for the Project and made any necessary findings in connection with its approval; and 7. The cities in Mendocino County and the County have formed a joint powers agency called the Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority (MSWMA) to develop county-wide solutions to solid waste problems; and 8. In carrying out the purposes of MSWMA, the other cities and the county need an indication from the City Council before it can complete the final EIR as to whether the City will accept the full county waste stream at the Landfill and whether it supports the siting of a transfer station to receive solid waste for transport out of the county, after the Landfill closes; and s:\u\resos94\landfil.msw November 17, 1994 9. The City Council wants to provide such assurance as it can before it has completed the analysis of project alternatives and approved the final EIR for the Project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows: 1. As exemplified by the Project application, the City 'Council supports the use of the Landfill' as a regional disposal site for Mendocino County and the same base rate for all commercial haulers, subject to its review and evaluation of Project alternatives as required by CEQA. Having stated this policy preference, the City Council affirms its intention to impartially evaluate and consider on their merits Project alternatives and to pursue the Project application if the Project remains the best project, in its judgment, taking into consideration, among other things, the environmental impacts of the Project in compaz'ison to the impacts of the Project alternatives. 2. The City Council directs its representatives to MSWMA to convey to the MSWMA Board, the City Council's conceptual support for siting a transfer station and the City Council's willingness to participate in the process of developing a suitable transfer station for collecting and preparing solid waste for transport out of the county at such time that no suitable disposal site exists within the county. The City Council's support for the concept of a transfer station is subject to the qualifications stated in paragraph 1 of this resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of November 1994, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Malone, Shoemaker and MaySr Schneiter NOES: None ABSENT: Councilmembers Mastin and Wattenburge Fred Schneit~, Mayor AT T ~'~/.. ~ ,. s:\u\resos94\landfil.msw November 17, 1994 'S O'LI'D WASTE FACILITY PERMIT 1. Facility/P~rmit Number: 23-AA-0019 2. Name and Street Addres of facilitys: Ukiah Solid Waste Disposal Site 3100 Vichy Springs Road Ukiah, CA 95482 3. Name and Mailing Address of Operator: City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482 4. Name and Mailing Address of Owner: City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482 5. Specifications: a. Permitted Operations: Composting Facility Processing Facility (mixed waste) Composting Facility Transfer Station (yard waste) X Landfill Disposal Site Transformation Facility Material Recovery Facility Other: b. Permitted Hours of Operation: Open to public 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Tuesday-Saturday. Open to commercial haulers 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Wednesday-Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Saturday, 6:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Tuesday and days following holidays. c. Permitted Tons Per Operating Day: Non-Hazardous - General Non-Hazardous - Sludge Non-Hazardous - Separated or commingled recyclables Non-Hazardous - (see Section 14 of Permit) Designated (See Section 14 of Permit) Hazardous (See Section 14 of Permit) Total 190 Tons/Day 190 Tons/Day 0 Tons/Day 4 Tons/Day 34 Tons/Day 0 Tons/Day 0 Tons/Day d. Permitted Traffic Volume: Incoming waste materials Outgoing waste materials (for disposal) Outgoing materials from material recovery operations Total 210 Vehicles/Day 190 Vehicles/Day 10 Vehicles/Day 10 Vehicles/Day e. Key Design Parameters (Detailed parameters are shown on site plans bearing LEA and CIWMB validations): Permitted Area (in acres) Design Capacity Max. Elevation (Ft. MSL) Max. Depth (Ft. BGS) Estimated Closure Date Total Disposal Transfer MRF Compost Transformation 283 a 40 a a a a a , oo.oooc .,o,,,, "I/I This permit is granted solely to the operator named above. Upon a significant change in design or operation from that described herein, this permit is subject to revocation or suspension. The attached permit findings and conditions are integral parts of this and su, the conditions of any previously issued solid waste facility permits. 6. Approval: A~ing'Officer Signature,S,,'~ John P. Morley, REHS III Name/Title 8. Received by CIWMB: '~i~..U..L ! 5 FJ96 7. Enforcement Agency Name and Address: Mendocino County Division of Environmental Health 880 North Bush Street Ukiah, CA 95482 9. ClWMB Concurrence Date: 11 .Permit Issue Date: AUGUST 8, 1996 lO.Permit Review Due Date: AUGUST 8, 2001 1 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 28 APPENDIX E RESOLUTION NO. 95-8 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ADJUSTING FEES AND CHARGES, ESTABLISHING A WEIGHT MEASUREMENT FOR DETERMINING FEES AND CP~RGES FOR COMMERCIAL H~ULERS AND CHANGING HOURS OF OPERATION AND MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURES AT THE UKIAH MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE SITE · · WHEREAS, it is the City"Council's 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 reserves 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 /// 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 2~ 25 26 27 III I!1 b) c) d) e) Material delivered in compacted form in'a vehicle having an operating compaction device and enclosed body will be charged according to the rated capacity of the body (Per Ton or at an.equivalent of 945 pounds per cubic yard) .............. Material delivered in loose uncompacted state (Per Cubic Yard) ............................ $72.00 $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 ) ............. e y.o~/'~,~, $72.00 Tires . 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 f) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 9) 12 13 14 15 h) 16 17 18 19 20 i) 23 25 26 27 28 Major appliances (accepted only if compressor systems, lubrication lines 'and freon systems completely removed. ) . . Refrigerators, freezers and other similar refrigeration'~appliances (accepted only with certificate~indicating legal refrigerant removal) ........... · Washer (cloth~§ or dishes) ........... $15.75 each $15.75 each 3. Dryers (clothes) ..................... $15.75 each · · Kitchen ranges ....................... Water heaters ............. : .......... $15.75 each $15.75 each · Appliances similar to above ................................ $15.75 each City of Ukiah inter-departmental rates. Loose Loads (Per Cubic Yard) .......................... $12.65 Compostibles (yardwaste) .................. NO CHARGE 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 for ioose and compacted refuse may be determined from certified weight tags. 5 6 ? 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 2~ 25 26 27 1) Clean woodwaste (unpainted, unprocessed) (Per Cubic Yard) ............. $ 3.75 m) Dumping rate for self-haulers (as hereafter defined) with loads containing ~on-separated recyclable materials or other materials specified for diversion from th~.iandfill mixed with ordinary 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 8'00 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. 3. Early Morning Dumping by Commercial Garbage Collectors 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 15 16 17 19 90 21 9.6 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 ~ln the Ukiah landfill servi~e area. . · . .. Dumping prior to regular 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 Fridays - 7:00 a.m. to opening for regular business. Saturdays - No early 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 Attendant/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. PASSED AND ADOPTED this ~ day of ~, 1994, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers ~astin, Malone, Wattenburger and Mayor Schneiter ' Councilmember Shoemaker None ~~ . ABSTAIN: None 9 10 Cathy Mc.~y, Ci~fClerk 15 B: i\RES1 FEES. 2 Fred Schnelt Mayor 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 27 28 AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 9a DATE: February 5j 1997 REPORT SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF TRAFFIC FINDINGS RELATIVE TO THE TEMPORARY TRAFFIC BARRICADE ON MARLENE STREET AT ORCHARD AVENUE AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING MARLENE STREET AS ONE WAY EASTBOUND SUMMARY: At the regular City Council meetings of October 16, 1996 and November 6, 1996 concerns about traffic diversion and calming, speed zones, speed humps, and street closure in the Lorraine Street, Betty Street, Marlene Street neighborhood were discussed. After hearing public testimony, the Council voted to install speed humps on Lorraine Street and Betty Street, to adopt a 15 mph speed zone on Lorraine Street south of Marlene Street, and to install a temporary barricade on the east end of Marlene Street to prevent through traffic from South Orchard Avenue. Staff was further directed to report back to the Council with traffic count data with the barricade in place and to recommend action regarding the temporary barricade. Continued on Page 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Rescind the decision to install a temporary barricade closing Marlene Street at Orchard Avenue; 2. Adopt the Resolution establishing Marlene Street as one- way eastbound between Lorraine Street and South Orchard Avenue ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Not rescind the decision to install the temporary barricade closing Marlene Street at Orchard Avenue; 2. Direct staff to replace the temporary barricade with a permanent barricade. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Acct. No.: Appropriation Requested: N/A (if budgeted) Citizen Advised: George McCown, 44 Lorraine St. 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 Attachments: Rick Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer 1. Resolution 2. Traffic Collision Report 3. Police Sergeant's Daily Report, Nov. 9, 1996 4. Summary of Traffic Counts, January 1997 5. Summary of Traffic Counts, May 1994 6. Letters from Residents 7. Petition to the City Council 8. Location Map APPROVED: RJS:AGMARLOR.SUM Candace Horsley, City~anager Page 2 February 5, 1997 Consideration of Report of Traffic Findings Relative to the Temporary Traffic Barricade on Marlene Street at Orchard Avenue and Adoption of Resolution Establishing Marlene Street as One Way Eastbound ACTIONS TAKEN: The temporary barricade was installed on October 25, 1996. Three speed humps were installed on Lorraine Street (south of Marlene Street) on November 25-26, 1996 and on Betty Street (south of Marlene Street) on December 2, 1996. The 15 mph speed zone on Lorraine Street south of Marlene Street was adopted on October 16,1996. Since the barricades were installed on the east end of Marlene Street at South Orchard Avenue the Public Works Street Maintenance crew has worked a total of 18 hours overtime to reset the barricades which had either been moved or tipped. Initially, the Street crew had to respond by placing additional fold-up barricades to prevent vehicles from driving around the end of the barricades and onto the residents lawn. The Police Department has also filed a hit and run accident report (Attachment "2" ) involving the barricades. The police have also indicated some problems with the barricades, Attachment "3." TRAFFIC INFORMATION: The Mendocino County Department of Public Works at the City staff's request recently completed (January1997) a survey of traffic volumes in the neighborhood, Attachment "4." These volumes can be compared directly to traffic counts collected in May 1994 since the 1997 counts and the 1994 counts were taken at identical locations. The 1994 counts, Attachment "5," were taken after the January 1994 opening of Wal-Mart. It is interesting to note that both counts on Waugh Lane remained approximately the same from 1994 to 1997. However, the total average daily traffic (ADT) on Cooper Lane increased by approximately 1,000 vehicles per day when compared to the 1994 traffic count on Cooper Lane. Since both the Waugh Lane counts were taken south of Cooper Lane, staff has assumed that the additional 1,000 vehicles per day per the Cooper Lane traffic count are driving north on Waugh Lane and utilizing the Waugh Lane / East Gobbi Street intersection. Also note that the total January 1997 ADT for Lorraine Street decreased by approximately 1,100 vehicles per day over the 1994 traffic count. The January 1997 traffic counts for Betty Street and Marlene Street (west of Lorraine Street) also had a significant decrease when compared to the 1994 counts. COMMUNITY RESPONSE: Since these actions staff has spoken to several residents concerned about the installation of the temporary barricade. The initial response found that about half of the residents who contacted staff supported the barricade while the other half wanted the barricade removed. Staff has received letters supporting the barricade installation from five residents, Attachment "6". On November 15, 1996 staff received a petition, Attachment "7," signed by 53 residents of the neighborhood. The residents expressed concern using Waugh Lane as a northerly exit from their neighborhood. The Waugh Lane/Gobbi Street intersection can be very difficult for vehicles turning east or west onto Gobbi Street from Waugh Lane. In addition the petition requested that Marlene Street be made a one-way street, eastbound, between Lorraine Street and South Orchard Avenue. This would allow residents to exit their neighborhood in a Page 3 February 5, 1997 Consideration of Report of Traffic Findings Relative to the Temporary Traffic Barricade on Marlene Street at Orchard Avenue and Adoption of Resolution Establishing Marlene Street as One Way Eastbound convenient manner through the Orchard Avenue/Gobbi Street intersection which has a 4-way stop as opposed to the Waugh Lane/Gobbi Street intersection which only has a stop sign on the Waugh Lane leg of the intersection. Staff concurs with this recommendation and believes it will continue to discourage traffic through the neighborhood as well as continuing to allow a convenient northern exit from the neighborhood through Orchard Avenue. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends making Marlene Street between Lorraine Street and South Orchard Avenue be made a one-way street for eastbound traffic by signage and removal of one-half of the barricades. Designating Marlene Street as one-way eastbound would allow traffic an alternate northern route into town through the four way stop sign controlled intersection at Orchard and Gobbi. This intersection is more convenient for northbound traffic when compared to the Waugh Lane and Gobbi Street intersection. Staff believes the one-way street is a better solution to the full closure barricade and recommends it be implemented rather than continuing the closure of Marlene Street to South Orchard Avenue. Attachment "8" indicates the location of the proposed one-way street. Such action is to be completed by adoption of a resolution. Should traffic counts increase substantially after the designation and signing of Marlene Street as a one-way eastbound street, staff would propose modifying the traffic signals at Talmage Road and Airport Park Boulevard to prevent traffic from driving straight across Talmage Road onto Airport Park Boulevard and vice versa. This signal modification would still allow traffic from Talmage Road to turn either left or right to drive northbound onto Old Talmage Road. Traffic driving southbound from Old Talmage Road would be restricted to turning left or right (east or west). By preventing the through movements only across Talmage Road staff believes that traffic utilizing the Lorraine/Betty/Marlene neighborhood will be significantly curtailed. 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 19. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 23 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ESTABLISHING MARLENE STREET AS A ONE-WAY STREET EASTBOUND BETWEEN LORRAINE STREET AND ORCHARD AVENUE WHEREAS, the City Council may by resolution designate one-way streets pursuant to Article 6, Chapter 1, Division 8, of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer received a petition requesting a one-way street, eastbound, on Marlene Street between Lorraine Street and Orchard Avenue; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer recommends that the said section of Marlene Street be designated as a one-way street. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Ukiah City Council that a one-way street, eastbound, on Marlene Street between Lorraine Street and Orchard Avenue be established. The City Engineer is hereby directed to place and maintain appropriate and necessary signs designating the one-way street. PASSED AND ADOPTED this roll call vote. day of , 1997, by the following AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Sheridan Malone, Mayor Colleen B. Henderson, City Clerk B:RESI MARLENE TRrA'FFiC COLLISION REPORT- Property Damage Only T~ AWAY N~AY ..... ~CYCLE ~k ~VELi~dTAi~ OR HO~AY ~ / D~AQED PEO. uFi I ~l~ I ~P ucvcLs ~ 0~HER YR ~ UC~E N~BEg ITA~ VEK~PE PAfl~ I ~ , ,, ~ ~ M~E / ~OEL I CO~A r PROP. ~ I ~ORES8 ~ D~SO P~PE~ OWNER ' PRIORY CO.SION FACTOR TRAFRC CO~R~ DE~C~ I 2 ~PE OF V~CLE 2 C~USI~ UST NUMBER ( ~ ) OF PAR~ AT FAULT ....... ~ C OTHER THAN DRIVER ' ~PE OF ' !EPICKUP / PANEL mUCK W I m~R E UA~.~ DUHK~OWN' ~[~HE*D -O. ...... IF TRUCK OR mUCK reACTOR F ~.G U E FE~ AS~EP' ' "B SmES~ IG muc~ / TRUCK TRACTOR W / TR~ G BAC~NG CnE*. EHD JH SC.~L BUS ' H SLOWI~/STO~t.~ W~THER ( ~RK 1 TO 2 ~TE~S) DBROAOaDE J I OTHER BUS I P*~ OmEn VE~UCLE ~ ACLE.. E HT O~ECT IJ E~RGENCY VEH~ J c~ " BCLOUDY F OVERTURNED IK HGI~AY C~ST. EQUIPMENT K PAR~ MANEUVER G VEHCLE I PEDES~AN IL B~CYC~ L EmE~ m*F~C CD SNOW~N~RA~"~NG . ~ ~H OTHER': ' IM OTH~ VEHC~ ' . M OTHER UN~FE E FOG I VI~Y ~. ' MOT~ VEHCLE INV~VED WI~ iN PEDES~AN N Xl~ I~O ~P~l~ ~NE F OTHER: ~ ~. C~UaOH ID ~ED I ,O PARK~ Gw,.~ a.~o~sT-*.~/ I I ~P ~E"~"~ ,, UGH~NG C OTHER M0~ VE~CLE OTHER ASS~IAT~ FACTOR(S) B ~e TRAVEUNG WR~G WAY A D*YUGHT D UOT~ VEHCLE OH OTHER .G~AY ( ~.K 1 TO 2 ITEMS ) R OTHE. ':  DARK - STREET UG~S F ~AIN ~ DA.~ ~ ~E~mS -- GB~CYCLE ~ VC ~C~O. ~O~O.: -- -- ~ -- E DARK- ST.EET UGHTS .OT -- R A~L: SOB.tE~ - ~NCTIO~I ~ I 2 PItY~CAL -- ~ROADWAY SURFACE I~ ( MARK I TO 2 ITEMS ) I B WET B HBO - UNDER IN~U~CE C SNowY- ~cY ' ' - J OTH~ O~ECT: . . E~ON OBSCUREME~: ~ C HBD - NOT UNDER IN~UENCE iD SUPPEnY ( MUDDY. ~LY, ~C. ) [ mArKET,ON ' ~ D HBO-iUP~.MEm UHKNOW. ' "' G ST~ & GO mAFRC t E UNDER DRUG INFLUENCE ROADWAY C~m~S) PEDEStAlS AC~ON ' H E~ERI~ I ~A~NG RAMP ( ~RK I TO 2 I~ )., ~. 'A NO PEDESTR~N INVOLVED I PRE~S CO~SION [~ F IMPAIRMENT - ~YSICAL A H~ES, DE~ RUTS ' BCRO~I~ IN CRO~WA~ r~ .,,,,, GIMP~RME~ ~T K~WN ~ L~E MATE~AL ~ ROADWAYr " ('AT I~ECR~~J ~UNFANMAR~WITH[~ROAD~ ~ H NOT APPUCABLE C ~STRUC~ ON ROADWAY' C CRO~ m CRO~WA~- ~T " I I S~EPY / FA.GUEO DCONSTRUC~ON - REPAIR ZONE AT I~SECR~ ! S~[CIAL INFO~MA~ ,,, E REDUCED ROADWAY WIDTH DCRO~ING - NOT IN CRO~WALKL U~NV~VED VEIIICLE B J JA HAZARDOUS MATERIAL F ~ED · E IN ROAD - INCLUDES S~ULDER ~THER ·: I GOTHER ·: F NOT IN ROAD NONE APPARENT -~ H NO UNUSUAL CONm~ONS G APPROAC~ I L~NG SC~ BUS RUNAWAY ~HCLE __ , .:HP 55.5-03 (REV 11-88) OPI 042 /% ~ 1~6316 ! 12-23-96 2141 2303 441 96-4219 FACTS NOTIFICATION: I was dispatched to this non injury collision on 12-23-96 2141 hours. I arrived at 2145 hours. The vehicle that was involved left the accident scene prior to my arrival. All times, speeds, measurements are approximate. SUMMARY: D-1 (Unknown) drove V-1 (Ford) Southbound on S. Orchard Avenue to the intersection of S. Orchard Avenue and Marlene Street. D-1 (Unknown) then parked V-1 (Ford) in front of the road barrier in the intersection. D-1 (Unknown) then drove V-1 (Ford) forward, hitting the road barrier and causing the road barrier to fall over. D-1 (Unknown) then drove the front end of V-1 (Ford) on top of the road barrier. D-1 (Unknown) then drove V-1 (Ford) backwards off of the road barrier. D-1 (Unknown) then drove V-1 (Ford) forward, pushing the road barrier about twenty five feet West. D-1 (Unknown) then drove V-1 (Ford) West bound on Marlene Street and turned Southbound on Lorraine Street. The point of impact was five feet South of the prolongation of the North curbline of Marlene Street and forty seven feet West of the East curbline of S. Orchard Avenue. As result of the traffic collision the road barrier received scuff marks and the reflective sticker was torn in two areas. CAUSE: D-1 (Unknown) caused the collision by being in violation of 21461(a) CVC - Failure to obey erected traffic control ~evices. : G. Stark Page 3 #441 Officer Vehicle Radio UKIAH POLICE DEPARTMENT Sergeant's Daily Report Vehicles: Uniforms: Shift Information: Date: [/' '~' F~ Watch Commander: ~¢._~~ LORRAINE ST., BETTY ST., MARLENE ST. TRAFFIC COUNT DATA, JANUARY 1997 CITY OF UKIAH I Summary of Traffic Counts - Lorraine St., Betty St., Marlene St. Neighborhood Data Received from Mendocino Co. Public Works on January 22, 1997 NB = Northbound Traffic; SB = Southbound Traffic EB = Eastbound Traffic; WB = Westbound Traffic Prepared By: Rick Seanor Date & Time Printed: 1/28/97 8:23 Waugh Lane Waugh Lane Cooper Lane (south end) (just south of Cooper Lane) Date Day NB SB TOTAL NB SB TOTAL EB WB TOTAL 15-Jan-97 Wednesday 1,240 1,462 983 1,086 Z, 069 16-Jan-97 Thursday 1,703 1,21 0 2,,913 1,288 1,458 2,,746 958 1,087 2,,045 1 7-Jan-97 Friday 1,853 1,395 3,2,48 1,365 1,569 2,,934 903 1,249 2,, 152, 18-Jan-97 Saturday 1,261 865 2,,126 1,046 1,110 2,,156 883 1,117 2,000 19-Jan-97 Sunday 1,041 767 1,808 833 1,023 1,856 769 921 1,690 20-Jan-97 Monday 1,491 1,028 ~.,519 1,083 1,245 2,,32,8 851 1,010 1,861 21-Jan-97 Tuesday 1,698 1,240 2,,938 1,228 1,483 2,,711 572 760 1,332, Avera,~e Daily Traffic 1,508 1,084 2,592 1,155 1,336 2,,455 846 1,033 1,878 Marlene Street Lorraine Street Betty Street (west of Lorraine St.) Date Day NB SB TOTAL NB SB TOTAL EB WB TOTAL 7-Jan-97 Tuesday 189 227 230 457 61 88 149 8-Jan-97 Wednesday 369 236 605 248 245 493 86 82 168 9-Jan-97 Thursday 415 227 642, 231 269 500 77 90 167 lO-Jan-97 Friday 375 243 618 260 269 52,9 83 70 153 11 -Jan-97 Saturday 219 85 91 176 12-Jan-97 Sunday 178 59 47 106 13-Jan-97 Monday 186 66 86 152, Average Daily Traffic 386 211 622, 2,42 2,53 495 74 79 153 z D 0 Uklah, Ca. 95482 Nov. 25, 1996 Rick Kennedy ~ Director of Public Works City Engineer Dear Mr. Kennedy, We want you to ](now the barricade on Marlene St. is working. Thank you for installing it so promptly. On Nov. 5,before the barricade was installed, we counted traffic going by our home. In one hour 4:25pm.to 5:25 p.m., we had 97 cars going north and 100 cars going south. Since the barricade was installed we have counted traffic during the same time period. Nov. 11 ..... 48 north ...... 18 south Nov. 13 ..... 36 north ...... 26 south Nov. 18 ..... 37 north ...... 19 south 4:00p.m.to 5:00p.m. Nov. 19 ..... 42 ~orth ...... 15 south We took two afternoon counts: 1:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. Nov. 20 ..... 47 north ...... 17 south Nov. 23 ..... 38 north ...... 20 south These hours seem to be the busy time of day. We have very little traffic mornings and late evenings. Some of the cars ~oing north could be residents of the area, and may not be going on to WauEh Lane. We know the concern is that traffic from Lorraine and Betty Streets will be going out Waugh Lane, and a traffic counter is to be put on Waugh Lane. That location will not give an accurate count , as many homes, apartments and business are on Waugh Lane. We suggest you put a counter on Cooper Lane. That will ~lve an accurate count of traffic fron Lorraine St. and Betty St. that may be using Waugh Lane. cc: Candace Horsley City Manager Sheridan Malone Mayor Thank You, ,. RECE~VEJ~,~- '~' J/~ ~ 0 1997 ~ ~. l/' ,$~ITY CLERK DIE. PA~ I'mEI~i Ukiah, Ca. 95482 Jan. 20, 1997 Rick Kennedy Director of Public Works City Engineer Dear Mr. Kennedy, JAN 2 & 1997 CITY OF UKIAH DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS How nice our neighborhood is now that we don't have so much traffic~ The barricade is really what made the difference. We can now drive out from our driv6way safely and walk on our street. Recently, we obtained a copy of the petition that was sub- mitted to you NOv. 15, 1996, signed by residents of North Lorraine and B~etty Streets. Most of these residents have lived in this area before the years of 1991-1992 when Orchard Ave. was connected to Marlene St. They used either Waugh Lane or Talmage Rd. for many years. Now they feel trapped because the barricade keeps them from using Orchard Ave. T~hey are.~*on].y thinking of their own convience to use Orchard Ave. to go shopping and etc. We have less traffic problems now that the barricade is in, and we have adequate access for Emergency Vehicles. We are all taxpayers and safety for everyone is our concern. Making Marlene a one way street will not work. We will have too much traffic going North and also a very real hazard , with the possibility of traffic from Orchard trying to go West on a short block one way Marlene St. We have taken a few counts of traffic going by our house. Dec. 12, 1996 4:30 P.m.---5:D0p.m. 25 north---12 south Jan. 2, 1997 2:20p.m.- .... 3:20p.m. 25 north---13 south Jan. 3, 1997 5:00 p.m.---6:00 p.m. 19 north---12 south We want the barricade installed permanently. With out it', we will be right back to the heavy traffic of cars, trucks, air pollution and noise. cc: Candace Hors!ey City Manager Sheridan Malone Mayor Thank You, NOVEMBER 15, 1996 TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF UKIAH: We, the undersigned, hereby Petition and Request our right to appeal the decision of the Ukiah City Council on November 6, 1996 as regards to the closure and barricading of Marlene Street to all traffic East and West. We Petition on appeal the decision of the Ukiah City Council to remove one of the barricades over to the far left to stop people from coming over on the sidewalk and replacing said closure of Marlene Street with a one way street running West to East. We who live on Marlene Street, Lorraine Street, Orchard and Cindi, do not enjoy being trapped in our neighborhoods and feel the institution of a one way West to East street from Lorraine West and Orchard East of Marlene Street would address itself to eliminating: 1) Traffice problems 2) Taxpayers loss of use of a street paid for and kept up by Taxpayers dollars 3) Local residents aggravation with Council mandates. 4) Fear and apprehension about Emergency Vehicles access 5) And loss of our constitutional rights to freedom. We further believe inclusion of such traffic devices as are required for safety, sanity and usefulness were not placed properly to aid Citizens in recognizing such a drastic change and request the City Council make such moves to institute a one way (West to East) on Marlene from Lorraine Street West to Orchard Street South consider the full use of such devices as would provide for Vehicle safety, traffic awareness, and Pedestrian safety. We further would like the City Council to recognize that we are not asking that the City spend any money, only to move the one barricade over to the far left and make Marlene a one way street. The Council's kind attention to this matter as a request of Local Citizens affected by Council's recent motion would be most appreciated. NOV 1 CITY OF UKIAH' DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS t! f / SUN ~OUS£ PAnK GnACE UN HOUSE r. LDMK. v. D6Pr. I,: £RRY lOMAS RUPE rALMAGE HASTINGS t :;:: i ~).. · ' ST.[ I,[ACII PLUM S1. MUS. i Sn. CIE I tctn' ANF;,I lC, [I. nEY I. AV. UKIAH '~ii!:1 YAFtD q,': DEB03 BU. COMMERCE DR, U.S.G.S. YOSEMITE EL BIO ST. 1~115 MANOF¢ OAKS MOt. ESTS. OAK MANOR DR. ~ Do ,! ( _FRNt. RD. LIMIT To The City of Ukiah City Councll Director of Public Works/ City Engineer Jan. 28, 1997 RECEIVED .4TV' FEB ,] i997 We are formally requesting that the City of Uklah install a perm~,nent barric,~.de d isconnectln~ Marlene St. from South Orchard Ave. We have experienced a satisfactory decrease in traffic flow in which we feel that this barricade is the only practical solution to mitigate the hazardous traffic impact created on our streets, because of the Airport Business Park and the South Orchard Ave. extension. NAME ADDRESS .-? Jan. 28, 1997 NAME ADDRESS Jan. 28, 1997 NAME ADDRESS Jan. 28, 1997 NAME ADDRESS Jan. 28, 1997 NAME ADDRESS (J ITEM NO. 10a DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 1997 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF SCHEDULE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997-98 BUDGET A schedule for the annual City of Ukiah Budget Process has traditionally been adopted by the City Council. The proposed calendar identifies the key elements and time frames of the program. As in previous years, a session with the City Council, prior to the adoption hearings is included in the process to provide an opportunity to review the progress made relative to last year's City Council goals and objectives and discuss directions and policy issues to be addressed in the upcoming fiscal year. This year the date is scheduled so specific dollar figures can be included with the various alternatives available to the Council. The budgeting process is lengthy and intense, and most significant in determining the policy directions of the City and the distribution of resources to meet the goals and objectives of the community. Staff recommends the City Council approve the proposed schedule. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: 1. Review and approve the Schedule for Fiscal Year 1997-98 Budget process. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Revise proposed schedule as desired and approve amended budget schedule. 2. Determine schedule is not necessary and do not approve any budget schedule. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Acct. No.: NA Appropriation Requested: N/A (if budgeted) Citizen Advised: NA Requested by: NA Prepared by: Michael F. Harris, AICP, Assistant City Manager Coordinated with: Gordon Elton, Finance Director, and Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: 1. Fiscal Year 1997-98 Budget Schedule, page1. APPROVED:, (~ ~&1:~'¢o~ Candace Horsley, City M ager mfh:asrcc97 0205bud DATES January 31, 1997 February 5 March 21 March 24-31 April 1-8 April 9-14 April 15-18 April 21-May 2 May 5-9 May 12-14 May 15-21 May 22-28 May 29-June 6 June 9-12 June 13 June 14 June 16 June 18 June 24-26 mfh:9798budget BUDSCH CITY OF UKIAH FISCAL YEAR 1997-98 BUDGET SCHEDULE ADOPTED - ACTION Budget worksheets distributed to Departments. City Council review and approval of fiscal year 1997-98 Budget Schedule. Departments submit proposed budgets to Budget Team (Assistant City Manager and Director of Finance). Review of Department budget submittals by Budget Team. Individual Departmental budget reviews with Budget Team. Total budget requests reviewed and tallied by Budget Team. Review of Department Budget proposals by City Manager and Budget Team. Individual Department budget reviews with City Manager and Budget Team. Preliminary budget figures and calculations completed by Budget Team. Preliminary budget numbers finalized by Budget Team and City Manager. City Council/Staff session to consider current and projected goals and objectives and provide direction as to priorities and policies for completion of final budget. Final individual Department budget reviews with City Manager and Budget Team. Proposed final draft budget completed, copied, distributed to departments for final review and comment, and comments received by Budget Team. Final department comments considered by Budget Team, final draft budget completed and produced for distribution. Final draft budget submitted to City Council with Agenda Packet and to Ukiah Valley Sanitation District by separate distribution. Final draft budget available for public review at Library. Final draft budget available for public review at Civic Center counter. City Council set specific dates and times for Budget Hearings. Three days of City Council (including Redevelopment Agency and Ukiah Valley Sanitation District) Budget Hearings held and Budget Adopted. AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 10b DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 1997 REPORT SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE IMPLEMENTATION OF BUDGET BILLING FOR UTILITY CUSTOMERS The City of Ukiah Utility Billing and Collection Division of the Finance Department is proposing to offer Budget Billing to all utility customers. One set monthly payment is determined by averaging historical data of usage and charges over a twelve month period. For the customer, it will take the worry out of the monthly fluctuations in energy use due to extreme changes in the weather or deviations in the number of days from one meter reading to the next. Having the ability to make one set payment that can be counted on from month to month may be reassuring to any customer trying to work within a budget. Based on inquiries received, staff anticipates that this program may be especially appealing to residents in Ukiah who are on fixed incomes. The customer may request that their account be "budget billed" at any time and could decide to discontinue at any time. Once enrolled in the program, a customer would be expected to pay the averaged payment amount, regardless of the actual usage in any given month. They will receive an introductory letter that explains the budget billing process and budget bill amount. The customer will still receive a bill every month which will show the total balance of their account in addition to showing their monthly budget payment amount. Although the customer's actual charges may be higher, the averaged payment amount would drive the delinquencies and disconnect notifications if they remain unpaid. However, if non-payment continues, requiring disconnection of service, payment for the actual charges would be expected. After a customer is in the program for six months, staff will recalculate the budget amount to minimize unpaid balances, collection efforts or overpayments. The budget amount would remain constant over a period of time and will be re-evaluated on a quarterly, semi-annual, or annual basis. Payments made that are less than the budget amount will be administratively dealt with on a case by case basis. Customers will be made aware that an overall increase in their electric or water usage, from the twelve month base period, may result in a significantly larger payment due in the twelveth month of the plan. Therefore, staff will develop an informational sheet of "Commonly Asked Questions" to fully inform the customers of how the program will actually work. All budget billed accounts will be regularly monitored to identify significant usage in excess of the budgeted amount. (Continued on page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize implementation of Budget Billing for utility customers. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Do not authorize implementation of Budget Billing and take no action. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Acct. No.: N/A Appropriation Requested: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: N/A Prepared by: Patsy Archibald, Customer Service Supervisor Coordinated with: Gordon Elton, Finance Director and Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: None APPROVED:~ Candace Horsley, City I~anager PA:BUDGET.AGN ' 1 Additional staff time will be required to initially implement a customer's account into the program, monitor balances against actual usage charges, recalculate budget amounts, and prepare report analysis. However, customer interest indicates there is value and benefit in offering this plan. Progress reports on this program will be sent to Council quarterly. An evaluation of the impact of this program will be prepared after six months. If actual participation does not meet expectations, Council may wish to discontinue the program. Staff recommends Council authorization of the Budget Billing program. PA:BUDGET.AGN 2 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT ITEM NO. 10c DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 1997 SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE IMPLEMENTATION OF ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFER FOR UTILITY AND MISCELLANEOUS CUSTOMERS. The City of Ukiah Utility Billing and Collection Division of the Finance Department is proposing to offer an "Easy Pay" Plan of Electronic Funds Transfer, to all utility and miscellaneous customers. This program is a convenient way to avoid the hassles of writing a check and paying postage on the monthly bill from the City. Forgotten or missed payments would be a thing of the past. If a customer takes a vacation or is away on business, payments would still be made timely. The customer will continue to receive a monthly statement once they authorize enrollment in the program. They will have 15 days from the date of billing to review the charges before their bank pays the amount due. If they couple the "Easy Pay" Program with Budget Billing the customer would know exactly how much their utility bill would be each month. If a customer does not have Budget Billing, the actual charge amount will be the amount collected. The funds are electronically transferred from their bank account directly into the City's bank account and notification is sent to the customer and the City to confirm the transaction date and amount. If the funds are not available or the account is closed, and the transaction is returned unpaid, the City will charge the same fee as checks returned for insufficient funds. Westamerica Bank will prepare the notices of the program. These notices will not only explain the program, but also will provide the form to collect the necessary account information and signature to authorize participation in "Easy Pay". The customer does not have to bank at Westamerica Bank to enroll in the plan. The number of customers who apply for this program will determine if the City realizes a reduction in the amount of mail received. If a substantial number of customers participates in this plan, the time consuming efforts of opening and sorting the payments received daily will be significantly reduced. However, there will be staff time required to implement, explain, and monitor the program. If the City of Ukiah implements the Easy Pay program, the overall impact will be analyzed and reported to Council after six months. Staff believes Electronic Funds Transfer enhances our customer service efforts and recommends City Council authorize the program. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize implementation of Electronic Funds Transfer for all customers with recurring monthly bills. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Do not authorize implementation of Electronic Funds Transfer and take no action. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Acct. No.: N/A Appropriation Requested: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: N/A Prepared by: Patsy Archibald, Customer Service Supervisor Coordinated with: Gordon Elton, Finance Director and Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: Sample Customer Informational Brochure and Enrollment Form Can~ace I--iorsley,' Cite[ Manager PA:AUTO.AGN sp~ooo~I uop, m,.rlsuI l~!Otmu!d uo uaxoqs se o.~nleu~l!s ~noA aoqumu )unoooe aomo)sn9 (opoD d!z '-~!D 'looJl$) oo~x~os hid .mo,( oA~ooo.~ no,( o.~oqax sso.~ppv .~oqumu ouoqd om.r~e(I JnoA. sp~ooo~ uo!lnl!lsuI le!Oueu!:I uo u~oqs se omen ~noA. uo~fl l~oaD ~o ueo7 pue S~U!AeS 'h~Ue~t .lno/~ jo omen (lU!.ld aseold) AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 10d DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 1997 REPORT SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE PILOT PROGRAM TO OFFER CREDIT CARD PAYMENT FOR UTILITY AND MISCELLANEOUS CUSTOMERS. The City of Ukiah Utility Billing and Collection Division of the Finance Department is proposing to offer credit card acceptance for payments on utility and miscellaneous bills. Customer inquiries indicate that a variety of payment options be made available for consumer convenience. Customers face several different situations whereby a credit card payment may be a beneficial and convenient method for paying a utility or miscellaneous bill. The situations include an out of town relative requesting to pay a customer's bill who is scheduled for disconnection; customers moving into Ukiah from out of town requesting service fees and deposits be paid over the phone by credit card; customers with amenities such as frequent flyer miles and/or discounts offered by their credit card companies choosing to pay their monthly bills by credit card; payment and registration of recreation classes by phone. The City of Ukiah would incur operational costs by providing this optional payment method. Based on customer inquiries, the number of transactions expected each month would vary. Therefore, staff recommends that a pilot program be implemented for up to six months to determine if customer interest will validate the cost for the program. Customer credit card account information would be received by one of City of Ukiah's Customer Service Representatives and the equipment at the Conference Center where credit card acceptance is currently available would be used for authorization of the transaction. The current equipment at the Conference Center can be converted to identify the utility payments for a nominal monthly fee of $2.00. There will be additional staff time expected to obtain customer information, complete the transaction and perform appropriate accounting procedures. Informing customers of credit card availability will be achieved via the monthly bills. After the initial six month period a progress report will be presented to the Council documenting customer interest. At that time Council may determine if this payment method shall be offered on a permanent basis. Staff recommends authorization of the Pilot Program. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize Pilot Program for Credit Card Payment for utility and miscellaneous billing customers. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Do not authorize Pilot Program and take no action. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Acct. No.: N/A Appropriation Requested: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: N/A Prepared by: Patsy Archibald, Customer Service Supervisor Coordinated with: Gordon Elton, Finance Director and Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: None Can~ace Horsley, City ~anager PA:credit.agn AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 10e DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 1997 REPORT SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE USE OF SERVICE LIMITER ADAPTERS FOR ELECTRIC METERS. The City of Ukiah Utility Billing and Collection Division of the Finance Department in conjunction with the Electric Department proposes to place Service Limiter Adapters on electric meters, for a temporary period of time, of customers in specific financial situations. In most cases, it could avoid disconnection and allow a customer limited electricity while payment arrangements can be made by our Customer Service Representatives; a definite benefit for both the customer and the City. The adapter, when placed on an existing meter, allows a limited amount of electricity to be available to the customer, generally giving enough electricity for one or two lights, a heating motor and refrigerator, the requirements for most basic daily living. If more electricity is used, a circuit breaker at the meter "trips" and all electric power is shut off. The customer turns off all electrical devices and resets the button on the Service Limiter, restoring power. For the period of time the Service Limiter is placed on the electric meter, usage is limited and the electric portion of the utility bill is substantially reduced. The current lower electric usage allows the City of Ukiah's Customer Service Representatives to offer realistic and affordable payment arrangements on the old balance while the customer is paying their current bill. If obligations are not met as agreed, the Service Limiter Adapter will be removed and the service will be disconnected. The guidelines (Exhibit A of the resolution) identify customer account situations that would indicate installation of the Service Limiter. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution approving the use of Service Limiter Adapters for Electric Meters. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Modify guidelines and authorize use of Service Limiter Adapters with revised guidelines. 2. Do not authorize the use of Service Limiter Adapters and take no action. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Acct. No.: N/A Appropriation Requested: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: N/A Prepared by: Patsy Archibald, Customer Service Supervisor Coordinated with: Gordon Elton, Finance Director; Darryl Barnes, Director of Public Utilities and Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: 1. Resolution for adoption 2. Guidelines for selection of customer accounts 3. Instructions for customer "How the Service Limiter Works" Candac~Horsley, City Manager PA: limitr.agn RESOLUTION NO. 97- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH APPROVING USE OF SERVICE LIMITER ADAPTERS FOR ELECTRIC METERS WHEREAS, the process of electric service terminations for non payment is costly to the City of Ukiah and disruptive, time consuming, and a source of irritation to the City's residential customers; and WHEREAS, electronic devices can govern the amount of electricity a customer utilizes so he or she can meet payment requirements for continuing service; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to provide a means whereby consumers may control their electrical usage in an effort to reduce the likelihood of service terminations and take charge of their utility costs. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Ukiah approves the use of service limiter adapters for electric meters for those customers authorizing such use in compliance with the "Guidelines For Service Limiters", attached hereto as Exhibit A. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of February, 1997 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Sheridan Malone, Mayor Colleen Henderson, City Clerk mfh: resord limiters EXHIBIT A (ATTACHMENT #2) CITY OF UKIAH GUIDELINES FOR SERVICE LIMITERS BASIC GUIDELINES . Maximum Time Limit of installation of a Service Limiter should be 3 months unless extreme circumstances warrant an extension for up to an additional 3 months. . The limiter would be installed no more than twice in a twelve month period, due to the limited number of adapters purchased and available. . Location identification and inventory control will be coordinated between the Billing and Collection Division and the Electric Department. , If payment arrangements are not met after a Service Limiter Adapter is placed on a customers meter, the Service Limiter Adapter will be removed and the electric service will be disconnected. ACCOUNT QUALIFICATIONS The following situations are eligible for this program: o Any customer who has had his/her power disconnected and cannot pay the entire balance to have power restored. The entire balance includes: the past due charges and late fees, the current charges, disconnection fee, reconnection fee, two times an average monthly bill to be kept on deposit. The customer requests to pay only the past due balance on the account plus fees and that the City make payment arrangements for the deposit and current charges. The Service Limiter would be placed on the electric meter for the length of time arrangements are extended on the account, not to exceed three (3) months. . Any customer requesting arrangements on the day of disconnection to avoid having power terminated. He/she has only a partial payment of the past due balance and fee amount, leaving a balance of the past due amount, current charges and deposit limtr.wpd Jan'97 -3- to be billed. The Limiter would be placed on the electric meter for the length of time arrangements are extended on the account, not to exceed three (3) months. , Customers with extremely high usage who receive a Final Notice monthly and are habitually scheduled for disconnection. In this case the Limiter would be used as a collection tool. The goal is to limit usage, therefore, reduce the monthly bill while collecting the previous balances and potentially avoiding additional late fees. Collection Staff would use the limiter in these cases only on rare occasions. The limiter would be placed on the electric meter for the length of time arrangements were extended on the account to acheive a current status. The possible length of time the limiter would be placed is 1 - 3 months while the account balance is being reduced. o A previous customer with an outstanding bad debt requesting new service. Many times these customers do not have the entire amount to clear the bad debt plus the required deposit to secure the account. The Limiter would be used as a collection tool. The goal is to limit the electric usage while the customer is paying off the old debt owed to the City. This allows realistic payment arrangements to be offered to the customer. It would be placed at the location for the period of time required to complete the payment arrangements. limtr.wpd Jan'97 -3- IMPORTANT NOTICE Please Read We are sorry that it has been necessary for us to disconnect your regular electric service because of unpaid bills. · To ease your difficulty, we have installed a Service Limiter. It will allow a small amount of electrical usage while you make arrangements to pay the bill due. Reset Button How the Service Limiter Works The Service Limiter gives you enough electricity for one or two lights, a heating motor and refrigerator. If you use more electricity, a circuit breaker (reset button) at the meter trips (drops down) and all electric power is shut off. What to do if Circuit Breaker Trips o o Turn off all your electrical devices except lights. Go to the meter and locate the reset button on the bottom of the Service Limiter installed on the meter. Press the reset button up into the Service Limiter. When the reset button stays up, your electricity will be turned back on. Always have a flashlight with fresh batteries available. For your safety, never use candles or other openflame lighting. FOR ALL QUESTIONS REGARDING RESTORING YOUR SERVICE OR OPERATING YOUR SERVICE LIMITER, PLEASE CALL 463-6228. CITY OF ffKIA H HOW YOU CAN CALCULATE HOW MUCH ELECTRICITY YOU CAN USE Tile amount of electricity your electric appliances use are measured in watts (wattage) or amps (amperage). Each manufacturer should have labeled all of your appliances with the amount of watts (wattage) or amps (amperage) that each appliance uses. Those figures, provided on the next page, are to be used as a general guide. Your appliance wattage may be different from these general wattages provided. Your Limiter limits your electric use to 10 Amps which equals 1150 watts of available power. " 10 Amps = 1150 Watts If you use more Ihan 1150 watts (10 amps) at one lime, your service will be interrupted. Example #1 Refriger, ator 500 Watts 4.3 Amps Heating System 100 0.9 (Circulalor only) Color T.V. 300 2.6 Lights (3 lamps X 60W) 180 1.6 Total in Use 1080 Watts 9.4 Amps Total Available 1150 10.0 The combined wattage (amperage) of the above applia amount which lhe Limiter makes available. Therefore s interrupted. nces does no ervice would t exceed the not be Example #2 Refrigerator 500 Heating System 100 (Circulator only) Color T.V. 300 Lights (3 lamps X 60W) 180 Toaster Oven 1500 Watts 4.3 Amps 0.9 2.6 1.6 13.0 Total in Use 2580 Watts 22.4 Amps Total Available 1500 10.0 The addition of a toaster oven would cause an interruption of service resulting in Ihe need to reset the Limiter. REMEMBER -- The Limiter will not reset unless the use is brought below 1725 watts (15 amps). CAUTION ---- You should not leave your home wllh non-essential appliances running. Shut them off before you leave your home !o ensure an unlnlerrupled supply of electricity, Aulomalic cycling appliances, such as refrigerators and healing systems could come on in your absence and cause electric service to be inlerrupled: These devices should be included in calculating the allowable demand. This will prevent the need to reset the Limiter when refrigerators and heating systems turn themselves on. '1 SPOT THE BIG SPENDERS HEATING AIR CONDmONER I WATER HEATING (Includes all uses) Residential Energy Consumption ESTIMATED ENERGY USE o Space Heating, Gas: Small Furnace (60~D0 Btu) Large Furnace (100J:XX] Btu) .6 therms per hour 1 therm per hour Space Heating, Electric: Portable Heater ( 1500 watt) Baseboard Heater (6 ft. unit) Furnace (10kw) Heat Pump (2.5 ton) 1.5 kwh per hour 3 kwh per hour 10 kwh per hour 3-5 kwh per hour Window/wall (110 volt) Window/wall (220 volt) Central (3 ton) Portable Fan 1.5 kwh per hour 2.6 kwh per hour 4.5 kwh per hour .2 kwh per hour Electric Gas Heat pump water heater ,30G4133 kwh per month 20-30 therms per month 175-225 kwh per month ESTIMATED ENERGY COST * * .36/hour .60/hour · 18/hour .36/hour $1.20/hour .36-.60/hour · 18/hour .31/hour .55/hour .024/hour - (.01-.07/hr) $20-$70/month $7-$19/month $21-$27/month UGHTING General household 50-200 kwh per month 86-$24/month REFRIGERATOR/ FREEZER SWIMMING POOL Refrigerator, frost-free, 16 cu. ft. 1013-150 kwh per month Refrigerator, .frost-free, 20 cu. ft. 115-180 kwh per month Refrigerator, manual defrost, 10 cu ft 35-60 kwh per month Freezer, frost-free, 15 cu. ft. 70-1 50 kwh per month Freezer, manual, 15 cu. ft. 40-90 kwh per month Sweep Pump (3/4 HP) Filter Pump (1 1/2 HP) Filter Pump (2 HP) Gas Heater (400J30C] Btu) 1 kwh per hour 1.5 kwh per hour 2 kwh per hour 4 therms per hour $12-$18/month $13-$22/month $4-$8/month $8-$18/month $5-$11/month · 12/hour · 18/hour .24/hour $2.40/hour SPA Electric Heater (1500 watt) Electric Heater (5500 watt) Electric Heater (11 ~[]0 w~) Gas Heater (75~]0 Btu) 1.5 kwh per hour 5.5 kwh per hour 11 kwh per hour .75 therms per hour · 18/hour .66/hour $1.32/hour .45/hour · Estimated energy use is based on average operation conditions. Your particular use can vary. ** Estimated costs based on $.12 kwh and $.~ ~. LAUNDRY Clothes Dryer, Electric Clothes Dryer, Gas Steam iron (hand) Washing Machine *** Cold water only, 50 gallons Warm wash, cold rinse Hot wash, warm rinse ESTIMATED ENER, GY USE* 5 kwh per load .22 therms 1 kwh per hour .25 kwh per load .11 therms, .25 kwh/load .33 therms, .25 kwh/load ESTIMATED ENERGY COST * * .65/load .19/load · 11/hour .03-.07/load · lO/load .23/load WATER BED II ENTERTAINMENT Radio-Phonograph Stereo System TV, black & white, solid state TV, color VCR or Nintendo Deck 75-175 kwh per month .03 kwh per hour 2 kwh per hour .07 kwh per hour .23 kwh per hour $9-$21/month .01/3 hours .02/hour .01/hour .03/hour Less than .01/hour HOUSEHOLD GOODS Clock Electric Blanket: Twin Double/Queen King Night light, 4-watt (on 24 hours) Vacuum cleaner Hair dryer (1200 watt) Fireplace, gas Personal Computer 2 kwh per month .5 kwh per night .75 kwh per night 1 kwh per night 3 kwh per month .75 kwh per hour 1.2 kwh per hour .2 therms per hour .24/month .06/night .09/night .12/night .36/month .Dg/hour .14/hour · 12/hour .01-.02/hour Coffeemaker (per brew) Coffeemaker (warm setting) Deep fryer, electric Dishwasher *** Normal cycle Energy saver cycle Frying pan, electric Grill, gas barbecue Microwave oven · . Range, electric: Oven Surface Self-cleaning feature Range, gas (pilotless): Oven Surface Self-cleaning feature Pilot light usage Toaster Toaster oven, electric portable Waffle iron (3-4 servings) .12 kwh per brew .4 kwh per hour 1 kwh per hour 1 kwh per load .5 kwh per load 1 kwh per hour .25 therm per hour · 1 kwh per 5 minutes 1.33 kwh per hour 1.25 kwh per hour 6 kwh per cleaning .09 therm per hour .07 therm per hour .50 therm per cleaning .20 therm per day .08 kwh per use .50 kwh per hour .33 kwh per use .01/brew .05/hour .12/hour .23/load · 13/load .12/hour .15/hour · 15/hour .16/hour .15/hour .72/cleaning .05/hour .04/hour .30/cleaning .12/day .01/use .06/hour .04/use Estimates are based on gas water heating. Add $0.35 per Ioa~t for electric water heat. Now that you know where vour eneray dollar ages. vou can heft. er control your L~tilitv bill. ITEM NO. 10f DATE: February 5, 1997 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: SET DATE FOR PLANNING ORIENTATION SUMMARY: The next phase of the City Council orientation schedule deals with city planning, and the functions, programs, and responsibilities associated with the City of Ukiah Planning Department. Accordingly, the Council should set a time and date for this orientation meeting, and allow 1-1~ hours for conducting the session. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Set a time and date for the planning orientation which is timely and convenient for the Council. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Candace Horsley, City Manager Prepared by: Robert Sawyer, Planning Director Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager; and Mike Harris, Assistant City Manager Attachments: None APPROVED: (~'~.) (~~.k..~~....~ Ca-h~ce Horsley, City ~anager ITEM NO. 10g MEETING DATE: 2/5/97 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: Adopt resolution approving Civic Center foyer exhibit policy SUMMARY: The City Attorney was requested to review the existing display policy for the Civic Center foyer to assure it complied with First Amendment requirements. The attached memorandum to the City Manager, dated December 12, 1996, explains the proposed revisions to the policies. As the memorandum explains, the revisions to the policy are designed to allow the Museum Director to select displays, taking into consideration objective. A resolution to approve the policy is attached for the City Council's consideration. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution approving policy. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: adoption. Revise policy prior to Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/a Citizens Advised: N/A Requested by: City Manager Prepared by: David J. Rapport, City Attorney Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: Memorandum to Candace Horsley, dated December 12, 1996; Proposed Resolution Adopting Civic Center foyer display policy; Civic Center Foyer Exhibit Guidelines Approved: /~/~~- J David J. Rapport Lester J. Marston Scott Johnson 'I'0: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Law Offices Of RAPPORT AND MARSTON An Association of Sole Practitioners 200 W. Henry Street P.O. Box 488 Ukiah, California 95482 MEMORANDUM Candace Horsley, City Manager, David J. Rapport, City Attorney,~ ~-'--- December 12, 1996 Policy for displays in Civic Center Foyer (707) 462-6846 FAX 462-4235 The attached revisions to the Civic Center Foyer Exhibit Guidelines ("Guidelines") are designed to provide that degree of content control provided in the current guidelines in a manner that complies with First Amendment standards as developed by the courts. I have taken primary guidance from the 9th Circuit opinion in Cinevision Corporation v. City of Burbank (9th Cir. 1984) 745 F. 2d 560. The amendment to the Guidelines makes the following significant changes: 1. It expresses the City Council's intent not to make the foyer a public forum. As stated in Cinevision at 569, there are three types of public property: quintessential public forums such as streets, sidewalks and public parks which are always open to expressive activities; public property which is not inherently open to public speech but which the governmental owner has opened to general expressive activity and property such as jails and military bases which are generally not open to public speech. On public property which is not opened to expressive activity, the public owner may restrict its use to its intended purpose, whether that purpose involves communication or not (such as an employee bulletin board), as long as the regulation of speech is reasonable and not intended solely to suppress the views of a particular speaker. Publicly owned theaters, auditoriums, concert halls and similar spaces have been placed by the courts in the second category of public forum, property not inherently open to the general public for expressive activity but opened for that purpose voluntarily by the public owner. Since an amphitheater (the Starlight Bowl) was the forum involved in Cinevision, the case does not discuss the standards for classifying public property in the second category. It does state that the public owner must open the property for this purpose. Other cases consider the legislative body's statement of intent as significant, although not necessarily controlling. Once a property is classified as a public forum of either type, First Amendment protections apply. s:\u~memos96~art.pol January 30, 1997 Memorandum December 12, Subject: 2. The to Candace Horsley, City Manager 1996 Policy for displays in Civic Center Foyer Page 2 For these reasons, the proposed policy revision attempts to retain the foyer in the third category of public property which is not a public forum by clearly stating the City Council's intent in this regard. The proposed revision states that the Council dedicates the foyer as an entrance to the Civic Center and displays artwork there simply to enhance its visual attractiveness, not to provide a forum for public speech. By declaring this intent the policy attempts to preserve for the City some degree of control over the selection of displays based, in part, on aesthetic judgments by the Museum Director. However, because a court might construe the policy as allowing members of the public to engage in expressive activity through artistic and other displays, the proposed policy revision goes on to provide the elements which Cinevision indicates will allow a public entity to exercise some content control even in the second category of public forum. amendments contain the following additional elements: a. The decisions respecting displays are made by the museum director. Cinevision says a court is more likely to uphold content review of artistic displays if that review is insulated from elected officials and is made by a museum professional. b. The display must meet generally accepted standards of artistic competence. c. The display must contain historic or educational content or depict or represent a theme, scene or artistic expression of local interest. d. The work must be created or sponsored by a local non-profit organization, public agency or local artist. While supporting decision making by a museum professional, Cinevision condemns vesting that professional with unbridled discretion. It states that a policy has a better chance of withstanding judicial review, if it contains objective and specific standards which the professional is required to apply. In addition, a municipality may constitutionally restrict the use of public property to particular types of expressive activity. Well recognized categories have a greater chance of surviving scrutiny than categories that are vague and subjective: limiting performances to opera or ballet or the works of William Shakespeare, for example, are safe. I have tried to provide standards which are relatively objective and generally understood. The court is concerned that the standards are intended to genuinely reserve the space for particular types of artistic expression and are not a subterfuge to suppress political, controversial or other forms of expression. I believe the proposed standards satisfy this requirement. s:~u\memos96\art.pol January 30, 1997 Memorandum to Candace Horsley, City Manager December 12, 1996 Subject: Policy for displays in Civic Center Foyer Page 3 The proposed policy should be presented to and approved by the City Council, possibly as an exhibit to a resolution, Let me know if you have further questions. s:\u\memos96\art.pol January 30, 1997 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ADOPTING DISPLAY POLICIES FOR THE CIVIC CENTER FOYER. WHEREAS: 1. The Civic Center foyer is the entrance to the Civic Center; and 2. The City Council wants to enhance the attactiveness of the foyer through the use of artistic displays that reflect the unique character of the Ukiah Valley and Mendocino County; and 3. The City Council wants to insure that displays are selected and displayed in a manner that does not infringe the right of free expression protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constititon or Article 1, Section 2 of the California Constitution: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Civic Center Foyer Exhibit Guidelines attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference are hereby adopted by the City Council as the display policies for the Civic Center foyer. s:\u\resos96\foyer.gui January 30, 1997 PASSES AND ADOPTED this 5th day of February, 1997, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Sheridan Malone, Mayor Colleen B. Henderson, City Clerk s:\u\resos96\foyer.gui January 30, 1997 CITY OF UKIAtI 300 SEMINARY A VENUE CIVIC CENTER FOYER EXHIBIT GUIDELINES MISSION The City Council of the City of Ukiah does not intend to open the foyer of the Civic Center to expressive activity by members of the public generally or to any specific segment of the public. The foyer is not a public forum. Rather, as a means of enhancing the visual attractiveness of the foyer, the City Council has determined on a selective basis to display artwork, including paintings and drawings, graphic displays, and textiles which the City has determined enhance the visual attractiveness of the foyer. In general, the City will display such works of art meeting the City standards for visual attractiveness which are produced by non- profit, community based organizations, local artists, and public agencies. The City Council intends to limit the displays to works of art with historic or educational content or which promote local tourism by depicting local scenes and themes, or exposing the public to local artists. STANDARDS Accordingly, the decision to display artwork in the Civic Center foyer will be made by the professionally trained museum director of the Grace Hudson Museum according to the following standards: 1. The work of art must comply with generally accepted standards of artistic competence based on the age and status of the artist (i.e., art work by children will be subject to a different standard of artistic competence than art work by professional, adult artists); · 2. The work of art must contain historic or educational content or depict or represent a theme, scene or artistic expression of local interest; 3. The work of art must be produced or sponsored by a non- profit, community based organization, a public agency, or a local artist. DISPLAY RULES The following points should be kept in mind when planning an exhibit at the Civic Center: The City's Director of Cultural Arts and Community Services Supervisor ("CS Sup") coordinate the use of the foyer. They will discuss and review with you the proposed exhibit to insure appropriateness. · Exhibits are usually booked for no longer than one (1) month. The foyer's display area is open to the public and cannot be secured except when the entire facility is closed. We cannot guarantee security of the exhibit and would recommend that very expensive or delicate pieces not be displayed. Organizing agencies or individuals planning an exhibit are responsible for mounting and removing their exhibits. The organizer of the exhibit will be responsible for minimizing damage to the foyer walls when mounting their show. The smallest possible size nails and picture hangers should be used and labels should be mounted with removable, non-staining putty. Please request a sample of any of these materials from the museum staff. Information regarding the organizing group should be provided near the entry point to the foyer. Explanatory labels should also be written and included with displayed works. The labels should list information such as the name of the maker/artist, date, title, and a statement addressed to a nonspecialist audience. A statement will help make the work more accessible and comprehensible. The museum staff is happy to review draft label text. Exhibitors may provide a complete price list of the works on display to the CS Sup, including the contact person's name and phone number. A copy of this list will be kept at the main reception desk to respond to any public inquiries. Prospective sales should be handled through the organizer of the exhibit, or directly thorough the artists. Should you require further assistance or need additional information, please contact: Tammi Weselsky Community Services Supervisor 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 (707) 463-6237 Robert Wilson Director of Cultural Arts 413 S. Main Street Ukiah, CA 95482 (707) 462-3370 ITEM NO. 10h DATE: February 5, 1997 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: REPORT ON CITY COUNCILMEMBERS' REQUEST TO LOWER CITY COUNCILMEMBERS' SALARIES ON A TEMPORARY BASIS The City Council requested, at the January 15, 1997 Council meeting, to have their salaries lowered on a temporary basis to equate to the furlough program for City of Ukiah employees. Staff has reviewed the procedure for allowing such a revision to the Council's salaries, and found that this would require an amendment to the City Code by ordinance for both the temporary lowering of the salary as well as reestablishing the current pay amount. It is, therefore, suggested that instead of an ordinance amendment, each Councilmember enter into an individual agreement with the City to receive the equivalent reduction in their salary for the temporary three-month period. This process has been approved by the City Attorney as an appropriate method to meet the Council's request. If the Council approves this procedure, staff will meet individually with each Councilmember to sign their individual agreement. RECOMMENDED ACTION: After discussion, Council authorize separate agreements with each Councilmember for a three-month 10% reduction in salary. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Council determine modified terms for agreement would be appropriate. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Acct. No.: Appropriation Requested: N/A (if budgeted) Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: City Council Prepared by: Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: 1. None. APPROVED:' ,.-~:~] ~---~~~£_, Canda-ce Horsley, City M~nager 4/Can. ASR10% ITEM NO. 10i DATE- February 5, 1997 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT - CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR EMPLOYEE BARGAINING UNIT- FIRE The City Manager has met with representatives of the Fire Unit to discuss negotiation items for the 1996-97 fiscal year. The Unit was very understanding of the fiscal issues which the City is currently facing and was willing to make concessions to meet the City's budgetary needs. The negotiations have resulted in a tentative agreement which is expected to be ratified prior to the Council meeting. The proposed Memorandum of Understanding is being submitted for Council's review and discussion in closed session with the City Manager. If the City Council approves the agreement in closed session, then adoption of the attached resolution in open public session would be necessary. RECOMMENDED ACTION- Consideration of M0U and adoption of M0U resolution. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS- 1. Do not adopt resolution. 2. Refer to Staff for amendments. Appropriation Requested- N/A Citizen Advised- N/A Requested by- N/A ' Prepared by- Kari Revheim, Personnel Officer~03~ Coordinated with- Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments- Proposed resolution. APPROVED- 3: MOU\ASR .MOU Candace Hors ity Manager 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ADOPTING THE MEMORANDU~ OF ~ERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF UKIAH AND FIRE UNIT WHEREAS, the Employee/Employer Relations Officer has met and conferred in good faith with representatives of the Fire Unit; and WHEREAS, a Memorandum of Understanding has been approved by the Fire Unit; and WHEREAS, said Memorandum of Understanding has been presented to the City Council for its consideration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Memorandum of Understanding for the Fire Unit is hereby adopted and the Employee/Employer Relations Officer is authorized to enter into this Agreement for the Fiscal Year 1996-97. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of February, 1997, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Sheridan Malone, Mayor Colleen B. Henderson, City Clerk 3: PER/RES . M0U